HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 2.A-Attch1 08/23/2004Evaluation Report City of Petaluma ° '
August 23, 200 °City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Cline o Presentation
- - Page o.
Council Direction Requested
Background
-Evaluation Report
S Diversion Approaches
Costs - and Estimated Average Rate Impacts
Changes to Collection and Street Sweepng,Services
Company Considerations and Summary of Key Strengths
Council Input Needed
➢
Achieving-,.A]3 939 Compliance
Determining Proposal Process Compliance
Balancing Cost. and D..iverson
Selecting Future Franchise Hauler
Contract Negotiations
Schedule
Attachments
1. Proposed Operational Arrangements
2. Exceptions to Franchise Agreement
21
22.
26
27
28
29
30
40
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
,roi
Page 1
•
•
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma :
August 23, 2004 City Counc-ijhA4,eeting Franchise Procurement. Process
Council Direction Requested
C ® i-17 direction for . selection of the future
�,fran - c. -- his -- e hauler and c-, negotiations
.
Franchise. hauler s election ' requires the followi ng
Council. Input:
Identifi cation of method of achieving A 939
cbmpl-iance'
j—.Determination of proposers h the
comp ance with
P Xop-
osal - process
Indication of preferences related to balancing cost and
diversion
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 2
Evaluation Report
City ofPetaluma ° -
August 23, 2004 City Councit Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
- Background
'P` issued January 20, 2004
Responses -
-Proposals received Mardi l9, 2004'
Empire Waste Management (EWM)
® GreenWaste Recovery (GWR)
Norval Waste Systems, Inc. (Norcal) .
— Letter - commitment received March J % 20`04 from. North Bay
Corporation (North Bay)- cornmittiri-g to its April 3 0, 2003 proposal
— Letter received July ,21, 2004 revising EW1VI's proposal
® Proposal summary and: company presentations li/Ia Y 3 2004,
Company interviews May ,13, 2004
Preliminary evaluation report to Council June 7 2004
® Facility tours June and July 2004
`Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page % 3
Evaluation Report
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting
Evaluation
Franchise Procurement Process
Report: Diversion Approac es
S =
EWM
GWR
Norcal
T orth Bay
; 1`
- Compliance=.- = -
Comply with. Regional Agency programs and policies*
2
50 %e Diversion
• Residential food waste.
GWR dd.riot submit
Norcal to work with City
Did not propose
• Accomp sh by June _20'
separate proposats: for 50,
to define programs for
0, and 70% diversion, but
different `divers on- 1`evels.
3
60% Diversion
j _
• Co
Commercial food waste`
-
rather GWR proposes to
P p
Norcal ro osed costs and
p ,p
.
• Aggressive `comrri: recycling
achieve- 70 % or more
programs for .70% o.
• Aggressive variable, rates-
diversion through the
diversion as f. lows:
• Accomplish by June 2008
following:
-.New M_ RF : in City with
• Composting residential
sort lines for
solid waste and organic
recyclables C &D,
_
- == -
materials
commercial solid waste
• Wet/dry collection for
• Residential and
multi -family'and
commercial;
commercial food waste
.
on
collection
..-
_
4
70% Diversion
• Grant exclusive rights:to all
materials
composting wet
• Diversion rate to be
• Ban.paper from solid waste
materials; sorting dry
quantified using A$. 939
• Wet/dry commercial
• Accomplish by mid -
methodology
collection; sort dry at future
2005
• Programs for different
County facility
types of businesses
• Accomplish by June 2010
• Accomplish by 2007
*' North Bay, during.its interview with the City on May 13, offered residential food waste upon contract commencement:
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 4
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August 23; 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
v aW ation' Report: ive sion Ap roaches (cont.)
Scenario
EWM
GWR _
Norcal I
North Bay
`Pros /Cons
Pros Phased implementation
Pros Achieving 70 % or
Pros City can, -prov de
Did not proposer
allows for phased costs
more can =be accomplished'
inpufto_ planning arid.- =
-_
Cons Achieving 70%
-..immediately
design - , process'fot new
requires policy changes
Cons Ir some ap lications
facility.
solid waste composting. has
Cons -Siting and
been problematic because
pertnitting:a material
of concerns related to
recovery _facility in the:
marketing materials and
City may challenging;
,environmental standards.
higher, diversion; will not
'
occur infirst year of -
.
agreement
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 5
•
Evaluation.Report_ . City of Petaluma
August. 2004 Citij Council.Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Evaluation Report:
ate �r10 C� eCosts an (millions)
. - Scer ario -
EWM
G%a
Norcal
North Bay
1
A13939 through Regional Agency
- _
First - Rate Period (,16 mo.s;) -
$!12:6
$;11.9 '
$12:8 - $15.1
$8.5
Net Present Value of Contract
$70.1
$65.1 _
$71:6 - $83 °.8 .
$46.9
1
AB 939 through -Agency; Redwood; Disposal
Opt.
First Rate Period (16 mos.);
$'10.8' '
$1:0:3
$1'0':6 = $',12.9
$6:7
Net Present Value of Contract
$:60.1
$5`5.8
$5 7$7Y.8
$37.4
2
50% diversion -
'To be
First Rate Period (16 mos.)
$11-..0
Not applicable
determined if
Did not
Net;Present Value .of Contract
$61.3-
selected=
l
propose
.
3
60 % diversion..
To'be
_First.Rat&Period (16 mos.)
- .$11.6-
Not applicable
determmedi f
Did not
-
Net Present Value of Contract
$62.7
selected.
= propose
4
70% diversion
-
First Rate Period "(16 mos.)
$12.2
$10.8
Approx $19
Did not
Net Present Value of Contract
$65.8
$59.4
Approx $109
propose
Notes:
1. - For Scenario 1, 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. For Scenarios 2, 3, and .4 costs do not include estimate of posts to replace JPA programs.
2. NPV does not include franchise fees, vehicle impact fees, or costs of replacing JPA programs.
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 and 10, 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 6
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma 4 '
August 23,',2004 City: Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Evaluation Report:
Es.ttnated Average Rate Im -act*
Scenario
EWM
GWR .
Norcal
North Bay
1
_
Compliance with AB 939 -
through Regional Agency
a
41%
34 %
44% to 6.9 %t
(5 %) J
1 ,
Opt.
AB' 939 through Agency;
Red wood Disposal
2 °;:1 %
=, 15
'19 to 45 of
(24 %) _
2
50% diversion
- --
3
60% diversion
30% o *'*
4
70% diversion
37 % **
2.1
A� rox -11,8%
- Pl? --
- -'=
Rate impact considers 3:6 rate decrease °.approved. by -Council on June 7. For. Scenario 1, xate. impact - reflects Central
Landfill solid waste fee increase from $50 per ton to, $70 per tai, and yard waste fee increase from $29 to $31 per ton.
Scenarios 1 Opt., 2, 3, and .4 do not anticipate use of County facility'but rather anticipate.use of Redwood Landfill for-
disposal; estimated rate impact does not include estimate of replacing JPA programs.
Norcal guarantees not to exceed.the high end of the range shown for Scenario 1, but proposes to initially set ,rates assuming
the low end of the range; review actual costs, and make future rate adjustments for any shortfalls.
North Bay presented an alternative rate proposal that'results in an average rate increase of 2.2% (0.3% for residents, 5.9%
for commercial customers, and I% for drop box customers)..
** EWM costs for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 do not include costs of programs that are,implemented in later years.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page ,7
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma U
August 23, 2004 -City Councd'Me' eting Ev l tlon ®r e Franchise Procurement Process
-Estimated Rates for 60- Gallon Customers
Slceinario -
EW1VI
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
1
_
Compliance with AB 939
. $21.63
- .
$20.48
$21.98 to
$14.531
through- Reg"onal Agency
$25.331
1
AB' 939`throtr g h A enc y
g
- $:18.48
$17.6$'
$18.28 to
$11:59
opt.
Redwood Disposal
$22.231
2
o diversion
50%
$18
Not applicable
To he
Did not
determined if
propose
selected
3
o
6:0 /o diversion
$a 9.98,
Not applicable
- To be
Did not .
determined if -
propose
selected
4
70 % diversion
$20.93*'*
$18.5 8
$33.3 8-
D d,not - -
-
proppose
* Current rate for 60- gallon residential customers is, $15.3`3 per monih,'which reflects ,the '16% o rate decrease: approved by
Council on June 7. Estimated rates for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 do not include estimate of JPA programs.
Norcal guarantees not to exceed the high end of the range shown for Scenario 1, but proposes to initially set rates assuming
the Tow end of -the range, review actual costs, and make future rate adjustments for any shortfalls.
North Bay presented an alternativei rate proposal that results in an average rate increase of 2.2% (0.3% for residents,, 5.9%
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.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 8
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Evaluation Report:
Chan ges to Collection Services
➢ Single- Family
Collect commingled recyclables weekly
Collect yard trimmings weekly (rather than every other week)
® Provide backyard or -side -yard service at no charge for- disabled
➢ Multi- Family
-
® Require weekly commingled recycling service
➢"
Commerc ial
® Require commingled recycling service
Require contractor to offer yard waste collection at additional fee
Charge business for special services (e.g., enclosures, heavy
containers, cleaning, rental, push/pulls)
Downtown public litter containers — more frequent collection (up to 3
times per week)
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 9
•
fity- of Petaluma
Franchise Procurement Process
Evaluation Report
C han ,,
!�. to Street Sweeping' Services
g e s
Residential streets
Wee sweeping; November - 1 t February 28, and leaf collection
� oF
crew preceding Sweeper
Every other week sweeping March I to October, 31
® Residents to receive map showing schedule
➢ Downtown district,
Daily sweeping
Twice monthly washing,
Sweepin -after special. events
City facilitieS
Weekly sweeping of 2 City facility/public parking lots
Every other' week sweeping of- 5 City facility/public parking lots
Sweeping of 5 - public - lots after July 4
Evaluation Report.
August, 23, 2004 City Council Meeting
O Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 1 0
Evaluation•Report - Ci!y of Petaluma ` sa
August 23, 2QO4 Cihj'CounciLMeeting Franchise. Procurement Process
Evaluation e ort: Ent ire aste anagerne
p
nt
A,&,,antages -
— Early. implementation.of programs at City's option
— Transition impacts limited only, to program changes
— Known contractor and track record
—
30-year operating history in Petaluma.
— Demonstrated supporter of community
— Existing, permitted facilities (except new organics pro`cessirig = operation
at Redwood landfill)
Disadvantage
Second hi -ghest cost. proposal =
— High diversion requires substantial policy changes
= Uncertainty associated timeline for developing a facility in Petaluma
- Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 11
•
•
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma °
August 23 200 City Counci1;1V1eeting Franchise Procurement Process
Evauatl_on RZeorta Empire Waste Ma- (cont.)
® Franchise Agreement Additions
Diversion scenario/pro --rams selected. and ;implementation schedule
- Organics processing, site development plans, timeline:, cost pert plus
annual adjustment .r mechanrsm,iand contingency plan
— Landfill . indemnification (including future host fees)
Establishing landfill .franchise :fee rebate mechanism
— - Drop off facility for yard trimming and wood waste
Early implementation of same..or all service
Street s:weep.ing -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 i&.selected as disposal site)
- Used equipment depreciation schedule and future costs, if any
WHilton,Farnkopf & Robson, LLC-
Page 12
Evaluation
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting' Franchise - Procurement Process
v� Ll atl ®tl Report. C teen aste ecover y
Advantages-
- Aggressive diversion strategy using innovative approach
— Reduced - residential street _traffic -and wear and tear by use of split -body
'trucks -,
— Partnered with local. company (Industrial Carting, Global Materials
Solutions) for re:cyclables processing
— Second -lowest cost proposal
Disadvantages
- . .Long hauling contributes to Bay- Area traffic and air emissions
- Split -body trucks may have some Load-. balancing problems
— Solid waste composting. has been problematic in some applications; risk
of long -term marketability of compost product; risk of liability related
to contamination of compost product
Uncertainty associated with timeline for permitting transfer activities at
Industrial Carting site
`Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 13
Evaluation Report
City of Petaluma
cc
August 23;2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Evaluation Repor .e Green Waste -Kecover- (con't.)
Franchise Agreement Additions
Cost-control measures related to -split-body truck operatiom, and
transfer hauling costs: that may be'Jinpacted by future traffic conditions
-In -enmification, for compost product liabilities
X product
Contingency plan/indemnification related to long -term = marketability of
compost product
Transf6r facility permittina schedule and contingency plans
Landfill indemnification
Annual processing ng and dis costs Ul' adjustment - mechanism
L
Expanded list of recyclable yclable materials (small. Scrap -and cast aluminum;
small scrap metal; . batteries, polystyrene)
Hilton Farnkop
f &Hobson LLC
Page 14
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August 23, 2004 Citj Co uncil - Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Evaluation = Report: Norcal
0.
Advaotages
May-develop i new rec y clables processing facility in or near. City, which
ma 2 result in less vehicle impacts and potential economic benefits
Flexible approach that encourages strong City ..involvement in facility
design to determine services and costs.
Commitment oflabor and vehicle resources higher than other proposers
If facility in City, -fewest vehicle miles, lowest air and: traffic impacts
Company presents a strong commitmen t to diverting materials and .
researching future opportunities
Disadv'-.anta,aes
Higher cost than other proposals
haul to recycling cycling -,site (Scen. 1) contributes to -traffic/ air impacts
Long haul to organics site contributes to Bay Area traffic/air impacts.,
Uncertainty related to timeline for facility development in Petaluma
May select site elsewhere
Uncertainty related to City's role and level of control for new facility
Hilton Farnkopf &Hobson, LLC Page 15
Evaluation Report Citit of Petaluma `'
August 23, 2004 City CouncitMeeting — Franchise Procurement Process -
Evalat ®n Re ®rt: Noreal come
(
Franchisee: Agreement Additions
Diversion scenario /programs selected; mpaeentaton schedule, and
cost adjustments if any _
— Recyclable processing -facility
Development, construction; and operating plans
® Roles and. responsibilities �of .contractor and City
® Tim- line
Costs and compensation .mechanism
Interim plans sand, contingency plans - -
Annual organics processing cost CPI adjustment. mechanism
— 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)
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 16
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August 23, 2004 Cittj Council- Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Evaluation Report: North Ba y
®
Advantages
_ -
- Lowest cost
— $300000, annual contribution to City
Additional franchise fees of approximately $132,000= annually from
recyclables revenues 'and portable toilet business -
- Existing, permitted facilities
— Commitment to build new recyclables processing facility
Disadvantages
— Diversion program commitment does3_not - extend beyond 5 0% =state
compliance requirements
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 17
•
a
•
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma °'
August.23,.2004 City Council:lV Ming Franchise Procurement Process
Evaluation Re ort e North a (cont.) Y
_Franchise Agreement Additions
— Cost control provisions or rate -based compensation ,mechanism
— $30,0, annual contribution to City _ -
- Reporting a -dT ranchise fee payments :for recyclables revenues :and. .
portable toilet - business
= Diversion scenario /programs selected; implementation schedule, and
cost. adjustments, if any
—'New recyclables processing, facility
Timeline --
Costs and comp:ensation.mechanism
® Interim plans.= and contingency plans
Used equipment depreciation schedule and future costs, if any
Inclusion of proposed service enhancements. (refer to page 35)
� Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 18
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma `
August 23; 2004 Ciftj Council'tVleeting,. • Franchise Procurement Process
O
Evaluate ®n Deport:
:Summary of Companies -' Key Strengths
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 19
._ _EWM :
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Estimated Average,
21% Scen. 1 Opt
15% Scen, 1 Opt.
45'% Scen. 1 Opt
(24 %) S.cen.. I
Rate, Impact
37% Scei . 4
'21% Scen. 4
Approx I IS% Scen. 4
Opt
Key Strengths
•Early- - °
•Aggressive diversion
Potentially may develop a
• Lowest cost. _ 1
implementation of
strategy`using
new recyclables processing
° $3.00,000 annual
programs at City's
innovative approach
facility in or-near the .City;
contribution to _City
option
• Reduced residential
which may result,in less
. Add itional-franchise`
• Transition impacts
_P
street traffic _and wear
vehicle impacts and
-
fee s_of approximately
limited only -to
y
and tear throii h use.
potential economic
$ lo3m,000 annually "
program char es
g
of (rucks
split-body r
benefits
y c bles
• Known contractor-
•..Partnered with local
° Flexible approach that
revenues and portable
and track record
company (Industrial.
es. strong Cit.
encoura g . g y
toilet business
• 30 -year operating
Carting,
g�
_
involvement to determine
; Existin ermined
g, p
history in Petaluma
Materials Solutions )
services. and costs
facilities
•Demonstrated'
for recyclables
• Commitment of labor ��and
•Commitment to build...
supporter of
processing
vehicle resources is higher
new recyclables
' community
than other companies
processing facility. in .
Existing, itted
° If facility in City, fewest
Santa Rosa
facilities
vehicle miles traveled, thus
-
least air and traffic impacts
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 19
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma,
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process .
v l atio IR" e ort
Summary of Corn antes' _ e Wea ess
p Y
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 20
EWNI
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Key Weaknesses
Second_ highest cost
a _tong hauling
• Higher cost than other _
Diversion program
proposal, .=
contributes, to Bay Area
;proposals
commitment does not
• _High diversion
traffic .and air
• L'orig haul. to recycling,
extend beyond 5,0%
requires substantial al
emissions
site; (Sceii. 1) contributes
state compliance
Policy- changes
•, S" iVbod trucks ma
to traffic /air:im" acts _
requirements
• Uncertainty
have, some load
• Long haul to organics site
associated timeline
balancing problems
contributes to Bay Area
for developing a
° 'Solid waste composting
traffic /air impacts
facility in otaluma
has, been problematic in
. Uncertainty related`to .
some applications; risk
timeline for facility
of long4erm
d elopment.in Petaluma
-
marketability of
• May select site elsewhere
compost product; risk
' Uncertainty related to
ofliability related to
City's role and level of
contamination of
control new`facility
compost product
.for
• Uncertainty associated
with timeline for.
permitting transfer
activities at Industrial
Carting site
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 20
Evaluation Report Ghl of Petaluma
V
,August-23,,2004 City Council.Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Council In uk- Needed:
Achieving AB 939 Compliance
M e tho d - ach i - AB 939 com', Ii ince d eving compliance
diversion scenarios to be considered
• Op tions
JPA. Resp'on'sibility (Use of county facilities dictates
Scenario I proposals)
o ut -of -
City Res ponsib il ity (—Use of o -of�-countyfadfiti ' es dctates i
Scenarios 2, 3. and 4..proposals)
O Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 21
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process .
- - Council In
put lTeee
D; ermining Proposal Process- Compliance
m.: Staff and consultant determined during proposal review that
proposals and scenarios were in coinplianee with UP with:
a few exceptions (refer to list on the following page) .
• Acceptance ofnon - compliant proposals or scenarios
influences number and type of proposals and/or diversion
scenarios available for consideration'
q w Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Page 22
�of Petaluma
Evaluation Report Cit
August:23,'2004 City Council Meeting' Franchise Procurement Process
Council Input Needed°
ete rn i Pro osal Process C om , Nance (cont. h -
* Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC .
Pro osahConsideration. = Staff Recommendation, -
2A. Accept NorcaPs alternative Scenario 1 cost Do.not accept because,reduced cost - proposal is not
proposal reduction That proposes 25 %,lower rates . substantiated with cost information (and is.not therefore in
-in rate ,periods 1 and 2 and ' a "make -up" substantial compliancewith.the RFP) and risk of actual
Adjustrrient over the femainin "term. costs being hi her. resultm ;iwfuture cost increases
2B. Accept Norical's Scenario 2:= 4 costproposal Accept NorcaP..s Scenario -2 = 4 cost proposal for
although cost proposal does not provide con'sid'eration, because it is in substantial compliance with
su bstantial support for its,capital and operating the RFP
costs and is subject to- adjustment based on site
selected and 'facility design
2C: Accept Norih.Bay Corporation's (North Bay's) Acedpt.North Bay's,Apti130, 2003 proposal for
letter reaffirming. its.April,3.0, 2003 proposal. consideration, because North Bay's Apri13 03
0, 20'
3 ro osal °is in substantiaL_com 'liance with the RIP
2D. Accept;North.BaVs Apri13.0, 2003 proposal. AcceptNorth Bay's Apri130; 2003 proposal because it
y; is_
although.cost proposal`seems unbelievably low _ in substantial' complianc with -the RFP although the
when considering all of the `extra;services, but its nature of =North -Bay's cost proposal is unreasonable
stated profit level is- $285,000 in the first ear.
2E. Accept EWM revised_proposal described in_its Do not accept EWM July 2 revised proposal
July'21 _letter which proposes to provide "services because it is not. in substantial compliance with RFP; it
at rates in effect prior. to the - 3,6% o decrease provides insufficient- information; and it presents
approved June 7, 2004. substantially better cost proposal after knowing its
com etitors' cost` proposals
2F. Accept EWM's proposals.for Scenarios 2, 3, and . Accept EWM's proposals for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4
M'
4 although. EWs cost proposal does not.reflect because they are in substantial compliance with the RFP
costs of future: programs that.they anticipate '
needin
Page 23
to..im lement:to meet the diversion goals.
Page 23
Evaluation Report City of P.etalumd
August-23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement:Process
Council Input Neee o
Determining Proposal Process Compliance
Date Pefiod One Costs and NPV (millions)
Scenario.
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North'Bay
1
AB', 939 through Regional Agency
First Rate Period (16 mos -)
$12.6.
$1 1..9
$15.1 -
$8.5
Net PresentXValue .of'Contract
- $70:1 _
$65.1,
$83.8
`$46.9
1
AB 939 through Agency; Redwood Disposal
Opt.
First Rate - Period (16 mos.) .
$10,8
$10.3
$12.9
$'6.7
Net Present Value of Contract
$60.1
$SS.8
$71'.8
$37.4
2
50% diversion
To be
First Rate-'Period (16 mos
$'11
Not applicable
determined if
= Did not
Net.Present.Value of`Contract
$61.3
selected
propose
3
60 diversion
To -be
First Rate,-Period (16 mos -.)
$11.6;
Not applicable
determined if
Did not
Net Present Value of Contract
$62:7
selected"
propose'
4
70% diversion
First Rate Period (16 mos.)
$12.2
$10.8
Approx $1'_9
Did not
Net.Present Value of Contract
$65.8
$59.4
Approx $109
propose:
Notes:
1. For Scenario '1 j 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. Scenar '02, 3, and 4 costs do not include estimate of costs to replace JPA programs.
2. NPV does not include franchise fees, vehicle impact fees, or costs of replacing JPA programs.
3. EWM costs for Sce iarios'2, 3, and 4 do not include costs of programs that are implemented in later.years.
�? Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 24
•
•
Evaluation Report City Petaluma"
- .August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process ro
Counc l Input Needed.
" etermining Pro oral Process Compliance
Estimated Rates for 60 - Gallon Customers'
Scenario
EWM
GWR
Noreal
North .Bay
1
Compliance with AB .939 `
$21.63'
$20.48
$25 33
$14.53$
through. Regional Agency.
1
AB 939 through Agency;
$18.48
$17.68
$22.23
$11.59
opt.
Redwood Disposal
2
SQ % d iver sio n =
$,l $ „$$'
Not applicable
To be
Did not
determined if
propose
selected
3
60% diversion
$19.98 * *
Not applicable `
To�be
Did not
determined if
propose ,
selected
4
70% diversion
$20.93 **
$18.58
$33.38
Did not
propose
* Current 60- gallon residential rate is $15.33 per month, which reflects the 3.6% rate decrease: approved by Council on June
7. Estimated rates for Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 do not include estimate of replacing JPA programs.
$ North.Bay presented an alternative rate proposal that results in an average rate increase of 2.2% (0.3 % for residents, 5.9%
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.
`Hilton- Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC ` Page 25
Evaluation Report Cihj of Petaluma O'
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Cou ut l�eee
0
a anc.ing'Cost and Dive r s ion
® Value with regard to -cast and :commitment to
achieving %exceeding 1� 93 9 diversion -influences scenario
selection and hauler selection
® Opti
P-rioritize� cost: by selecting lowest diversion scenario (Scenario 1)
Prioritize diversion at reasonab-le� cost. by selection. Scenarios 2 9 3 5'
and /or 4
Staff recommendation Prioritize =divers on at a, reason
® recommendation,: ;
cost to be consistent with Council's, previously expressed .
policy (which supported higher diversion by directing the
focus of the RUP on diversion levels of 50 %, 60 %, and =_
70 %)
w Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 26
August 23,.2004 Cite Council Meetinz - Franchise Procurement Process
Alternative l Se ect ETM R, and %or orcal for further
consderathon if:
— AB 93 9. compliance by City
.
— Acceptance of Ew1VI Scenario 2, 3, and 4 and Norcal Scenario 2 — 4
— Prioritization o.f, diversion at reasonable cost
® Alternative 2 : S elect North B ay. if: -
- Prioritize- cost over diversion
— Acceptance of North Bay's.. 2003 proposal
AB 939 compliance by JPA (use county facilities) or AB 939
compliance by City (use Redwood facilities)
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page'27
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August�23, 2004 City Council- Meeting Franchise Procure ment.Process
C. ou - n ci *
ln Nee e
_ Contract
Staff recommends at a minimum., that the additions to
franchise agree ments for E T1VI, I , hTorcal, and. No..rth
Bay (listed on s,lldes 12 _14 1`6, a'n 8 respe.etl'vely) be
considered during negotiations with the selected franchise
hauler(s) -
Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 28
North Bay
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC
. - .4
EWM (Seen. Z or 3), GWR {Seen.
4'), or Norcal (Seen. 2 - 4)
Page 29
City of Petaluma;
Franchise Procurement Process
i
O.
Needed.
ar
a
" ` Ccirnpllanee��Y
- _
By Gty
-.
"
- -
North Bay
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC
. - .4
EWM (Seen. Z or 3), GWR {Seen.
4'), or Norcal (Seen. 2 - 4)
Page 29
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma ` '
August 23, 2004 Cihj Council Meeting .` Franchise Procurement Process
Schedule
Council direction regarding contractor selection August 23, 2004
Negotiations with.. one or more companies - Sept Nov, 2004 -
Council direction_ re=garding _- _ _ November 15,, 2004=
® Commencement of New Services = March 1 , =2005.*
The commencement date may .need to be postponed to allow the selected company adequate time
to purchase new equipment and implement services.
T Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 30
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August 23 2004 Cihj 'Councd Meeting Franchise Procurement Process -
- Attachment 1 - Residential Collection Method
Hilton Farnkopf F_ Hobson, LLC°
Page 31
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Routing - _ ,- -
3 passes by separate drivers
Scenario 1 : Split- bod y 2
=
=-3 passes by separate
Multi - purpose
Method
passes by 2, drivers.
drivers
vehicles (3 .passes by
' . Scenarios 2— 4 : Split -body
1 driver)
-
vehicles ;, 1 pass by 1 driven
Collection
Used
New`'
Used
Used/recondtioned
Vehicles
(.1990 or newer)
-Carts
New and used
New
New
New
Pros /Cons
Pros ,Collection of all
Pros Split- body truck-reduces
Pros Collection of
Pros One driver
containers can occur at
traffic loading on streets arid.
containers can occur at'
serves each house
same time of :day
increases safety in residential areas
same time of day:
and "knows"
Cons Used vehicles may
due to fewer passes; new vehicles:
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 balancing
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
higher breakage rate
leaks.
may be more prone
to fluid leaks. -.
Hilton Farnkopf F_ Hobson, LLC°
Page 31
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma '
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procure mentProcess
Attachment l (cont.) -Commercial Collection Method .
l Routin
EW- M.
GWR
Norcal
North.Bay
g -
Scenarios 1 - 3'
Scenario .1 :. Standard
Standard
Standard ;-
Approach
Standard –
Scenarios 2 –4 Wet /dry
�= _
Scenario - ,4 - - .-- Wet/dry
•.method
method
Collection
Front loaders _Used
New
Front loaders Used
Refurbished (1990 -or
Vehicles
(average- _ manufacture
(average manufacture
newer)
date 1999)
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 ELC- Page 32
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma,
August 23 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Attachment I. (cunt.) Vehicle Yard and Office
[Vehicle,
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Yard
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa:
In Petaluma.or just
Santa Rosa
W and Office
_
outside .City limits
ternafivet Santa
_ =
Rosa)° .
Facility Status
Existing
Existing
Propose to, develop new
'Existing; but propose
-
facility
to develop new -facil ty
by 2005
Pros /Cons
Pros Existing, permit ted
Pros Existing, permitted
Pros Least collection
Pros - Existing,
facility. Sarre. "site as
facility., _Hauling
vehicle off- route
permitted facility
currently used.
arrangements similar to
hauling. -
Com - As compared to
Cons As compared to site
current situation..
Cons Proposer has not,
site 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, permit
drive time to and from
from site each ,day
vehicle drive time to and
and, capital
site each, day
from" site ,e_ ach. day
improvements; proposer .
may select site located
elsewhere (i.e., in Santa
Rosa).
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, .LLC Page 33
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August 23,2004 City Council Meeting Franchise- Procurement Process
Attach =merit 1 (cont.) — Disposal Site Facilities
*Company is willing to usealternative landfill selected by the City.
` Hilton Farnkopf £Hobson, LLC .
Page 34
EWIvI `
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Disposal Site
Scenario 1 Central
Scenario 1 Central
Scenarios 1 —.4 Central
Scenario 1 : Central
Landfill -
Landfill*
Landfill*
Landfill*
S'cenarios..l = 4 - . , Central or
Scenarios 2. — 4 .. Tottero .
Redwood.Landfill
Hills Landfill
Per:-Ton
Central 'Landfi�ll. $70
Central Landfill: $70'
Central.' Landfill. $70
Central Landfill: $70
Tipping Fee
Redwood, Landfill': $36.87 .
-Potrero Hills Landfill
(4417- Jess $7.5.0: franchise -
_-
less.than $20
fee rebate)
Pros /Cons -
Pros Low cost compared
Pros Low cost
Pros City commitment
Pros City
to Central;, Redwood: F
Cons -Long haul to
to JPA; close City
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 fo Potrero L•F),
fiiture costs, particularly
uncertainty related to
departure from JPA and
LF is: out ofeounty, thus
given current landfill
future costs
City- provision;of (and
may- require departure
proble ms
par feularly.gven .
payment.for) services -
from JPA and. City
current landfill
currently handled by JPA
provision of (and payment .
problems
_
for) services currently
handled by JPA
*Company is willing to usealternative landfill selected by the City.
` Hilton Farnkopf £Hobson, LLC .
Page 34
Evaluation Report City of Petalum
August.23, 200'4- City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process _
Attachment 1 (cont.) Recyclables Processing Facilities,
-
EW'M
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Recyclable
EWM facility in Santa
Global Materials
Scenario 1, : California
Proposed new North
1Vlate_rials, _
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
processmgfacilityin
proposal to, acqui e,site - `
Santa, Rosa,, untilnew
elsewhere in County.
facility complete..
Per -Ton Net:
($30)
$5 residential materials
($7.65) residential mtls;
($33)
Cost (Revenue) :
$50 commercial - dry mtls
($ 39.60) .commercial mtls
Pros /Cons
Pros Existing permitted
Pros Existing, permitted '
Pros Minimal collection
Pros New state- of7the -,_
facilit y. y
facility,:.
vehicle off--route hauling; .
art facility;, site selected
Cons Additional
Cons Additional -
propose new state -o "f -the
Cons Use, p ermit and`
collection vehicle drive.
collection vehicle driver
art . facility ..
capital improvements
::from site
time to, and
time to and.Trom 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 td-
consuming to secure; may
site in City_ .
select site elsewhere; long
haul to recycling facility
compared to others
Evaluation Resort City of Walun a
August 23,2004 City'Councit Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Attachme 1 (cont) - Organics Processing Facilities
"
EWM
GWR
Norcal
N,orth'Bay
Pro posed.Orgari
Propose EWM -s Redwood
GWR's affiliate's =Z- Best
Norcal's Jepson- Praire.
Not applicable
-
Materials
Facilit - in Novato sub''ect to -
Y J
Facility in, Gilroy via transfer
y Y `
Facility near - Vacaville
(North Bay did
Processing and
permit approval;=alternati�e
of materials; at Industrial
=
not.propose:.
Composting Site
GWR's affiliate_'s, Z -Best
Carting;'s Sarita Rosa
Scenarios 2 4)
(Scenarios 2 — 4)
Facility in' Gilroy via transfer
,facility, 1N,ote Proposing
of materials at EWM's .
to compost solid`waste
Redwood facility in Novato
organic waste: _
Tipping Fee.
Separate costs not - included
$42 per fon
$35 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..- e
operational; proven track
-
track record of£composting .
Cons Solid waste
record for yard and food
yard -waste and food waste .
composting been
waste composting _
Cons Long that
problematic in some
Conn Long haul that
contributes to Bay' Area'
applications; transfer at
contributes o Bay Area
traffic arid. air emissions.
Industrial Carting -'s site
traffic and air emissions:
requires regulatory approval;
long haul that contributes to
Bay: Area_traffic and air
emissions.
*Scenario 2 4 information presented in table. For Scenario 1, all yard waste processing to occur at Central - Landfill at
$31 per ton.
W Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC - Page 36
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma S
August 23,-2004 City Council, Meeting __ Franchise ProcurementProcess
Attachment _l ( cont.) - Personnel, Routes, and Route Hours*
l
EWM:
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
Average
Personnel
Route Personnel.
18.6
180
24,0
15.0
17.9`
Other Personnel
7.8,
'
14.0
7.5
1.0
Total Personnel .
26:4
28.9"
22.5.
18.9
Number of Routes
18. 60
19:50
.22.47
16.21
19.19
Route Hours per Year _
3KOS
40,560
46,688
33,696
319,908
Evaluation Resort Ctj of Petaluma
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process-
Attachment 1 (cunt.) Vehicle Impact Analysis (Miles per Year)
Notes: Analysis does not reflect mileage associated with hauling recyclable or compost materials to
market. Assumes City centrod is the intersection of E. Washington Street and Ellis Street.
Hilton Farnkopf £ Hobson, LLC Page 38
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
.Average
Residential Route Miles
32,448
21,,632 (Seen 1)
1.0,916 (Seen 4)
32448
32,448
29,744
Residential,and- Commercial Noin -Route Miles
Scenario 1: _ -
144,003
" 151, 77 .9
116
1'74790,
;
146,7 =9.6
Scenario 2':
195,517
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Scenario. 3:
200,715
Not'applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Scenario-4:
201,3;14
295;242
103,897
Not applicable
200,1;51
Notes: Analysis does not reflect mileage associated with hauling recyclable or compost materials to
market. Assumes City centrod is the intersection of E. Washington Street and Ellis Street.
Hilton Farnkopf £ Hobson, LLC Page 38
Evaluatio Report City o {Petaluma; ` '
August 23,.2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
_ Attachment l '(cont.) - Proposed Service Enhancements
0
EWM
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)
Early implementation of -single- stream collection and weekly yard waste
GYM
Expanded list of recyclable materials (small scrap and cast aluminum;
small scrap metal; textiles; batteries polystyrene)
Norcal
Expanded list of recyclables materials for Scenarios 2 — 4 (textile.s; scrap
metal; all plastic including. film and polystyrene)
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC Page 39
0
North.. my
Annual '$300;000 contribution; to City for use in funding: civic goals
..
A ; tional franchise fees. of approximately. $13`2,000 annually from recyclab_ les
dd
revenues, and= portable toilet business
Free collection for.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 (p
rocessed at Central Landfill
Street sweeping at municipal events
Free commercial , recycling (depending on the rate structure selected) .
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)
- Accept TVs and CRTs for a fee at -their existing buy -back and drop -off facility,
at 2.543 Petaluma Blvd. South, and. during annual drop -off event for *a fee
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson,
•
August 23, 2004 City Council; Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Attachment 1 (coat.) - Proposed Service Enhancements
Page 40
Evaluation Report City of Petaluma
August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting Franchise Procurement Process
Attachment 2 = Exceptions to Franchise Agreement _
EWM
GWR
Norcal
North Bay
• Depreciation period less than
• Lien process to
• Compensation for actual
See note below
10 years; additional capital
established;for delinquent
costs ;plus a 10 % rate of
expenditures (not included in
accounts or right to
return i'n Rate Periods One
cost proposal)- during term to
terminate service
.- and Two. _
replace used equipment:
• Set rates annually based on
o_ Net recycling revenues (:e.,
actual costs and operating
gross revenues less processing
ratio
costs) are "below the line. "' so
State diversion calculation
revenues do not reduce profit
methodology
Proposed Rate Period Two
• Diversion, certification, and
costsaubject to adjustment to
reporting-for
reflect growth.
collecting C &D', commercial
No market test of rates
recyclables, and materials
_
• No guarantee for- 60 6 /b•or 706/o
from public schools
diversion level
• Net,recyclirig revenues (i.e.,
rights
Scenario 4: Exclusive r
_
gross -revenues less
for all materials (including
processing costs) are "below
C &D), or City, to. establish
the I* so revenues do not
-
comparable diversion
reduce profit
benchmark =for haulers
• Lien process established or
collecting C &D and
eliminate cap on bad debt
commercial recyclables
• No market test of rates
Additional ekceptions to franchise agreement, which have been made by.some companies and appear to be
negotiab items, are not shown here. .
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC ) Page 41
Hilton Famkon.f Hobson. LLC
,