Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01/18/20051 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 January 18, 2005 p,LU. a City of Petaluma, California �.s MEETING OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL 18�a City Council Minutes Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. Special Meeting TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Vol. 40, Page 373 Present: Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt Absent: Canevaro ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION.- 6:02 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT -None. CLOSED SESSION • CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code §54956(a)) (1) Bramblett vs. Petaluma ( Sonoma County Superior'Court Case #MCV174982) (2) Thompson vs. Petaluma (U.S. District Court, Northern California, Case #CO3-0033EDL) • CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL. COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(b)) (one matter) • PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Government Code §54957(e): City Manager. • CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator: Michael Bierman/ Unrepresented Employees- Unit 8. ADJOURN TO EVENING SESSION CALL TO ORDER -7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt B. Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member O'Brien C. Moment of.Silence REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS; -TAKEN-- None. Vol. 40, Page 374 PUBLIC COMMENT - None COUNCIL COMMENT January 18, 2005 Mayor Glass mentioned the "Lend a Hand'to Education" event to be held January 29, 2005 sponsored by Petaluma Valley Rotary. Council Member Torliatt asked to adjourn the meeting in memory of Sharon White. CITY MANAGER'COMMENT - None. AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS, (Changes to current agenda only) - None. 1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Resolution 2005-012 WC.S. Selecting Norcal Waste Systems„ Inc. for Solid Waste, Recycling, and, Yard Waste Collection Services, and .Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Final Franchise Agreement with the Selected Contractor. City Manager Bierman introduced the Staff Report. He said over the last several months, the choice .had been narrowed to three good companies. He explained these proposals had ,been reviewed and negotiations had brought these before Council with the recommendation to contract with Empire Waste Management for ten years With an option to extend for a period not to exceed three additional. years. He introduced the consultant firm of Hilton, Farnkopf, and Hobson. Tracy Swonborne, Hilton, Farnkopf, and Hobson, stated the,company had been Working to getthe best and final offers from the. companies. She presented. the comparison of costs, rate impact, equipment, collection methods, dnd facilities the companies proposed to Use and, provided a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each. She reviewed the changes to the collection services and the improvements it would provide to customers such as single -stream recycling, weekly yard waste pick up, and more litter cans in the downtown area. She said in the winter, weekly residential street sweeping, would be performed and downtown would receive ,"additional "street sweeping/washing in parking lots. She gave a comparison for each of the company's° diversion, recycling, costs, 'street sweeping,' special event coverage, transition impacts, landfills, alternative fuel, facilities, methods, and associated' compliance costs. She presented the -schedule to negotiate the final franchise agreement to be executed in early March 2005 to allow the contractor to begin service in July 2005. COUNCIL COMMENT Council Member Torliatt, asked if Waste Managernent'was going to use,its existing .collection vehicles initially with the plan to replace these by year six of the contract; if this would comply with the California Air Resources Board's regulations; and what type of. vehicle was being proposed' .to replace the current"fleet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 January 18, 2005. Vol. 40, Page 375 Ms. Swanborne replied that Waste Management would be required by the franchise agreement to comply with the California Air Resources Board's requirements She said over time, the trucks would be retrofitted or new equipment purchased. She could not give specifics beyond what was in the staff report. Council, Member Torliaft asked about Waste Management wanting to be the exclusive commercial recycler from a debris -box standpoint and commercial recycling. Ms. Swanborne explained that Waste, Management's original proposal of a 70% diversion scenario included the requirement that the City give them exclusive rights to the C&D and commercial recyclables. She said under the 50% and 60% scenario presented they were not requiring the exclusive rights to the C&D and commercial recyclables. She said they had asked that the diversion accomplished by the independent companies be counted toward their diversion figures as did other companies in their proposals. She said the City would ' have to establish a permitting and regulatory system to monitor the tonnage collected by the independent parties. Council Member Torliatt asked about the reference to a "Staff Pay Station" in the report. Ms. Swanborne explained this was a minor exception to the contract from the original RFP that asked for a pay station in the City where a Waste Management employee would be available all day to accept payments from customers. She said Waste Management did not want to assume this cost and would work with a bank or other location .to, fill this requirement. Council Member Torlidtt asked if there were charges proposed for commercial recycling for cardboard for the single -stream since currently they are able to charge for the bins for cardboard. She also asked if single -stream would be free to commercial users. Ms. Swanborneansweredthat at this point the companies had proposed their cost for providing all of the collection services. She said, working with the Council, they will take. the cost and develop a rate structure to meet their goals and, objectives. She added . that Council could decide to include recycling services at no charge to the commercial businesses or levy a charge equal to perhaps half .of the solid waste charge. She said the companies: did not propose rates but an annual cost for providing the service. Council Member Torliatt asked if the next'step would bring Council a rate structure proposal. Ms. Swanborne replied that when Council selects the contractor, the rates would be "hammered out" and brought back to Council for approval. Vol. 40, Page 376 January 18, 2005 Council Member Torliatt said she wanted to do some pricing that incentivizes recycling. Council Member Healy thanked the consultant for having the debris box service included in; a 'non-exclusive franchise. He wanted to know if a discussion would be held about the non-exclusive agreements and what landfills would be authorized for these materials. r. Ms. Swanborne said yes., this would be addressed. She stated the plan was to establish a diversion requirement "in the non-exclusive 'franchise agreement that would require a minimum of 50% diversion of construction and demolition debris materials and address processing and landfill facilities .as well. Council, Member Healy clarified that non=exclusive did not mean only construction debris. Ms. Swanborne explained that. it would include commercial recyclables with a higher diversion guarantee required up towards 90%. Council Member Canevaro asked about the 35 gallon rates. Ms. Swanborne said currently it was $8:76: She explained with the. 3.81,70 increase to cover the Joint Powers Agreement under Waste Management, with 60% diversion, it would be $9-.09. Mayor Glass agreed' with Council Member Torliatt's concern .about encouraging (consumers to recycle more so they could use a smaller can that would result in a rate decrease. Council Member. Canevaro asked if the street sweeping was to be on the table for the dg'reement across'the board. Ms. Swanborne said yes. She explained. this was included in all three proposals with the costs and improvements to the service. Council Member .Torliatt pointed out. that. there was a 3.8% decrease in the rates -because trash was being taken to Redwood Landfill. City Manager Bierman said this was correct because the City withdrew from the. JPA issues and began using Redwood Landfill.. He explained this reduced, the costs to the consumer, and when added back in, the rate was where. consumers would have beenone year ago. Council Member. Torliatt said this is what she wanted to point out because the article in the newspaper only mentioned the .3.8% increase. She wanted citizens to understand this created a wash in their garbage rates and this would not actually be increase because of this. Council Member 'O'Brien cited . a report on Bay Area rates from December. He said the standard in the report was a 32 -gallon can and January 18, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 377 1 the computations provided were for a 62 -gallon can - he wanted to 2 know why. 3 4 Ms. Swanborne stated this was done because 56% of Petaluma citizens 5 subscribe to the 60 -gallon service. She said this was high since most 6 communities use the 35 -gallon service. She said she could calculate the 7 rate on the 35 -gallon. service. 8 9 Council Member O'Brien said he had wanted to see the cost differences 10 comparing if the proposer used a local facility compared to if they didn't 11 have one. 12 13 Ms. Swanborne .said Norcal had estimated $2 million additional based on 14 70% or $.5 million in the 56% diversion on an annual basis to construct a 15 facility. 16 17 Council Member O'Brien clarified this would add the same amount to the 18 other proposals'if they had a local facility; he did not consider Santa Rosa 19 as local. 20 21 Ms. Swanborne said the Council could roughly estimate these costs. 22 23 Vice Mayor Harris asked about the street sweeping enhancements. 24 25 Ms. ..Swanborne answered that all companies proposed weekly street 26 sweeping from November to February; with Waste Management 27 proposing 52 weeks. 28 29 Council Member Nau asked if Empire Waste went to 70% diversion, what 30 the cost would be. 31 32 Ms. Swanborne said that Empire Waste was not comfortable in providing a 33 cost at- this time. She said they would need to develop additional facilities 34 to accomplish this. 35 36 PUBLIC COMMENT 37 38 Ernie Carpenter, Industrial Carting - Commented ,on keeping the 39 commercial market open and saw support from Council for this. He said 40 his issue was that when negotiations take place he hoped it would not 41 affect this. 42 43 John Legnitto, Norcal Waste Systems - Said he had various reasons why 44 Norcal should be the City's next provider. He said Norcal was an industry. 45 leader with long-term sustainability. He explained its food scrap program 46 had become a favorite and others in the industry were looking at this. He 47 explained about the quality compost materials his company produced. 48 He said Norcal had dedicated people to manage and service the 49 contract and recycling. He said the facilities would be in Petaluma and 50 would provide independence from landfills._ He stated Norcal would 51 provide efficient methods of transfer. He focused on the 32 -gallon can 52 and reminded Council that over half of Petaluma uses a 64 -gallon can or Vol. 40, Page 378 January 18, 2005 greater. He said Norcal would ,meet with every neighborhood to explain" the advantage of the smaller can. He said the rate was about $12.09 for this size and they would provide 1he'large5't recycling can, necessary to achieve maximum recycling; He said customers using the large 90 -gallon could go to,a 64 -gallon to save money. He explained there was also a 20 - gallon can and Norcal's idea was to change the culture to recycling and reducing capacity -will make this smaller can more popular. He explained this was done because they did not own ,the landfills and the company was' paid to recycle. He said in San Francisco over '80% of the customers, were using the 32 -gallon cans and • in Marin County, 657.3770% of households use the smaller can. He said those who ,do not recycle will pay more under Norcal. He said this reduction would be accomplished by making; recycling easy, by formidable outre.agh programs, and individual, education done neighborhood by neighborhood to implement -the program. He said Norcal was 33% below the Bay Area average rate on the 32 -gallon can'with the average being $17.92. He said the fees that will be assessed to bring trash to Marin County will create a financial hardship without independence from the landfills. He: assured the Council .that City residents would be able reduce their service can size to save and Norcal would do this through recycling-. Michael Gross, Green Waste Recovery _ Said he agreed with a lot of Norcal's statements regarding taking 'community :involvement to use smaller cans and this is what Green Waste .would do, as well, He said. in. their service area, 80% of the, customers use a 30 -gallon can. He explained how they were going" to reach the 70% recycling level by getting customers. to use smaller cans. He said commercial recycling rates of 70% would require businesses" to recycle not by charging more, but by providing co -mingling recycling at no charge. He pointed out that Green Waste would have all new equipment, containers, bins, and single -pass trucks. He said the4 increased truck traffic to Gilroy would amount "fo .four trucks a day and, importantly, these trucks would return with compost and therefore would not add unusual impacts to the City's streets. He said the 70% recycling would be materials collected by Green .Waste and recycled by Green Waste and di`d not. include outside recyclers or buy- back centers. He said .they did not'want to bother with 50% and wanted to go right to 70%. He said it had been a" "fun" threeyears,, and on behalf' of everyone, "make a decision today." Jim Landa, Waste Management - Said' his company was a recycler too and had worked a long time to establish recycling in the communities in Sonoma "County. He mentioned 5-6 years ago the company offered a 20 - gallon can size that they, had- to manufacture themselves. He 'said the company is innovative and with single stream- recycling the can size in Petaluma could be reduced. PUBLIC COMMENT Jane Hamilton, Petaluma - Asked if staff was recommending a slightly improved service after all this effort. She said the intent was to get greater diversion and keep rates down. She said now she heard the most important thing was to keep the rates- down.:She said' producing garbage January 18, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 379 1 should not be cheap, .it should be expensive. She said the customer had a 2 lot of control and she advocated for the 70%.recycling rate. She stated 3 Green Waste looked like an excellent company with a clean proposal. 4 She pointed out the difference of 10% in recycling would be a bag of 5 garbage from each of the 20,000 households in Petaluma and over the 10 6 year contract would amount to 10 million bags of garbage that would.not 7 be diverted. She asked for a systemic change and Green Waste was in 8 the recycling business, not the landfill business. She felt there would be a 9 way to protect people who needed protection and represent the highest 10 values for the community at the some time. She said the rate structure 11 could be worked on and people were using the 60 -gallon can because 12 they had not known or taken the effort to recycle and this could be 13 changed. She didn't feel the additional $3/month would be 14 objectionable if the customer knew Petaluma was doing something 15 significant. 16 17 Ken Oku, Operating Engineers Local #3, District 1 San Francisco - Said his 18 organization represented approximately 1,500 members from Petaluma 19 to Palo Alto. He was speaking on behalf of Norcal Waste with whom his 20 organization had over a 30 -year relationship. He said Norcal provided a 21 good work environment with decent wages, full health and retirement 22 benefits. He said Norcal had demonstrated its commitment to recycling 23 in San Francisco with over 63% rate of diversion. He said Norcal invests in 24 newer, cleaner technology such as converting older diesel trucks to 25 liquefied natural gas (LNG) and they had added more efficient sorting 26 and processing equipment. He said Norcal had a proven track .record 27 with good customer service, utilized new technology to improve its 28 services to the communities they served and provided a safe work 29 environment. He urged Council to award Norcal the garbage contract. 30 31 Council Member Keith Canevaro asked for an explanation regarding 32 labor negotiations. 33 34 Mr. Oku replied that this was not in his district. 35 36 Alan Siegle, Sonoma Compost - Said he was one of the owners of the 37 Sonoma Compost operators of the County's Regional Yard Waste 38 Composting Program. He wanted the Council -to consider their award 39 winning compost program they had participated in for the last twelve 40 years before shifting to Redwood Landfill. He said many Petaluma 41 residents used the compost and he encouraged the Council to work with 42 the selected contractor to keep the green waste in the Sonoma Compost 43 Program in Petaluma. 44 45 Council Member Torliatt clarified' that this would be part of the Joint 46 Powers Agreement (JPA) that the City would normally pay for. 47 48 Mr. Siegle replied that he didn't think it would be part of what the 49 consultant mentioned in the terms of the JPA services and only referred to 50 the household hazardous waste component. 51 Vol. 40, Page 380 January 18, 2005 -Council Member Torliatt said this may be a question for staff, but she thought the $3.58 included this sort of composting. City Manager Bierman. explained the composting for $31 /ton at the Central'Landfill was not in effect because the City was no longer taking anything to the: Central Landfill. Council Member Torliatt said. she understood this but Council had said. it wanted to participate in what the JPA did provide, which she thought included the wood chipping and compost production. City Manager .Bierman answered, "No," stating they were a separate organization,working out of the 'Central Landfill and the JPA did several things, but -this was not one of them. Mr. Siegle explained the $3.58 had nothing to do with the composting program. He asked the Council to visit -all the composting facilities before_ they make their decision for -disposal of green waste. Janice Cader-Thompson, Petaluma - She said it was important as people see the expansion of thelandfill, in Novato to understand why diversion is so important and she felt the 70% was very important. She said this landfill was near the marsh and reducing the amount of waste going to the landfill was in the best interest of the community..She wanted the whole County to follow through with at least -a 70% diversion. She agreed with keeping the commercial carting open and bringing compost into the County was, important. She said with Petaluma's street maintenance issues, having one truck picking up the trash -was important. Gary Liss, Gary Liss L Associates, .Loomis, California - He said he was speaking on behalf of Industrial Carting as a "Zero Waste" consultant. He mentioned AB939 that addressed the landfill capacity problem ,by requiring cities and counties to reduce their waste and create diversion methods to save space in the landfills. He said there was no longer a capacity 'problem in California, but now, there was a liability from leaks, toxics, closure costs, post closure costs, and system costs that had not been quantified. He -said he' would quantify these costs, and the impact they would. have on the. Council's decision. He said the basic premise was, "costs do not go away," they are simply moved around. He said;:if' the Council awarded the contract to Empire Waste Management' and, selected to remain in the JPA, he estimated the difference in disposal costs compared to, going to, Redwood. Landfill would add another $7-$9 million to the bid which would make Empire Waste the some price: as Green Waste Recovery but with only a 60% diversion rate. He added, if the City did not remain in the JPA, significant costs would occur that were not quantified in the staff report, He said the $250,'Ob0 per year for programs such as Household Hazardous'Waste, education,, and reporting over 10 years would amount to. $2.5 million and this was not quantified'in the staff report. He noted a phrase in Section 4 - Financial Analysis, saying "theremay be additional costs for other things." He said he talked to the County Public Works Director and the Deputy regarding these "other things" such as closure, post_closure costs,- and system costs which he January 18, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 381 1 estimated would be $2.5 to $5 million dollars. He added that the County 2 was considering legal action to encourage cities to stay within the JPA, so 3 there would' 'be a cost for defense against this legal action and he 4 estimated it would amount to about $500,000. He said the total cost if the 5 City opts -out of the JPA brought the cost proposals for Empire Waste 6 Management and Green'Wdste Recovery into a very similar rate, with less 7 than a dollar per household per month difference between the proposals 8 but one was for 60% and the other 70% diversion. He said if the Council 9 awarded to Green Waste Recovery, the 70% diversion would be obtained 10 to satisfy the Council's top priority and would start immediately. He said in 11 Portola Valley and Woodside the diversion rate was about 80%. He said 12 this would decrease the long term landfill liability, would provide new 13 trucks, and one-third the number of trucks on. residential streets. He said 14 the clear choice was for Green Waste with an immediate 70% diversion 15 and lower long term costs'versus Empire Waste's questionable lower short 16 term costs. 17 18 Kathleen Inman, Inman Family Wines and Olivet Grange Vineyards, 19 Healdsburg -- She said this was an opportunity for Petaluma .to show the 20 rest of Sonoma County how important recycling was. She said she 21 purchased the Four -Course Compost that Norcal Waste produced from 22 the San Francisco food scraps program. She spoke highly of this proven 23 product and appreciated the" technology that made it useful. She also 24 supported Norcal as an employee -owned company. 25 26 Remi Cohen, Manager, Bouchaine Vineyards, Napa - She stated that her 27 company had been using Norcal for several, years and was very pleased 28 with the results. She said it had enhanced vine uniformity, productivity and 29 soil fertility and, had helped eliminate the need for synthetic 30 pesticides/fertilizers. 'She said she was comfortable using food scraps only 31 and not solid waste to avoid toxicity and hazards to the environment. She 32 commended Norcal for its program in San Francisco that had made them 33 a national leader in recycling and diversion. She added that Norcal was 34 very involved in the community and educated all levels of consumers 35 from schools, community-, and vineyard growers about the benefits of 36 recycling and the use of compost. 37 38 Linda Hale, Madrone Vineyards Management, Sonoma - She mentioned. 39 the benefits of using the Four -Course Compost and recycling program 40 that promotes this product. She said as,a grower they had to look at ways 41 to market their product and .through Norcal's San Francisco program, as 42 they use- the product, the wineries are selling the product back to the 43 restaurants that provided the food scraps. She said this brings the dollars 44 back to the community and would help growers in Petaluma. 45 46 Robert McIntosh, President, Wine 'Country Soils, Petaluma - He said his 47 company' sells blended topsoil' and soil amendments. He stated he had 48 used, many types of compost and several years ago he was introduced to 49 food waste compost. He said the compost from Norcal Waste was of 50 consistent quality,_Would be brought back to Sonoma .County and he uses 51 it exclusively. He said he observed that Norcal was committed to 52 improvement and continued to look for new applications for recycled Vol. 40, Page 382 January. 18, 2005 materials and compost- .by-products. He said that to him, recycling is finding the market for the products they produce. David Yearsley, Petaluma River Keeper - He said he spoke for the Petaluma River, the wildlife, and the wetlands. He wanted to support the Council's foresight in demanding a higher percentage of diversion and recycling. He wanted this. to continue in their decision and make it part of the conditions for the :contract. He asked that whatever provider -was chosen, to not use the Redwood Landfill as the disposal site. He said the Central Landfill .had •problems and they needed to be .solved and he wanted Petaluma's garbage to stay in Sonoma County. He gave reasons for not ,using Redwood Landfill including its expansion plans that endangered the Petaluma Marsh. He said. it was important to be re.rpinded of this and get post the old concept of dumping trash in the nearest ditch or swamp. He said -the City should take charge of its own waste and prevent it from becoming the City's neighbor's problem: He showed a map of°the Petaluma River, City, and Petaluma Marsh showing the area of expansion of nearly ,50% would create a 160. foot high landfill that would impact the marsh. He asked how many had toured Redwood Landfill from the River and how much wildlife was seen. He stated he was heartsick at the reduction of wildlife in the Petaluma Marsh and. part of this Was because of Waste Management's policy to use bird abatement practices._ He said he looked forward; to the higher diversion rate, single - stream recycling, and,he urged Council to stay within the JPA. Randy Crutcher, Petaluma River Keeper, Friend's of Tolay Lake Park - Mentioned , school children, at Cherry Valley School who had the opportunity of, receiving education that included reducing, reusing, and recycling with sustainability concepts .incorporated. He said he knew th-e children were trained, in, these concepts -and they expected this to be their world and families and. adults in .positions of power were expected .to make the, best decisions. He asked that Council choose the company that achieved the highest ,rate of diversion and recognize the Redwood Landfill was, placed in a sensitive wetland area.. He said the children expected the highest rate of diversion to make the most difference on this planet and' their lives. He said it was an impressive move by Council to create a world-renowned waste water treatment pldnt and he wanted to have the manner in which waste is handled be part of this vision. Larry . Kay, Petaluma - Said he used the -smallest can available for his family of four and- food scraps for his own garden. He said he felt he was going to be penalized by taking his compost and selling 'it. He said he was, happy with the system be had and he appreciated the single stream. Stan Gold, Petaiuma - His concern was about the .integrity of.the process. He referred. to campaign finances cluring the last campaign .noting that three of the candidates accepted funding from the�various companies knowing that they would be meeting, to make d decision on this contract. He said, two realized there was -an appearance of a conflict and stated they would return the funding:,. He appealed to the winning candidate. who kept the funding to recuse himself from the deliberations and voting. January_18, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 383 1 Greg Gunholm, Operating Engineers - Referred to a question Council 2 Member Canevaro had raised and he felt he could clarify. 3 4 Council Member Canevaro said he wanted both sides to have a chance 5 to respond for clarification. 6 7 Council Member Torliatt added that she wanted to know from both 8 perspectives the status of negotiations between the Operating Engineers 9 and Waste Management. She also wanted to know if they would 10 anticipate coming to a conclusion any time soon and what problems 11 they might have. 12 13 Mr. Gunholm responded by showing the flyer used as a method to raise 14 community and company awareness of the determination and resolve of 15 the "workers to organize and form a union. He said that in the past two 16 years they had met more than a dozen times and would like to meet 17 more often. He said there had been 10-12 terminations of union supporters 18 during this time. He said they chose to pursue this because they had been 19 protesting some of the unfair labor practices with 60-70 charges filed 20 against them. He stated .they would shut down work and demonstrate in 21 front of the• employer, and while they did this, they would continue to 22 make unfair .labor practice charges and the protest continued until the 23 workers were locked out. He said in fear of being locked out again they 24 went, to another method of raising public awareness to what was 25 happening. He said before Christmas they began doing this in their 26 service areas. He said one unfair action was the circulation of a 27 decertification petition to try to bust the union on company time and 28 property. He said they were hoping to get their differences resolved and a 29 meeting was scheduled in February. He said one issue was a pension issue 30 based on total hours worked '-which is 50 - 60 hours a week, but the 31 company wanted to pay for •40 hours. He said they were looking for 32 "justice for all." 33 34 Council Member Torliatt • wanted to hear what Waste Management's 35 position was on this because the Labor 'issue was of concern to her in 36 awarding the contract. 37 38 Mr. Gunholm said he hoped the Council would wait until there was a 39 labor contract in place. 40 41 Mr. Lando, Empire Waste Management'- Responded by stating that the 42 company also cared about its employees. He said they had been 43 negotiating 'in ,good faith and,would continue to do so. He said that they 44 could not'run the company,withouf the drivers and they wanted the issues 45 resolved to move forward.'He added that the employees are currently 46 among the highest paid in the industry and ma-'ke on an average $60,000 - 47 $70,000 per year; plus overtime. 48 49 Council Member Torliatt commented that if the Council moves forward 50 tonight, the contract should be contingent upon having the negotiations 51 settled. She wanted the Council to consider this if Waste Management 52 was chosen. - Vol. 40, Page 384 January 18, 2005 COUNCIL .COMMENT Mayor Glass thanked the proposers and the public saying he appreciated the demeanor during the evening's discussion. He stated they were quality companies and the City would benefit from the process regardless of the direction .of the City Council. He said the process would benefit from the participants. He felt it was a shame for .those that walked away without a contract because they were quality companies with wonderful products. He said he, Council Members Torliatt and O.'Brien had visited the facilities and that tonight would be -a .hard night in view of the commitment the - companies had made. in pursuing this 'contract. He stated they are. not "garbage companies, they are recyclers" and innovations happening at their places of business were phenomenal. He said he regretted that, asr Mayor, he was not able to communicate the differences of what was happening in 'their industry. He said it wasn't what happened to the product when it goes out to the curb and disappears' but what happens when it reaches the curb and goes on from there. Ms. Swahborne answering Council Member O'Brien's question regarding rates for the various can sizes reported the following: 35, Gallon Rates - 50% Diversion Empire Waste Management - $8.92. Green Waste Recovery - $10.67 Norcal - $12.42 She said the current 35 gallon rate was $8.76. She added this would include all the contractor's costs,, plus the 3.8% increase related to the $250,000 of the JPA program, cost that included household hazardous waste, AB939 reporting, and public education and outreach. Mayor Glass mentioned, than currently 56%n of Petaluma's residential customers used the 60 -gallon size. He wanted to know what the current rate was for this can size; he .was advised it was $1.5.33. He said with greater diversion, the resident could go to Green Waste with a 70% diversion rate and 567o of,the residents could lower their cost to $11.20 for the smaller can size. Council Member Healy asked if all proposers offered approximately the same size can; he was, advised yes, give or take a. gallon or two. He said older people may not feel,comfortable using a 35 -gallon and asked if an intermediate -can could be offered. Ms. Swanborne said this could be an alternative but it was not an industry custom. She said customers may need -a few months to realize the additional capacity with the weekly °yard waste and single stream recycling. She said in most communities over half, the customers, used the 35 -gallon can. January 18, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 385 1 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Lando of Waste Management about 2 Redwood Landfill's tipping fee and if this would include Marin JPA costs. 3 4 Mr. Landa, Empire Waste, answered that the fee being charged to the 5 City included the fee paid to Marin County that Waste Management 6 collected for Marin County for their JPA. 7 8 Council Member Healy asked if there would be an opportunity for some 9 of the tipping fee to be used for JPA -type programs for Petaluma, and 10 therefore, the 3.8% figure,wasa worst case scenario. 11 12 Mr. Landa said the 3.8% was a worst case scenario. He said they had 13 contacted Marin County but had not received a response as of yet. 14 15 Council Member Healy clarified that one of the things Waste 16 Management added was indemnity to the City for any post -closure 17 remediation at Redwood Landfill. 18 19 Mr. Landa said absolutely; it would come with full indemnification for the 20 landfill. 21' 22 Council Member Healy asked if the implementation of biodiesel could be 23 discussed later and Mr. Landa said it could. 24 25 Council Member Nau asked Mr. Landa of Waste Management why they 26 did not offer a 70% diversion rate. 27 28 Mr. Landa said they did reply to the 70% diversion, but during negotiations 29 for the best and final price, they looked at the highest diversion for the 30 best price. He said 60% was not a. mandate but this could be achieved for 31 the current rate and this is what they focused on. He said moving to the 32 70% would require building a facility and additional costs. He said the City 33 was advised they would work this out if this is what the City wanted. 34 35 Council.Member Nau mentioned recycling programs that were offered in 36 the past and asked why these were not offered any longer, and why were 37 consumers not educated about the single -stream method. 38 39 Mr. Landa said they did not currently have single stream and this was 40 being negotiated now. He said they had been before Council over the 41 last four years when the RFP process carne up and they began putting 42 together a single -stream proposal for the City. He said this process was 43 cost -intensive supplying the cans and rerouting to move to higher 44 diversion. He said they only had single stream in the commercial accounts 45 and after this process they will begin further implementation. He said they 46 were educators in schools and they had visited a number of schools in 47 Petaluma. 48 49 Council Member Nau said she taught at a private school and was 50 disappointed when they did not receive a packet from Waste 51 Management, especially since this was their week to teach about 52 community helpers and recycling. She said the other companies. had Vol. 40, Page 386 great lesson, °plans stream- recycling container. January 18, 2005 and teaching aids. She.,questioned the lack of single - since she saw people dumping everything into one Mr. Landa said that in the last couple .of years their facility, had been retrofitted for single -stream recycling but ,Petaluma was the only city in Sonoma County that was single stream but this was in process. He said all the materials come- into the facility as. single stream and they are getting the routes ready to move in this direction with ,the next step to order the blue cans and distribute them. Council •Member. Nau said that as an educator, they -had shown the children .how to separate but she had told the teachers this was not necessary anymore. She said she was" very disappointed because of the lack of education for the consumer. Sadonna Cody, Public Education, Waste Management- Said she was in different communities every day of the week and she had visited about 15 schools in Petaluma. She said the requests for. individual classes, workshops for teachers, and tours of the facility were overwhelming. She apologized to _Council. Member Nau for not providing her school with a packet. She offered her services to the community. Council Member Nau said it does start'with the children and education is important. Council, Member Torliatt asked for clarification that if any school wanted the materials, would Waste Management be happy to provide these. Ms. Cody said she had packets available for all grade levels for preschool up to high school. Council Member O'Brien asked about, the trucks. He referred to a letter of January 4, 2005 that stated in order for Waste Management to be in compliance; it would involve 1,070 of .their fleet. He said the letter stated they had ordered the parts to bring the vehicles into compliance and he wanted to know if their -trucks were in currently in compliance. Mr. Landa answered it was his understanding that the vehicles were now in compliance. He explained because there was :such a demand, the manufacturer could not meet all the orders and they were held up two weeks. He said he would get confirmation. Mayor Glass polled the Council regarding the staff recommendation to proceed and direct ':the City 'Manager to negotiate the contract :for a period of ten years with a possibility of a three-year extension with Waste Management. Council Member Healy supported the staff reconimendation. He said in balancing the different issues, this was the best ,option available at this point. He said he wanted to take Mr: Gunholm's recommendations into account but he didn't think delaying the selection would be best. He did 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 January 18, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 387 note that the schedule called for negotiations of the franchise agreement over the next two months and he hoped that all parties would come to closure on the labor issues over the next 60 days. He felt this was an opportunity to substantially expand service without the possibility of any rate hike and to consider the 3.8% issue a worst'case scenario depending on how discussions with Marin County go. Council. Member Nou said she did not support staff's recommendation. She said she really wanted the 70% diversion, education, and to see Petaluma take a stand. She said she visited Gilroy and was very impressed with the. composting but she was stuck in traffic for hours and would hate to see the pollution this would generate. She stated she was very impressed with Industrial Carting and Green Waste but she supported Norcal as the "cream of the crop." She said they really would do well for the community and if they set up facilities in Petaluma, they would put money back in the community and Petaluma would be taking a stand for the environment. She said Norcal would educate and give back to the community, which was very important to her. She said with education, the rates for the smaller can along with additional recycling would not create -a large price increase. She said her garbage rates would go down because she would be helping the environment and she wanted everyone to really think about the future and what was desired for the community and how the next generation would live. She noted there were no recycling cans at the Lucchesi Center or in the parks and she was very disappointed with the recycling program. Vice Mayor Harris stated he dict not anticipate supporting staff's recommendation at this time. He said he was happy that single -stream recycling and weekly yard waste was part of every proposal. He said he compared based on cost, expansion of service levels, enhancements, and - AB939 compliance. He said it was important current compliance issues were coupled to _position the. City well for future potential compliance issues. He said he liked Waste Management's plans for weekly residential sweeping as an enhancement. He liked Norcal's on-call door-to-door pick-up of bulky items that would -help seniors, especially. He said the AB939 compliance was important for the City to "inoculate" itself against any future unfunded state mandates that might change. He felt that Norcal brought the best balance for the City's current needs, positioned the City -for any future state mandates, and its unmatched environmental achievements and protection were illustrated in the numerous articles provided. He said' considering equipment, Norcal and Green Waste would use new vehicles while. Waste Management would use its current fleet until year six. He stated it was. important to have safe vehicles as they traveled the City's streets. He said labor relations were an important issue and the edge went to Norcal because they were employee -owned and . headquartered in the Bay Area with good employee relations and employee retention plans. He gave the edge for facilities to Waste Management because they have current facilities to serve the City's immediate needs. He said Green Waste had a solution and Norcal's plans for a new facility would be intriguing to be involved in. He said it was favorable that N6rcal could locate its facility in or near Petaluma and would ultimately give Norcal the advantage. He said it Vol. 40, Page 388 January 18, 2005 looked' like Waste Management had the immediate edge but this issue had a "lot of moving parts." He said as he saw it, with single -stream recycling, and food waste recycling, it would mean less waste would be placed in the regular trash cans and this would . lower the cost to the ratepayer: He stated considering all this, he would be supporting Norcal. He said he concluded this contract would provide new trucks, new facilities, no labor relation problems, 100% employee owned, and, through education, would provide the option fora lower rate to the ratepayer. Council Member O'Brien said when the process began three years ago he thought this was a "simple issue of pick up garbage, dump, garbage, and how much." He said he had learned a lot -in the past three years, and he appreciated this as a complicated issue. He said because of this, and his research, he was not prepared to support the staff recommendation. He ,said he looked at the different services provided and Waste Management seemed unresponsive. He said they had asked for a 50%, 60% and 70% diversion and Waste Management did not respond to the 70% and. he wanted the City to reach this level. He said Council_ also asked for new vehicles and Waste Management would not have these until year six. He stated that the, labor issue was a majorproblem as- well, but the largest issue was the five-year .contract with the landfill. He said the :Council did not ask to negotiate a landfill contract and how could they know this was,the best deal available. He 'said He did not want to delay this to go "shopping"_to find lower "rates. He added that tying the City to one landfill for five years did not benefit the ratepayer.. He said Green Waste's program was interesting but on the internet he found an Ohio State study that said this method ran a very high rate of leaching heavy metals into the aquifer and.it appeared to be very water -intensive, energy -intensive, and Gilroy was too far to go. He said the consultant had pointed out the distance 'as a disadvantage for Green Waste but not for Waste Managrement'if they hauled as well. He stated in 15 - 20 years this might be the method to follow, but for now, it was not proven. He said. Norcal brought a lot � to the fable, as a recognized industry leader, employee -owned, headquartered' in San Francisco, and they have received national awards. He said talks were underway ,for ,new equipment, programs, and especially the plan to build a, facility in'- Petaluma nPetaluma where their. employees would work, and spend money inthe community that would provide sales tax money to the City, he didn't see any of the other companies offering this. He added that Norcal's, recycling innovations were newsworthy 'and ,they would get the City to the 60%-70% diversion levels necessary. Council Member C'anevaro stated, "for me, it was never just about price" and he distinctly remembered asking for the, 50%,. 60%, and 70% alternatives along with the, pricing to allow Council to consider the products and services compared to the price. He said in considering the alternatives, he believed that the citizens wanted to put as little as possible in the landfill. He said if citizens were aware of- other alternatives,. they would want Council to pursue these. He said he was looking for a company that excelled in active diversion to prevent liability issues in different landfills. He said that at one time landfill was the way to go, but now, becominglandfill independent was important. He felt that single- January 18, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 389 1 stream recycling would improve the City's recycling percentages and 2 every proposer had offered to increase recycling which meant the 3 reduction of waste in the cans. -He said he, had polled friends and co - 4 workers regarding' the pricing, and found it was palatable. He stated he 5 was willing to support Norcal: He said he liked the idea of having the 6 facility in Petaluma and -Norcal was an innovator and would be a good 7 partner in the future. 8 9 Mayor Glass clarified that there were four voiced preferences for Norcal. 10 11 Council Member Torliatt asked .Norcal what guarantee did the Council 12 have that Norcal would have a site in Petaluma; if they had a site 13 identified; and how did the Council know it was going to be in Petaluma. 14 15 Mr. Legnitto, Norcal said the company had four options for sites at present 16 and they were well positioned to do business in town. He said they had an 17 option in the short term for a piece of land for the trucks with a 18 maintenance facility..He said they were hoping to develop a ten acre 19 parcel, with a full facility if that was the Council's direction. He stated they 20 felt confident they would locate a facility in Petaluma. He said, the 21 answer was, "we intend to 'do business here," and if there was some 22 reason they couldn't, they would come to Council to report any 23 problems. 24 25 Council Member Torliatt acknowledged that all three proposers were 26 excellent companies. She stated that clearly any of the companies could 27 perform from a maintenance; .safety, and education standpoint. She said 28 she agreed that education about recycling was extremely important and 29 Norcal had a. superior education program. She said that any of the 30 proposals must have an analysis of the rate structure in the City to create 31 more of an incentive for citizens to use the smaller cans. She said if Norcal 32 was chosen, there would be more of an immediate need to do this 33 because people would ,need to change their cans immediately because 34 when looking at the difference in cost between the companies, and the 35 price of the cans, there would be a significant monthly increase with 36 Norcal.even with,:a smaller can and an immediate increase in recycling. 37 She said this would be an interesting challenge that the community would 38 face during the change -out and ;getting everyone on the some page. 39 She also said if,.was interesting, that after going out for the second RFP 40 after only having two bidders, -:it was forced on a 3 to 4 split Council vote, 41 for proposals to come back with a 50%, 60% and 70% diversion rates and 42 now to see theeresult with' a 70% diversion rate for the community was 43 a different place than they had thought they would end up from the 44 beginning of this. ,process. She said she didn't know how people would 45 swallow the '$33.69 ,for a 60 gallon can from Norcal, since this would be a 46 116% increase, but if this is what the :Council wanted, it would be a good 47 thing for community in the long term, particularly with the site located in 48 Petaluma. She said if there was going to be a location in Petaluma, she 49 wanted to pursue, that options were kept open and to give the City 50 Manager direction to allow- the green waste collected to be used at the 51 sewer treatment, or next to it, for the potential to use for methane 52 generation, to fuel the treatment facility. She said this idea came from the Vol. 40, Page 390 January 18, 2005 garbage collection process_ and; would significantly benefit the ratepayer by implementing this type of technology.- She said :she was concerned with the staff recommendation -for Waste Management considering the labor issues that had been dragging ..on for some. She said that Norcal had a very good track record with the Operating Engineers 'and that :helped in makingthis decision. Mayor Glass said he was surprised with the direction of the Council and he expected a different result. He reminded Council that they were "spending someone else's wallet:" He said the product chosen might be expensive in the short term, but it was a.quality product. He thought there was another company that offered a 70% diversion with a quality product as well: He said he liked all of the applicants and he intended to try to make the case it would be money well invested and citizens' garbage rates could decrease with the . proposal from Green Waste Recovery's immediate 70% diversion Ievel that would potentially save ratepayers in the short term. He said he had no; concerns about the quality of service but he was concerned about the public perception•, and those who would be fanning the flames of frustration in the community, about what it was the .Council was purchasing, because it was a qualify ,product: He said he also knew that after visiting Green Waste he was comfortable with their product and he was confident that if there was enough time, the ratepayer would see a rate- decrease. He thanked the companies that proposed and told Waste Management they had made a very good proposal, and the City Manager had done a great job negotiating the contract as it was'a sig nificant Jim provement at a palatable price. He said "give us the Cadillac; because! one way or the other, we are going to pay for it. { t. z Council Member Healy asked.for an official recorded vote with a member in the, majority to make the motion. Council Member Canevaro said he would make the motion to accept Norcal and direct staff .to begin negotiations. Council Member Torliaft saidsh_e was really -concerned about making sure that the Council had some sort of incentivized -rate structure in place before this was "rolled out." She said the major increase that could occur .immediately would have, a significant 'impact on the perception of the community if the,. recycling bins and ,education; weren't in place before the, rate structure :changed. She wanted to suggest`Council select the -contractor and then'the City Manager; to come. back with specifics as to how.this would be implemented and sign a contract with Nor Cal. Council 'Member 'Canevaro said this -would be the process and .did Council want to make this .contingent on meeting. the timelines the City Manager provided. Council- Member Torliatt said she didn't think the City Manager anticipated this and she would like to hear some feedback from the him. She wanted to have more information regarding how the transition would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 January 18, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 391 take place and how the rate structure would be implemented in the community. City Manager Bierman said the direction tonight would be to finalize negotiations with Norcal. He would bring a franchise agreement back that would cover all the issues; would show how the contractor would phase from 50% to 60% to 70% recycling and the timeframes for this; and the rate structure. He.said at this point, the initial diversion would be about 50% and there would have to be some mechanism in place to go to 70% in the future. He said the $12.42 would have to be reduced. Council Member Canevaro clarified that the Council was directing the City. Manager to move forward with negotiations and this did not commit to the rate structure. If Norcal did not follow through, it would be brought back to Council to review again. Council Member Torliatt said the rate structure was not defined as of yet and she wanted to be sure of this. Council Member O'Brien agreed with Council Member Torliatt stating the rates had to reflect that the more the consumer recycled, the less they would pay to keep trash out of the landfill. Council Member Healy said these numbers appeared to be close to the final rate since Norcal was advised to "sharpen their pencils," and they declined the opportunity. He thought any change would be bordering on insignificant. He said going from. 60% to 70% diversion was not worth a 100% increase in rates. He said this "fuzzy math" would not withstand rigorous analysis and the bulk of the benefits to the citizens who want to move to smaller cans could have been achieved with the 60% diversion rate. He said he would be voting against this. M/S: Canevaro/O'Brien MOTION -CARRIED BY A 4/3/0 VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Cahevaro, Vice Mayor Harris, Nau, O'Brien NOES: Mayor Glass, Healy, Torliatt ABSENT: None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. in memory of Sharon White. avid Glass, Mayor ATTEST: Vol. 40, Page 392 January- 18,2005 2 .0 3 Claireooper, I -'t nerim City CI k 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 03 BO 11