Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning MeetingSeptember 23, 2009

• A Joint Meeting of: – The Alameda County Recycling Board, and – The Alameda County Waste Management Authority

• Some “Housekeeping” Before We Begin – Strategic Planning Memos Are Available Through

“In the Spotlight” on Our Website – We’ve Tried to Keep Your Binders Up-To-Date, but

There Were Some Errata, so Beware of Older Copies!– Our Planning Horizon Is 10 Years, but Flexible– Earliest Date For “Final Actions” Is February 2010

What Are We Trying to Achieve?

A “High-Level View” of Ourselves

An Expansive Dialogue About Possible Futures

Board Direction to Staff at a High-Level (“No” Is

Good)– Priority Among the Outcomes We Seek– Priority Between Approaches and Programs

• For Example, Mandatory Recycling Versus Grants

• For Example, Green Building Versus Business Audits

• Note: Budgets and Implementation Details Later

Topics To Be Covered Today

• Successes to Date• What’s Wrong with the Status Quo? • What Are We Asking for Today? (And Why) • How Will the Proposed Approach Overcome

the Challenges Discussed in June? • Where To from Here? (Future Meetings,

etc.)

Successes to Date

What’s Wrong with the Status Quo?

Still Enormously Wasteful

• 5.6 lbs/psn/day in AC• 5.3 in US• 5.8 in CA• 5.1 in Portland• Excluding Alternative

Daily Cover, Beneficial Reuse, Biosolids, Contaminated Soils & Waste Created During Product Manufacture Outside Our County

In-County Composting Facility

• 180,000 Tons per Year of Composting In-County Is an Explicit Objective in Our Governing Plans

• We Haven’t Achieved Our Objective Yet!

• And, 410,000 Tons Per Year of Compostable Materials from Alameda County Were Landfilled in 2008 (excluding ADC)

Successful Program Can’t Be Taken to Scale,

Example 1• Our Business and Large

Organization Program• Has Created 80,000 tons

of New Diversion Since 2001

• But Only 20% of the 3,000 Large Organizations in AC Have Participated Fully

Successful Program Can’t Be Taken to Scale,

Example 2• Very Popular Program• 4 Facilities in the

County• Diverted 1270 Tons in

FY07/08• This Is About 1/6 of

HHW, Excluding Electronics

• $2,200 per Ton Diverted

Successful Program Can’t Be Taken To Scale,

Example 3• About 213,000 K-12

Students in Alameda County

• Reach 18-27% of 4th and 5th Graders in Some Way

• Support Service Learning in 17 of 120 Middle and High Schools in the County (14%)

Some Important IssuesNeglected: Litter

Some Important Issues Neglected: Biosolids

What Are We Asking for Today? (And Why)

Achieving Our Goals and Objectives Requires We

Run Marathons, Not Sprints

Consumption

Discard

Materials

Processing

Production

Virgin Materials

Landfills Litter

Hazardous Materials

HazardousWaste

MOU WithEDA About RLF and Other Topics?

“Put It Here, Not There” (Less Than 10% R+C In

Garbage Cans, with Cost Cap, by 2020)Continue to Support

Flynn Road and OtherOutdoor Facilities

IndoorComposting?

MOU with the Storm Water Program?

(Most Purchases Pass Our “Sustainability Filters” by 2020)“Buy This, Not That”

Establish Core $ Commitment < CurrentContinue with Private Lands Green Building & BFL OrdinancesContinue to Pursue Grants and Expanded Reach Through Partnerships Advance EPR, EPP, & Waste Prevention with CA/National/SF & In-County WWTP Partners, with MDR $s for 2-3 Years

MRF & HHW

Capacity ?

Extra $s Until Achieve 75%Support C&D Ordinance EnforcementFranchise Review and Revisions Mandates After as Necessary

EPR, EPP, &WP "Surge"

FR TF

"The Contest" Provides Direct Measurement of Progress and Other Benefits

PF TF

Equal Expenditures in Purchasing and Discard Work Areas

July 1

Abbreviations: EPR is Extended Producer Responsibility, EPP is Environmentally Preferred Purchasing, WP is Waste Prevention, PF TF is the Product Fee Taskforce, FR TF is the Franchise Review Taskforce, BFL is Bay-Friendly Landscaping, GB is Green Building, and A&O is the Administration and Organization Committee

Discard Decisions

2009

Core Programs Continue (including more BFL and GB ordinances and independent BFL coalition) Revised Programs As Appropriate

Purchasing Decisions

2015 2016 2017 2018

Maximize Diversity of Revenue Sources

Prioritize To Reach 75%

A&O Review

Agreements As Necessary

Conceptual Schedule

July 1 July 1

Revenue Decisions

Expenditure Decisions

Governance Decisions

July 1 July 1 July 1 July 1 July 1

<-mid-year budget revision

Mandatory Recycling and Food Scrap Decisions, As Appropriate

Amend As

App.

From FR TF

2013 20142011 20122010July 1July 1 July 1July 1

2019 2020

How Will This Approach Overcome The Challenges

Discussed in June?

Nine (+1) ChallengesSpanning Three Areas

Challenge 10 • Getting to 75% Diversion by 2010• Current Approach:

– Many Programs, but Recent Emphasis on: – Food Scrap and Recycled Paper Media Campaigns,

C&D Ordinances, and Plant Debris Landfill Ban• Proposed Approach:

– Refocus Media Campaign Around “The Contest” – Enforce the Plant Debris Ban – Support Jurisdictional Implementation of C&D

Ordinances– Enhance C&D Ordinances with MRFs (at Landfills?)

ASAP– Modestly Focus Spending on Getting to 75% for Two

Years

Challenge 1 • Multiplicity of Objectives• Current Approach:

– Weighted Average Project Evaluation Scores– Try to Accommodate Everyone to Some Extent

• Proposed Approach:– Short Term Prioritization for LF Ton Reduction– Thereafter, Commitment to Equal Spending on

Discard Decisions and Purchasing Decisions– Commitment to Additional Targets, with a Cost Cap

What Additional Targets? • All Service Accounts Have 3-Sort Service or

Equivalent By 2020 (?), Unless Exempted for Cost

• 90% (?) of Accounts With 3-Sort Service (or Equivalent) Have Less Than 10% Recyclables + Compostables in Their Garbage by 2020 (?)

• 95% (?) of Purchases of Designated Types (e.g., Landscapes, Buildings, Paints & Sealants, etc.) Will Pass Our “Sustainability Filters” by 2020 (?)

• Note: Dates and Numbers Subject to Change Between Now and Final Adoption by the Board

Challenge 2• Limited Control• Current Approach:

– Limited Participation in State and National Coalitions– Considerably More Local Coalition Building (e.g., GB,

BFL)– No Clear Approach to Commodity Price Fluctuations

• Proposed Approach:– Two or Three Year Commitment from the Market

Development Reserve to EPR, EPP, and WP Efforts – Strong Partnership With San Francisco if an Altamont

Landfill Contract Extension Were to Occur – Strengthen Incentives and Communication in Next 2

Years– Thereafter, Use Diversion Requirements if Necessary to

“Push” Materials into Commodity Markets and Stimulate MRF and Composting Investments by the Private Sector

Challenge 3 • Fragmented Control• Current Approach:

– Model Ordinances, Franchise Language, etc.– StopWaste.Org Regional and Sub-Regional Role

• Proposed Approach:– Franchise Review Taskforce Starting ASAP – Details TBD, but Includes TAC, Haulers, Board

Committees– Minimum Standards Ordinance if Necessary

Challenge 4 • Diversion Is Not a Top Priority• Current Approach:

– Multiple Benefits Used to Broaden Support– Technical Assistance and Specialized Outreach (for example, GHG Benefits of Recycling)

• Proposed Approach:– Continue to Use Multiple Benefits to Broaden

Support– Consider Mandatory Separation, Subject to Cost

Cap, and with Significant Environmental Review– Consider Adopting in Phases, Possibly with

Geographic Variation or Material Type – First Phase Likely Required in 2012 by the State

Challenge 5• Public Perceptions and Misunderstanding• Current Approach:

– Education of the Next Generation– Mass Media for Some Topics (e.g., Food Scraps)

• Proposed Approach:– Adapt Schools Work to Reach a Greater Scale– Refocus Media Campaign Around “The Contest” – Create a Full-Time Communications Position and

Better Coordinate Our Communications Efforts Internally and Externally, Including Legislation

Challenge 6• Siting Issues for Material Processing,

Composting, and Manufacturing Facilities• Current Approach: -- Try, Try Again • Proposed Approach:

– Evaluate Maximum MRF Capacity at Existing Sites

– Support Permits for Flynn Road, Jess Ranch, Altamont LF Composting, EBMUD Anaerobic Digestion, Biosolids Land Spreading Permits, etc.

– Do a Siting and Cost Study for Indoor Composting with or Without Anaerobic Digestion

– Develop an MOU With EDA Regarding “Our Issues” ?

Challenge 7 • Financial Incentives Not Always Aligned• Current Approach:

– Be Willing to Impose Disposal Fees– Buy Down the Cost of Diversion in Various Ways– Offer Franchise Negotiation Assistance

• Proposed Approach:– Franchise Review Taskforce Starting ASAP – “The Contest” and “Recycle Bank Pilot” Efforts– Consider Adopting Mandatory Recycling or Food

Scrap Diversion in FY2011-12, with Cost Cap & CEQA Review

Challenge 7, Continued • Franchise Review Taskforce to Endorse as

Many of the Following Types of Ideas as Feasible: – Service Pricing, Including Higher Rates When Not

3-Sort– Recycle Bank “Like” Efforts (Especially with RFID

Tags)– Recycling Revenue Sharing (Especially with RFID

Tags)– Charity Linkages (*****)– Revenue Adjustment Mechanisms for Haulers

(*****)– Other Rewards for Haulers– Lump Sum Franchise Fees Versus % Franchise

Fees– Mitigation Pass-Through Based on Diversion

Success

Challenge 8 • Mission Success = Declining Revenues• Current Approach:

– Some Diversification of Income (e.g., Wind Revenue)

– But No Clear Approach at Present• Proposed Approach:

– Continue to Seek Grants & Partner Cost-Sharing

– Diversify Core Revenue Significantly, Exploring:

– Product Fees to Support HHW and Possibly Litter Control, EPR, EPP, or Waste Prevention Efforts

– Other Options as per Past Discussions

Challenge 9 • Need Many Technical and Managerial Skills• Current Approach:

– Use Consultants Extensively– Ask Staff to be Flexible – But Need a More Explicit Approach

• Proposed Approach:– Create a Full Time Communications Position– Develop an MOU with EDA to Strengthen Our

Economic Capabilities (e.g., Benefits Modeling) ?– Review Our LT Skill Needs Explicitly in FYs12-14

Where To From Here?

Tasks• Hold a Seminar for Stakeholder Input • For February (or March) Board Meetings (or a Joint Meeting

if Appropriate), Prepare a Full Staff Report Covering: – Today’s Proposal, Modified as per Input Received– Governing Document Changes, if Necessary– CEQA Documents, Including Alternatives, as Necessary

• If CEQA Review Beyond a Negative Declaration is Required for a Specific Change, That Item Will Not Be Brought to the Boards in February (or March) but at a Later Time

Schedule

• November 12th Seminar for Stakeholder Input

• Mid-Year Budget Revision in December

• February (or March) “Final” Strategic Decisions

• Implementation Details in Annual Budgets, Starting with the FY2010-2011 Budget (April - June 2010)

Q&A, and Vote