0435 county of santa cruz - santa cruz county,...

0 4 3 5

County of Santa Cruz I 1

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 410, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4070

- _ _ - - (831) 454-2160 FAX (831) 454-2385 TDD (831) 454-2123

THOMAS L. BOLICH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

AGENDA: SEPTEMBER 12,2006

August 30,2006

SANTACRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, California 95060

SUBJECT: REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARDWASTE COLLECTION AND PROCESSING SERVICES VENDOR SELECTION

Members of the Board:

On August 22,2006, your Board received a report and recommendations from the Department of Public Works regarding the results of our competitive selection process for the next Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection and Processing Services Franchise. During your deliberations several issues were raised and Public Works was directed to provide additional background for our Board' s clarification.

Conversion of Collection Vehicles to Compressed Natural Gas. Waste Management (WM) had offered an alternative in their proposal to convert their collection fleet to cleaner burning compressed natural gas (CNG) as they replace their existing collection trucks over the first few years of the new agreement. This conversion (and the resultant increase in cost) is optional and would only occur with concurrence by the County. This service was proposed at $0.13 per

' k 8 household, per month for each vehicle that is added to the fleet. As an example, if they were to ' replace five collection vehicles in 2008, all customer rates would have $0.65 (5 x $0.13)

permanently added to the monthly rate to cover the increased cost of these five new CNG vehicles, as well as their future upkeep and replacement. With 30-40 collection vehicles in their fleet, this could add $3.90 to $5.20 to each customer's monthly rate over the term of the Franchise Agreement.

Some concerns were raised over this alternative proposal as it fell outside the basic premise of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. We fully agreed with this concern. The other vendors did not offer this same alternative and the potential added cost to the customer is very high. For these reasons, Public Works did not recommend consideration of this alternative. However, we believe there are potential environmental benefits to converting collection vehicles to CNG and instead suggested that we work with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District and the selected vendor to seek out grant funding for future CNG conversions. This approach can be applied equally to any of the vendors we may select.

Qma

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page -2-

0 4 3 6

Evaluation Criteria. A question was raised about excluding a company, specifically Green Waste Recovery, Inc. (GWR), based on its size. Criteria such as company qualifications and financial strength were approved evaluation criteria and were considered during the selection process. GWR was not excluded due to its size, but rather evaluated and ranked against the other vendors based on the availability of resources, financing, and past experience. Compared to all the other vendors, GWR was not considered as strong in these areas and this was reflected in their scores. An RFP process is dissimilar to a bid process in that we have to consider other tangible criteria and not just cost. While GWR did offer a competitive cost proposal, the selection committee did not consider its proposal to be as strong in other key performance areas. We would refer your Board to the RFP documents (on file with the Clerk of the Board) for more detail on the approved selection process and criteria used by the selection committee in evaluating all the proposals.

Rates. As outlined in our analysis of rates and estimated revenues, WM offered the lowest overall rate structure, with GWR’s rates a very close second. For reference, Attachments 8 and 9 of our August 22,2006, report summarize the proposed key rates and overall revenue estimates for all the proposals. We received several comments from your Board regarding differences in specific rates between the two vendors. In an RFP process, each vendor is free to propose a rate structure that meets its own particular needs and variations in rates are expected. For this reason, we also consider the overall cost of each proposal, as outlined in attachment 9 of our August 22,2006, report. We have noted three primary differences in the rate proposals for these two companies that may offer some added clarity.

1. For cart services, WM offered lower rates for the smallest service levels which currently have low levels of subscription. GWR offered lower rates for the medium and larger sized cart services that constitute the majority of the current subscribers. Overall, WM’s estimated revenues for cart services are approximately 4-5 percent higher than the estimates for GWR.

2. WM provided for more rate separation than GWR for the smaller cart services to create more of a financial incentive for customers to recycle more and move down in service levels to save money. During previous hearings, your Board had expressed a strong desire to see more rate separation for this purpose. GWR provided little rate separation for the smaller levels of cart service and therefore less cost incentive for customers to move to these smaller service levels.

3. WM provided lower bin rates for multi-family, school and commercial customers than GWR for all service levels. Overall, GWR’s estimated revenues for bin services are approximately 8-9 percent higher than the estimates for WM.

It was clear to the selection committee that WM had made adjustments to their proposal rates, as compared to their previously negotiated rates, to address comments received during previous Board deliberations. The key change between the WM negotiated rates from January 2006 and the rates from the recent WM proposal was the lowering of the smaller service levels to create more rate separation. We also noted an offsetting increase in the larger cart service rates in order to lower rates for the smaller service levels, and an overall reduction of all the bin q s . As stated in our August 22,2006, staff report, WM proposed the lowest overall rate structure of the four proposals received, as well as providing the strongest response to all the other : 5 1 - key areas of the RFP.


0 4 3 7

Purchase of Old Waste Management Carts by a New Vendor. Two of the proposers, Norcal and Green Team/Waste Connections, offered alternative customer rate structures based on the acquisition and continued use of the existing WM carts and bins. This topic was discussed at the pre-bid meeting as summarized in Attachment 6, question 44, page 12 of our August 22,2006, staff report. While we expressed concerns over potential customer confusion, vendors were told that they could propose this option if the vendor agreed to directly fund the acquisition of the carts and bins and could demonstrate to the County’s satisfaction that it could address concerns over labeling and customer confusion during the transition. All the carts are embossed with Waste Management logos and contact information. We included a cost summary in our staff report for the two vendors that proposed this alternative, which show these reduced rates to still be higher than those proposed by WM.

Public Education. Based on Board comments, we want to reaffirm that the County does maintain contractual control over the public education component of franchise services. Each proposer was free to respond to the public education requirements of the RFP and we saw a variety of responses. Some programs were very clear and well defined, such as WM’s, and included various staffing and outside contract services.

The selection committee followed a well defined process in coming to its conclusions. We were very clear in our directions and responses to all the vendors, as outlined in Attachment 6 of our August 22,2006, staff report to assure a fair process and consistent responses to the RFP. As with any RFP process, we took into consideration performance and qualification criteria, as well as cost, in coming to our conclusions. Items outside the scope of the RFP were not weighted in the scoring of the proposals, such as WM’s offer to convert vehicles to CNG, to maintain a consistent evaluation process.

It is therefore recommended that the Board of Supervisors take the following action:

1. Accept and file this report on Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection and Processing Services.

2. Approve recommendations made to your Board in our August 22,2006, letter.

f

Director of Public Works TLB : RPM : bbs

County Administrative Officer Copy to: Todd Hanson, Green Team/Waste Connections

Frank Weigel, Green Waste Recovery Dean Kattler and Jack Comer, Waste Management Dan Day and Jim Moresco, Norcal Waste Systems Public Works

wmvendorb.wpd 1 a

0 4 3 8 County of Santa Cruz DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 410, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 (831) 454-2160 FAX (831) 454-2385 TDD (831) 454-2123


AGENDA: AUGUST 22,2006

August 16,2006

5

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, California 95060

SUBJECT: REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARDWASTE COLLECTION AND PROCESSING SERVICES, VENDOR SELECTION


This report presents the Public Works Department’s vendor recommendation for Rehse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection and Processing Services. Included in this report is a brief history of actions leading up to the Request for Proposal (WP) process, a summary of the selection process, Selection Committee make-up, the committee and staff analysis of the proposals, an analysis of costs and customer rates, conclusions, and recommendations for how to proceed to the next stage in the process - negotiation of a franchise agreement with the terms and conditions identified in the County’s RFP.

BACKGROUND

The following is an outline of the key reports and decision points leading up to the current RFP process:

March 23, 2004 - Board received a report (Attachment 1) from Public Works outlining the department ‘s recommended changes to the next franchise agreement and directed Public Works to negotiate a new agreement with Waste Management in lieu of issuing an RFP for services. This report also included the results of an independent customer satisfaction survey conducted on behalf of the County and Waste Management. The results showed a satisfaction rating of 95 percent for residential customers and 90 percent for commercial customers.

December 6, 2005 - Board received a report (Attachment 2) that included an outline of the public outreach efforts regarding proposed new franchise agreement, a discussion of the department’s basis for recommending expansion of commercial recycling services in the next franchise agreement, an extension of the current Waste Management franchise

* agreement to allow for ongoing negotiations, and the setting of a public hearing to consider the negotiated agreement.


0 4 3 9 0 January 24, 2006 - Board received a report (Attachment 3) and draft negotiated franchise

agreement with Waste Management for Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection and Processing Services with discussions on ongoing outreach efforts and public meetings, proposed service enhancements, and regional rate comparison. A public hearing was held and the final approval of the franchise agreement was continued to February 28,2006. Additional direction was given to mail informational brochures to all Waste Management customers and include information regarding the alternative of issuing an RFP, provide an RFP timeline, provide a final department recommendation regarding universal collection, and provide a discussion of the alternatives for small, rural road collection service.

February 28, 2006 - Board received a report (Attachment 4) and the final version of the negotiated franchise agreement for consideration. The report included the department’s recommendation to indefinitely defer consideration of universal collection, a report on the pros and cons of accepting the negotiated agreement vs. issuing an RFP to the industry for competitive proposals, a discussion of private road collection issues and options, a summary of state and local regulations regarding frequency of refuse collection, and a timeline for issuance of an RFP. After deliberation and public comment, your Board elected to reject the negotiated agreement with Waste Management, and directed Public Works to begin preparation of an RFP for the subject services, schedule a public hearing for consideration of the RFP, and provide appropriate public notice of the upcoming RFP process. This report also included an amendment to agreement extending the term of the current Waste Management franchise through December 3 1,2007, in order to allow for the RFP process. The extension included a proposed 19.8 percent interim rate increase that was formally approved at a public hearing held by your Board on March 28,2006, and became effective May 1,2006.

April 25,2006 - Board received a report (Attachment 5) on the proposed RFP (on file with the Clerk of the Board) including a discussion of updated service enhancements included in the RFP, and a copy of the draft franchise agreement provided with the RFP. Public Works was directed to release the RFP on April 28,2006, and return on August 22, 2006, with the RFP results and recommendations.

The RFP was released on April 28,2006, notices were mailed to 13 prospective vendors, and all RFP documents were posted on the County web site. Of the prospective vendors, six filed “letters of intent to propose.” Four proposals were received by Public Works on June 23, 2006, and all four were found to be complete and responsive to the RFP. Vendors included Waste Management of Santa Cruz County (Waste Management); Green Waste Recovery, Inc. of San Jose; Norcal Waste Systems, Inc., of San Francisco; and Green Team/Waste Connections, Inc. of San Jose. Copies of the four proposals and supplemental information from the interviews have been placed on file with the Clerk of the Board.

SELECTION PROCESS

The selection process took approximately six weeks and required a large commitment of time and effort on the part of all Selection Committee members. The following is a summary of the process as it occurred, as well as the remaining steps:

June 7,2006 - Deadline for vendor submission of RFP questions and comments.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page - 3-

0 4 4 0

June 13, 2006 - Public Works issued consolidated response to submitted questions and comments to all vendors (Attachment 6). The responses also included some minor revisions or clarifications to the draft franchise agreement. A copy of the revised franchise agreement is on file with the Clerk of the Board.

June 14,2006 - First Selection Committee meeting to review the RFP, discuss the process, provide updates to RFP questions and answers, distribute review documents and background information.

June 23,2006 - Proposals due from vendors. Four qualified proposals were received (copies on file with the Clerk of the Board).

June 29, 2006 - Second Selection Committee meeting to distribute the proposals and review evaluation criteria and forms.

July 13, 2006 - Third Selection Committee meeting to discuss key questions and outline discussion format for upcoming vendor interviews.

July 14, 2006 - Fourth Selection Committee meeting to conduct interviews with all four vendors. Each vendor was allotted time to present the key points of their proposal to the Selection Committee and then respond to questions or clarify proposal information.

July 18, 2006 - Fifth Selection Committee meeting to discuss results of vendor proposal reviews and interviews and finalize recommendations.

August 22,2006 - Final Selection Committee and department vendor recommendation report to your Board, with authorization to enter into final negotiations for new Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection and Processing Services franchise agreement.

October 24,2006 - Public Works will return to the Board with the completed franchise agreement and a new service implementation schedule.

SELECTION COMMITTEE

The primary objective of the Selection Committee was to determine which of the proposals afforded the County the greatest opportunity to enhance its current waste reduction goals through a cost effective, innovative and flexible approach, and to provide quality customer service to our citizens.

The Selection Committee was composed of six members with a wide variety of expertise in solid waste, administration and financial matters: Patrick Mathews, Recycling and Solid Waste Services Manager, Public Works; Dan de Grassi, Integrated Waste Management Planning Coordinator, Public Works; Jeffrey Smedberg, Recycling Programs Coordinator, Public Works; Ligi Leong, Administrative Analyst, County Administrative Office; Don McLaughlin, Auditor, Auditor-Controller; Scott Hamby, Environmental Program Manager, City of Scotts Valley. In addition to the committee members, we also received legal assistance from the County Cwnsel’s Office during the process. The Selection Committee’s diversity and professionalism

T r o v i d e d for a very thorough review of all aspects of each proposal and a solid recommendation based on long term public benefit.


m*& 0 4 4 1

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS

All four proposals were reviewed by the Selection Committee in accordance with the evaluation criteria as outlined within the RFP included with Attachment 5. After the Selection Committee’s detailed review and thorough deliberation, the committee developed the following ranking and scores for the proposals with a maximum of 300 points available for each proposal per committee member (1,800 total points available):

Rank Name Score Waste Management of Santa Cruz County ................... 1,6 10 Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. of San Francisco .............. 1,472 Green Waste Recovery of San Jose .............................. 1,471 Green TeamIWaste Connections, Inc. of San Jose ....... 1,353

1. 2. 3. 4.

The Selection Committee determined that Waste Management of Santa Cruz County had provided the County with the most favorable proposal for Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection and Processing Services. The unanimous consensus of the Selection Committee was that the proposal submitted by Waste Management, if successfully negotiated into a contract, would provide the County with the most cost effective plan for continuation of the subject services at the most cost competitive price, and would meet the County’s many waste diversion mandates.

All the proposals showed a solid understanding of the County’s needs and unique collection and service issues. Attachment 7 is a summary of the Selection Committee’s vendor evaluation sorted by the performance evaluation criteria included in the RFP. Attachment 7 also includes a complete scoring summary of all the committee members. Below is a brief discussion of some of the key points of each proposal.

Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. (Norcal) - Norcal provided a quality proposal, fully responsive to the RFP. The committee felt the Norcal proposal was very strong and very close to the Waste Management proposal in the areas of qualification, technical, contractual and financial criteria. Jim Moresco, the previous general manager for Waste Management and past owner of the south county refuse franchise purchased by Waste Management in the early 199Os, is proposed as the new general manager for Norcal’s Santa Cruz franchise, if awarded the franchise. Norcal also provided a well-funded and detailed public education plan.

The area where Norcal failed to meet one of the key elements of the RFP was in the area of cost, and in particular the County’s clearly expressed desire to continue with a “Pay-As- You-Throw” (PAYT) rate structure. Attachment 5 includes some general information on the advantage of PAYT rate structures. PAYT is a commonly used rate format, highly promoted by state and federal agencies, that bases each customer’s rates on how much refuse they generate. As an example, current customers pay $15.17 per month for 35-gallon refuse service and $28.32 per month for 64-gallon refuse service, or nearly double the cost for double the refuse cart capacity. Both customers receive the same base level of recycling and yardwaste services. This greater separation between rates encourages more effective use of the supplied recycling services and an opportunity for customers to move to a smaller refuse cart and pay less for their service. Norcal’s rate proposal had far less cost separation between service levels than the other proposals.

t

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page - 5- 0 4 4 2

An area of concern exists with the Norcal proposal regarding the recent Grand Jury indictments in San Jose alleging improper contract actions between the mayor of San Jose and Norcal. The indictments came the night before the proposals were due and were not included in the litigation history required of each vendor. Norcal has been very forthcoming about the indictment and has supplied articles, information and a general overview of the situation during the interviews and maintains they will be exonerated. We have no additional comment or information on this matter to report.

Green Waste Recovery (GWR) - GWR provided an exemplary proposal that was only slightly higher in cost to the Waste Management proposal. They outlined a well thought out public education program and addressed the area of “transition” very well. Transition from one vendor to another, as we have noted in our prior reports, is often a very confusing time for customers and if not properly planned for, can lead to serious service disruptions for several weeks. GWR also has experience collecting in the Santa Cruz Mountains in Santa Clara County and several of its key staff live in Santa Cruz County. The proposed general manager, Frank Weigel, is a county resident and fully understands the unique collection challenges that exist in our county. GWR also proposed to utilize the volunteer services of the California Grey Bears to support its outreach program.

The areas where GRW failed to achieve the highest ratings were in the areas of experience and size (financial strength) of the company. The Committee was concerned about the ability of the company to expand the size of its operations to accommodate the County services. The annual revenue of GWR is only $28 million and based on the value of our contract, GWR would experience over a 50 percent increase in revenue the first year of the agreement. Committee staff from the Auditor-Controller’s office expressed some concerns over this level of growth for such a relatively small company. GWR did provide some additional financial background information on other associated companies, but these are separate operating entities, some with business relationships outside of GWR, that would have to contractually assume all of GWR’s liabilities. Even if we were to consider these outside company assets and revenues, GWR is still far smaller in terms of resources and financial backing than the other vendors.

GWR has provided green waste collection in San Jose, has rural collection experience in smaller communities such as Woodside and Portola Valley, and recently began three-cart collections in Petaluma. While they had demonstrated they are a qualified hauler, they clearly had far less collection experience than the other vendors, and particularly with three-cart collection systems such as ours.

The Committee also felt GWR’s proposed public education program was not as well conceived as those proposed by the other vendors. GWR relied heavily on the Grey Bears for performance of its outreach activities. The actual role the Grey Bears would play in public education was not made clear in either the written proposal or oral presentation and very little information was offered regarding the Grey Bears’ qualifications or resources necessary to meet the extensive public education requirements of the County. GWR also proposed a $100,000 annual contribution to the Grey Bears, but again GWR was not clear how much of this funding was direct funding for public education services and how much was a charitable contribution.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page -6- -

0 4 4 3 Green Team/Waste Connections, Inc. (GTWC) - GTWC also provided a very well

conceived proposal and demonstrated a strong understanding of the collection challenges in our county. GTWC offered to team with one of our top local environmental education firms, Ecology Action, for public outreach. Green Team, with its corporate parent Waste Connections, would have significant resources available to support the County’s franchise services.

There were two significant problem areas of the GTWC proposal, costs and contractual exceptions. While GTWC provided the greatest level of separation between rates, or PAYT, the overall cost of the proposal was far out of line with the other three vendors. In our cost analysis, discussed in more detail below, we did take into account that such a rate structure would create more “migration” or customer movement to lower service levels. However, the initial rates are so much higher than the others that even taking into consideration a much higher level of migration, the overall cost is far out of range from the other proposals.

Unlike the other vendors, GTWC took a large number of exceptions to the proposed franchise agreement, several of which would be a disadvantage to the County. When questioned about the exceptions, GTWC stood by its submitted exceptions.

Waste Management - As the incumbent service vendor, Waste Management provided a very comprehensive response and did not make any assumptions, as incumbents sometimes do. The Waste Management proposal was highly oriented toward customer service issues and public education, and responsive to the RFP. The proposed public education program included a substantial annual budget of $266,000. Waste Management has proposed to add an additional full-time staff person, for a total of two, dedicated to public education and outreach in Santa Cruz County. Waste Management also provided the lowest overall cost proposal and increased the amount of rate separation over its previous negotiated agreement, as emphasized by your Board during previous deliberations. A comparison of rates for all vendors, including the negotiated rates from last February, can be found in Attachment 8 for your reference. Waste Management has also proposed some improvements to its customer service system to improve response times to service issues and to resolve missed collections more effectively.

The one difference we noted in the Waste Management proposal was that they were the only vendor who did not propose to use any “automated” collection vehicles. Automated collection is performed by a robotic arm on the collection vehicle and does not require the driver to exit the truck cab to dump the container. All the other vendors specified fully automated vehicles for urban routes or dual-use vehicles that can do both automated and semi-automated collection. During the interviews Waste Management indicated they may consider some of the dual-use vehicles as they replace their current fleet, but based on their experience in Santa Cruz County, they felt semi-automated collection was still the most appropriate method and allowed for better driver inspection of containers, as required under the County’s mandatory recycling ordinance.

Waste Management Proposal Alternatives - Waste Management also proposed the four following alternatives in its proposal that we may wish to consider:

1. Waste Management offered to operate a “sharps” return program for all its customers. Sharps are typically defined as needles or other sharp implements necessary for administration of medical treatments. Disposal of sharps by residential customers is a very


0 4 4 4

common concern for both refuse collection drivers and our landfill operators, who can be at risk for puncture wounds from improperly disposed sharps. Waste Management’s proposed program provides customers with specially designed storage containers, at no cost, and pre-paid mailers to send the sharps directly to a licensed processor for treatment and safe disposal. Waste Management has successfidly implemented this program in other communities and they are offering to implement the same program for Santa Cruz County at no additional cost. Public Works recommends adding this alternative to the franchise agreement.

2. Waste Management proposed to expand the food waste collection program to the residential sector once the County has developed a larger-scale composting operation capable of handling the increased material volumes. In the interim, they have offered to work on a smaller- scale pilot residential food waste collection program to assist the County with our ongoing studies and to provide some measure of increased waste diversion. They have proposed this expanded service at no added cost to the County. Public Works recommends adding this alternative to the franc his e agreement.

3. Waste Management has also proposed to convert their collection fleet to cleaner burning compressed natural gas (CNG) as they replace their existing collection trucks. Convenience, this service is proposed at an added cost of $0.13 per household, per month for each vehicle that is added to the fleet. As an example, if they were to replace five collection vehicles in 2008, all customer rates would have $0.65 ( 5 x $0.13) permanently added to the monthly rate to cover the increased cost of these five new CNG vehicles, as well as their future upkeep and replacement. With 30-40 collection vehicles in its fleet, this could add $3.90 to $5.20 to each customer’s rate over the term of the franchise agreement. The County can limit the number of collection vehicles converted or the rate at which they are converted to control the cost of this added service, if there is interest in this proposed service. While we feel this is an environmentally beneficial option, we recommend working with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District and Waste Management on potential grant funding for this option, in lieu of adding this cost to customer rates at this time.

4. Waste Management also proposed an “on-call” curbside electronic waste collection program, similar to other programs implemented in other west coast communities they serve. Again, this proposed service has a fee associated with it of $0.16 per household per month. There would be a one-time rate increase to cover this service and could be cost beneficial, depending on the level of participation. Public Works would recommend that we work with Waste Management during negotiations to develop a flat fee charged directly to each customer electing to use this service, in lieu of increasing all rates to provide this service.

Overall, the committee felt the Waste Management proposal was very strong and had few weak points or areas of concern. While all the other proposals were very well done, none offered any apparent advantage or significant improvement over the Waste Management proposal.


ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CUSTOMER RATES AND REVENUES

Attachment 8 is a summary of the starting customer rates proposed by each vendor for the most common services, along with the current rates and the rates from the previously negotiated Waste Management agreement from February 2006 for comparison. Attachment 9 is a summary analysis of the long-term revenue projections for each of the proposals based on the initial customer rates offered by each vendor. The detailed back-up information for this analysis is on file with the Clerk of the Board.

Each proposed customer rate is broken into the following three components: the service fee that is retained by the franchise to cover its cost of service and materials processing; the disposal fee for payment of landfill costs for collected refuse; and the franchise fee paid directly to the County. In evaluating the long-term revenue for these proposals, we made a number of growth, cost of living, and service “migration” assumptions for these projections. Service “migration” means customer movement from one service level to another, usually as a result of rate changes or service improvements that allow customers to reduce their waste and move to a smaller and lower cost refuse service.

The revenue analysis includes a summary of the various economic and migration assumptions used in the analysis, including estimated annual growth in the customer base, cost of living adjustment for the service fee portion of each rate, estimated annual increase in disposal costs, and the service migration assumptions. The service migration assumptions are based on each proposal’s relative level of cost separation between differing services. The proposal with the highest level of rate separation is assumed to promote the highest level of migration to smaller sized services, while those with little rate separation will have minimal effect on changes to current service levels.

As additional background to the rate and revenue analysis, we provided a summary of the cart and bin weight assumptions used by each vendor to determine the disposal fee component of their rates. Higher disposal rate assumptions by a vendor will result in greater rate escalation and we felt this was an important aspect to consider in the analysis. Complete year-by- year revenue projection worksheets are included with the rate and revenue analysis.

Two of the proposers, Norcal and Green Team/Waste Connections, offered alternative customer rate structures based on the acquisition and continued use of the existing Waste Management carts and bins. The Selection Committee and Public Works were not particularly interested in this alternative, due to the potential for customer confusion. All the carts are embossed with Waste Management logos and contact information. For your information, we have included a cost summary for these two alternatives, which shows these reduced rates to still be higher than those proposed by Waste Management.

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page -9- 8-d 0 9-643

0 4 4 6 CONCLUSIONS

All the proposals were very responsive to the County’s Request for Proposals and all were considered strong proposals overall. Each proposal included good responses to the major areas of interest outlined in the RFP. However, with the exception of Waste Management’s proposal, which was generally strong all the way around, each of the other three proposers had some area of weakness compared to the Waste Management proposal that concerned the Selection Committee. Greenwaste Recovery provided one of the highest quality responses, but the Selection Committee was concerned over the company size and ability to expand its operations. Norcal also provided a good proposal, including Jim Moresco (previously with Waste Management) as its proposed General Manager, but the Selection Committee rated this proposal lower due to the lack of good rate separation for the cart services and overall higher cost of service. Green TeadWaste Connections provided an excellent response to the RFP and proposed a fully proportional Pay-As- You-Throw rate structure that would undoubtedly result in significant service migration to smaller refuse levels. Even when we accounted for a higher level of migration under this proposal, the overall costs were still significantly higher than the Waste Management proposal.

The incumbent, Waste Management, Inc., has provided many years of excellent service to this County and brings with it a parent company with national and international experience and extensive assets and resources to serve our county. Waste Management has shown a consistent record of being responsive to customer needs, correcting service issues promptly, and has shown excellent corporate citizenship thorough charitable donations and participation in public service events and community clean-ups. The 2004 independent customer satisfaction survey showed a 90 percent satisfaction rating for commercial services and a 95 percent satisfaction rating for residential services. The proposed rates are in the range of comparable Bay Area and Central Coast rates for similar services previously presented to your Board.

The effort and diligence provided by the six Selection Committee members allowed for a diverse and detailed review of each proposal. The process that was defined and approved by your Board early this year was followed very closely and in the final analysis it was clear that Waste Management provided all the needed components to achieve the overall goals and objectives of the County in a cost-effective, innovative and flexible approach.


1. Accept and file the attached Selection Committee Report for Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection and Processing Services.

2. Approve the Selection Committee recommendation and direct Public Works to negotiate a franchise agreement with Waste Management of Santa Cruz County for Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection and Processing Services.

3. Approve recommendations regarding the Waste Management proposed alternatives and direct Public Works to include these changes in the final franchise agreement.


4. Direct Public Works to return on or before October 24, 2006, with a completed franchise agreement for consideration by your Board.

Yours tply,

Director of Public Works

TLB : RPM: mg

Attachments

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

County AdministraGe Officer

Copy to: County Administrative Office (w/a) County Counsel (w/a) Auditor-Controller (w/a) Dan de Grassi, Public Works (w/a) Jeffrey Smedberg, Public Works (w/a) Todd Hanson, Green TeadWaste Connections (w/a) Frank Weigel, Green Waste Recovery (w/a) Dean Kattler & Jack Conner, Waste Management (w/a) Dan Day & Jim Moresco, Norcal Waste Systems (w/a) Scott Hamby, City of Scotts Valley (w/a) Public Works

,

rfp2 - m

ATTACHMENT 1 0 4 4 8

County of Santa Cruz DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

701 OCEAN STREET ROOM 410 SMTA CRU CA 95060-4070 (831) 454-2160 f k (831) 45$-2385 TDD$31)4!54-2123


AGENDA: MARCH 23,2004

March 17,2004


SUBJECT: REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARDWASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT


On February 25, 1997,your Board approved a franchise agreement with Waste Management (WM) of Santa Cruz County for refuse, recycling and yard waste collection services. The expanded collection services provided under this franchise agreement commenced on November 1 , 1997, for a term of eight years. WM currently receives approximately $7.8 million in annual revenue from this agreement. The franchise agreement is scheduled to expire next year on October 3 1,2005. border to avoid disruption of services when this agreement expires next year, your Board must take appropriate actions to provide for adequate time to secure continuing collection services.

The current franchise agreement has and continues to be used as a working model for many other jurisdictions throughout California. However, Public Works will be recommending a number of administrative changes to the future franchise agreement language to further strengthen it and add or expand waste diversion programs. The following is a list of the key service expansions and improvements needed in the franchise agreement based on staff experience and results from the customer survey discussed later in this report.

Expand commercial recycling collection Add commercial food waste collection and processing services

Provide unlimited recycling for all public and private schools Improve reporting formats, data tracking and routing information Change "difficult to service" rural collection route requirements to stipulate smaller trucks on degraded or very narrow roads Improve response time to County or customer inquiries Clarify and improve language for liquidated damages for failure to perform 'w


ATTACHMENT 1 *

0 4 4 9

3293

Improve litter control and anti-litter truck design changes Increase frequency of recycling composition studies to twice per year Increase public outreach, particularly to non-English speaking customers Improve consistency of information given to public through training and other customer service methods Improve marketing of low value recyclable materials Require use of recycled and low-emission fuels and oils in collection vehicles

On June 17,2003, your Board approved a contract with Applied Survey Research of Watsonville, to evaluate WM services and county-wide refuse and recycling services. The purpose of this report was to provide your Board with public feedback on the quality of WM services and the types of refuse and recycling services available to assist with your decision on the next franchise agreement. Attached for your consideration are the survey report findings and conclusions. A copy of the complete report with tables and data is on file with the Clerk of the Board for your review. In general, the report found that 75 percent of residential customers and 63 percent of commercial customers were “completely satisfied” with WM services and another 20 percent and 27 percent respectively were “somewhat satisfied.” The net result was that 95 percent of residential customers and 90 percent of commercial customers responded positively to WM’s quality of service. This report also focused on specific areas of collection service performance and provides both statistical and anecdotal information from customers.

Your Board has two options to consider, negotiate a revised franchise agreement with WM for continuation of services or prepare a competitive request for proposal (RFP) to be distributed to the refuse and recycling collection industry. It is Public Works’ opinion that, while there is certainly still time to consider an RFP, we feel that entering into negotiations with WM for continuation of collection services would be in the best interest of the County for the following reasons:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

There will be minimal transition problems (i.e., changing vendors and exchanging collection equipment) for customers as the next term of the agreement becomes effective because most of the existing services and collection equipment will remain in place under the negotiated agreement.

The independent survey results attached indicate that a large majority of customers are satisfied with the level and quality of WM service.

If your Board and Public Works are not satisfied with the terms, conditions and pricing resulting from the negotiated agreement, the RFP can still be issued.

The amount of staff and consultant resources needed to negotiate a new agreement with WM will be $75,000 to $1 00,000 less than that needed for a full RFP process.

A negotiated agreement will take an estimated 4 to 6 months to complete, while a full RFP process and subsequent agreement negotiations will take12 months or more to complete, based on our previous experience.

WM already has the required local infrastructure in place to support County services such as a corporation yard and recyclable materials processing facility.



329 I

Upon your Board’s approval, Public Works will begin working in conjunction with the County Counsel’s office to revise the current franchise agreement to reflect the recommended program and administrative changes outlined above. This revised agreement will be used as the basis for our negotiations with WM. Our current franchise agreement has a term of eight years. Consistent with industry standards and providing for a reasonable equipment capitalization period, we are recommending a new term of eight years for the revised agreement.

Upon completion of negotiations, Public Works will provide your Board with a benchmark pricing analysis of other similar services in California to assure your Board that any new negotiated price structure offered by WM is fair, reasonable and in line with current pricing structures for comparable services.

It is therefore recommended that your Board direct Public Works to negotiate an extension of the franchise agreement with Waste Management of Santa Cruz County for refuse, recycling and yard waste collection services.

Yours truly, e

*HOMAS LWICH Director of Public Works

TLB:RPM:bbs

Attachments

RECOWENDED FOR APPROVAL:

County Administrative Officer

Copy to: Jim Moresco, Waste Management Public Works Department

FUSERECB. WPD

ATTACHMENT 2 045 1

County of Santa Cruz DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC WORKS

701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 410, SANTA CRUZ. CA 950604076 (831) 454-2160 FAX (831)454-2385 TDD (831) 454-2123

THOMAS L. DIRECTOR OF PU

AGENDA: DECEMBER 6,2005

November 22,2005

SAN"A CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, California 95060

SUBJECT: REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARDWASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE RENEWAL


On October 18,2005,your Board approved an extension to the franchise agreement with Waste Management (WM) of Santa Cruz County for rehse, recycling and yard waste collection services to January 3 1,2006. Collection services provided under this franchise agreement were scheduled to expire on October 3 1,2005, and Public Works was requesting additional time to complete negotiations on the franchise renewal. During your deliberation on October 18,2005, you also directed Public Works to return with an amendment to extend the franchise agreement an additional three months, to April 30,2006, and a proposed public outreach plan for public input regarding the proposed franchise extension. The stated purpose for this requested extension was to provide more time for additional public input. WM has agreed to extend the agreement and an amendment to that effect is attached for your approval.

OUTREACH

During your deliberations on October 18,2005, it was suggested that Public Works consider use of a public group to comment on the proposal to extend the franchise agreement and any service changes being considered. We have solicited the help of a local advocacy group who has already provided some of your Board members with feedback on the franchise agreement, Coalition for Waste Alternatives (CWA). We met with this group in November and plan to meet again later in December or January to review proposed program changes within the franchise agreement.

Your Board previously received the results of a county-wide survey, that included an evaluation of customer satisfaction with franchise service. In general, the report found 95 percent of residential customers and 90 percent of commercial customers responded positively to WM's quality of service. This report focused on specific areas of collection service performance and provided both statistical and anecdotal information from customers. I

Lt

.=

ATTACHMENT 2 04352


In addition to the CWA meetings and survey results, Public Works is scheduling three public information meetings across the county in December and January to discuss the proposed franchise renewal, program changes and rates with the general public. These meetings will also be used as follow-up to our two previous public meetings to discuss the proposal to extend universal collection services to the urban areas of the county. We have used the information gathered from CWAs input as well as some comments we have received through the universal collection meetings and public survey to craft programmatic changes needed to strengthen the agreement and improve services. Comments received at the next set of public meetings will be used to fine tune the final draft of the Eranchise agreement for your Board’s consideration early next year.

COMMERCIAL RECYCLING EXPANSION

During our initial discussion with CWA, the most significant issue for this group appeared to be the expansion of commercial recycling, which is currently not adequately addressed within the county collection system, and will be critical if we are to save landfill capacity and ultimately reach the Board’s 75 percent recycling goal. As a follow-up to the comments received by CWA and opposing comments received by your Board from Santa Cruz Recycling Alliance Program (SCRAP), we are providing a brief discussion (Attachment 1) on the topic of commercial recycling expansion as background. Your Board also previously received a memo fiom our department specifically addressing SCRAP’S concerns. Staff also met with SCRAP representatives in October to discuss some of the issues related to commercial recycling collection. It is Public Works opinion that we need to expand commercial recycling collection through the franchise to assure customers of the availability of comprehensive recycling services to comply with the County’s new Mandatory Recycling Ordinance adopted by your Board on June 2 1,2005. While this may have some impact on small local recyclers, we see no other viable alternative that will provide the level of recycling necessary for businesses to comply with our new ordinance.

*

STATUS OF FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS

Staff is continuing to meet regularly with WM representatives to discuss the various changes being proposed to the agreement. We have reached general agreement on many of the issues and are awaiting final Board and public comment and receipt of some supporting documentation regarding the rate proposal to complete the final draft agreement for your Board’s consideration. We anticipate having the agreement available for your Board’s consideration and public discussion at the January 24,2006, meeting. At that time, we will return with the draft franchise agreement, proposed rates, and the results of our bay area rate survey for comparison against WM’s final rate proposal. The rate proposal may also include several potential rate scenarios for your Board to consider along with the rate adjustments associated with adding or removing certain programmatic changes, as previously requested by your Board.


1. Accept and file this report on the Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection Services Franchise renewal process.

. .- -c

Y


0- 08 0 2 6 - ? & 4 4 5 3

ATTACHMENT 2

TLB:RPM:bbs

2. Approve the attached amendment to agreement with Waste Management of Santa Cruz County by extending the term of their Rehse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection Services Franchise agreement to April 30,2006.

3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to sign the amendment on behalf of the County.

4. Schedule a public hearing for January 24,2006, at 9:00 a.m. or thereafter to consider approval of agreement with Waste Management of Santa Cruz County for renewal of Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection Services Franchise.

5. Direct the Clerk of the Board to publish the attached notice of public hearing for at least three days in advance of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation .

Yours truly, t

Director of Public Works

Attachments

RECOMMWED FOR APPROVAL:

~

County Administrative Officer

Copy to: Jim Moresco, Waste Management Coalition for Waste Alternatives Public Works Department

*

franchiseagrb. wpd

0 4 5 4

ATTACHMENT 2 ”

1-26-06 franchise hearing notice

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

NOTICE IS HEARBY GIVEN that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisorshas scheduled apublic hearing on Tuesday, January 24,2006 on the morning agenda, at 9:00 a.m. or thereafter, in the Board chambers, at 701 Ocean Street, Room 525, Santa Cruz, California, to consider approval of an agreement with Waste Management of Santa Cruz County, for renewal of the Refbse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection Services Franchise.

The proposed renewal of the Refuse, Recycling and Yardwaste Collection Services Franchise will provide for ongoing collection services within the unincorporated Santa Cruz County area in accordance with Santa Cruz County Code, Chapter 7.20.

For more information on this subject, contact the Public Works Department at (831) 454- 2160.

i

EXPANSION OF FRANCHISE COMMERCIAL RECYCLING SERVICES 0233

BACKGROUND In the mid 1990s, the County underwent a strategic planning process to develop and design many of the new

waste diversion programs now in place, including the current curbside collection program. During these planning deliberations, staff and your Board heard from a few small recyclers that were concerned over the County proposal to expand Commercial recycling through the franchise, including Santa Cruz Recycling Alliance Program (SCRAP) and their parent organization, the California Grey Bears. As a result, it was decided that commercialrecycling would be left as an open market with the assumption that these small recyclers would fill the large gap in commercial recycling. Unfortunately, this expansion of commercial recycling through private recyclers has not materialized in the last eight years of the current franchise agreement and commercial recycling has improved only marginally in this period due to the lack of a!equate services. We have seen private recyclers come and go m the County over this period, in most cases their demise has been due to the inherent volatility of the recycling markets which makes it difficult for small recyclers to sustain profitability or accept a wider range of high and low value materials when market conditions are poor. SCRAP’S, recent reduction of service to San Lorenzo Valley businesses is a case in point that we will discuss in more detail below.

In November 2003, your Board approved a change in the curbside recyclingprogram (residential and commercial) that eliminated the need for customers to separate their recycling into two categories, containers and fibers. A copy of the Board letter is included for reference. This change was facilitated by Waste Management’s expansion and upgrade of their Castroville materials recovery facility to handle “single stream recycling” (referred to as “one stream” in the attached SCRAP letter of October 25,2005). Public Works hlly supportedthis change because it greatly improved the ease of recycling for all customers and eliminatedthe need for split carts and separate collection of two recycling streams. We have heard nothing but positive comments from customers since the implementationof the single stream recycling collection. With the exception of Santa Cruz, all other cities in the county are utilizing a single stream collection system and the City of Santa Cruz is in the process of upgrading their processing system to allow conversion to a single stream collection system.

In 2003, Public Works also added a position, Commercial Waste Reduction Coordinator, to assist in addressing this deficiency in commercial recycling. This is a field position assigned solely to working with businesses and multi-family residences to help them set up and/or expand recycling and waste diversion activities on- site. There are three key impediments to commercial recycling that we have found as a result of our field work with commercial businesses; 1) many businesses have been hesitant to expand recycling and waste diversion activities due to space limitations for the various carts and bins needed for separate recycling streams, 2) with the exception of Waste Management, the few small recyclers in the County only collect the high value materials such as redemption containers, cardboard and certain materials that may have short term market value, and none collect the lower value recycling materials, and 3) many businesses are unhappy with the inconsistency and irregularity of collection services provided by some of the small recyclers .

EXISTING RECYCLING SERVICES There are 3 basic types of recycling programs operating in Santa Cruz County: collection, drop-off and

buyback. The list below itemizes all the known programs serving the unincorporated county and the anticipated impacts associated with expanding franchise commercialrecycling.

Collection Prorrrams 1. 2.

Waste Management- collects all materials SCRAP - collects cardboard and film plastic only for a fee. We anticipate a decline in business as customers opt for more convenient and cost-effectiveservices fiom WM, consolidation of recycling collection into one bin to reduce storage space for many bins, and potentially lower rehse disposal costs for the customer. Craig Radich - collects redemption value glass and PET bottles only at no fee. We anticipate only a marginal drop in collection volumes as their small collection containers don’t take up much room, so customers can use both Radich and WM services concurrently. Typical customers have special needs such bars and restaurants that generate lots of glass containers, but not lots of paper or other wide varieties of recyclables. Green Conscience -provides collection service of most recyclables for a fee, sells high value materials I and drops off low value materials at County recycling centers. We anticipate only minor impacts as - ‘

3.

4.

-000 6 2% 4 5 6

ATTACHMENT 2 G234

Expansion of Franchised Commercial Recycling Services Page -2-

GC customers are typically in need of specialized services not available through Waste Management, such as one time clean-up projects and on-site services. Got-Junk -national corporation offering clean-up services including recycling for a fee. This is newer companyjust getting established in the area, and the limited information we have indicates their niche is mostly one-time clean-up projects which would not likely be affected by expansion of commercial franchise recycling. Security Shred and Bale - shreds and collects ofice paper, and cardboard for a fee. We anticipate minimal effect anticipated as primary service is shreddingkollection of office paper; cardboard collected is an extra benefit and not a primary focus. Customers will still have need for shredding (document destruction) service.

5.

6.

s

Waste Managementrecycling collection is provided as part of the County’s franchise agreement. As in most communities striving to meet and exceed State waste diversion mandates, the cost of recycling collection and processing is included as part of the overall collection service package. This is done to guarantee that the necessary collection services are available to all customers on a consistent basis regardless of recycling market conditions. While there are a few small recyclers in our community, they are mostly focused on collection of a limited number of high value materials, which limits a business’s abilityto meet the goals of County’s mandatory recycling ordinance if they choose to only utilize private recyclers. Some of the above listed recyclers such as Green Conscience, Security Shred and Bale and Got Junk primarily provide a service for one time events or customersneeding specialized services not available through Waste Management. It is not expected that these businesses would be significantly impacted by expansion of commercial recycling.

Waste Management is required to provide service to all unincorporated countyresidents and collect a wide range of high and low value recyclables. This is not the case with the private recyclers who can selectively choose their customerbase, geographic area of collection, and the materials they want to collect. As an example, attached you will find a copy of a letter from SCRAP to their San Lorenzo Valley (SLV) customers, explaining why they will no longer be serving SLV customers due to operating losses incurred. This is not an unexpected event, but does underscore the importance of having a collector who can both guarantee service on an ongoing basis and collect the wide range of materials included in the County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance. While some recyclers may see impacts from expanding franchise commercial recycling, it will be primarily the result of customersseeking more comprehensive and convenient recycling services to meet the county recycling mandates.

Drop-off Promams 1. Valley Women’s Club - Felton, Ben Lomond, Boulder Creek - accepts all materials, County

contracted service 2. Grey Bears - Chanticleer Avenue, Buena Vista Landfill - accepts all materials, County contracted

service at Buena Vista Landfill, County subsidizes operation at Chanticleer Avenue

The County funds the drop-off collection programs operated by the Valley Women’s Club and the Grey Bears, at the Buena Vista Landfill and Ben Lomond Transfer Station, and subsidizes operations at other locations within the community. At the landfill and transfer station, the County pays all expenses to operate these drop-off programs under contract with these two agencies. In addition, the program operator retains 50% of the sales revenue and the other 50% is returned to the County to offset the contract operational costs. Since 1997, the Valley Women’s Club has received approximately $2 17,000 from its sales and the Grey Bears have received approximately$933,000, with the same amount being returned to the county to offset our contract costs. The Grey Bears also operate a drop- off recycling center on Chanticleer Avenue. The County is currently providing a subsidy of $12O,OOOper year to offset the Grey Bears costs of processing and marketing the low value materials at the Chanticleer site and also provided $150,000 in grant funding several years ago to allow them to expand their operation and purchase a bailer. The County also provides subsidy to the Valley Women’s Club to operate two additional collection locations m Boulder Creek and Felton. The additional finding is used to cover the costs of processing and marketing non- redemption value materials such a newspaper and cardboard.

Buy-back Promams 1. NexCycle 2020 - supermarket based; accepts redemption value containers only 2. 4 & D Recycling- accepts redemption containers and ferrous/non-ferrous metal scrap 3. Watsonville Metals - accepts redemption containers and ferroudnon-ferrous metal scrap

-4 : -..d

!’i A* L

Expansion of Franchised Commercial Recycling Services Page -3-

0 4 5 7 ATTACHMENT 2

0235

All other collection, drop-off and buy-back programs operate completely independent of the County and serve those who want to receive the redemption value or high market value (when available) for scrap metal. It is not expected that these types of programs would be impacted by expanded commercial recycling, as they are serving a specific group of customers who are seeking revenue from their recycling materials.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO PRIVATE RECYCLERS SCRAP began in 1997 and has provided a valuable service to the County, especially when no one else was

collecting cardboard. Cardboard is a bulky material, it takes up lots of space to stockpile for collection, especiallyin relation to other recyclables. Because of these space constraints,many businesses would rather use one collector of all materials than use 2 or'more collectors with separate bins. SCRAP collects only cardboard and film plastic, no other materials.

With all due recognition to the valuable service provide by SCRAP in years past, times have changed. The needs of our community have changed and the need for more recycling to preserve limited landfill capacity has become paramount. The past-focus of the County's recycling efforts, common to most cities and counties m the state, has been on residential recycling. In recent years, the emphasis has shifted to commercial recycling particularly since, in the unincorporated county, commercial waste represents 62% of the total waste generated and much of that waste stream is recoverable.

The unfortunate reality is that the needs of SCRAP and those of the community are at a point of divergence. While the County has no desire to see SCRAP experience a downturn in their cardboard and film plastic recycling operations, their current priorities do not match those of the County and our community. The Countyneeds to make commercial recycling as convenient, cost-effective, comprehensiveand widespread as possible and the business model SCRAP is using does not promote that goal. The County would like to see SCRAP continue to be a player on the local recycling scene, but not at the expense of achieving the critical goal of maximizing diversion.

With the exception of SCRAP, we do not anticipate major impacts to the other recyclers, who primarily provide specialized services not available through Waste Management. It is Public Works opinion that expansion of commercial recycling through the franchise agreement is the most efficient and cost effective way to improve commercial recycling, provide stable recycling services, help businesses meet the objectives of the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance and maximize the limited lifespan of our only community landfill.

ATTACHMENT 3


701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 410, SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 (831)454-2160 FAX (831)454-2385 TDD (831)454-2123


AGENDA: JANUARY 24,2006

January 11,2006


SUBJECT: REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARDWASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT RENEWAL WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY


On December 6,2005, your Board received a report on the renewal process for the subject agreement and directed Public Works to schedule a public hearing on January 24,2006, for discussion of the proposed franchise aggeement renewal. Your Board also approved an extension to the current agreement through April 30,2006, to provide additional time for more public participation in the renewal process. The proposed fi-anchise agreement renewal with Waste Management (WM) of Santa Cruz County for refke, recycling and yardwaste collection services is on file with the Clerk of the Board.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

Public Works has continued to solicit input from the Coalition for Waste Alternatives (CWA), a local citizen's group focusing on waste reduction and recycling issues in the county. Attachment 1 is a copy of the information transmitted to your Board in December 2005 outlining CWA's stated purpose. We met with this group in November and December 2005 to review proposed program changes within the franchise agreement. The December meeting was held with members of the California Grey Bears in attendance and included a discussion on expansion of franchised commercial recycling and its potential effect on local recyclers, such as the Grey Bears.

Your Board previously received the results of a countywide survey that included an evaluation of customer satisfaction with franchise service. In general, the report found 95 percent of residential customers and 90 percent of commercial customers responded positively to WM's

ATTACHMENT 3


quality of service. This report focused on specific areas of collection service performance and provided both statistical and anecdotal information from customers.

Public Works conducted three public information meetings across the county in December to discuss the proposed franchise renewal, program changes, and rates with the general public. These meetings were held at the Aptos Park, Simpkins Swim Center and San Lorenzo Valley Elementary School auditorium. A copy of the agenda information is included as Attachment 2. Meetings were advertised in several local papers by using 1/4page display ads. Unfortunately, these meetings were still poorly attended. As a result, Public Works has prepared an informational flyer for direct mailing to all WM customers outlining the renewal process, proposed rate increase, and changes in service. Attachment 3 is the proposed text of the flyer to be mailed immediately following the January 24,2006, hearing. The newsletter will also serve as formal notification of the February 28,2006, hearing continuation. Attachment 4 is the text of the advertisement being placed in the local newspapers notifjmg the public of the January 24,2006, hearing.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR SERVICE CHANGESENHANCEMENTS

New 10 gallon refuse collection service. This new service is offered to support minimum waste generators, seniors, and others living in residences with limited storage space for the larger carts in use for standard services.

Increased availability of home comDost and worm compost bins. Bins will now be made available to customers with yard waste collection and to County- sponsored compost workshop participants at a discounted price of $25. This program enhancement will help support our ongoing efforts to help residents learn to compost their food waste at home instead of placing it in the refuse.

Exclusive franchise collection zone extended to Las Cumbres and Oak Ridge neighborhoods along Skyline Boulevard. The neighborhood associations for these two areas previously petitioned Public Works to be included in the franchise zone at the time of renewal.

Expanded Collection at County Facilities. WM currently provides refuse and recycling collection service at certain County facilities at no charge. The proposed agreement expands this service to include all County facilities, including parks, buildings and service yards. This would include the Government Center, the Emeline Street complex and the south county courthealth services complex. This service expansion should result in a significant cost savings to the County.

New collection service oDtion for private roads. WM currently utilizes collection vehicles on each route that are appropriately sized to safely travel on all the roads being serviced and to maximize efficiency and keep costs down. Many private road owners would like the ability to request smaller trucks than are normally in use for their private roads to reduce wear and tear or preserve the

ATTACHMENT 3


$- underlying substandard road. This program enhancement includes a rate surcharge for WM to utilize a smaller truck than would have normally been used when requested by private road owners.

Increase collection services in rural areas. WM will continue to expand collection services in the more rural areas of the county and add more small trucks (“mini-packers”) to increase the subscription levels in these under-served areas of the county. This program includes expanded promotion and outreach activities to non-customers, particularly in rural areas.

ExDanded contract performance standards and fines for non-comdiance. Several new specific damage provisions have been added and several existing damage fines have been increased for WM’s failure to perform in accordance with the agreement. As an example, we have added a provision for damages if WM commingles rehse and recyclables during collection or improperly disposes of collected materials. We have also increased the damages for performance issues such as littering and collection performed too early or late in the day.

Unlimited recycling;; for unincorporated area schools with refuse collection service. WM currently provides as much recycling as each school requests for a fee. This provision will make the service available at no charge as a means to support increased school recycling through the County sponsored Waste Free Schools Program.

a Increased recycling for commercial and multi-family (bin) customers. Service will be increased from the current level of two 64-gallon carts per refbse bin per week to a minimum level of 50 percent of the total weekly rehse volume included in the base rate. As an example, if the customer currently has a 2- cubic-yard rehse bin collected twice per week (4 cubic yards per week), they receive only 2-64 gallon carts collected once per week. This is equal to about 0.5 cubic yards of recycling for the four cubic yards of rehse service they get each week. Under the expanded commercial collection, the customer would get a minimum of 2 cubic yards of recycling each week. Larger volume recycling, 100 percent or 200 percent of weekly rehse capacity, will be available for a small surcharge of 5 percent to 12 percent.

Single container for large volume commercial and multi-familv (bin) recycling. As discussed above, most commercial customers will now have the convenience of a single larger bin for recycling which can accommodate larger items and will take up less space than many smaller carts currently being used.

Ten year franchise term. Typical franchise agreements are for 8 to 12 year terms, which allow the contractor to adequately fund the extensive capital investments needed to run a collection franchise. Shorter terms typically result in higher prices and longer terms do not allow for timely review of changes in the industry or market conditions.

0 4 5 1

ATTACHMENT 3


Residential recycling collection of film plastic. This material is now marketable and has recently been added to the list of recyclable materials handled at our County facilities. This provision will formalize the addition of film plastics to the list of required collection materials.

0 Future rate increases based on inflation. There has only been two adjustments to the customer rates over the last eight years (6 percent in 2003 and 3 percent in 2004). The proposed agreement provides for annual inflation-based adjustments. We are proposing to use the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, San Francisco/OaklancUSan Jose area for the fiture annual rate adjustments. The attached rate comparison (Attachment 5 ) clearly shows that the current rates in our area are far below comparable service rates across the entire Bay Area and Central Coast and is indicative of the under-adjustment that has occurred over the last eight years of the current agreement.

Discounted bulky goods pickup during Clean-up Week. This service enhancement has been added to provide for more diversion of appliances and other large bulky furniture during the County clean-up weeks each spring and fall.

Continued Dreference for California Grey Bears commercial cardboard collection. WM will continue to not solicit cardboard customers away from the Grey Bears and the County and WM will continue to promote the Grey Bears cardboard recycling service SCRAP (Santa Cruz Recycling Alliance Program).

Valley Trash. Valley Trash is currently allowed to service up to 300 customers in the rural areas of the county under an exemption allowed by your Board in 1997. We are proposing to continue this exemption, under the condition that Valley Trash provides weekly recycling collection with their refuse collection services in compliance with the County’s new Mandatory Recycling Ordinance. Initial indications fkom Valley Trash are that they will agree to this condition.

PROPOSED RATES

Attachment 5 is a comparative summary of similar rates across the Bay Area and Central Coast region. As previously stated to your Board, we are providing you with this information as verification that the rates proposed by WM are reasonable and in line with comparable services in our area. As an example, WM proposes a rate of $16.95 per month for 35- gallon cart service with recycling and yardwaste collection included. Similar services in the Bay AredCentral Coast region range from $14.60 to $26.83 per month. The WM proposal falls at the low end of the range and it is Public Works’ opinion that this is a reasonable rate, particularly in light of how difficult collection service is in many of the rural areas of our county. The comparative summary includes only those services that comprise over 90 percent of the subscribed services currently in place. The proposed franchise agreement includes the full list of rates for all levels of available service.

*

- 0 0 - O - C - 6 - 3 P 0 4 6 2

ATTACHMENT 3 SANTA CRUZ C O W Page -5-

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Attachment 6 is information provided by WM that shows the disparity between the approved annual cost of living adjustments and the actual increase in cost of service over the first seven years of the franchise. We have reviewed supporting financial documentation from WM that supports the summary information included in Attachment 6 and believe this to be an accurate representation. WM’s proposed rates also include an adjustment to cover the 18.5 percent increase in disposal fees at our County facilities approved by your Board earlier this year, which has not yet been passed through to their customers.

The fi-anchise agreement reflects a change in the fee setting policy, where the County will no longer set fees for Franchise collection services. The County will no longer receive recycling revenue from the fianchise and will no longer utilize County finds derived from this revenue stream to subsidize collection services, as has been the practice in the past. The rate proposal as submitted includes all costs for collection services including WM’s fee for service, disposal fees and franchise fees remitted to the County and provides for no offsetting revenues from the County. The service fees will filly find the cost of service with no supporting outside revenues. Under this agreement, WM would be required to meet and confer with County staff in April of each year to discuss the proposed cost of living rate adjustment and then provide the required notification to all customers. WM would then adjust its rates on August 1st of each year of the agreement based on the approved cost-of-living adjustment and would pass through any disposal rate increase proposed by the County at the time of the increase. It is Public Works’ opinion that this is a much cleaner, straightforward format and more consistent with industry practices .

As additional background for your Board, we have also included, as Attachment 7, a staffing flow chart for WM of Santa Cruz County and a biography for the South Bay General Manager, Dean Kattler, who will be signatory to this agreement.

After review of information provided by WM and completion of our rate analysis, it is Public Works’ opinion that the rates proposed by WM are reasonable and in line with comparable rates across the Bay Area and the Central Coast.


1. Accept and file this report on the refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection services franchise renewal process.

2. Conduct public hearing to accept public comment on the proposed hnchise agreement with Waste Management of Santa Cruz County for refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection services.

3. Direct Public Works to mail an informational newsletter to all Waste Management customers following the public hearing informing them of the renewal process, rate increases, and changes in service under consideration.

a

0 4 6 3


ATTACHMENT 3

4. Continue the public hearing to February-28,2006, for final deliberation and public comment.

THOMAS L. BOLICH Director of Public Works

TLB:RPM:bbs

Attachments

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

Counqxdministrative Officer

copy to: Jim Moresco, Waste Management Dean Kattler, Waste Management Coalition for Waste Alternatives California Grey Bears Valley Women’s Club Valley Trash Public Works

r

wmqgreemh

0 4 6 4

ATTACHMENT 4


701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 41 0, SANTA CRUZ, CA 950604070 (831)454-2160 FAX(831)454-2385 TDD (831)4562123

THOMAS L BOLICH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

AGENDA: FEBRUARY 28,2006

February 22,2006


SUBJECT: REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARDWASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE RATE ADJUSTMENT


On January 24,2006, your Board conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed renewal of franchised refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection services with Waste Management (WM) of Santa Cruz County. Your Board directed that this public hearing be continued to February 28,2006, and that Public Works mail a public information brochure to all WM customers notifying them of the hearing and rate increase. During your deliberations, your Board added further direction including 1) adding information to the public information brochure regarding the alternative of conducting a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, 2) providing an RFP time line and process outline, 3) providing a final recommendation on universal collection in the urban areas of the unincorporated county, and 4) providing a discussion on collection issues and suggested solutions for small private roads. Your Board also provided additional comments relating to concerns over the lack of cost separation for the smaller 10 and 20-gallon refuse service levels and inquired about the ability to reduce rates through less frequent collection.

UNTVERSAL COLLECTION

Per your Board’s direction, Public Works has completed its review of the universal collection issue. Last year, your Board adopted a mandatory recycling ordinance that requires all waste generators in the county to recycle any materials that have an established collection program within the county. This ordinance applies to customers using franchise services and any self-haul customer utilizing County facilities. To date, we have already noted improvement in customer recycling activities at the County facilities as a result of the ordinance and our outreach efforts. In light of the new ordinance, we believe that deferring any additional action to implement universal collection is in order. Implementation of the mandatory recycling ordinance is expected to achieve the same end result (as universal collection) of encouraging and requiring all users of our recycling and solid waste services to participate more aggressively in our recycling and waste diversion programs. Public Works recommends tabling the concept of universal collection until we can fblly realize and evaluate the effects of the mandatory recycling ordinance on residential and commercial waste diversion. - ‘ 1 ( 1


-.


PUBLIC ou TREACH

As directed by your Board, we added information in the mailer sent to all WM customers indicating your Board would be considering an RFP process as well as the negotiated renewal of the WM franchise agreement. We also simplified some of the information regarding new services to make the document more reader friendly as suggested by your Board. A copy of the revised flyer mailed to all WM customers is included as Attachment 1. Public Works also advertised the hearing continuation in local papers.

PROS AND CONS - NEGOTIATED RENEWAL VS. REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS

Your Board was previously provided information on the two options available for consideration regarding continuation of franchised collection services, to negotiate a revised franchise agreement with WM for continuation of services or prepare a competitive RFP to be distributed to the refuse and recycling collection industry. The following is a summary of the pros and cons discussion for your Board to consider while deliberating the WM proposal or issuance of an RFP.

Negotiated Ameement with WM

- Pros:

There will be minimal transition problems (Le., changing vendors and exchanging collection equipment) for customers as the next term of the agreement becomes effective because most of the existing services and collection equipment will remain in place under the negotiated agreement.

WM already has the required local infrastructure in place to support County services such as a corporation yard and recyclable materials processing facility. We are assured of uninterrupted service.

The agreement is complete and can be fully implemented within one to two months of execution, while a full RFP process, subsequent agreement negotiations and implementation can take up to 18 months and significant staff time to implement, if a new vendor is selected.

The independent survey from 2004 indicates a large majority of customers are satisfied with the level and quality of WM service and our regional rate study shows the WM proposal to be in line with comparable services throughout the Bay Area and Central Coast.

- Cons:

We cannot be fully assured that the pricing offered under the negotiated agreement with WM is the best possible pricing available for the services required. - * We will not have the opportunity to hear from other vendors if they have new ideas to address our unique local collection issues and needs.


0 4 6 6

ATTACHMENT 4 - Request for Proposal

Pros:

A competitive process may result in lower prichg for the specific services required in the franchise agreement.

We will have the opportunity to see if other vendors have new or creative approaches to our unique collection requirements and local conditions.

- Cons:

If a new vendor is selected, we must anticipate that the transition period fiom WM to another vendor will be difficult, as carts and bins are exchanged at each collection location and as customers receive new collection instructions.

The new vendor will have a two to four month learning curve regarding routing and the unique collection challenges of our community, which could result in short term collection problems.

There will be significant commitment of staff time to run the RFP process, which will defer a much needed expansion of our commercial recycling program.

A new vendor will have to locate a corporation yard within the county and either develop new recycling processing capacity within the county or transport materials to out-of-county processing sites. Location of a corporation yard was very difficult during the last RFP process and development of new in-county recycling processing capacity may be even more difficult. If we are to allow processing of materials out- of-county, then your Board should consider removing the Highway 17 transportation restriction placed in the agreement in 1997 (Section 3.1 .E), as much of the available out-of-county processing capacity exists in the Bay Area.

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL SERVICE CHANGESENHANCEMENTS FOR RENEWAL

The renewal agreement with WM also includes continuation of processing services for self-hauled woodwaste and yardwaste received at the County recycling and solid waste facilities. Funding for the first two months of this service (last two months of fiscal year 2005- 2006) is included for a not-to-exceed amount of $140,000. In addition to those services outlined in our January 28,2006, report and as summarized in Attachment 1 , Public Works has negotiated several additional changes to the agreement based on comments fiom your Board and the public. The changes are summarized below.

Section 7.3(D) - In response to comments from the Public, WM has agreed to establish additional walk-in bill paying services at two locations within the county, one in Live Oak and one in the AptosLa Selva area. They would do this in conjunction with existing third party billing pay stations utilized by other area utilities. $* v 1)

@h


~ -Q-d*&*

ATTACHMENT 4

_ _ ~

0 4 6 7 - Appendix D-1 - Per your Board's suggestions WM has revised their rate proposal for cart services to create a greater separation in cost for the smaller 10 and 20 gallon service rates.

Appendix D-1 1 - WM has agreed to continue to provide foodwaste collection services for our pilot composting project at the rates agreed upon in the Memorandum of Understanding approved last year.

Appendix K - An updated performance bond is also included and has been increased from $1.0 million to $1.5 million to reflect the increased cost of service.

Attachment 3 includes all the revised pages and required financial documents for inclusion in the new agreement, reflecting the above changedenhancements in service.

PRIVATE ROAD COLLECTION

Your Board directed Public Works to provide a discussion of the collection issues associated with private roads. Currently, WM is required to utilize a truck that is appropriate in size for the width, turn radius and overhead clearance on each road. However, on many private roads the roadbed conditions are very poor. While the truck selected by WM is appropriate in size to safely access the road, the weight may exacerbate substandard roadbed conditions. In order to provide for collection on private roads, the customers must sign a waiver releasing WM of any liability for wear and tear on their roads. The franchise cannot be held liable for poor road conditions, only safe travel and clearance on the road. There are three alternatives to address this issue as outlined below.

The proposed program enhancement includes an optional rate surcharge of 75 percent for WM to utilize a smaller truck than would have normally been used when requested by private road owners. Many private road owners have expressed the desire to have smaller trucks than are normally in use for their private roads to reduce wear and tear or preserve the underlying roadbed. This surcharge would be necessary to fund the added expense that WM would incur to collect on these roads with smaller and far less efficient collection vehicles. Use of smaller trucks than would normally be necessary on these roads means the truck has to make more trips to the landfill or transfer station and can collect from fewer residents than a larger truck. Public Works recommends maintaining this option as currently provided for in the proposed agreement.

The County could require WM to provide smaller trucks as a standard practice on all private roads regardless of assumed or apparent roadbed conditions. The net impact to WM services would be to add more trucks and drivers to accommodate for less cost effectivelefficient collection services. This would result in an overall increase in all residential customer rates to account for the added collection inefficiencies. WM is considering the impact to rates that would result from this change in service requirement.

'h

A 4 Y l

0 4 6 8

ATTACHMENT 4 SANTA CRUZ C O W A f BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page -5-

We can leave the contract as is, and not provide for this service enhancement. Currently, if the road owners/customers do not like the size of the collection vehicle, their only alternative is to set up what is referred to as “cluster collections.” This is where all customers transport their carts to a common collection point, usually where the private road intersects a public road. While this type of collection scenario provides some increased efficiency for the hauler, it very often results in increased illegal dumping, unsightly carts being left at the roadside, a general increase in litter, and regular theft of service as other non-customers will place refuse in the roadside carts. We receive frequent complaints about these locations and the resulting impacts. WM and County crews have a higher maintenance requirement to keep these sites clean. Should your Board elect to leave the current agreement conditions in place, Public Works does not recommend offering rate breaks that may encourage creation of even more cluster collection areas, as has been suggested.

ECTION FREOUENCY

Your Board inquired about the potential of reducing rates through reduction in collection frequency. Public Works and County Counsel have reviewed current law and concur that refuse must be collected no less frequently than every seven days. This requirement is outlined under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1733 1 , and under County Code, Section 7.20.1 10. Current and proposed franchise services must comply with these regulations.

OUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Your Board directed Public Works to provide a time line and process outline for an RFP should the Board elect not to accept the negotiated agreement with WM. Attachment 2 is the tentative schedule and process summary for the RFP. As you can see by the schedule, the time line will vary depending upon who is selected. Should WM be selected as the incumbent, they will have little transition time to filly implement the new services. However, if a new vendor is selected, they will need a minimum of eight to ten months to prepare to take over services.

The most significant issues for a new vendor will be to locate a corporation yard within the county and either fincUdevelop commercial space for a materials recovery facility (MRF) in the county or locate capacity at an MRF outside the county. Commercial space of the size and designation to support one or both of these essential operations will be very difficult to locate and will likely pose the greatest challenge for any potential bidder. WM’s corporation yard would not be available to a new vendor, as they still have franchise agreements to support for Capitola and Scotts Valley.

We have asked WM to provide a proposal to extend the current franchise agreement, if your Board elects to issue an RFP. We believe extending the current agreement until December 3 1,2007, would provide adequate time for a new vendor to transition into the county. WM is requesting a 19.8 percent increase in service fees for this extension of services. Public Works believes this to be a reasonable request for a 20 month extension of the current agreement in light of the financial impacts that WM has documented over the last few years of this agreement. Attached for your consideration is an amendment to agreement (Attachment 4) extending the current service agreement through December 3 1,2007, and increasing all the service fees bi

SANTA CRUZ COUN I f BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page -6-

0 4 6 9

ATTACHMENT 4

In order to fully implement this amendment, Public Works would have to prepare a new customer rate schedule and a notice of public hearing (Attachment 5) for adoption of these new rates. If your Board elects to issue an RFP, Public Works would recommend setting a public hearing for March 28,2006, for approval of a new customer rate schedule for refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection services reflecting the 19.8 percent increase requested by WM.

SUMMARY

At the direction of your Board, Public Works has completed negotiations on a renewal agreement with WM for continuation of collection services. General public opinion of WM services is very high, as indicated by the public satisfaction survey conducted in 2004. Public Works has also provided your Board with a summary of Bay Area and Central Coast rates for comparable services, as a test of reasonableness of the WM rate proposal before you. It is our opinion that the proposed rates are reasonable and in line with service rates throughout the area and present a fair offer to the County. We have received below-market rates for many years due to the stringent conditions in our current agreement. Our current rate formula did not provide for rate adjustments to correct for above-normal increases in the cost of business adversely affecting the waste hauling industry such as unionization, fuel costs, workers compensation and insurance, and disposal costs.

Siting of a corporation yard andor MRF facility within the county will be problematic for any new hauler. MRF capacity will likely need to be sought or developed out-of- county to accommodate the volume of materials coming from our collection system. Public Works is currently studying locations and options for such a facility that could be owned andor operated by the County or other franchised service provider. However, it will take a number of years to bring such a facility to fruition, at which point processing and corporation yard space will no longer be of issue in any future RFP process and the bid process will not be weighed as heavily in favor of an incumbent. Based on all the above information, we do not believe an RFP process will provide significant benefit or reduction in rates and believe approval of the renewal agreement with WM would be in the best interest of the County.

Your Board must now consider the two options before you:

Option 1 includes Public Works’ recommended approval of the renewal agreement submitted to your Board on January 24,2006, with the addition of the revised and new agreement pages and fiscal document included in Attachment 3 and public noticing of the upcoming rate increase and availability of services.

Option 2 includes preparation of an RFP, approval of an extension of the current WM agreement through December 3 1,2007, and related fiscal documents (Attachment 4) to facilitate the RFP process, setting new customer rates to reflect the 19.8 percent increase in service fees requested by WM for the extension, and noticing of a public rate-setting hearing for revised WM rates (Attachment 5).

w-R?-Bw


0000309 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page -7-


ODtion 1 : If your Board elects to accept the proposed franchise agreement with Waste Management for refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection services then:

a. Approve the proposed franchise agreement with Waste Management of Santa Cruz County for refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection services, with substitute pages included in Attachment 3.

b. Authorize the Director of Public Works to sign the agreement on behalf of the County.

c. Direct Public Works in conjunction with Waste Management to prepare appropriate public notice and direct mailers to all customers informing them of the rate changes and available services.

Option 2: If your Board elects to issue a Request for Proposals for refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection services then:

a. Direct Public Works to return on April 4,2006, with a proposed Request for Proposal for refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection services and a final schedule.

b. Approve the attached amendment to agreement with Waste Management extending the term of their agreement to December 3 1, 2007, and increasing their service fees by 19.8 percent.

c. Authorize the Director of Public Works to sign the amendment on behalf of the County.

d. Schedule a public hearing for March 28,2006, at 9:00 a.m. or thereafter to consider adoption of revised refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection service rates, to be effective May 1,2006.

e. Direct Public Works in conjunction with Waste Management to prepare appropriate public notice and direct mailers to all customers informing them of the change in rates and public hearing.

ATTACHMENT 4

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0000310 Page -8-

I . f. Direct the Clerk of the Board to publish the attached Notice of - Public Hearing, once a week for three weeks prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.

Yours truly,

Director of Public Works TLB :RPM :bbs

Attachments

RECO MENDED FOR APPROVAL: m. County Administrative Officer

Copy to: Jim Moresco, Waste Management Coalition for Waste Alternatives California Grey Bears Valley Women’s Club Public Works Department

wasted2b .wpd

*%*


065 1

County of Santa Cruz DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC WORKS

701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 41 0, SANTA CRUZ, CA 950604070 (831)454-2160 FAX (831)454-2385 TDD (831) 454-2123


APPROVEDAND FILED F SUPERVISORS

AGENDA: APRIL 25,2006 SUSAN A. MAURELLO

o ~ . ~ ~ ~ O ~ April 13,2006

.,,I*m SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, California 95060

SUBJECT: REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARDWASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS


On February 28,2006, your Board rejected the renewal agreement with Waste Management of Santa Cruz County (WM) for the subject services and directed Public Works to begin preparing a request for proposals (UP) for those services. Attachment 4 is a copy of the proposed RFP and draft franchise agreement (on file with the Clerk of the Board). The RFP and draft contract include program changes that your Board has already considered during the recent renewal negotiations with WM, as well as several changes and enhancements resulting from Board and public comments received during our recent public hearings. The following is a summary of the major program changes that are proposed for the new franchise agreement:

Summary of Maior Service ChanizesEnhancements in the €UT

New 10 callon rehse can collection service. This new service is offered to support minimum waste generators, seniors and others living in residences with limited storage space for the larger carts in use for standard services. We have had many inquiries from the public about this new service.

Increased availability of home compost and worm compost bins. Bins will be made available to customers with yard waste collection and to County sponsored compost workshop participants at a fixed discounted price of $25. This program enhancement will support our ongoing efforts to help residents learn to compost their food wastes at home instead ofplacing them in the rehse.

0 4 1 3

ATTACHMENT 5


0652

Exclusive Franchise collection zone extended to Las Cumbres and Oak Ridge neiehborhoods along Skyline Boulevard. The neighborhood associations for these two areas previously petitioned Public Works to be included in the fianchise zone at the time of renewal/award.

New collection service option for private roads. Current collection practices utilize vehicles on each route that are appropriately sized to safely travel on all the roads being serviced, and to maximize efficiency and keep costs down. Many private road owners would like the ability to request smaller trucks than are normally in use for their private roads to reduce wear and tear or preserve the underlying substandard road. This program enhancement includes a rate surcharge for the vendor to utilize a smaller truck than would have normally been used when requested by private road owners. However, if the road owners can provide an engineering report that clearly states the gross vehicle weight limits for the road, the franchise hauler would be obligated to use a smaller weight vehicle and provide collection without the surcharge.

Expanded contract performance standards and fines for non-compliance. Several new specific damage provisions have been added and several existing damage fines have been increased for failure to perform in accordance with the agreement. As an example, we have added a provision for damages if the hauler co-mingles refuse and recyclables during collection or improperly disposes of collected materials. We have also increased the damages for performance issues such as littering and collection performed too early or late in the day.

Unlimited recvcling for un incorporated area schools with refuse collection service. While WM already provides as much recycling as each school requests, this provision will formalize this service under the new agreement.

Increased recycling; for commercial and multi-family (bin) customers. Service will be increased from the current level of two 64-gallon carts per refbse bin, per week to a minimum recycling capacity equal to 100 percent of the total weekly refuse capacity. Please note that this is an increase over the prior recommendation of 50 percent and is proposed for two reasons: 1) public comments support further increasing commercial recycling capacity beyond our original proposal; and, 2) increasing recycling capacity to be at least equal to refuse capacity is consistent with the State’s required waste diversion goals. As an example, if the customer currently has a 2- cubic yard refuse bin collected twice per week (4 cubic yards per week), they receive only 2-64 gallon carts collected once per week. This is equal to about 0.5 cubic yards of recycling for the four cubic yards of refuse service they get each week. Under the expanded commercial collection the customer would get a minimum 4 cubic yards of recycling each week. Larger volume recycling, 200 percent or 300 percent of weekly refuse capacity, will be available for a surcharge.

Single container for large volume commercial and multi-family (bin) recycling. As discussed above, most commercial customers will now have the convenience of a single larger bin for recycling which can accommodate larger items and will take up less space than many smaller carts currently being used.

- . - - - _ _ - .. _-- __

0 4 7 4

ATTACHMENT 5

0653 SANTA CRUZ COUN I i BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page -3-

Ten-year franchise terrg . Typical franchise agreements are for 8- 12 year terms, which allow the contractor to adequately f b d the extensive capital investments needed to run a collection franchise. Shorter terms typically result in higher prices and longer terms do not allow for timely review of changes in the industry or market economics.

Residential recycling collection of film plastic. This material is now marketable and has recently been added to the list of recyclable materials handled at our County facilities. This provision will formalize the addition of film plastics to the list of required collection materials.

Preference for Pav-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Rate Structures. During your Board's deliberations on March 28,2006, we discussed the rate structure concept of PAYT. PAYT rate structures require the customer to pay based on the amount of refuse disposed. The exception to the PAYT structure is for those services under 35 gallon where it is not feasible to create a fully proportional rate. As an example, if the 35 gallon service were $1 5 per month, the hauler could not reasonably charge $5 per month for the 10gallon service because the baseline costs for providing all the required services (refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection) would be far more than the proportional rate. However, we have requested that the proposers provide as great a rate differential as possible when developing their rate structure proposals for the smaller 10 and 20 gallon refuse services. Our current rates are very close to this type of rate structure and we are requesting the bidders provide a PAYT rate structure with their bids to maintain consistency with this past practice. The concept of PAYT is strongly promoted through our California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a means to encourage waste reduction and assure all waste generators are paying proportionately for the waste they generate. A CIWMB outline of how PAYT works is included as Attachment 1 for your reference.

Discounted bulky eoods pickup during Clean-up Week. This service enhancement has been added to provide for more diversion of appliances and other large bulky furniture during the County clean-up weeks each spring and fall.

In addition to the RFP document and draft franchise agreement, we are preparing a reference link on the Public Works web site that will include extensive data on current collection routes, service level data, and other program databases that may be of use to outside bidders proposing on our services. We will use this web site to post any new data or information as it is requested, as well as responding to bidders' questions and inquiries, so all bidders will be assured of receiving the same data in a timely fashion.

Section 1.5 of the attached RFP includes the proposed time line. We are proposing to release the RFP to the industry on Friday, April 28,2006. At this time, we are aware of eight to ten potential proposers who will receive initial verbal and mailed notification of the RFP release. A list of the haulers that will receive the initial notification is included as Attachment 2. A copy of the proposed notification is included as Attachment 3. We will also distribute the notification through various other industry contacts and organizations. The proposers list is based on a survey of all the haulers in the Bay Area and Central Coast region large enough to meet the County's minimum qualification standards for the RFP. Based on our estimated timeline, we expect to return to your Board on or before August 22,2006, with the RFP results and a recommended vendor(s). Upon your Board's concurrence, we would commence final contract negotiations and return on a later date with a proposed agreement and implementation schedule for final execution.

C

'"lt

- oQQ-2-6a

ATTACHMENT 5

- - l-_l_ - . - - - __ - ___ - .

0 4 7 5


0 6 5 4

It is therefore recommended th,at the Board of Supervisors take the following action:

1. Approve the request for proposals documents for refke, recycling and yardwaste collection services.

2. Direct Public Works to notie potential proposers of the April 28,2006, release of the Request for Proposals.

3. Direct Public Works to return on or before August 22, 2006, with the results of the request for proposals process and a vendor recommendation.

Yours truly, A

THOMAS L. BOLICH Director of Public Works

TLB:RPM:bbs

RECOMMWED FOR APPROVAL:

Copy to: Public Works Department

franchiserfpb. wpd

*

Unit Pricing Introduction California Home Integrdced Waste Management Board

Waste Prevention World

Waste Prevention World Home

At Home

Pay as You Throw 0 Introduction

Alacmfb Benefits -ll!dks&

0 Comparisons

Tools

Waste Prevention Succlesses

Info Exchanae

te Reductiou rd imto r I n f o

Proarams Definitions

ATTACHMENT 5 - Page 1 of2

Search Index Contact Us Help

0655

More info

I n trod u ct ion

The idea of "pay as you throw" or "unit pricing" has been around a long time. We face it every day for almost everything we buy: dollars per gallon of gasoline, per loaf of bread, per overnight video rental, per kilowatt hour of electricity, or per cubic foot of water. I n fact, prices that are not set by the unit are the exception, rather than the rule: all-you-can- eat pizza buffets, copier service agreements, and government services such as police and fire protection.

Municipal solid waste (household garbage disposal) has traditionally been funded through taxes or flat rate billing. This pricing scheme creates the same incentive as the all-you-can- eat pizza buffet: the smart economic move is to eat--or throw away--all you can, because the more you get for a fixed price, the better deal you're getting. All-you-can-dump solid waste pricing has played a significant part in creating the national solid waste crisis, exemplified by disappearing landfill capacity, rising disposal costs, limited use of recycling programs, and the attitude that unlimited waste service is a right.

Therefore, unit pricing for solid waste disposal means charging a fee for each unit disposed. The unit may be measured by the bag, by the can, or by the pound.

Benefits of unit pricing

Although the transition to a unit pricing system can be difficult for agencies accustomed to flat rate billing, unit pricing can make a profound change that leads to a variety of benefits., Most importantly, it creates the connection between each customer's cost and disposal habits, and provides an incentive for customers to make smarter choices in how they handle their waste.

All unit pricing systems offer important advantages for both the solid waste agencies and their customers:

o Increased awareness of solid waste costs. Traditionally, true solid waste operational costs have been obscured from the consumer by being lumped into one general tax bill that covers many public services. Unit pricing makes customers aware of the cost of the waste services they use, and reinforces that awareness every time a customer pays a garbage bill or buys a pre-paid garbage bag or tag/sticker.

0 Incentive to reduce waste. When customers have to pay more for each can or bag disposed, they are likely to think twice before purchasing excessively packaged products at the store, or throwing old lettuce into the trash instead of the compost pile.

o Incentive to recycle. I f throwing away is more expensive because the true costs of disposal are accounted for, recycling becomes a more economically beneficial option. This financial incentive can help increase use of recycling programs, and can reduce

w!

http d/www ciwmb .ca.gov/wpw/unitpricing/default htm 3

0 4 7 7

ATTACHMENT 5 Unit Pricing Introduction Page 2 of 2

total waste management system costs. 0 Reduced dependence on landfills or incinerators. Unit pricing will red"&! 656

tonnage going to landfills or incinerators. Therefore, the need for expansion of landfills is postponed.

o Stabilized system costs. Final disposal is often the most unstable, and sometimes the most expensive, component of solid waste system cost. The incentives created by unit pricing by reducing the impact of landfill costs can help stabilize system costs.

o Equity among customers. Flat-rate billings and taxes make no distinction between high- and low-level disposers. With unit pricing, customers are charged according to the amount of waste they dispose. Help in meeting legislated diversion goals. The State of California, as well as other states and counties across the country, has mandated recycling or disposal reduction goals for communities within its jurisdiction. Unit pricing systems can create incentives that encourage customers to change their disposal habits to help meet these goals.

Waste Prevention World Home

Last updated: August 26, 2004

Waste Prevention World http://www .ciwmb.ca,goyf-WPW[ Don Van Dyke: [email protected], (91 6) 341-661 5 01 995. 7006 California Integrated Waste Management Board. All rights reserved. Terms of Us-elPriv-agy

*

http i/www ciwmb .c a. I- -- - - ' - - 7 itpricingldefault htm

I " ~ -

http://www

mailto:[email protected]

ATTACHMENT 5

I

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY I

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR

REFUSE, RECYCLING AND YARDWASTE

SERVICES FRANCHISE

Prepared by: Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works 701 Ocean Street, Room 410 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Phone: (83 1) 454-2 160 Fax: (83 1) 454-2385

KEY DATES Letter of Intent Pre-Proposal Conference

opoS a w b m i s s i ons

Due: 5/17/06 5/22/06

Due: 6/23/06

ATTACHMENT 6 0 4 7 9 Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer QuestionsResponses

RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE SERVICES - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

PROPOSER QUESTIONS

An updatedkevised RFP and draft franchise agreement, along with various additional data have all been posted on the web site in response to these questions/responses. Where noted in the responses below, any changes will appear in the existing documents in bold and either underlined (added language) or stricken out (deleted language). Updated franchise zone maps and service maps have also been posted on the web site.

All questions are followed by the initials of the proposer(s) asking the question: (GW) - Green Waste Recovery, (GT/WCI) - Green T e a m N a s t e Connections, Inc., (NC) - Norcal, (WM) - Waste Management

RFP Questions

1. The RFP specifies that Waste Stream composition data will be available on the County web site; however, we could not find any disposal data. Will the County be providing the tonnage disposed to the potential proposers? (WM)

Does the County have any information on tonnages collected for residential and commercial garbage, commercial recycling and commercial yardwaste? (GW)

A summary table of monthly curbside refuse collection totals is attached and has been posted on the “web site ” at http://~~rl.t,W.dp~~. cosanta-cr-uz. ca. us/RFPs. htiit . We do not currently track refuse or recycling tonnages by commercial or residential categories. Also see response to question #6 below.

2. The RFP specifies that the scope of service will be commingled recyclables; however the Draft Franchise Agreement mentions split-carts. Please clarify. (WM)

The recycling collection system is Commingled and not a two-stream, split cart system. Only one incorrect reference to the County s prior split cart system was found in the Draft Franchise Agreement in Section 4.3(C). 4 and has been corrected to read “Recycling Cart ”.

3. How many subscription homes and total homes are in the “mini-packer’’ hard to service area and how many residences are in the “regular service” area? (GT/WCI)

There are approximately 1,000 customers in the “Hard-to-Service ” mini-packer routes. However, this number varies significantly from day-to-day because of road related issues that require short and long term route changes to maintain collection continuity. Issues such as partial road closures, road construction and other temporary access restrictions can result in expansion of the mini-packer routes. As an example we currently have approximately IO0 -

RFP Questions.doc Page -1- w , J q

1

ATTACHMENT 6 0 4 8 0 Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer Questions/Responses

additional mini-packer customers (over the 1,000 on dedicated routes) due to single lane closures resulting from storm damage to County roads.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Can you provide us with a database or listing of residences that subscribe to solid waste collection service? (GT/WCI)

County services are defined as cart or bin service and not by residential or commercial categories. A spreadsheet with all the cart and bin service addresses has been posted on the web site in Excel format.

We are still in the process of accumulating data for our response. Can you extend the due date of the RFP a week or two? (GT/WCI)

Can the County extend the due date of the proposal? (GW)

The schedule for the RFP has been approved by the County Board of Supervisors and formally noticed to the public and industry. No extensions will be granted.

A report included in the exhibits indicates that there was 19,926 tons of curbside recycling collected in 2005. Does this amount include commercial recycling? (GT/WCI)

This number includes some commercial recycling. Current bin collection services only include a minimum level ofrecycling capacity (two 64-gallon carts per bin) under the current Franchise Agreement. Only recycling quantities from cart based recycling collection are included in the listed tonnage. All other larger volume commercial recycling is open market and not subject to the current Franchise Agreement. The only other recycling data available is for single stream cardboard collection by the current Franchisee: 370 tons in 2005.

What is the amount of self hauled refuse that was disposed in 2005? (GT/WCI)

Approximately 25,000 tons of refuse was received in small personal vehicles and pick-ups, and approximately 50, 000-60,000 tons of refuse was received through drop box haulers and other larger commercial accounts at County facilities in 2005. The remainder was received by the current Franchisee or other out-of-district sources.

Is Davenport and Bonny Doon included in the RFP franchise service area? The map provided indicates they are not. (GT/WCI)

Is Davenport area part of the Franchise collection area? On the map provided it is not highlighted but it is on the route maps provided in the RFP. (GW)

Boony Doon was included in the map provided; however the Davenport area was inadvertently omitted. A revised service map including the Davenport area has been posted on the web site.

Page -2- RFP Questions.doc

A 9 ’

ATTACHMENT 6

Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer Questions/Responses 0 4 8 1

9. Can you help us make contact with Tom Del Conte at Vision Recycling? We have yet to make contact with him. (GT/WCI)

We have forwarded your concerns to Mr. Del Conte. His address andphone number are on page 3-8 of the RFP. He can also be contacted via e-mail at toiitrl~,~cZnndsca?~i~i~.com

10. The franchise performance information reports provided are missing pages. Could you supply us with the following pages: Garbage service codes report pages 7, 12, and 13 and container by size report pages 8,9, 10, and 11. (GT/WCI)

The pages listed below are missing from the first section (Cart Customers-Refuse) of the Franchise Performance Information document. The missing pages are not available. The missing pages show the following counts:

Residential Refuse Number of Service Accounts by Service Code Page Route-Da y 7 12 13

HT50, HT51, HT.53, HT71, MT15, MT16, MTl7 TT24, TT25, TT26, TT27, TT28, TT30, TT32 TT32, TT50, TT51, TT.53, WTI5, WT16, WTl7, WT18

Number of Containers by Size Paze Route-Da y 8 9 I O I1

HT27, HT28, HT29, HT30, HT31 HT32, HT50, HT51, HT53, HT71, MC09 MT15, MTl6, MTl7, MTl8, MT19 MT20, MT21, MT22, MT23, MT24

As a substitute for the missingpages, the pages attached to these responses andposted on the web site show the counts for the same route-days for the next, subsequent, month- Februaly 2006. The February counts are not 100% identical- some numbers are off by 1 to 4- based on a comparison of adjacent pages (route-days). However, this range is within the monthly customer base variation.

11. There are 34,516 cart customers listed. How many are commercial customers? (GW)

This information is not tracked.

12. Does the county have information on the quantity and sizes of multi-family complexes? (GW)

We do not have specific facility by facility information, but we do have general planning level data for the unincorporated county.

2,371 condominium units, but no data on the number of complexes this represents. 193, 5-1 0 unit apartment complexes, but no data on the number of individual apartments this represents.

Page -3- RFP Questions .doc

ATTACHMENT 6

Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer QuestionsResponses 0 4 8 2

I I8, I I-20 unit apartment complexes, but no data on the number of individual apartments this rep resents . 49, 21-40 unit apartment complexes, but no data on the number individual apartments this represents. 43, 41-60 unit apartment complexes, but no data on the number of individual apartments this represents. 68, 61-IO0 unit apartment complexes, but no data on the number of individual apartments this represents. 2, IO1 -+ unit apartment complexes, but no data on the number individual apartments this represents.

13. Can the contractor use the landfill and transfer station to transfer recyclables? (GW)

Yes, we would consider this, but only under very controlled circumstances that are not disruptive of any landfill or transfer station operations. General terms would include, but not be limited to:

No storage- of recyclables on the ground or in open bunkers. Haulers must load the materials into transfer trailers or store in enclosed bunkers daily. Haulers must provide their own staff and equipment, and/or facility upgrades necessary to load trailers. Haulers must pay for any electrical service required such as for load-out conveyors, compactors, etc.. . Trailers must be removed from sites within 24 hours after filling. Space is very limited and 1andJilUtransfer station operations take precedence.

14. Is it possible for the contractor to use a third party for processing of recyclables and if so, how will the county collect the franchise fees? Will it be based on how much the contractor sells the mixed recyclables to the processing facility? Is the processing facility required to pay Living Wage? (GW)

Franchise Fees are assessed on gross revenues received by the Franchisee for sale of recyclables. The decision on how to assess Franchise fees will be based on whether you have a commodity transaction or a service transaction with a third party. Ifyou “sell” your commingled recyclables to a third party processor (commodity transaction), the franchise fees would be based on the price paid by the third party for your commingled or single stream ($ applicable) recyclables. Ifyou hire a third party to operate a processing facility on your behalf (service transaction), then the market price for various sorted recyclables would be considered part of the Franchisee ’s gross revenues and subject to Franchisee Fees. Please note that the thirdparty processor will have to agree to be bound by all theprocessing, residual limit and composition study provisions of the Franchise Agreement.

Franchisee employees and sub-contractors to the Franchisee are bound by the County Living Wage policy. A third party processor is considered a subcontractor. Please see the County


Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer Questionsmesponses

Living Wage Compliance Statement is attached for your reference. See response to question #36 below for the web link to County Living Wage Provisions.

15.

16,

17.

18.

19.

Can a contractor provide a second option in their proposal for an optional type of service? (GW)

Yes, but any optional type ojservice proposed must include full responses to all technical sections that are affected by the optional service. Failure to provide complete response may result in disqualification of the optional proposal.

In the route operations report it states only 29,905 customers and 32,890 containers, but in the productivity report it states 34,68 1 customers. Is there any explanation for this? (GW)

In conducting a cursory audit of the Franchise Collection Zone, we did not observe the number of bins represented in Section 2-3. We ask that the County review and, as appropriate, revise the data in the RFP Section 2-3 with respect to the count of Bin Customers within each tier if Service Level and Frequency. (NC)

It is our understanding from the current Franchisee that the route report does not include most of the mini-packer routes which are spread out over the County and subject to frequent changes. We have no additional information on this variation. The productivity report and the table on page 2-3 are the most accurate representation of the customer service counts. The Table on page 2-3 was derivedfrom cost accounting statements submitted to the County and subject to audit.

Can the County provide the current fee charged by Vision Recycling? (GW)

No. Vision Recycling operates as a subcontractor to the current Franchisee and the County is not privy to the financial arrangements.

Does the County have a count on the number of residents that subscribe to rear load bins? (GW)

This information is include in the Franchise Performance Information, but only lists rear load route information. We do not break account information into commercial and residential, only cart and bin services.

Is there a break down available of the bin customers to which ones are front load and rear load? (GW)

No, but page B-3 7 ojthe Franchise Performance Intormation includes a summary of refuse bin service levels and the general rule is that most I-yd and 2-yd bins are rear load and bins 3- yards and above are front load.

RFP Questions.doc Page -5-

0 - fHE-h l rq

ATTACHMENT 6 Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer QuestionsResponses 0 4 8 4

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

I

Page 1-5, Tentative Schedule - this section states that there is a 1-3 month period for Board deliberationsPublic Comment on the proposed Franchise Agreement. What occurs in this time kame and what is the purpose of it? (GW)

After the Board approves the recommendation from the review committee in August, Public Works would be authorized to negotiate an agreement($ with the selected vendor@) and return to the Board with final contract(s). Based on our past experience the Boardbublic may have comments or questions on the proposed final agreement($ that will require additional time to respond to or that may require additional negotiations. This time frame provides time for that potential scenario.

Page 2-3, Section 2.3 - Could you verify that the bin count in Section 2.3 includes bins at county facilities outlined in Appendix E? And, if the bin count in Section 2.3 is the refuse containers only or does it include yardwaste and recycling? (GT/WCI)

Does the cart and bin data in Section 2.3 include City [county] facilities? (GW)

The bin count does not include bins at County facilities within the unincorporated county or within incorporated City limits according to the current Franchisee. The bin count in Section 2.3 includes only the number of subscribed refuse cart and bin services. Additional data on yardwaste and recycling containers can be found in the Franchise Performance Information section of the RFP web site.

Page 3-1, Section 3.1 - One of the entries on this page states: “drop box services provided at County designated community events.” Does this refer to Annual Clean-up Events or to other events? If it refers to other events, approximately how many other events are expected annually? (GTIWCI)

This refers to Section 4.1(D)(3) of the Draft Franchise Agreement and applies to other events as specified by the County such as our annual Coastal Beach Clean-up Event, or River Clean- up Event. The Franchise Agreement calls for provision of up to eight (8) 40 yard boxes for refuse and eight (8) 40-yard boxes for recycling per year at the County’s direction. We anticipate 6-8 such events each year.

Page 3-2, Discussion of Collection of Residual Refuse - How many “in-ground’’ containers are in service now? (GT/WCI)

This refers to Section 4.4(A) of the Draft Franchise Agreement. We do not have an accurate count of in-ground containers, but the current Franchisee has indicated the number is v e v small, less than 100 customers. We strongly discourage the use of in-ground collection locations which do not support the three cart collection system. The existing in-ground collection sites are for refuse only and do not include recycling or yardwaste.

Page 3-3, Garbage Overages Collection - States that “Bags or extra cans would be used for o“cc2~onal overages. Frequent use would result in requiring the customer to change the level of


ATTACHMENT 6


service.” Please define “frequent” and who would be enforcing the requirement to change level of service? (WM)

Any extra bags or cans of refuse set out for collection, which are not part of the “Annual Clean-up ”program (Section 4. LF), shall be collected by the Franchisee and charged in accordance with Appendix D. Our current rate structure dictates that if customers use the ‘ Yee based” extra-set service on a weekly basis, they will actually pay $2-3per month more than if they were to move up to the next level of service. The rate structure for extra set outs discourages this practice on a frequent or regular basis. The Franchisee would be responsible for enforcement of this requirement. A general rule of thumb would be @he customer sets out extra refuse in a quantity equal to or greater than 32 gallons per week for a period of more than 2 months, then they should be moved to a larger sized refuse service. The 2 month period would be reasonable in accounting for special, short-term circumstances, such as a home remodel project, that the customer may be experiencing.

25. Page 3-6, Discussion at the top of the page, footnote 2 of Form 1, and the Franchise Agreement - Page 3-6 states that limited service customers receive two crates for recyclables. Form 1 says limited service customers receive three crates. The Franchise Agreement does not seem to address the number of crates. Please confirm which is correct. (GT/WCI)

The RFP and proposal form, and the Draft Franchise Agreement have all been corrected to read, “.. up to five (5) stacking 11 -gallon stacking recycling crates or up to three (3) non- stacking 18-gallon recycling crates. ” Also see response to question #43 below. Please note per Section 4.3(C)(4) that the Franchisee is required to promote the transition from crates to carts wherever applicable. The County does not support the ongoing use of crates for recycling, except where space constraints limit the customer ’s ability to store the larger recycling carts (i. e. apartments, condos, narrow beach properties, row houses).

26.

2 7.

Page 4-4, Section 4.9 - In Section 4.9, the County requires the contractor to identify the proposed locations for a corporation yard. We have three potential sites for a corporation yard. Do we need to just list the sites or do we have to have the site under contract? (GW)

You must, at a minimum, list the sites. We do not expect proposers to have the sites under contract until after award of the contract, but it would be beneficial ifthe proposal included letters from the property owners signibing intent to lease the property for this purpose. County will conduct its own due diligence on any listed site to verifi availability, appropriate zoning and any other conditions that may exist on the proposed site.

Page 5-1, Section 5.1.4 and Page 5.5, Section 5.4. - In Section 5.1 and Section 5.4, there are some specific requirements for both financial qualifications and accounts serviced by the contractor to be qualified for this W P to demonstrate an annual average $6 million in revenue and to service over 25,000 solid waste and recycling accounts for the past 3 years. We strongly believe that we are qualified to service Santa Cruz County, but the exact qualifications the County has listed do not fit into what we currently have contracted. We service over 150,000 accounts a week in San Jose and unincorporated Santa Clara County for cart and


ATTACHMENT 6 0 4 8 6 Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer QuestionsResponses

uncontainerized yardwaste collection. We also service a large portion of communities in the Santa Cruz Mountains in both Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. We service the City of Petaluma for Solid Waste, Recyclables, and Yardwaste, but not for the past three years. We have serviced, in a joint venture, the City of San Jose for Solid Waste and Recyclable collection for up to 90,000 homes and all multi-family complexes from 1992 to 2002. Please verify that we do qualify. (GW)

Based on this limited description ofyour experience it appears you qualib. Your described experience in serving the City of San Jose appears to meet the requirements set forth in Section 5.1.4 of serving a minimum of 25,000 customers for curbside refuse and recycling, for a minimum of three years. However, you must clearly describe your role, financial relationship, and any partnership documentation regarding the ‘ j‘oint venture ”for our clarification. You also have experience in yardwaste collection, which is highly desirable, but not a requirement.

We cannot respond to yourfinancial qualifications under Section 5.4, due to the lack of in form at ion.

28. Page 5-9, Section 5.4 - In Section 5.4, the County asks for “demonstrated average annual revenues from a solid waste collection and recycling contract for the last three years of at least $6 million”. Can this be from combined contracts for different types of services? Some cities separate there contracts such as one for solid waste, one for yard waste, and one for commingled recyclables. Also does processing count towards this number since a large part of the success of this contract will be the ability to process yardwaste, food scraps, and commingled recyclables. (GW)

The County would consider cumulative contracts of at least $6 million, including processing, as qualifiing. However, since this is both a collections and processing services contract, lack of experience in servicing a larger, single client contract of at least $6 million may not be rated as highly under the financial component of our evaluation process.

29. Page 5-7, Section 5.2.3 - We plan to use the services of Vision [Recycling] to process yard waste and food waste. The section asks for details about the yard waste processor. Are those details needed if we use [the incumbent processor] Vision [Recycling]? (GT/WCI)

All proposers should complete this section in its entirety, even if they are proposing to use Vision Recycling for yard waste processing and/or marketing services. There are many sections that do not directly pertain to Vision Recycling (i.e. 5.2.3.5, Contingency Plan) or that may be alteredfrom the current practices of Vision Recycling. Of course, we do not require an extensive amount of background information on Vision Recycling, but you should, at a minimum, respond to each section and state if current practices and data will remain unchanged.

30. Page 5-10, Section 5.4, item 2 - This item requires submittal of “. . .audited financial -

ments.. .through the most recently completed quarter of the current fiscal year. . .” As with


-ea-82W ATTACHMENT 6


most companies, audited financials are not available for the most recent quarter of the fiscal; year. Can this provision be deleted? (GT/WCI)

The requirement to provide audited financial statements through the most recently completed quarter of the current fiscal year will not be required. However, the requirement to provide statements for the three previous fiscal years is still applicable. This has been corrected in the RFP.

31. Page 7-3, Discussion of Evaluation Criteria - What is the point value of each of the evaluation criteria? (GT/WCI)

A copy of the Evaluation Criteria Rating Form that will be used by the review panel is attached and has been posted on the web site for your reference.

32. Page 7-4, Item #1 under Contractual - Do you anticipate that proposals seeking more changes will be downgraded in the evaluation compared to those seeking few changes? (GT/W CI)

Each proposal will be evaluated both on its own merit and compared to the other proposals. Proposals offering changes to current service practices will be given the same level of consideration as proposals that offer no substantial changes over current practices. Innovations that improve services to our community and/or increase diversion levels are encouraged.

33. Form 1, Food Waste Collection Service Fee Schedule - The form does not allow for disposal fee, please clarify. (WM)

All loads of foodwaste collected by the Franchisee in conjunction with the County s pilot foodwaste compostingproject are accepted at the County’s Buena Vista Landfill at no charge. The Franchisee will be paid the per-ton processing fee for self-haul woodwaste and yardwaste directly by the County in accordance with appendices D and G, which includes the incoming foodwaste feedstock.

34. Is it possible to get all of the cost proposal forms in an excel format for completion as opposed to the current PDF format? (WM)

Yes. We will e-mail an excel version of the proposal forms to each of the listed haulers and post it on the web site. In light of this request, we would like all the Form I proposal schedules included in your proposal packet in printed form and also submitted electronically in the supplied Excel format. You can submit these on a CD or via e-mail to patrick.mathews~~co.suntu-cruz. cu. us.

Draft Franchise Agreement Questions


ATTACHMENT 6

Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer Questions/Responses 0 4 8 8

A revised Draft Franchise Agreement outlining all of language changes indicated below has been posted on the County web site at: Iittp://hvw. dpw. cosanta-cruz. CCI. us/RFPr. htm

35. Page 6, Definition of Private Road - “Private Road means any roadway providing primary access to three or more Commercial Residential Premises.” Page 28, Section 4.4, Collection Locations states: “A private road is defined as any non-County maintained roadway providing vehicular access to three (3) or Premises within the unincorporated area of the county. Which definition above prevails? (NC)

The County’s opinion is that both definitions have the exact same meaning and intent. However, for clarification we have adjusted both references in the Draft Franchise Agreement for clarification.

36.

37.

38.

39.

Page 11, Section 2.1 (J), Living Wage - States that the agreement is subject to the County’s prevailinglliving wage code. Does this also apply to subcontractors used by the Proposer? Please clarify the requirements. (WM)

Prevailing/living wage requirements apply to any subcontracted activity associated with the Franchise Agreement or its implementation. The 2006/07 County Living Wage standard is $12.43/hour with benefits and $13.56/hour without benefits. A copy of the Living Wage compliance form is attached. The following web link contains additional information on the County Living Wage and State Prevailing Wage requirements: http ://sccountyO 1 .co. san ta-cruz.ca.uslpsd/purchas i ng.htm

Page 13, Section 3.3 (A), Current Ownership and Control - Lists USA Waste of California, Inc. (WM)

This has been stricken. Please note that this section will be modified to reflect ownership status (publicly traded, privately owned) of the selected vendor.

Page 16, Section 4.1 (B) 6, Free Trial Subscription - States that the Franchisee shall provide “Free Trial Cart Service” to residential premises. Is the free trial is attached to the address or customer. Once it has been offered to all residential premises, what are the guidelineshequirements? Please clarify this requirement. (WM)

Free Trial service shall be offered to &l residential service addresses not currently subscribing to collection services. We believe the base guidelines are clear. For any address requesting the trial service based on the Franchisee ’s offering, the trial period will be 30 days, and if the customer elects not to continue after 30 days, carts are to be collected and service discontinued. Specific implementation and outreach of the program is up to the Franchisee to define, with County approval prior to start-up.

Page 16, Section 4.1 (B) 7, Difficult Service on Private Roads - Mandates that the Franchisee must utilize collection vehicles in accordance with the engineering report. Please clarifj? Will there be a minimum weight limit established or could residents demand that a

Page -10- RFP Questiomdoc


Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer QuestionsResponses

vehicle not typical to the industry be used? If an engineer states that the gross vehicle weight limits for the road are XXX tons, will the Franchisee be then required to purchase such a vehicle? It should be noted that a standard pick-up truck h l ly loaded weighs approx. XXX tons. If the County maintains this requirement, we would request that the minimum weight be established at XXX tons. (WM)

Please see our June I , 2006, Addendum #I which eliminates the engineering report option for customers. Removal of this provision does not supersede the Franchisee ’s legal requirement to comply with any legally posted weight limits on public or private roads or bridges. Posted weight limits must be adhered to when establishing routes and appropriately weighed vehicles must be utilized. Also please note that the Franchisee is required to utilize an appropriately sized truck for collection on each road being serviced. The vehicle must be sized to safely access the road for collections.

40. Page 18, Section 4.1 (F), Annual Cleanup - References the Franchisee’s requirement to collect and remove up to ten cans, bags or bundles. This is the existing sticker program, separate from the Annual Cleanup. We believe this requirement should be listed elsewhere separate from the Annual Cleanup. (WM)

The Annual Clean-up includes the “sticker ” basedprogram available year-round to all customers and for the bulky item collection provided at a discount by the Franchisee during the County sponsored Clean-up weeh in the Fall and Spring. Clarifjting language has been added to this section.

41. Page 20, Section 4.1(G)(3) and 6.2(D)(15) - Considering the County’s contractual requirement to match commercial refuse and recycle container capacity, would you be favorably disposed to allow a higher residue rate than 5% for commercial recycling residue given our experience in other service locations? (GT/WCI)

In evaluating the Franchisee’s success in attaining the County’s goal for recyclables processing residue, will the County accord to the Franchisee a reasonable degree of latitude in consideration of the Franchisee’s success in improving the attainment of the County’s goal for diversion? (NC)

In recognition of the learning curve underway with expanded and mandatory recycling in our community, we concur that residuals may temporarily be higher than desired while the public becomes more accustomed to our new policies andprograms. We will adjust the language in the Draft Franchise agreement to reflect a maximum 10% residual for all recycling for the first twelve months of Franchise Services. The 5% residual limit will apply thereafter. Section 4. I (G)(3) and 6.2(0)(15) have be changed to reflect this allowance.

42. Page 25, Section 4.2 (G), Non-Collection of Franchise Refuse Containing in Excess of 5% Franchise Recyclables Materials - Please clarify the County’s expectations of the Contractor to police occurrences of excess recyclables. Also, please clarify how this would be performed using semi or fully automated vehicles. (WM)


ATTACHMENT 6

Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer QuestionsResponses 0490

Drivers are expected to open the lids of all collection containers prior to discharge into the collection vehicle to evaluate compliance with the County ordinance and these Franchise provisions. The drivers are not expected to dig through collection containers or open bags, just make a cursory evaluation for compliance. We see no issue with this requirement under a semi-automated system as the driver must move the cartdbins to the collection vehicle and can open lids prior to discharge, However, if a vendor is actually contemplating automated collection under this agreement, container inspection by the driver would not be expected.

43. Page 26, Section 4.3 (C)(4), Provision of Stackable Crates Upon Customer Request - States “Franchisee shall provide stackable crates,. . . in lieu of the 64 gallon split cart for collection of Franchise Recyclable Materials.. . .” Please clarify if the program is going to be commingled or split cart. (WM)

Page 26, Section 4.3 (C)(4) - This section refers to the use of 64-gallon split cart as an alternative to crates. This reference to the split cart is inconsistent with the specification for carts in Appendix C of the [Draft] Franchise Agreement. Please clarify. (GT/WCI)

Recycling collection shall be commingled. Language under this section and Appendix C has been modified to clarifi the use of crates and remove any prior reference to split carts. See response #2 under the RFP Questions above.

44. Page 28, Section 4.3(C)(9) - At the May 22,2006 Pre-Proposal Conference, in inquiring about the Franchise Agreement provision regarding purchase by the County of carts from the Franchisee at the termination of the Franchise Agreement, we were referring to that provision of the existing Franchise Agreement, not the proposed Draft Franchise Agreement. We regret any confbsion that may have arisen fiom this question. If the County of Santa Cruz selects a new Franchisee, in order to ensure a smooth transition with minimal disruption to the residents of Santa Cruz County it would be advantageous that the new Franchisee continues to use the carts that are currently in service. Will the County consider exercising its right, within the terms of the current Franchise Agreement, to purchase the carts of the current Franchisee, and to then sell those carts to a new Franchisee? The County’s response to this question will have an impact on the cost component of the proposals that are submitted, and will alleviate concerns in providing a smooth transition by the successful proposer. (NC)

We recommend that all proposers assume the acquisition of all new carts and bins in their proposals. It is the CountyS opinion that use ofthe existing carts and bins by a different vendor could actually create more confusion to customers due to the embossed company information that is on each existing container. Use of stickers to cover up this information, in our opinion, may not be a durable or long term solution. The County has neither thefunding for such a transaction nor do we have a value on the existing cart and bin stock in -place. However, the County would entertain alternate proposals to address such a transition, if the proposer agrees to directly fund the acquisition ofthe carts and bins and can demonstrate to the County’s satisfaction that it can address our concerns over labeling and customer confusion during the transition.


-c)-a-e3=


45. Page 28, Section 4.4, Collection Locations - “The Franchisee shall, where necessary, traverse Private Roads in order to collect Containers deposited by Customers for collection; provided, however, that the Franchisee shall not be required to utilize Private Roads if the owner of such road prohibits the use of such road by the Franchisee.”

a.

b.

C.

d.

Does this apply to traversing the road by vehicle only, or does it apply to traversing on foot for collection purposes?

It was intended to primarily apply to vehicular traffic, but certainly a private road owner could potentially prohibit foot traffic as well. As private roads are outside of County control, each road and its ownership structure can have differing legal restrictions and covenants regarding access for utilities and collection services. Practice dictates that we deal with each case individually and this agreement does not attempt in any way to address all legal ramifications of the private road issue. Simply stated, the Franchisee is obligated to provide collection services on all private roads with appropriate approvals from the road ownership.

Who is the “owner” of a “non-county maintained roadway” located within a public right-of-way?

The adjacent property owner typically owns the land under the road, but ownership can take many legal forms on private roads, whether they are dedicated public right-of-way or the not.

If the owner of a private road prohibits its use by the franchisee, what determines the collection location if that road owner is also or seeks to become a customer?

Typically, the collection point becomes the nearest intersection where the private road joins the public road. Again, these types of “cluster collection” locations are handled on a case-by-case basis and in some instances require the approval of a property owner for temporary use of their property as the collection point, where the road right-of-way is not large enough or safe enough to accommodate the number of carts.

If traversing for collection by foot only is allowed by the private road owner, and the designated collection location is in excess of 100 feet from the nearest “Public Road”, is the franchisee entitled to additional compensation under provisions of Franchise Agreement, Page 16, Section 4.1 (B)(7)?

The Franchisee is entitled to a “Long Walk” charge in Appendix D, Schedule 2 ifthey are required to walk between 10 and 100 feet from the nearest public or private road to collect containers. rfthe Franchisee is requirde to walk over 100 feet from the nearest public or private road to collect containers, then they would be entitled to receive additional compensation in the form of a surcharge on the rate, in accordance with Section 4.1 (B)(7) and Appendix D, Fee Schedule 2. Long Walk charges do not apply when the surcharge for driveways over 100 feet is applicable. Please note that the *



definition of “Long Walk” charges in Appendix D, Schedule 2 has been modified to clarij, that the charge applies to all carts for each customer and is not applicable on a per cart basis.

e. If traversing for collection by foot only is allowed by the private road owner, and the designated collection location is in excess of 100 feet from the nearest “Public Road”, will the County establish a maximum distance in excess of 100 feet beyond which the franchisee will not be required to provide non-vehicular collection?

Yes, we have established a maximum of 200 feet for traversing onto private property for collection. See additional language added to Section 4. I (B)(7).

46. Page. 30, Section 4.7 (A), Disposal Location - States that the Franchisee shall not be entitled to additional compensation in the event the reduction in operating hours is less than or equal to 25%. Please clarify how the 25% will be calculated (Le., daily, weekly, annually). What are the Franchisee’s options if they shut down for an entire day? (WM)

The County does not currently anticipate a reduction in operations at the Ben Lomond Transfer Station (BLTS). However, ifsuch a change were to occur, reduction in operating hours could be in the form of a daily reduction in operating hours, a full day shut down each week, or other combination of reduction in the operating hours/days each month. Currently, the facility operates 7 days per week, 8 hours per day (56 weekly hours), so a 25% reduction could result in up to 14 hours of reduced operating hours per week in any combination. Should the BLTS be closed for an entire working day, the Franchisee would be required to utilize the Buena Vista Landfill. The County intends to work with the Franchisee to reduce impacts to collection services should a partial reduction in operating hours be required at the BLTS during the term of this agreement.

47. Page 34, Section 6.1 (B) Office Hours - States that Saturday hours shall be from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Please clarify this requirement. (WM)

Customer service representatives shall be available to respond to public calls and drop-in services (bills, questions, compost bin pick-ups, etc.. .) on Saturdays from 8 a. m. to I2 p . m.

48. Page 41. Section 7.1(C), Escalation of the Service Fee Schedule - Section 7.1(C) of the Draft Franchise Agreement discusses an annual Service Fee adjustment process beginning January 1, 2009. Cost Proposal Form 3 of the County’s RFP provide for the proposer to acknowledge that they “. . .will be bound by all terms, costs and conditions of this proposal for a period of 365 days from the date of submission.” Will the County accommodate a justifiable Service Fee escalation during the period between the end of the 365 days and the commencement of services on January 1,2008?

No interim Fee Schedule escalations will occur prior to January I , 2009. Proposals should reflect your anticipated rate structure eflective at the start of service, January I , 2008. The intent of the Form 3 is to guarantee the validity of “Proposals ’,for 365 days in the event final

Page -14- RFP Questionsdoc

AB3fK!%* ATTACHMENT 6

Santa Cmz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer QuestionsResponses 0 4 9 3

negotiations take longer than anticipated or the County cannot come to mutual agreement with the highest rated proposer and elects to negotiate with other vendors.

49. Page 42, Section 7.2 (C), Annual Estimates - Requires Franchise to submit its estimate of aggregate Customer Rates for the next year to the Director. We believe that this section should be removed since rates will be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index under the new agreement. (WM)

Section 7.2(C) of the Draft Franchise Agreement includes the following sentence: “The annual estimate prepared by the Franchisee shall be considered by the County in the County’s determination of the Customer Rates for such year pursuant to Section 7.3”. It is our understanding that the County will not determine Customer Rates, and we therefore believe that this sentence was not intended by the County to be included in the Draft Franchise Agreement. We ask for clarification from the County regarding the inclusion and intent of this sentence. (NC)

This is a planning tool that the County wishes to continue and will not be removed. Franchisee should be able to estimate the CPI adjustment for the upcoming year and address any anticipated growth in the customer base. As the section states, the estimates provided by the Franchisee are not binding. However, the last sentence ofthis paragraph is no longer valid within the structure of the Draft Franchise Agreement and has been stricken.

The

50. Page 42, Section 7.3 (A), Billing by Franchisee - Requires that new customers place a deposit to start service and that the deposit be returned to them after 18 months or cancellation of service. This practice does not currently take place. Does the County truly wish to reinstate it? We highly recommend that the deposit requirement be removed. (WM)

This provision was placed in the County s current fianchise agreement at the request ofthe current hauler to address potential customers with poor credit. We will adjust the language to allow for this as an optional requirement.

51. Page 43, Section 7.3 (B) - This section describes the process for Customers that are delinquent in making payment. Does the County have a lien process that it will use to collect the delinquent payments if the Customer does not pay? (GT/WCI)

Collection of delinquent payments will be the sole responsibility and obligation of the Franchisee. This section describes the Franchisee s rights to terminate service for delinquent accounts.

52. Page 43, Section 7.3 (D), Payment Method - Requires a minimum of three walk-in payment locations. Our understanding is that as long as you provide the other payment method options (mail, credit card, on-line), you do not need to have three walk-in locations. Is this correct? Please clarify. (WM)



No. Franchisee shall arrange for third party or directly provide for three walk-in payment centers, in addition to the other three payment methods (mail, credit card, on-line). Language has been corrected to reflect that all four payment methods are required.

Appendices

53. Appendix B-2 & B-3, Appendix D, & [web posted] Recycling Data - Monthly - Throughout this section, it refers to providing information provided by “material category (fibers/containers).” If the program is going to be commingled, why the need for tracking by fiberhontainers? Please clarify. (WM)

Language in these sections has been corrected to reflect required reporting of commingled collection data and, where applicable, single stream collection data. County will evaluate material categories in commingled recycling and the effectiveness of Franchisee s diversion efforts by using characterization data provided by Franchisee under Section 6.7 (B) of the Draft Franchise Agreement.

54. Appendix C, Cart Specifications - In stead of requiring the cart to be injection molded, would the County consider the requirement to include rotationally molded carts? Instead of requiring a 26” width on the cart, would less than 30” be sufficient? This would allow more than one cart manufacturer to comply with the specifications. (GT/WCI)

The County will consider rotationally molded carts or bins, as long as the manufacturer can provide comparable warrantys to injection molded carts or bins. Carts must be designed to easilypass through a standard 30” doorway. Allowing carts up to 30” in width may result in additional customer complaints of door damage from moving larger carts in and out of garages or other storage buildings. To provide for some guaranteed clearance the County will allow up to 28 ’’ width. These provisions have been modified in the Draft Franchise Agreement and in Section 5.2.1.3 of the RFP.

55. Appendix C-2, Specifications for Containers and Vehicles - The table for Cart Customers, in the recyclables section, requires that stackable crates be provided for mixed paper, mixed containers and newspaper. Please clarify as to whether the program will be commingled. If so, then no need for identifying the commodity in each crate. (WM)

Section C has been amended to reflect crate specifications only for commingled collection.

56. Appendix C-5, Vehicles for Refuse, Recyclables and Yard Waste Collection - Is the County still going to require split-bodyko-collection vehicles or can they be single- compartment? (WM)

The County is requiring the use of split-body collection vehicles to reduce the number of weekly truckpasses on our aging road infrastructure. However, there are some exceptions to this


--OM ?%-# ATTACHMENT 6

0 4 9 5 Santa Cruz County Collection Services RFP - Proposer Questions/Responses

provision for rural and hard-to-sene routes. See Appendix I for more detail on the requirements for Routing and Collection.


wm-9- ATTACHMENT 7

0 4 9 6

FRANCHISE COLLECTION PROPOSALS - SCORING SUMMARY

Qualifications Technical Contractual Financial - cost Overall Total (60 points) (50 points) (30 points) (60 points) (80 points) (20 points) (300 points)

Review Panelist Waste Management 1 55 41 30 60 79 15 280 2 55 50 30 n/s 75 20 230 3 57 49 28 n/s 79 20 233 4 59 48 30 60 76 19 292 5 58 45 30 60 73 20 286 6 57 48 30 60 75 19 289

Total 341 281 178 240 457 113 ~~~~~~ * I . ' ' q-y

Review Panelist Green Waste Recovery 1 40 26 25 40 77 15 223 2 45 40 28 n/s 70 19 202 3 57 46 28 n/s 79 19 229 4 57 45 28 56 80 18 284 5 50 45 30 50 75 20 270 6 50 45 25 50 75 18 263

Review Panelist Norcal Waste Systems 1 41 37 30 60 59 15 242 2 50 45 30 nls 65 16 206 3 53 48 30 nls 70 16 217 4 58 ' 46 29 60 71 17 281 5 55 45 30 58 60 15 263 6 55 48 30 55 60 15 263

Review Panelist Green Teamwaste Connections 1 39 29 20 60 20 10 178 2 50 45 15 nls 50 18 178 3 52 47 28 nls 70 18 215 4 57 47 27 60 73 18 282 5 55 45 25 60 45 10 240 6 53 47 20 53 70 17 260

nls = not scored

I .

4 9 7

.-

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0

0 c,

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

&" 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

G

.

m

0 0 0

0 .. 0

0 0

a El

0 0 0

8 c, d a, 0

$ Q E a m

..QQf

I

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

%7T- i 9 a

Q&&

0 4 9 9

6-72-

*

i3 El 3

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 0

m - cd

-E c,

cd E

0 0 0

0 0

I 004

0 5 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0

8 H Y a c,-

3 3 s 0 0

-$ €9

8 0 0 0

M 8 H

E? 0 0

.w 0502

. .. ..

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0503

- - -

0 0 0 0

0 .

. 0 .

0 . 0

c

w w 0 5 0 4

. . cw 0

ri

. . . .

. . . Q) N c13

0 c,

.r(

s rd

. ._

3 1 .d rn .

0 d rn

. . e . M F:

n

.r(

5 E

- -----I -m 0505 i""

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

lr) 00 M

5 0 k e

0 0 0 0 0

0 P4 a

% i

b 0 0 D 0 0

0 0 0 0

F4 o\

o\ 0 F4

. . . 0 .

0 0 . . .

.c, 0 Q) a m cd

0 0 . 0 . .

0

0

-€

0 5 0 6

" ar, "m rl

--

ATTACHMENT 8

0 5 0 7 PROPOSED RATES AT START-UP

Greenwaste Recovery, Inc.

Norcal Waste Systems, Inc.

Green Team/ Waste Connections

Waste Management

Waste ,

Management Waste

Management

Proposal Service Rates

$10.00 10 gallon $1 1.00

20 gallon limited $1 1.00

-~ __ 10 gallon limited ~-

Proposal Rates $14.08 $17.15 _______

Proposal Rates $7.39 $7.39 $14.79

~ ~ _ _

Proposal Rates $8.26 $10.26 $10.42

Negotiated Rates

$14.92 $13.17 -

Current Rates n/a n/a

$15.44 $14.64 $12.49 $13.60 $15. 17

_ _ _ _ _ 20 gallon $12.00 35 gallon $16.49

$18.29 $20.40

$14.79 $23.66 $47.32

$12.42 $17.25

$15.26 $16.95

64 gallon $32.99 $34.50 $38.09 $55.76

_~ $31.36 $45.77

- $28.32 $41.46 96 gallon $49.47 $70.98 $5 1.74

Bulky PiCk-UP $3 1.96

Difficult Service $14.85 Long Walk $12.10

$3 1.92 $12.25 $17.42

$53.10 $15.60 $22.20

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _

~ _ _ _

$28.78 $12.80 $14.55

$25.77 $9.71

$14.55

~

$26.16 $10.20 $14.52 $3.86 $7.32

~~~~~

$4.67 $6.79

~ _ _ _ . _ _ $3.64 $6.00

__ $5.3 1 $7.82

~- $7.65 $44.10

- -~ $4.75 $6.11

__ Extra Pick-ups Recvcle Onlv ~-

15% 25% 15% n/a Life Line Discount 10% n/a

$104. I1 $1 1 1.24 1 cv x llweek $122.26 $139.82 $165.62 $1 10.38 1.5cy x llweek $159.59 2cy x llweek $200.29 ~

3cv x llweek $270.25 _ _ ___

$182.51 $229.06 $309.08

$248.43 $144.07 $180.81 $243.97

$145.20

$245.89 $182.23 -

$135.90 $170.56 $33 1.25

$496.87 $230. 14 $276.83 $402.73

$325.08 4cy x llweek 6cv x llweek $472.93

.___ $37 1.78 $540.87 $240.75

$662.49 . $993.74

$33 1.25

$293.47 $426.94

__ $295.78 $430.30

1 cv x 2lweek $210.5 I $191.53 $265.60 $342.73

_. .- $1 79.26 $248.58 $496.87

$662.49 1.5cy x 2lweek $29 1.9 1 2cv x 2lweek $376.69

$333.84 $430.81 $570.02 $687.54

~ _ _ _ ~ ~

~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~

$263.53 $340.06

____ $320.78 $424.44 $511.94

- -. $498.42 $601.17

$993.74 $1.324.98

$449.95 ~

$542.71 __ 3cy x 2lweek

4cv x 2lweek $453.49 $546.98 $491.57 $699.38

$460.08 $654.58

-~ 2cy x 3lweek $540.27 3cy x 3lweek $768.67 4cv x 3lweek $926.26

-~

-~

$620.28 '

$879.10 $1,056.65 $1,54 1.87

$800.86

~~~~

~-

$534.37 -

._ $993.74

$1,490.60 $1.987.47

~ _ _ _ $487.73 $693.92 $836.18

___ $842.76 $788.78

$397.89 ._ $1,148.08 $1,226.66

$425.13 6cy x 3lweek $1,348.19 Icy x 4lweek $467.24 2cv x 4lweek $700.32

$2,981.21 $662.49

$1,324.98 $1,987.47 $1,656.23 $993.74

____________ $1,217.08 $42 1.8 1 $632.22

__ $63 7.20

~~ $906.98 $810.14

$596.3 7 $848.88 $758.23

3cy x 4lweek $996.84 2cv x 51week $890.39

$1,140.05 $1,018.30 $8 13.84

$899.90 $803.81

lcv x 6lweek $711.61 $642.40 -. .

$64 7.46 $969.45

$1.3 79.69

$605.99 __ $907.34

$1.291.30

.~

2cy x 6lweek $1,065.49 3cv x 6lweek $1.5 16.37

$1,218.56 $1.734.22

$1,987.47 $2.981.21

~ - __ - . - - $961.87 $1.368.91

Bin Enclosure $11.00 $13.80 $16.95 $12.80 $12.44 $11.64 Lock charge $1 1.00 Push Charge $1 1 .oo

Corn Yardwaste $7.70

$13.80 $13.80 $8.57

$16.95 $16.95 $44.10

$12.80 $12.80 $7.85

$12.44 $12.44 $7.04

$1 1.64 $ I I . 64 n/a

Self-Haul Yardwaste $28.85 $32.00 $3 1.74 $28.85 $23.45 $23.45

-w* ATTACHMENT 9

d LI

L i2 V

I(

- eo L z

2 5 2 B

V

I

J A v) 0 U

$

.-

W

z E *

C 8 3 'p

eo

0 5 0 8

W U v1

; 8 2

W

u

W

$ $ $ $ $ o o m m v,

5 a, h 8 a

.. 4

? s a, 0

-2 a, m

a,

0 5 c,

a, 0 .4

iz a, m rl M .rl

m 9

--O-Bom ATTACHMENT 9

0 5 0 9

E Q) c, v1

s 8 Q)

6

$ 8 8 ,-hi '22

g a a ' S *

n v1

c, v1

h v)

ATTACHMENT 9

0 5 1 0

051 1

FRANCHISE COLLECTION PROPOSALS

10-YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS

REPORT BACK-UP AND DETAIL

SUPPLEMENT TO ATTACHMENT 9

ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD

of 1

0512 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent: To: CBD BOSMAIL

Subject: Agenda Comments

Sunday, August 20,2006 3:16 PM

Meeting Date : 8/22/2006 Item Number : 59

Name : Pat & Vicki Powers Email : [email protected]

Address : 11 0 Ladera Drive Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Phone : 831 459-7781

Comments : Dear Supervisors, We would like to express our full support for Greenwaste Recovery. We have known the Weigel family for a number of years and can attest to their integrity and responsibility as a privately owned business. Besides in a business nature, we are also involved with them socially. The Weigels are a wonderful Santa Cruz family. You have a great opportunity to invest in a locally owned company. We highly recommend that you consider Greenwaste Recovery to serve the county. Si ncere I y , Pat & Vicki Powers

8/2 1 /2006


of 1

0513 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Sunday, August 20,2006 11:14 AM


Name : Kathleen Ryan Email : [email protected]

Address : Not Supplied Phone : Not Supplied

Comments : I encourage you to seriously consider Green Waste Management. Santa Cruz has always bee a leader in ecology; giving Green Waste the contract would further this commitment, as well as provide excellent service.

8/2 1 /2006


of 1

0 5 1 4 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Friday, August 18, 2006 547 PM


Name : Tony Knebel Email : [email protected]

Address : 425 Miramar Dr Santa Cruz, Ca

Phone : 831 -457-6002

Comments : I think that Greenwaste Recovery should be considered for the Refuse and recycing contract. Not only is it a local company but one that has served the local community even without doing business in this community. I think that they would be a great business to embrace in our community. They have shown that they can do the job and contribute to the local community at the same time. Let's keep it local.

8/2 1 /2006


of 1

0 5 1 5 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Friday, August 18, 2006 11 :01 AM


Name : Julie Dunn Email : [email protected]


Comments : Dear Supervisors, Please consider Green Waste Managemant for the upcoming contract. They have come in with the lowest bid and are a local family owned business. 1 believe it would be in the best interest of Santa Cruz County for you to look seriously at their offer. Thank You Julie Dunn

8/2 1 /2006


of 1

0 5 1 6 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Friday, August 18, 2006 958 AM

Meeting Date : 8/22/2006

Name : Tiara Prater

Address : Not Supplied

Item Number : 59

Ema i I : tiara . prate r a p la n t ron ics. co m

Phone : Not Supplied

Comments : I would like to see a change in the garbage recycling company used here. Recently the residential prices went up (Waste Management), and I'm not too happy about that. I've also heard that Green Waste Recovery provides great service.

8/2 1 /2006 4

of 1

0 5 1 7 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Friday, August 18, 2006 8:27 AM

Meeting Date : 8/22/2006

Name : Lisa Litten

Address : Not Supplied

Comments : I have resided in Santa Cruz for 15 ears. Di

Item Number : 59

Email : Not Supplied


ring this time I have repeatedly heard you and fellow residents proclaim Santa Cruz is "Locally owned and operated", "No big box businesses". I have seen you turn down offers from many "Chain stores" wanting to expand to our community. I believe you should stand by your precedence and choose Greenwaste Recovery for Santa Cruz County. They live in our community, know our needs and have a plan to give back to the community as only residends would know how.

8/2 1 /2006

of 1

0 5 1 8 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Friday, August 18, 2006 8:23 AM


Name : Kathy Pappas Email : Not Supplied


Comments : I would like to comment on the issue of garbage companies that is now up for bid and review by your board. I am concerned with you not choosing the lowest bid because of your concern with the smaller company and their possible lack of experience. Being a small business owner, 1 can talk from experience when having to go up against larger, more powerful companies. With out going into too much detail, the two most important reasons to pick smaller companies .... ones that have already proved themselves by the quality of work they do as Greenwaste has done ... Is having a low overhead which keeps prices down and reasonable and the most important is Customer Service. Keeping your clients happy is key to growth and success. Smaller companies succeed in this area because they have to. In the small business world, Greenwaste would be out of business if their company could not keep up with demands. These two components are crucial and unique to small businesses.

8/2 1 /2006

of 1

0 5 1 9 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL

Sent:

To: CBD BOSMAIL


Monday, August 21,2006 11 :48 AM


Name : Erin L. Stuart-Cayot Email : [email protected] .

Address : 220 Alta Dr La Selva Beach, CA


Comments : We would prefer a small local company that charges lower rates and will be more receptive to it's customers needs.

8/2 1 /2006


of 1

0 5 2 0 CBD BOSMAlL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Monday, August 21,2006 11 :I 3 AM

Meeting Date : 8/22/2006 item Number : 59

Name : MARION RINAURO Emaii : Not Supplied


Comments : I believe that it is very important to give a contract to a company who is an owner and resides in the County of Santa Cruz. Green Waste Recovery is a privately owned company, rates will be lower the company is a large promoter in recycling and does a great job in San Jose. I have noticed the Company work with the non profit organizations, community sponsors for little league and schools donations. I would like to see a small company especially a local owned company run our garbage and recycling. We have not had a good experience with larger companies with service and personal attention to our community needs and most of all the monthly rates. I don't understand why the County Superviors would give a contract to Waste Management who is a large company rates are higher and service is not the greatest. Instead of Green Waste Recovery who rates are lower does a great job according to the City of San Jose.

8/2 1 /2006

of 1

0521

CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Monday, August 21 , 2006 1051 AM


Name : Lynda Francis Email : [email protected]

Address : 100-198 N. Rodeo Gulch Soquel, CA 950773

Phone : 831 -479-1 055

Comments : Please consider continuing item 59 so that there is time to look at this report more closely and to understand it better. The report was released on Friday and it is being brought before your Board on Tues. Three weeks would allow more careful consideration of this item which affects our entire County.

Thank you for your consideration.

8/2 1 /2006


FROM : CR GREY BERRS

831 479 8465

FRX NO. 831 479 8465 Qug. 21 2086 01:37PM P1

0 5 2 2

August 2 1 2006 Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors 701 Oceanst. Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Santa C u County Board of Supervisors

Today I was asked to review a copy of the refuge recycling and yard waste collection and processing scrvice vendor selection rcport for my observations. Because the report is on the agenda tomorrow X have not had enough time to review the entire proposal. The recommended vendor Waste Management had 8

couple of things that stuck out right away and that was the fact thm is a surcharge of $. 16 per month per household for electrical w t e to every household and also a surcharge o f $, I3 a month for the replacement of any of their forty trucks. X as a customer would be paying double what I'm paying now. Waste Management already got a 20% increase plus they want another 15% increase right away plus cost of living over the ten year contract. Their original Contract that was not accepted only had a 30% increase now they are asking 4% imrease more plus the surcharges 1 just mentiond. *fie increases seem to be way out of line.

Ron Stephehn 4495 Ranchero Dr. Soquel CA 95073

of 1

0 5 2 3 CBD BOSMAIL

From: CBD BOSMAIL



Monday, August 21, 2006 1 : I8 PM

,"_*__uuII--,",w" -


Name : Larry Gollbach Email : Not Supplied

Address : 902 Roberts Road Ben Lomond

Phone : 458-7780

Comments : Please choose Green Waste Recovery as the local refuse & recycling supplier because of their favorable rates & service.

8/2 1 /2006

of 1

0 5 2 4 I-_ - , . , - , ~ - - - ~ ~ > ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - ~ p-m”-v*---“+. p---~p>---p

From: Lynda Francis [[email protected]]

Sent: To: Gail Borkowski

Subject: Board of Supervisors Agenda for 8/22/06

Monday, August 21,2006 10:04 AM

Hello Gail,

Late Friday afternoon I received the staff report for the County Public Works’ RFP for the Franchise Garbage and Recycling collection services. This report and proposed action is on the Board of Supervisors Agenda for 8/22/06. I am requesting that this item be continued for 3 weeks so that the public can look at it and understand it better and have adequate time to respond to some of the findings.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Lynda Francis 100-198 N. Rodeo Gulch Soquel, CA 95073

831 -479-1 055 (work) 831 -465-1 778

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.1 1.41424 - Release Date: 8/2 1 /2006

8/2 1 /2006

of 1

Name : Me1 Dudes Email : [email protected]

Address : 25000 Hutchinson Rd Phone : Not Supplied

Comments : As a long time resident and business owner in Santa Cruz County, I'm very concerned about staffs recommendation of Waste Management as our proposed provider of garbage and recyclables services. A more comprehensive investigation needs to be conducted where rates are compared fairly. It looks as though my rate for home service would be reduced if Greenwaste Recovery was my provider instead of Waste Management. My rate for commercial service would be increased with all companies but I believe that I would actually recycle more with a company like Greenwaste and thus my bill would be reduced overall. Please postpone your decision until all the proposals have been truly reviewed and analyzed.

8/22/2006

' dr,;

' t


CBD BOSMAIL

Page 1 of 1

0526

From: CBD BOSMAIL Sent: To: CBD BOSMAIL


Monday, August 21,2006 4:23 PM


Name : Gary Minardi Email : [email protected]

Address : 2215 Cox Road Aptos,Ca. 95003

Phone : 831 -688-1 647

Comments : 1 would like to see the Board consider other refuse vendors that would bring more competitive pricing and better service to the County. Our company in San Jose has used Green Waste for several years. As a smaller, more focused, competitively priced refuse company, our experience with Green Waste has been excellent. With the County so starved for revenue, options like Green Waste that could reduce costs and enhance service should be considered. Thank you, Gary Minardi

8/22/2006


0435 county of santa cruz - santa cruz county,...

Documents