HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 2.A 08/23/2004CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA BILL
Agenda 'Title Meeting Date: August 23, 2004
Contractor Selection ' for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials', and, Meeting Time: ❑ 3:00 PM
Yard Trimming Collection Services 7.00 PM
Category (check 'one): ❑ Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business
Unfinished Business ❑ 'Presentation
r
Department: Director; Contact Person: Phone Number:
City Manager Michael Bierman Michael Bierman 77.8-4347
Cost of Proposal: n/a Account'Number:
Amount.Budaeted: n/a Name of Fund:
Attachments to Aienda Packet Item:
1. Reference check summaries
O'Summary Statement:
City consultant and staff have been engaged in • evaluation of the proposals from Empire Waste
Management, GreenWaste Recovery,,,Noreal Waste Systems, Inc., and North Bay Corporation for solid
waste, recyclable materials, and yard trimming collection services. Consultant and staff are prepared to
provide the -final evaluation of the proposals and recommendations for -contractor selection.
r
Recommended City Council Action/SuLFeested Motion:
It is recommended that the 'Council hear the final evaluation summaries and staff recommendations for
contractor selection, and provide direction regarding selection of the future collection contractor and
negotiations of the future franchise agreement..
Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed_ by Ciiv Af"tornev: _ Aupro*W bx•City Manner:
Date: Date: Date:
Today's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: File: Code:
F.
,CITY OF PgTALUMA,'CALIFORNIA
AGENDA REPORT
for
Selection of Contractor to
Provide Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Yard Trimmings
Collection Services
August 23,.2004-
EXECUTIVE SuMMARY: The City issued a-revised"Request For Proposals for Solid Waste; Recyclable
Materials, and Yard Trimmings Services January 6,'2004. Three proposals were, received' and one
proposer- opted to have their original.April 2003 proposal:considered' fior evaluation. The four proposals
have been presented to the City Council, Consultant and staff have interviewed the four companies,
conducted site visits of the proposers' facilities, and evaluated their. proposal's._ Consultant and staff wish
to present their _final evaluation -and staff recommendations, for contractor selection, and:ask Council for
direction for contractor selection and contract°negotiations'.
2. BACKGROUND: The.City'has four companies to consider for its 10-year. franchise: agreement for solid
waste, °xecyclable materials, and yard trimming collection services. The companies include:
• Empire Waste Management,(EWM)
• GreenWaste Recovery (GWR)
• Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. (Norcal)
• North Bay Corporation (North Bay).
A timely decision on the.selection.of a.future franchise hauler is critical because the existing franchise
agreement•with.EWM expires February28, 2005.
Selection of the particular franchise hauler is dependentupon the City, Council making several decisions.
We. have outlined the:.following four decision points needed to select the future franchise hauler:
• Achieving AB. 939 Compliance
o Determining Proposal, Process Compliance
• Balancing Cost and' Diversion
• Selecting Future Franchise 'Hauler
Below 'is -a discussion of each.decision point, the options available, and staff recornrriendafions and
justification for, the' recommendation.
Decision, No. 1 -- Achieving AB 939.Cotnpliance-
Achieving AB 939 compliance can be accomplished in two ways:'
The first option is for'the City to continue to participate in.the JPA and rely on the JPA to handle
AB 939 reporting and compliance., This option requires City's use of the Central Landfill for
disposal and yard trimming processing services. f
The, second option,Tor-achieving AB 939 compliance is for the City to take responsibility for
,.complying with. AR 939 by preparing the necessary planning documents; ;implementing diversion
,programs, and meeting annual state reporting requirements. This option signals departure from the
C�L
JPA andallows for the City's use of disposal and organic materials processing facilities outside of
'the County.
Deciding how the .City will achieve:.AB 939 compliance is an important; first step in ,thepocess of
.' selecting a future franchise hauler, -because, the ,decision dictates selection, of,the' diversion scenarios
proposed by the collection companies..A decision to achieve cornpliance.,,through,the JPA, would
logically, result in selection of Scenario 1 proposals because iliese proposals are based on use of the
County. landfill and'yard trimming processing facility and reliance on the JPA for'diversion programs.
A decision to achieve AB..939 compliance through City.efforts would result in selection of Scenarios 2,
3, or 4; since these scenarios anticipate use of out -of county landfill and yard trimming processing sites.
•
Staff does not, present a,recommend_ ation_ regarding, Decision No. I as the item is to be discussed during
closed session on.August 23, 2004.
Decision No. 2 - Determining;Proposal Process Compliance
Decision No. 2 involves determining the compliance of proposals with, the procurement process, which
in turn influences the number and type of proposal :and/or diversion scenarios the City Council can
choose. The four companies: under consideration presented a variety of scenarios.. During the review of
the proposals and scenarios presented, staff and its consultant,concluded that.the' proposals and scenario
were in, compliance with theRFP'wth'the exception of the items listed in the table below, that contains
staff recommendations regarding each exception. Councif is asked: to provide direction on the proposal
considerations listed below.
Proposal Consideration
2A. Accept Norcal,'s alternative,Scenario 1 cost
a
proposal reduction that proposes 25% lower
rates in.rate periods 1 and 2, and.a "make-
up" adjustment over the remaining term of
the agreement to recover any shortfalls in
rate:periods 1 and 2
2B. Accept Norcal's Scenario 2, - 4 cost
prop'osal'althoughNorcal's cost proposal
does not provide substantial support for its
capital and operating costs and is' subject to
adjustment based on the site selected and
facility design.
2C. Accept'North"Bay .Corporation's (North,
Bays) letter reaffirming its April 3.0, 2003
Proposal.
2D. Accept North: BAY Apr'il'30', 2003
proposal 'although the cost proposal seems
unbelievably low when considering all of
the extra, services (such as a $300,000
annual contribution:to the City, franchise
fee payments on recycling and toilet
'business fe" venues, free services to schools
that„recycle), but its stated profit level is
$285,000 in the 'first year.
Staff Recommendation
Do not, accept,Norcal's alternative Scenario 1 cost
proposal reduction:because Norcal'_s reduced cost
propo"sal is not substantiated with cost information
(and is.not.therefore in substantial compliance with
the RFP) and the risk of actual costs being higher
resultingtiin future cost increases
Accept Norcal'`s Scenario, 2 - 4 cost proposal for
consideration; because it is in substantial
.compliance with the RFP
Accept North B'ay's April 30; 2003 proposal for
consideration,'because..NorthBay"s April.30, 2003
proposal'is in substantial coiiiplance with the RFP'
,Accept North Bay's April 30, 2003 proposal
because'it,is in substantial compliance with the
RFP although'the nature of North Bay's cost
proposal -is unreasonable
3
' ,Proposal Consideration
2E. ' ,Accept EWM revised proposal, described in
its July 21, letter which proposes to provide
services at rates in effect,prior to the 3.6%
decrease approved June 7, 2004:
2F. Accept'E'WM's proposals for Scenarios 2',
3, and 4 (5.0%, 60%, and 70% diversion.
scenarios, respectively) .although EWM'.s
cost proposal :does not reflect costs of
'future�,pro'granis that they anticipate
needing°to implement to meet the diversion
goals. '
Staff Recommendation
Do not accept.EWMV July 21, 2004 revised.
proposal because the proposal is, not in
compliance with the RFP- it.provides:insufficient
information to allow for fulf evaluation; and it
'presentssubstantially better„cost proposal after
knowing its competitors' cost proposals (and other
companies were not provided the same
opportunity)
Accept.EWM's proposals for Scenarios.2, 3,'and.4
because they are in substaxttial-compliance with'the
RFP
If staff recommendations lasted above are, accepted by City Council, the tecommendations'would result
in the following diversion proposal scenarios' for the City Council. Both, percentageand rate impacts are
shown'in the tables below.
1 'Scenario
I1
1 Opt.
12.
I3
14
Proposal Scenarios
Estimated Average Rate Impact
EWM
I GWR
I 'Norcal
I North Bay
Compliance with AB
416/o
34%
69%
(5%)*
939 through J'PA
ABA 939 through JPA--
. 21%
1.5%
456/,
(24%)
Redwood'Disposal
50% diversion
1 23%**
-1 N:A.
I TBD
N.A.
66% diversion'
30%**
.� N.A.
I TBD
N.A.
70%o,diversion
37%**
1 21%
1 Approx. 118%
I N.A.
* North.Bay'presented an,alternative rate proposal that�resultshin an average rate increase of 12%
0.3%o for residents, 5 5%o for commercial customers,. and 1% for drop box -customers)
** EWM costs for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 do not include costs of programs that are: implemented in
later'years:' -
•
0.
Proposal Scenarios
" .
Estimated Rate, for 60-Gallon
Customers
Scenario
EWM
GWR'
Norcal
North Bay
1
ance with AB
1$2.1.63
$20.4.8
$25.33
14.53*
�,Compli
, 939 through JPA
1 Opt.
J
AB 939, through JPA;
I
„
$18.48
$17.68
$22".23
11.59
Redwood.Disposal
2
50%.diversion
$18.88**
N.A.
TBD
N.A.
3
60%o,diversion
$19.98**
N:.A..
TBD
N:A.
14
1 70% diversion
$20'.93=**
j f$1`8;5:8
1 Approx.33338
N.A.
Note: Current 60-gallorrresidential rate is $15:33 permonth.
* North Bay presented an alternative rate proposal that.results.in,ari, average rate increase of 2.2% (0.3%
for residents, 5.9% for commercial customers, and.`1`%'f6r drop, box customers)
** EWM costs for Scenarios, 2, 3, and 4 do not include costsaof programsthat are implemented in later
years.
Decision No. 3 - Balancing Cosi arid,Diversion
Decision No: 3 is necessary-to`idetitify the,City Council's values with regard to: (1) cost and impact to
rate payers; and, (2) the City's °commitmerit to achieving/exceeding AB 939 diversion requirements.
Two primary options are available:to:the City Council to identify how it wants to balance cost and
diversion. First, the City Council can.attribute the highest value' -to cost.in its selection of a future
franchise hauler, by selecting the,lowest,diversion scenario (Scenario 1).
-,The City Council's second option is .to balance diversion level and cost. Staff recommends this option
because the City Council previously expressed its :policy; to support higher diversion levels by directing
that the RFR focus on diversion levels of '50%; 60%0; and '70% o., This date 2003 direction from Council
was,, given rather than considering two proposals received:in response'to an earlier December 2002 RFP,
which were consistent, with the lower volumes of diversion assumed for Scenario 1. If City Council
prioritizes diversion'at a.reasonable cost, proposals offered_ by EWM, GWR, and Norcal for Scenarios 2,
3 and 4 are appropriate scenarios to consider.
Decision No. 4—SelectingFuture Franchise Hauler
The selection ofthe future .franchise hauler is conditioned on the City Council decisions: no. • 1 through 3
above.. Below 4aff has provided recommendations .that fit possible actions corresponding to different
Council decisions.
Alternative 4A: Select.EWM, GVWR, and/or Norcal for Further Consideration
If the Council decides to achieveAB 939 compliance on its,. own (separate from, the JPA);Ao accept and
consider, EWM's Scenario 2, 3, and 4 proposals andNorcal's.S"cenario,2-4.proposal (as per items 2B'and
2F above); and to prioritize diversion at a reasonable cost, staff recommends .that City Council direct the
g.
City Manager, to "enter into negotiations with EWM for Scenarios 2 and 3, GWR for Scenario 4, and/or
Norcal for Scenario 2 — 4 and'to return with best and final proposal(s) and draft franchise agreement(s).
Staff does not recommend entering into negotiations with EWM for Scenario 4 because EWM requires
substantial. policy changes for achieving the 70% o diversion under this .scenario '(e,g., inclusion of drop
box service as part of'the°exclusive franchise. agreement and banning of paper from'solid waste).
Staff does not recommend entering into negotiations with North Bay because North Bay did not propose
any of the high diversion scenarios (Scenarios 2, 3 and 4).,
In addition, if the City Council directs the City Man_ ages to -negotiate with EW1V1, staff recommends the
following additions, at a minimum,. to the, franchise agreement:
• Clarification of diversion scenario/programs selected; .costs .included, ,future costs, land •
implementation schedule
•' Organics processing site development plans, i. line;`cost'per ton plus annual adjustment
.mechanism, and contingency plan
• Landfill indemnification (including future host fees)
• Landfill franchise fee=rebate mechanism
Drop-offfacil=ity for yardarimming and wood 'aste,
• Early implementation of some or all services .
o Street sweeping after special events
® . Expanded list of recyclable materials (non -CRT e-scrap; small:appliances)
• free; disposal at Redwood Landfill for annual clean-up of bulky items (if ;Redwood' Landfill `is
selected as disposal site)
• Used equipment depreciation schedule and future costs, if any
If.City Council, directs the CityManager to negotiate with GWR, staff reconimends'the following
additions, at,a minimum, to the franchise agreement:
• Cost control.riieasures,:related.to split -body truck operations, and transfer hauling,costs,that may be
impacted by future traffic conditions
• Indemnification for composi,product liabilities _
• Contingency, plan/indemnificat'ion.related to long-term marketability of, compost product
® Transfer facility-permitthig schedule and contingency plans
•' Landfill' indernhification
• Annual processing and:disposal costs CPI ;adjustment mechanism
®' Expanded .list of recyclable materials (small scrap_ ,and:cast aluminum; small scrap: metal;- textiles;
batteries, polystyrene)
Lastly, if City :Council ,direcfs.the City Manager to negotiate with'Norcal, staffrecommends the
following. additions, at a minimum, to the franchise agreement:
• Diversion scenario/programs selected; 'implementation schedule, and cost -adjustments, if any
e Recyclables processing, facility
- ' Site selection
- Development, construction,, and operating plans
Roles and responsibilities of contractor and.City
Timeline
Costs and compensation mechanism
- Interim plans and'contingency plans
• Annual organics process_ing,cost CPI adjustn4nfinechariism
• Used equipment depreciation schedule and;future costs, if any
• Expanded list,of recyclables materials for Scenarios 2 — 4 (textiles; scrap metal; all plastic
'including film and polystyrene)
M
Alternative 4B: Select North B'ay,as Future Franchise Hauler
If the Council decides to pr_ioritize.cost over.diversion and to accept' nd consider, North Bay's proposal
(as per litems,2C and 2D ,above); staff recommends that City Council direct, the City Manager to
negotiate a franchise:,agreement with,North-Bay because North Bay's;, Scenario 1 proposal -fulfills the
City Council's preferences. It provides a,proposal that anticipa"tes compliance with the JPA at a cost
significantly' lower than the, other three, companiesproposal. ° Staff further recommends that City
Council direct the; City Manager jo negotiate: use of the County facilities if the Council decides to
achieve AB.939 compliance through the JPA, or to negotiate use.of Redwood facilities if. -the Council
decides to achieve.AB 939 compliance on its own. Lastly, staff recommends that City Council direct
the City Manager to add the followingp-ovisions to the,franchise agreement, at a minimum, during
negotiations with North Bay:
® Cost control provisions or revision of the compensation mechanism to change to a rate -based
compensation niecharism.
® $300,000 annual contributionA6 City
® Reporting and franchise- fee payments for recyclables, revenues, and portable toilet business
® Diversion scenario%programs selected; implementation schedule, and cost adjustments, if any
e New recyclables processing facility - timeline; cost impactAnd° compensation mechanism; interim
plans and contingency plans.
® Used equipment depreciation. schedule and future costs,if any
® Proposed service enhancements, (e:g.Jree collection"for-public schools and Santa Rosa Junior
p
College if schools include recycling; free portable'toilef',serviee at all City -sponsored and non-
profit events; residential food waste collection at start-up (processed at Central Landfill); street
sweeping at municipal events; 'free multi -family 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); acceptance of TV,s and CRT,s for a fee, at, their existing buy-back and drop-off facility, at
2543 Petaluma Blvd.. South,, and, during annual drop-off event for a fee)
3. ALTERNATIVES: Staffpresents,the�,following three alternative recommendations depending on the City
Council's preferences related to compliance with AB 939, proposal compliance, and cost and diversion
priorities.
Alternative 1 (same as'. Alternative, 4A under the discussion section of this report) - If Council decides to
take responsibilityfor AB 939 compliance rather than relying�on the JPA, staff recommends the City
Council direct the City,, Manager to enter into negotiations with EWM, GWR, and/or Norcal and return
to Council with best and final proposal(s) from the company(ies) and draft franchise agreement(s).
Alternative 2 (same as':Alternative 4B under the' discussion section of this report), If Council decides to
prioritize cost:.over diversionsand to accept and consider,North Bay's proposal, staff recommends that
City Council- direct the City Manager -to negotiate a franchise•.agreen ent with North Bay that includes:
(1) the use of County landfill and yard waste processing facility if the Council decides to achieve AB
939 compliance through the JPA, or.(2) use of the Redwood landfill and yard waste processing facilities
if the Council decides to ,achieve AB 93 9 -compliance' on its own.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Subject to ,Council direction.
CONCLUSION: Consultant and staff need Council direction -regarding contractor selection in order to
proceed with franchise agreement negotiations.
7
C. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS ORCOMPLETION:
Consultant and staff obtain direction'from Council regarding the options presented. •
7. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the final evaluation repotand provide direction, as .requested.
1
City ofPetaluma Proposer Name: EmDir"_e Waste. Management
Proposal Evaluation Evaluator: Beatty
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
The following agencies responded: -.Mission Viejo; Cotati, H'ea'ldsburg-j Sebastopol,
Petaluma
Questions;, Response
How is the company to wort{ with? Is the We are extremely" satisfied. The company is
City satisfied? Are customers ;satisfied? excellent to, work.witli and very responsive to our
needs.
We have lad -a good working relationship with
Empire. They have beer! responsive to our needs
and to�indiv. dual.,custoniers when'necessary. The
three or four, "cusommr complaints we have had
over the past 5years 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
custom
concerncomplaints...The City is 'satisfied, with a
s:
Qutstdnding. Thee City and customers "are very
pleased with Waste Management the .
outstanding -quality of service, attention to detail,
and their'wil'lingiless to get the job donexight..
Excellent. Very few customer complaints
concerning WM
If issues arise, can you work with the
contractor to solve them -
Yes, we have a great"cohtact person and she�gets
it done, from street sweeping issues to whatever.
All issuo,&;have been resolved to our satisfactioil
in a'timely mamier. The management has been
very responsive "to all service and 'contract
requests.
We have. found that the key factor in our
relationship vw th,EWM is the effectiveness of the
liaison with jhe. City. At the present time our.
Empire Waste _ anaeement
liaison is great and takes care of all our problems.
•
Absolutely. Staff is lu-iowledgeable, professional,
and always are,responsive.to the City; our
residents and,businesses.
Absolutely
Do theyprovide you with the required
Yes,
contractual information and is that
information submitted,Onz schedule?
All iiformation s provided in,a ii "mel y.fashion.
Ainiial adjustinentsl to `the franchise fees
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
inportazlt,materials (i.e. related to' -the rollout of a
new fully automated system) beforetlley are
distributed:
Are-th6y timely in preparirig.-information
Yes, very.
requested from fhecity?
Yes, for any -requests they have responded in a
reasonable tinge frame.
Yes
Yes
r Yes .
When the city makes a decision, does the .
We°work very well as a'team.-pon't:rieed to
company go: aliead.with,the decision or
change things much. It just works..
drag the situation out a.nd 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.
Have'nothad this situation .present 'itself as a
problem in the past ten years`..
:.
WM has a,history of working, well with the City.
•
They are r"esvonsive to our -requests and they help
Empiie Waste Management ,
Haiihe' compai ytlireatened or filed a
lawsuit against-yolr city?
out when,needed even if'it is not "t6cliiired" in
theircontract.
Any decision made has been done mutually and
has' been carried out t. in a timely fashion.
Ne'venn '30 years
No, and we would not expect them to.
No
'No
Not to my knowledge
If you had to make a decision today,, would.'
Yes•.
you extend the current 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,terins.of our contract, yes!
Yes.
Yes,,,if they impleineiit single stream.
Has,tlie company -been pro -active in
Yes. They were very`pro-active in getting, us to
proposing changes that will' increase.'where
we are, to•day, arid. Very early on,in the
diversion,, imprgve the duality 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 implerrieiitation went
smoothly u!ith a, great. deal of their efforts helping
Lis. to,present the program to the City Council.
They Have also"been receptive to our proposals to
improvinpervices.
Yes. EWlv1'has recently iltiplemented single
stream recycling for commercial and industrial
clients°without any prompting from the City.
Empire Wasce Management
Yes.. Thai isone of the reason$ why_ they were
successful'in'adding the residential service
contract when they previously only`had the
conumiercial contract. They increased our .
commercial diversion rate by`20%o and, we. have
been able to maintain it.
Yes.
•
City of Petaluma Proposer Name: Green Waste
Proposal Evaluation Evaluator: Beatty
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
The following agencies, res.porided. -City of "San Jose, City of Woodside, City of Red Bluff,
Santa Clara County (inel. Lexington Hills}, Portola.Valley.
Questions
How is the company to work with? ,Is the
City satisfied? Are customers satisfied?"
•
Response
Excellent service Provide yard waste and street .
sweeping services.
The,company gets high.marks for actual service
and inriovation m- d, we,Ihear very few complaints
from the customers. Sometimes the
administrative response: leaves a little to .be
desired, 'but.they do correct when this is noted for
them. .
We just traiisferred Greenwaste contract to Waste
Coruieetions ;recently, so unable to answer.
Green" Waste is easy to work with, very
responsive to issues.
We Have two types of franchise agreements with
Greet Waste - full garbage, recycling and yard
waste services for Lexington Hills, a small
unincorporated.area,of 1'1.00+households, in
effect since: 2000, and yard waste services Only
for approximately 7000 unincorporated Safi Jose
households, in place' since Oct 1993. We have
had few complai'ilts of'any kind for the full
service area.
For.the yard waste only contract, customers have
had more issues, partly because services vary,
witli "loose on the street" collection in some areas
and tarps or cans iu ,other areas. Still,surveys
rate 80 to 90.percent of customers as satisfied to
very.satisfied for yard wste services and
customers comment that they don't want to
change�the service.
County°staff is satisified with company services
Green Waste
and responsiveness.
Great. Fantastic. •Good customer service. No
little -from vehicles. .
If issues' arise, can you work with the
Yes.
contractor to solve'tlienz?
Green Waste, is responsive and easy to work with
to resolve issues.
No issues to date
No issues
,
Do tliey provide you with_ the required .
contractual `information, aiid`is iliat:..
Usually. yes. They had a personnel; turnover issue
information submitted on schedule?'
forA while and they got way beliind. on required
reports,, but are now caught up and on track::
We have no issues or problems with submission
of required'information.
•
Soineti es a little late, Vat they respond.well'
When calked.
Are they'timely in'preparing infor�ization
_
requested from the city?
I actually"don't recall. ever asking for;anything.
Not as well as expected.
Yes
Yes, see above
When the city makes a decision,• does the
company go, ahead with the decision,: or
They implement in a responsive manner
drag the sitliation .out and :slow •down the
process?
They have been. helpful with our efforts to .
implement inandatory trash collection.
We have had;no implementation issues.
•
Green Waste
•
•
Has the coil a iy'tlireatene'd' or filed a'
lawsuit against your city?
If you had to make a decisiontoday, would
you extend the current companies contract
another 5 years?
Has, the company been pro rac'tiye, in
proposing changes that -:will increase,
diversion, improve the,,,guality' of service
and/or reduce,costs?
Only l..and a half years into a, G yr agreement. No
problems. Had a majo change incollection
when starting.
No
Not so far-.
No lawsuits, or: threats. We have had amuch
more pleasant relationship than this question
anticipates.,
No
We just did last year, so yes.
Because we have only recent experience with
Waste Connections, it, would be a shorter time
period.
Yes, we Would recommend extensions based on
currentservices. Ili fact, staff has recommended
an exterision of the tw&yard'waste service
contracts fucontinuethrou. h 2007. This action
has been supported by a„committee of the Board.
of Supervisors and will be considered by the
Board on Julie 8t�'
Absolutely
Yes
Absolutely,
Yes
Yes.
Yes
Green Waste
4City of Petaluma Proposer Name- Norcal
Pr.oposal Evaluation Evaluator: Beatty
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
The following agencies `responded:' Rocklin; 'Gilroy/Morgan Hill, Vacaville, Yuba County,
San Francisco, San.Jose, Eureka', Yuba County
Questions Response
How is the company to work witiv, Is the We are very Happy with. our relationship. They
City, satisfied? Are customers, satisfied? are very'responsive to our'needs.
They have beeri,great to work with. Their staff is
very responsivelto us,' and'we have an excellent
working, relationship overall. We have worked
cooperatively on'a.more formal basis in
devel'oping''and implementing new programs
such,as curbside"recycling, HHWand yard
waste, and also on a more informal basis on
programs such.a_s our annual Give Winter Garb a
Second Chance coat and blanket drive. Our
greatest indicatidn`of customer satisfaction_ is the
low level of complaint calls that we receive.
When we do"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 local manager', aizd the City had a very
contentious °relatioiisliip. Norcal ,ultimately got
rid of this manager and. replaced him with
managers tlzat`have been,i, , h more cooperative.
We have had three,local managers since then and
they have. all been fantastic to work with (if only
I could saytlie sane 'about our cable company).
A rough relationship to be -kind.
Pretty good on the puie collection end.
We just transferred Green Waste contract to
Waste Cormect oizs recently.
The company gets high marks for actual service
and innovation and we hear very few, complaints
Norezi
If issues arise, can yolxwork with the.
contractor` to solve them9-
Do they provide you with the required
contractual
actual iiafori-na:tibn,a-iia"IS7,tiiat
information s'Libmitted,on'schedule?
from ,the customers. Sometirries,the
administrative response leaves a_littleto be,
desired, `but they do correct when this is noted for
them.
Great, to work with. City andcustomers are
satisfied. Work with permit, no contracts.
We are very satisfied with the service ervic& received,
They are supportive of the'City.',s,efforis in,Waste
divtrlsionand recycling.
The. bounty is satisfied. as are the, majority of the
mlstbrners,.
Yes: Very definitely, yes
)NlIen.Jssu'es arise, we work directly -with thd..
-Operations Manager and Operations , Supervisor.
They a±ey'esponsive to our. requests aid work lo
remind their drivers, if necessary, of required
service levels. The, Operatigns,'Sup-ery.i.sor,' in-
particulaf, will respond per.-§bnatly and"go "tofhe
I b 7
customer's residence. in many instances. When
issues arise, I.an-1 always confidentthat we'will
be able to resolve them.
Always for the past six years.
Have had, -,problems with'sub,contractor.
Yes.
Good to work with whemiss U-es. arise.
Yes
Yes.
Yes
They,db provide -us with required 'inforTnat . ion.
Information that we: have specified both in
contracts infonnally include monthly
curbside recycling and. yard waste set -out -and
tonnage figures., quarterly HHW-,,BOP -and oil
participation, disposal quarititie& and costs,
monthly CRT and other e-waste' uriitsL and
•
•
t
Norcal
e
Are they timely in prep arkagd1iforknatiOn
requested from the city?)
I
i
When the city makes .a decision, does the
company go ahead with.the decision or
drag the situation out and slow down the
process?
weights, They have. always been receptive to
compiling the information we'request.
Admittedly„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 ,awhile and, they, got way behind on
required reports; but are now caught up and on
"' track.
InformationI'S' provided on schedule.
Yes.
Yes,
Yes
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 an'd,ani-ival reporting.
Yes.
They are very responsive and proactive
They have moved forward in irnplementing
programs and kept; us.apprised when issues have
arisen that, Have afected timeliness. They work
with us to 'develop_''.reasonable implementation
Norcal
Schedules and work hard to 'meet'thein. Our
programs have always started. on the day that we
have agreed upon.
T have' b. complaints with:their implementation
schedule.
Depends., At face value, they y seem willing.
Delivery is another story. -
Y
They have been Helpful vwithour- efforts to
implement`rnandatory trash collection.
They implement in a responsive manner.
j They have been timely.
They have been supportive, of,City decisions and
have often provided helpful solutions.
It is inipleriented expeditiously.
Has the companylhreatened or filed a .
' No
lawsuit against your city?
Not to my lu-iowledge at any time.
Not,tlhat I am aware, of.
i ,
None so far.
'No
None
No
No
.If you liad to iizake a decisiontoday, would
I would recommend coi tiuuation of.the°c,ontract.
you extend the etureiit conipaiues .contract
another 5 years?'
Yes,! I would. I firmly believe,Ahat the City and
contractor have maintained the'best working
ielatioriship under a. francluse agreement of all
t
heitei�nut- W'Have worked
together, to implement very successful programs,
ineludig the first HHW collection,faciltyin the
comity and the only hill e-Waste. drop off
program. Front 1.994 to the present; we Have
Norcal
•
implemented all of our major, diversion
programs, including curbside recycling,
yardwaste aPl 'H'HW collection prograinsaiid e-
waste with only a 14% overall- increase in rates.
This also included providing all single family
account''s with two'9:6. gallon,toters (garbage and
yard waste) as part of the basic service. I would
"definitely extend the contract.
Yes and we are in the. ' ocess of negotiating a
proposed extension:
No. Would not recommend.
Because we only have .recent, experience, it
would be a "shorter, time period.
Labor agreements weren't shored up prior to
start. I,
We j,ust,did fast year, so yes._ .Our relationship:
dates back to' 1996- by the way.
No contracts Here, butwould defiiutely extend
1 the permit_.
Yes
While theyhave been'very good to work with, I
believe competitive. proposals contribute to a
cooperative, economic relationship.
Has the company been -pro -active. in Yes. Iinplei lei ted greed waste program, a
proposing changes that will increase co1Iu7iercial,'c'atdb0ard collection program, and a
diversion, improve the quality, of.seivice free dump.:d°ay asswell"as street.aweeping
and%or''.reduce costs? services. E
They are a very'customet=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 work 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 gre'athly decrease labor, the use of
automated,yeliic'16 and reviewing routing. They
,.Y
Norciil
n
1
keep a very well maintained fleet with a
reasonable depletion schedule. When we are
plaiuziiig a new program, .they offenvery .good
input on tlie.various aspects of structuring: the
program in order to balance. service, cost. and:
efficiency.
Just the opposite.
.Reasonably so — as inuch.as'I would expect any.
hauler io do. These Idnds of'ideas-generally
come from the City in my experience.
Yes.
' � Absolutely.
Pro,=active,in diversion. efforts.
Yes on all'.three accounts.
Yes.
Norcal
•City of'Petaluma Proposer Name: North Bav
. Proposal Evaluation Evaluator: Beatty'
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
The following agencies responded: ',Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati
Questions; Res,po,nse
.How'is'the company to work witli%, Is ttze . They serve the community we11 and have been
City satisfied? Are customers satisfied? generally"easy to w„ark with overall.
North Bay has onl'yprovidedeservice since 2003
"r and duriri the .transition eriod they have been' .
able to m'ake•a.smooth conversion from the
previous cori`tractor- They also instituted the
single stream recycle program during that period
along witli,,a°;green waste program. Customer
satisfaction is hard to gauge,
If issues arise, can you work with the
contractor to solve theirs?
Do theyprovide:'you"wih..th the required.
contractual information and is that.
infonnation submitted on schedule?
We had s,orne, problems with faulty equipment
early on,. Breakdowns, etc.
1"' t f You get. you pay or.
We are more satisfied -with RPD now than we
were a few,years'ago, following the,transition
fronz' another; company to this one. We forward
all,customer 'colinplaintsr directly to RPD.
We have'b_een able. to resolve any'issues that have
risen during the current franchise agreement.
Yes
Usually
Yes
For the most part, however, they have missed the
deadlines fora few of the- requiredreports.
Unable to ,answer
40 Are they timely in preparing informatioil Yes
requested from the city? For the most part,, however, they have missed the
North Bay
deadlines for a'few of the reqtiired,report,&,
Unable to answer
Whentliezity i-nakes- a,decision, does the
The; company responds to all requests. or
conipaty go, 4liqad with the decision or.
decisions in,a timelyman.ner.
dragthe`s'ituation out slowdown the
Process?,
The company appears to wanito work with the
City and, has demonstrated a'W.ijlin9 riess: to
.
cooperate if at all possible.
To,-""Yltiipwledge,,they ha.ve,:n6t,beefiresistant to
changes implemqntecl'by 14s
Has the compariy threatened, or.filed a
No
lawsuit against your city2-'
Not,tp my: knowledge.
No
'on today, would
If yoti hadt'a make. a!Oecisl.,
Our ordinance prohibits extensions:
"you e:ktend:the current:.c9rnpzinies contract
another 5ynrs?
It is too early, to make aninformeddecision
regardin& any extension.
Toda Y. YeS.
Has the company been pr_active in
The company proposed implementation,of single
proposiiag,charig6's that will increase
Istreal-ni e . cycling in2002 in order,to achieve the,
diversion,'improve the quality of service
state mandated 50% reductions. -
and/or reduce costs?
Not this p6int. I, should poiIt out; however,
that they arediscussing developjneni of a single
streain facility but it is unluioWn if that would
r . estilt1h,an. indrcaseiii their required diversion or
simply'redlfce'flib costs to the company.
No
•
North Bay