HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 2.A 08/23/2004�4.
CITY 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) El Cons'erit Calendar ❑ Pubik Hearing ❑ New Business
Unfinished Business ❑ `Presentation
Department
Director
Contact Person
Rhone Number
City Manager
Michael Bierman
Michael Bierman
778 -4347
Cost.ofPronosal n/a
AccountNumber
Amount.Budgeted ': n/a
Name of Fund:
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item
1. Reference check summaries
I 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 /Suggested Motion
It is recommended that the 'Council hear the final evaluation summaries and staff ,recommendations for
contractor selection, and provide; direction regarding selection o the future collection contractor and
negotiations of the future franchise agreement..
,Reviewed by Fiii'ance Director:
Reviewed by City Af'torney
Date:
Aonroved . bxCitv Manag
Date:
Date:
Today's Date
Revision # and Date Revised:
File Code:
.CITY OF PgTALUMA,'
AGENDA REPORT
for
Selection of Contractor to
Provide Solid Waste, ,Recyclable Materials, and Yard Trimmings
Collection Services
•
August 23,:2004
2.
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' -200 proposal considered' for evaluation. The four, proposals
have been presented to the tiiy Council. Consultant and staff have interviewed the four companies,
conducted site visits of the proposers' facilities, and evaluated their proposals:_ Consultant and staff wish
to present :.their final evaluation -and staff recommendations for contractor selection, and -ask Council for
direction for contractor selection and contractnegotiations'.
BACKGRO"D The.City has four companies to consider for its 10 -year. franchise. agreement for solid
waste, recyclable materials and yard trimming collection services. The conmpames include:.
• Empire Waste Management
• GreenW.aste Recovery (GWR)
• Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. (Norcal)
• North Bay Corporation (North Bay).
A t melydecision on the.selection.of a.future franchise hauler is critical because the existing franchise
agreementwith.EWM expires February 28, 2005.
Selection.of the particular franchise hauler is dependent upon 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 reconii iendations 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 AB 939 by preparing the 'necessary planning documents; implementing diversion
•
P and meeting annual state reporting requirements; This option signals departure from the
C�L
d
JPA and allows for the City's use of disposal and organic materials processing facilities outside of
the 'County.
Deciding how the City �. will achieve;AB 939 coni , liance is an i selection, sfi step divers process of
g y p s important first step in th
selectin a future franchise hauler, because the, decision dictat
ion scenarios
proposed by the collection companies..A decision to achieve compliance"through the JPA, would
logically, result in selection of Scenario .1 proposals because these 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 Cty:efforts would result in _select 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, recommendation regard 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.tle proposals and scenario
were in, compliance with the RFP with the exception of the items listed in the table below, that contains
staff recommendations regarding each, exception. Council is asked: to provide direction on the proposal
considerations listed below.
•
Proposal Consideration
:Staff Recommendation
2A.
Accept Norcal.'s alternative,Scenaro 1 cost
Do not, accept;N'orca 's alternative Scenario 1 cost
proposal reduction that proposes 25% lower
proposal reduction because Norcal'_s reduced cost
rates in,rateperiods 1 and arid.a "make-
propo "sal is not substantiated with cost information
up" adjustment over the remaining term of
'(and is.not.therefore'in substantial compliance with
the agreement to recover any shortfalls in
the UP) and the risk of actual costs being higher
rate periods T and 2
Tesultinglin future cost increases
2B.
Accept Norcal's Scenario 2, - 4 cost
Accept Norcal'` Scenari(11- 4 cost proposal for
proposal'although Norcal's cost proposal
consideration, `because it is in
does not provide substantial support for its
compliance with the RFP
capital and operating costs and is' subject to
adjustment based on the site selected and
facility. design.
C.
Accept North B'ay Corporation's (North,
Accept North Bay's April 30, 200 3 proposal for
Bay's) letter reaffirming its April 3,0, 2003
consideration ,'because.NorthBay's April,30, 2003
proposal.
proposal is in ubstantial com liance, with the RFP
2D.
Accept North Bay's _Apnl'30', 2003
,Accept North Bay's April 3.0, 2003 proposal
proposal although the cost proposal seems
because'it;is'in substantial compliance with the
unbelievably low when considering all of
RFP although the nature of North Bay's cost
the extraservices (such as a $300,000
proposal -is unreasonable
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.
If staff recommendations lasted above are,accepted by City Council, the recommendations `Would result
in the proposal, scenarios for the City Council. Both: percentage and rate impacts are
shown in the tables below.
Proposal Scenarios
Estimated Average Rate Impact
'Scenario:
.Proposal Consideration
tStaff Recommendation
2E.
Accept EWM revised proposal described in
Do not accept`EWM; July 21, 2004 revised .
Compliance with AB
939 through JPA
its July 21, letter which proposes to provide
proposal because, the proposal is, not irt;substantal
69%
services: at rates in effect prior to the 1.6 %o
compliance °with the RFP; it.provides :itnsufficient
ABA 93:9 through JPA; .
Redwood Dis osal
decrease approved Tune 7, 2004:
information to allowl for full evaluation; and it
45%
(24 %)
'presents;substantiaily better.cost proposal after
50 %, diversion
23%**'
knowing its competitors' cost proposals (and other
TBD
N.A.
companies Were not provided the same
60% diversion'
30 %o ** .
op ortunity)
2F.
Accept,.EWM's ;proposals for Scenarios 2',
Accept "EWM's proposals for' scenarios.2, 3,'and.4
70 9 X6,diversion
31, and 4 (5,0 %, 60 %, and 70% diversion.
because they are in substattial-compl ance the
Approx.118 %o
scenarios, respectively) although EWM'.s
. with
RFP
cost proposal ,does not reflect costs of
future programs that tliey anticipate
needingto implement to meet the diversion
goals, .
If staff recommendations lasted above are,accepted by City Council, the recommendations `Would result
in the proposal, scenarios for the City Council. Both: percentage and rate impacts are
shown in the tables below.
Proposal Scenarios
Estimated Average Rate Impact
'Scenario:
EWM
GVJ&
Norcal
North Bay
1
Compliance with AB
939 through JPA
410/o
34 %e
69%
(5 %)*
1 =Opt.
ABA 93:9 through JPA; .
Redwood Dis osal
:21% .,
.15 %
45%
(24 %)
2
50 %, diversion
23%**'
N:A.
TBD
N.A.
3
60% diversion'
30 %o ** .
N.A.
TBD
N.A.
4
70 9 X6,diversion
37 % **
21 %q
Approx.118 %o
N.A.
* North.Bay'presented an'�alternative rate proposal that.resulwm an average. rate increase of :12%
(0.3 %o for residents, 5J5 for commercial customers and 1% for drop box:customers)
** EW1VI costs for Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 do not include costs of programs that are: implemented in
later'years -
Proposal Scenarios
Estimated Rate, for 60- Gallon Customers
Scenario
EWM
GWR'
Noreal
North Bay
1
Compliance with AB
939 through JPA
$21.63
$20.48
$25.33
14.53*
1 Opt.
AB 939- through JPA;
Redwood Dis osal
$18.48'
$'1.7.68
"$22'.23
11.59
2
50 %.diversion
$18.88"
N .A.
TBD
N.A.
3
60% diversion
$
N.A.,
TBD
N:A.
4
1 70 %diversion
$20.93 = **
1$1'8;58
Approx, $33.3;8
N.A.
Note: Current 60- gallon residential. rate is $1533 per month.
* North Bay presented an alternative rate proposal that:results,iman average increase of 2.2% (0.3%
for residents, 5.9 %;for commercial, customers, and. P o'for drop box customers)
** EWM costs for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 do not include cost&0Fprograms that are implemented in later
years.
Decision No. 3 Balancing Cost arid.Diversion r
Decision No: 3 is necessary to.idetitify the City Council" svalues with regard to: (1) cost and impact to
rate payers; and, (2) the Citys 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' jo cost,.in its selection of a future
franchise hauler by selecting the ,lowest diversion scenario (Scenario 1),
because he Cite Council previously expressed its policyto support highe Staff recommends this option
-,The City Councils second option is to balance diversion level and cost.
City r diversion levels by directing
that the RFP.. focus on diversion levels of "50 %0 60 %, and 70 %0:, 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 -Selecting Futur
e F'ranchise.Hauler
The selection of the future.franchise hauler is conditioned on the City Council decisions: no. •1 through 3
above. Below staff 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 achieve AB 939 compliance on,itsown,(separate from,the JPA);Ao accept and
consider EWM',s Scenario 2, ,3, and 4 proposals acid Noreal's.S "cenario 2 -4 proposal (as per items 213'and
2F above); and to prioritize at a reasonable cost staff recommends that City Council direct the
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 diversion under this . scerario '(e,g., inclusion of drop
box service as ofthe °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 Manager to - negotiate with EW , staff recommends the
following additions, at a minimum,, to the franchise agreement:
s Clarification of diversion scenario /programs selected,, costs ,included, ,future costs; land
implementation schedule -
• Organics processing site developmentplans, time line,`,cost ton plus annual adjustment
mechanism, and contingency plan
® Landfill indemnification (including -future host fees)
• ` Landfill franchise fee ,rotate mechanism
® Drop- offfaeilityfor yard :trimming and wood waste,
Earlyimplementation of` so me or all services
o Street sweeping after special events
..Expanded list of recyclable materials (non -CRT e- scrap; small:appliances)
®- ftee; 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 reco rnme ndsl the following
additions, at,a minimum, to the franchise agreement:
• Cost control.measures;related.to split -body truck operations, and transfer l auling.costs,that maybe
impacted by future traffic conditions
• Indemnification for compost °,product liabilities _
® Contingency plan/indemnificat'ion.related to long -term marketability of compost product
Transfer facilitypermittiing schedule and contingency plans
• Landfill' indemiiification
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 4ireets.the City'Manager to negotiate with'Norcal, staff.,recommends the
following ". additions, at' a minimum, to the franchise agreement:
• Diversion scenario /programs selected; irnpleinentation schedule_, and cost-adjustments, if any
Rec - clables - rocessin
y p g 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 processng,cost CPI adjustnient'inechariism
• Used equipment depreciation schedule andh. ture costs, if any
• Expanded list of recyclab materials for Scenarios 2— 4 (textiles; scrap metal; all plastic
'including film and polystyrene)
M
Alternative 4B: Select North:Bayes Future Franchise Hauler
Ifthe Council decides to pr_i'oritize.cost over. diversion and to accept and .considerNorth Bay's proposal
(as per items 2C and 2D above); staff recommends that City Council direct the City Manager to
Cit Council's pr g p Y e North Bay's fulfills the
Scenario 1 proposal
g franchise a reement with,North Ba beca us
y eferences. It provides a,proposal that anticipa "tes compliance with the JPA at a cost
si g nificantly lower than the.' other three companies' proposal. Staff further recommends that City 11 Council direct the; City Manager to negotiate: use of the County facilities if the Council decides to
achieve AB `compl_iance through the JPA, or to negotiate use.of Redwood facilities if. Council
,decides to achieve.AB 939 compliance on its own. Lastly, staff recommends that City Council direct
the City Manager to add the following provisions to the,franchise agreement, at a minimum, during
negotiations with North Bay:
® Cost control provisions or revision of the compensation Mechanism to chdnge to a rate -based
compensation mechanism
® $300,000 annual contributionto 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 impaclAnd° compensation mechanism; interim
plans and contingency plans.
® Used equipment depreciation, schedule and .future costs, ;if.any
® Proposed service _enhancement"s� (e:g.,'free collection for- publ'ic:schools and Santa Rosa Junior
College if schools inc
nclude recycling; free portable °toilefiservice 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 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
their existing buy -back and drop -off facility, at
carts) • acceptance of TV's and ,CRTs -, for a fee at „
, during annual drop -off event for a fee)
2543 Petaluma Blvd., South .and
the :following three alternative recommendations depending on the City
3' Council's Trefere ces related to compliance with AB -939'
p
p , proposal compliance, and cost and diversion
priorities.
Alternative l (same as' „Alternative; 4A under the discussion section of this report) –1f Council decides to
take responsibility for,AB 939 compliance rather than relying ion the JPA, staff recommends the City
Council direct the City; Manager to enter into negotiations with EW1VI, GWR, and /or Norcal and return
to Council with best and f.nal 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
prioritizecost:.over diversion „and to accept and,consider North Bay's proposal,' staff recorninends•that
City Council direct the City Manager -to negotiate a franchise .agreement 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 939 - compliance on its own.
I. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Subject to ,Council direction.
CONCLUSION Consultantand staff need Council direction 'regarding contractor selection in order to
proceed with franchise agreement negotiations.
7
C. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEAS UREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY' SUCCESS OR COMPLETION:
REFERENCE GRECK 9tim IARY
The following agencies responded: , Cotafi, Healdskiurg Sebastopol,
ded':.1Ylission Viejo;
Petaluma
•
Questions .
-`
—Response
How is the company tow with? Is the
We are extremely satisfied. The company is
City satisfied? Are custornerssatisfied?
excellent to work,wiih and very responsive to our
needs.
We have had a good worlcing relationship with
Empire. They have been responsive to our needs
and to in dividual,custonier ' - en`necessary. The
three Or four customer complaints we have
had
over the past :` years have been addressed by the
company`.in a,proactive:manner with.good results.
For the past two.,years WasteL Management has
been very responsive; We receive very few
customer s The Cityis 'satisfied, with a
few concerns.
Cutstandiig. The City and custorners are very
pleased with Waste 1Vlanagement —the ,
outstanding quality of- service, attention to detail,
and their'williigiiess :to get the job` doiie:right..
Exeellent, Very few :customer complaints
concerning WM
if 'issues arise, can ;you' work with the
contractor to solve then?..
Yes, we have a great: contact person and she gets
it done, fiorn street sweeping issues to whatever.
All'issuesrhave been resolved to our satisfaction
in a- timely mani er. The: management has been
very res onsi eta all service and 'contract
y p
requests.
We have. found that the key factor in .our
relationship with,EWM is the effectiveness of the
liaison with, the. City. At the resent time our
• Empirb Waste Nlnna;emen't
Emoiie Waste Management
•
liaison is great and takes care of all our problems.
Absolutely. Staff is lcnowledgeable, professional,
and always are.responsive.to the City; our
residents and, businesses.
Absolutely
Do They provide you with the. required
Yes,
contractual inform' ation. and �i�s that
information submitted bn,. 6hedule?
provided in a ti
All information- 8 rnely fashion.
Annual adjustmentss 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
unportant,maierials (i.e. related i6 rollout of a
new, fully automated System) before f11ey are
distributed:
Are•they tunely. iii prepar ng ° nforinatioii
Yes very.: -
requestedP from the city
Yes, for any requests they have responded in ,a
_reasonable tune frame.
Yes
r
When the city iialces a decision, does the-
Yes
We °work very well as a team_ Don't'need to
company go ahead wiffillie decision or
chaslge things much. It just worles. .
drag, the situation out° a.nd slow down the
process?
p
;
We have not.had any problems in this area. The
inplementati'on of additional serv"ices.has
happened within agreed upon time frames.
Have hotl had this situation .present itself as ,a
problem in the past ten years`..
VJM has a,histor of work-iig well with the City:
They are responsive to our "re nests and: they help
Emoiie Waste Management
•
•
•
•
Has the com an, threatened or filed a.
p Y
lawsuit against city?
,.
out when,needed even if it's. not ``required" in
their bh act.
A k ny decision made has been. done mutually and
j beet
N s z carried out in a timely fashion.
ever in `3'0 years
No, and we would not expect them to.
No .
'No
Not to 1 knowledge
If you had to make a decision today,, would
Yes.1
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'a id residents. We actually
reduced, soiree montl - dy service fees.
Given the- terms.of our contract, yes!
Yes.
Yes they impleiizent single stream,
in
Has, lo c1'parn l
s. They were g
Ye -very pro active in getting, to
11, estle tpwillancve
divers o proposing improve -the quality of service.
Where we are today and very earlyonm the
recycling game; as well. -Their trucks are lcept'in
and /or reduce cost`s`?
good.coidition too. We like that.
Yes, -they proposed single stream'tecycling, and
greenwaste pickup. The impleiiientation went
smootlilywith a, great-deal of their efforts helping
us ;to pre ,exit the program to the City Council..
They have also "'beeiz receptive to our proposals to
improviiZg services.
Yes. EW1v1 has recently implemented single
stream recycling for commercial and industrial
clients" °without any ,roin ting from the City.
Empire waste Management
• City of Petaluma Proposer Name: G
Proposal Evaluation . reen Waste
Evaluator: Beatty
respondedRENCE CHECK SUMMARY
The followin g agencies City of San Jose, City of Woodside, City of Red Bluff,
Santa Clara County nel. Lexington tY (' Hills), Portola. Valley.
Questions Res onse
How is the company to worlt With? ,Is the Excellent service Provide yard waste and street .
City satisfied? Are customers satisfied ? "'
sweeping- ;services
The gets high marks for actual service
and innovation a id ; welear very few complaints
from the customers. Some times the
adininistrative,response: leaves a little to be
desired', bit they do correct When this is noted for
We just transferred Greenwaste contract to Waste
Connections ; recently; so-unable to answer.
Al
Green Waste is easy 0 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
uni.icorporated area of 1100+ 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 complaints 'of - any kind for the fall
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 i " n .other areas. Still, surveys
J 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
changethe service.
County staff is "satisified With company services
Green Waste
Green Waste
•
and responsiveness.
Great. Fantastic. Good custom_ er service. No
little ffrom vehicles.. -
If issues arise, can you. work with the.
Yes
contractor to solve
Green Waste is responsive and easy to work with
to, resolve issues.
No -issues to date
N O ssueS
Do they ,provide you with the required' .
contractual `iu6rrnatioil, and `is that
'Usually yes. They had a personnel ,turnover issue
information submitted on schedule?'.
for:a while and they got way beliid, on requii:ed
reports„ but are now caughtrup acid on track;:
We have no issues or problems with'submissori.
of required information.
Soinetimes a little late, biit they respond well
When called. '
Are they timely n'preparing inforiization
requested from the city ?,
I ,actually -don't recall_ ever asking for an� zin
b yt1 g.
Not as well as expected.
Yes
Yes, see above
When the city snakes a decision, does the
com an o,yahead with the decisioi:Yor
The ii�ent in a res o
y implement responsive manner
dragthe sgo,
ation.out and:slow•down the
process?
They have been.helpful with our efforts to
.
implement mandatory trash collection.
We have`haa;no implementation issues.
Green Waste
•
•
-
y y y g .,.
Onl 1:and a Half ye into a.6 r a reem erit. No
problerns. Had a major change i1 collection
when star -ting,
Has the coi any t Ueatene'd 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 d'ecisionloday, would '
you extend the urrent companies contract
. We just did last year, so yes.
another 5 years?
Because we have only. recent. experience with
Waste Coiuiections, it; would be a shorter time
period.
Yes, we 'would recoinm-end extensions based on
current- services; Iii 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 8 t h'
Absolutely
Yes
Has; tl?e coinhany been pro active iii
A bsolutely,
proposing changes that Will iriciease;
,
diversion, iin 'p rove ,the quality of 'service
Yes
and/or reduMcosts?
Yes. ,
Yes
Green Waste
City -of Petaluma . Proposer Name: Norval
Proposal Evaluation
Evaluator: Beatty
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
Sho following agencies Cisco San Jose respon ponded; Roeklin,.Gilroy /Morgan Hill, Vacaville, Yuba County,.
ka, Yuba County
Questions
Res ons.e
How is the company to work with ?' Is the We are very happy with our relationship. They
City, satisfied? Are customers satisfied? are very'res ons ve to o `' d
•
0
p ui nee s.
They leave beeilVeat to `work with. Their staff is
very responsive °to us, and''we have an excellent
working relationship overall. We have worked
cooperat�ely�on a.rnoie formal basis in
developing and;iinplementing new programs
sueh,as curbside °recycling, HHW`and 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 `indication' 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 n o 't'issues for the past six
Years. Yes and largely ye's. Prior to six years
ago, the :local manager; and the City -had a very
coiztentious `relationssl ip. Norcal , ultimately got
rid ,of this' manager and replaced him with_
managers that'have. been much more cooperative.
We have had three do. cal managers since then, and
'they have all been faritasti'c to work with (if only
I could say the sane about our cable company).
A,rough relationship to be -kind.
Pretty good oil the pur6 collection end.
We dust transferred Green Waste contract to
Waste Coiulections recently.
The company gets high marks' for actual service .
and innovation and we hear very few com plaints
Nora l
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 efforfs' in
diversion and recycling.
The,,c:ounty. is satisfied as are the in of the
' .customers._
If "ssues arise, can yoti:worlc with tlie.
Yes definitely, yes
contractor to solve them?
Wlien,issues arise, we work directly with the:.
Operations Manager and Qperatioris Supervisor.
They are,respoisive to our. requests and vworic to
remuid their drivers, .if necessary,, of required
service levels. The Operations per in
particular, will respond personally and "go," o: the
cstomer':s reside, many instances. 'When
issues arise, I:am always confident tl?at we'will
be able to; resolve them.
Always for the past six years.
Have had- with'subcontractor.
Yes.
Good to work with wlzeii.issues arise.
Yes
Yes.
Yes
Do they provide you with the required
contra- ctual information• andis'tf at
-
information aiibnzitted:on'sclzedule?
They do provide us with required information. .
Iformation that we. have specified both in
contracts :arid 'infonnally include monthly
curbside recycling and.yard,waste:set -out -aid
to>uiage figures; quarterly HHW; BOP and oil
participation, disposal quar Cities and costs,:
0
monthly CRT and other e'- waste' units and
'
Norcal
4
e
Are they timely in preparia g. nforination
requested from' the city ?)
When the city nnaltes : a decision does the
compainy go ahead with:the deci`sioia 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 T would
deem it °a problem.
Yes
No
Usually yes: They' had a personnel turnover
issue foria while and, they got way behind on
requiied °reports,. but are now caught up and on
” tracic.
In.forrr ation 1lis:provided on schedule.
Yes.
Yes,
Yes
Except as noted above -yes they do provide
information on a timely basis the majority of the
tirrie
.. Yes
Not'as well as expected.
No .
I don't recall .ever asking for anything.
Generally, tli'ey are timely.
Yes. The City's franchise requires monthly,
quarterly and aiulual reporting,
Yes.
They are very responsive and proactive
They have moved forward in implementing
programs and kept us.•apprised when issues have
arisen that, have affected timeliness. They work
with us to develo '.reasonable in lementation
Norcal
Norcal
•
- schedules and work hard to meet - theirs. Our
programs have always started. on the .day that we
have agreed upon.
T have 1o• complaints with:their implementation
schedule.
Depends At face value, the_ y seem willing..
D'elivery'is another story. -
Tl ey:have been Helpful with our efforts td
inlpleinent'rnandatory trash collection.
They impletnent in a responsive °roamer.
They have been timely.
They have been supportive; of,City decisions acid
have often provided hel"pful:solutons,
the com
Has an
p yllireatened or filed a
It is iin lernented ex editiously :
No
lawsuit against your city?
Not to my lu iowledge at any time.
Notthat I any aware of.
None so far.
'No "
None
No
N
If you had'to tzzalte a decision today, would
I4vould recomnleiid contirivation - le" c.
you extend the cturerit conipai ies .contract
another 5 years ?"
Yes,, I would. I firmly believe that the City and
contractor have maintained the best working
relationship under a francluse agreerne tit of all
the cities innly county., We have worked
o et
t 1_e r, to implement very successful programs
-g
including the first HHW collection facility in the
comity and the only full e- Waste, drop off
gram. Froni 1994 - to the present, we have
Norcal
•
f
•
s
•
Norcil
Y
iniplemerited all of our major diversion
programs, including curbside recyelii g,
yardwaste all H'HW collection programs and e-
waste with only a 14% overall in rates.
This also included providing, all single family
account's with two'96 gallon toters (garbage and
yard was'fe) as part of the basic service. I would .
definitely extend the 'contract.
Yes and we are in tle.process of negotiating a
proposed extension:
No. Would not recommend.
Because we 'oiily have ,recent, experience, it
would be'a shorter time period.
Labor agreements weren't shored up prior to
start.
ViWejust did last year, so yes._ Our relationship:
elates bac to 19.96 by the way.
No contracts here, butwoul'd definitely extend
the permit.
Yes
While they1ave been very good to work with, I
believe coinpetiiive,proposals contribute to a
cooperative, economic relationship.
Has the company been pro active in
Yes Im p 'lemented greed waste program, a
proposing changes that will increase
conunercial cardboard collection program, and a
diversion, improve the quality Of.service
free dump. day as street.aweeping
and /ofteduce costs?
services. t
They are a very'customet= service oriented
Company. That includes services to their actual
customers as well as to the City for
requests we _i iake. 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. buldiig hazardous materials
investigating a paint can opener /drainer system
that would greathly decrease labor, the use of
automatedvbliicles and reviewing routing. They
Norcil
Y
keep a very well maintained'fleei`with a.
reasonable depletion schedule. When we are
plaraurig a newprogranz, they offer-very,good
input on tle.varous aspects of structuring the
program in order to balance service, cost. aild
efficiency.
Just the opposite.
Reasonably so — as inuch.asI 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'.
City tauma ��,
• �' of l
, Proposer Name: North - Bay
Propgsal Evaluation Evaluator: Beatty
•
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
The following agencies responded: ,Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati
ue - -
Q stions .. r
= Res onse
.How' s'the company to work with�� Is the
They serve the eommtuiity well and have been
City atisfied ?' Are customers atisfie
y . d?
generally easy to work` with overall.
North Bay has ''only providedservice since 2003
and during t11e transition period they have been' .
able to m'alce a, smooth conversion from the
previous lcontractor.. They also instituted the
`.
single stream recy, cle� program ,during that period
along wiih Waste program. Customer
satisfaction is Bard to gauge.
We had s,orne problems with faulty equipment.
early on.. Breakdowns etc.
You get.what you pay for.
We are more; satisfied witl RPD now than we
were stew 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 with the
We have.�bee z able. to resolve any' slues that Have
contractor t o solve them
risen during the current franchise agreement.
Yes
Usually .
�.
Do they provide. you with the r equired.
Yes
contractual information and is that
For t11e most�!part, however, hey have rni��ssed the
infonuation submitted on schedule
deadlines for few of the required' reports.
Unable to answer
Are they, tiniel . in preparing information
Yes
requested from the city?
For the rnost part,. however, they have missed 7the
North Bay ,
•
•
11
6w, of the req�iire
deadlines for a,f d,regorts',
Linable -to answer'
vienthe city imakes adecision, does the
The company responds Wall requests or
Corripany go ahead with the decision or.
- situation
decisions in , a timely-'manner.'
drag the out slow down the
process?
T116 y appears to want Work with the
City and, has: demonstrated a:willinmess to
cooperate i-f'at all possible.
�-"' 19wledge, they hav
o - T - 1Y 1<4 -- resistant to
changes ii byus.
Has the company threatened' or.file:d a
No
lawsuit,again§I Voiir
Not,,tp my ledge.
kn know ledge.
No
If you had. to alce. al - )jQ.d&y, '
� ordinance prohibits exten
p n lons,
yoTextend:the currentc.ompanies contract
another 5 years?
It is too early, to make. an.i
--nfbymed decision
regarding any extension.
Today. yes.
Has the 'conlpany been PfO in
The.. c6inpahy proposed im lem - entation single
p '
proposing that will increase
t
s realt,recyc ling i-n'2002,in or&r'to a chieve
diversion, improve tl' quglity'of service
staternandated 50%. reductions.
and/or reducP" costs,?
Not-to this p6irit. 1 should point but ,
that°the i are .disvassing development of a single
stream facility but it is undulown if thatwould
r esul t man. inc 'fi-i their. required diversion or -
lyredife �fhb. costs to the e company.
No
•
•
11