HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Solid Waste Franch Agmt CITY CLERK
File # 810-10
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 6, 2004
SUBJECT:
New Solid Waste and RecYCling Franchise Agreement Options
Report Prepared By: Jason Behrmann, Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
New Program Evaluation Report from Waste Management
Electronic Waste/Household Hazardous Tonnage Report
Alameda County Rate and Service Comparison
Waste Management Complaint Record
RECOMMENDATI~'
1)
2)
Provide direction to Staff regarding whether the Council'
desires to seek competitive proposals for solid waste and
recycling services, negotiate exclusively with Waste
Management or extend the current franchise agreement
If the Council does not wish to extend the current Franchise
Agreement, authorize Staff to circulate an RFQ for
consultant services to assist with a competitive or
renegotiated franchise renewal process.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The total annual value of the City's current franchise is $5,010,633.
If the Council elects to hire a consultant to assist with this process, it is estimated that the cost for services
could be as high as $100,000. The scope of work for the consultant and the total costs of services will
depend on the option selected by Council and the length of negotiations. A consultant services agreement
with Budget Change Form would be presented to the City Council for approval at a future meeting.
DESCRIPTION: At the November 5, 2002 City Council Meeting, the City Council elected to extend
the City's current Solid Waste and Recycling Franchise Agreement with Waste Management (WM) a total
of twenty-four (24) months, to June 30, 2005. At the Council Meeting, The Council also expressed its
intent to renegotiate a new franchise agreement exclusively with WM prior to that date. As the City
approaches the end of the Agreement, it is appropriate that the Council evaluates its options to provide
future solid waste, recycling and other related services to Dublin residents and businesses and either
confirm its previous decision or select a different option. The following is a list of options that the Council
may wish to consider:
COPIES TO: Patrick Gavin, Waste Management
ITEM NO. ~
F:\GARBAGE\Franchise Renewal 03-04~franchise options 03-04.doc
Option 1: Seek Competitive Proposals - The City may solicit competitive proposals from the current
Franchisee and from third parties. It may then negotiate and execute agreements for solid waste and
recycling services collection and disposal services that would take effect upon expiration of the current
Franchise Agreement.
Option 2: Negotiate Exclusively with the Current Service Provider, Waste Management - The City
may choose to negotiate a new Solid Waste and Recycling Franchise Agreement exclusively with Waste
Management.
If either of the first two options is selected, the City will require consultant services to assist in the
process.
Option 3: Extend the Term - The City has the sole option to extend the term of the current Agreement
three (3) times up to thirty-six (36) months (until June 30, 2006), in periods of at least twelve (12) months
each. The City previously elected to extend the term of the Agreement twenty (24) months and now has
one remaining twelve (12) month extension option.
PROCESS: The timing for this decision is important. The City has approximately 18 months before the
current Franchise Agreement expires. If the City Council chooses Option 1 or 2, the City would need to
hire a consultant to perform a program assessment, prepare a Request for Proposal, solicit and review the
proposal(s), and negotiate a contract. Should the selected contractor be different than the existing
contractor, a transition would need to be coordinated, which would take considerable time. It is estimated
that this process could take up to 18 months. Staff estimates the consultant fees to be in the range of
$60,000 to $100,000,' depending on the option selected and the length of the negotiation. The costs for
these services could be included in a proposed rate structure or offset by franchise fees the City collects
from the contractor.
· CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING OPTIONS: The primary reason for selecting option 3 would
be to allow more time to evaluate the performance of Waste Management, specifically as it relates to the
implementation of several new programs recently approved by the Council as part of the Franchise
extension process. The new programs include an annual electronic waste/household hazardous waste
collection event, curbside used oil collection and commercial food waste program. Attachments 1 and 2
provide some preliminary program results since implementation in January 2003.
If the Council determines to move forward with negotiating a new franchise agreement, the following
considerations may be useful in determining whether to solicit competitive proposals or negotiate
exclusively with Waste Management.
Competitive Proposals:
Pros
Allows the City to compare innovative service offerings from a variety of companies.
Competition helps everyone "sharpen their pencil" and potentially offer the best services at the
lowest price.
· Allows City to consider separating collection from disposal, which can sometimes aid in meeting
recycling goals.
Cons
· The process can be more costly and time consuming.
If the City is highly satisfied with the current service provider, the selection process could become
problematic and contentious if they are not the lowest bidder.
Renegotiate with Current Provider:
Pros
· The negotiation process is usually less expensive and time consuming.
· Minimal impact to residents and businesses - no transition period required.
Cons:
·
·
May not get the best proposal because the current service provider has no competition.
Proposal from current service provider may not yield the most innovation; Proposal will be limited
to the offerings of the existing provider.
CURRENT AGREEMENT AND SERVICES EVALUATION: In order to help determine the best
option for the City, the Council may wish to evaluate the current rates, customer satisfaction, and
programs and services provided by Waste Management.
Dublin's current garbage rates are among the lowest in Alameda County. The attached chart (Attachment
3), compiled by the Alameda County Waste Management AuthOrity, compares the rates and services of all
jurisdictions in Alameda County.
Attachment 4 indicates customer complaint calls received by WM during calendar year 2002 and 2003
through October 2003. The majoritY of calls were for missed pick-up commitments. In addition to the
calls received by WM, City Staff receives approximately 1-2 calls per month regarding various concerns.
Given the nature of the business and the number of collections every day, Staff believes that the level of
complaints is reasonable. WM makes approximately 100,000 residential pickups every month and with an
average monthly complaint level of 32 calls, the complaint ratio is approximately 3.2 calls per 10,000
pickups. Additionally, WM has been responsive in dealing with problems and complaints as they arise.
The City's solid waste andrecycling programs are comparable to most jurisdictions in the County. Waste
Management provides weekly residential curbside collection for both recycling and green waste, as well
as three special clean-ups per year. Most Alameda County jurisdictions provide weekly curbside recycling
collection, however only half provide weekly green waste collection. As previously discussed, Waste
Management also currently provides curbside used oil collection, an annual electronic/household
hazardous waste collection event and a commercial food waste collection program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council consider the following options regarding the provision of solid waste,
recycling and other related services to the City:
1) Seek Competitive Proposals
2) Negotiate exclusively with Waste Management
3) Extend the current Franchise Agreement 12 months through June 30, 2006
If the Council selects either option 1 or 2, Staff recommends that the Council authorize Staff to circulate
an RFQ for consultant services to assist with a competitive or renegotiated franchise renewal process.
2003
617~ ~oud~ Fron~ Rd~l
(925) 447-7 ~+~ F~
Mr. J~on Behrm~
Administrative Analyst
C~ty o£Dublin
100 ~vio Plaza
DubIin, CA 9456~
I wanted to update you.on the status of two of the diversion programz we are eurrerfdy
worldng ca in the City of Dublin. This lottar will detail the ~tara~ of our Curbside Used
Oil Colleedon program and the Commercial Food Waate program~ The program totals
are as of November
Curbtide Use6'Motor Oil ?m_p~!am:
Our Curbside Used Motor Oil pro.am is'in full swing ~ going wzli, A~ of
Novcrabar 30, 2003 we have collected 1,g3~ gallorm ofoil, We m:c ploa.~d with ~
volumes collected ~nd e~ouraged by the positive feedback we receive from our
residents. Many residents have connnentcd on the convenicno~ of being able to recycle
thck ~sed o~1 at thc curb, in~tead of having,to tramport it to a recyclhtg facility.
Coramcrcia! Food Waste (Organic. s) llecvcling
~ Comm~oi~ Food Wa~e Pro~ o~t!y lms 27 o~tom~ p~ic~pating.
Nov~b~r 30, 2003, 417.17 tom of food was~ ~ b~ oo~ot~d from
p~icipafing buz~esses. ~ S~es Te~ con~u~s to ap~oaoh new ~d ~ist~g
burmeses ~t ~e potmtial Food Waste cuztmers, in ~ effo~ t~ si~ thru up
pro~. We eont~ue m meet wi~ ~e p~cipafing businesses to help educate
m~ag~ent md staff ~ ~ effo~ to ~e t~s pro~ a success.
Plebe feel ~ to contact mc if you have ~y ~cr qu~om or conc~, I may be
reached m 925-766-9097,
Si
Recycling Coordiuamr
ATTACHMENT
City of Dublin
Commercial Food Waste Customers
as of December 2003
Monarch Hotel
Pick Up Stix
Armadillo Willy's
Yogurt Castle
Amici's Pizza
Peet's Coffee
Stacey's Cafe
Baja Fresh
Milian Bizare
Pet Food Express
Athens Burgers
Copper Skillet
Dublin Buffet
Gallaghers
Hunan House
Macaroni Grill
Madam Sun's Restaurant
McDonalds
Mimi's Cafe
National Food Laboratory
Pasta Primavera
Popeyes Chicken
Raj Mahal Indian Cuisine
Round Table Pizza
Santa Rita
Shangri La Restaurant
Sybase
T~sCol[er.~ed
~,2'5 ~X0,4:2 70.46 ~l.B~ ~8.~4 6g.1~, ~,~ 6B.7~ ~.~ flSA6 ~.~ ~.2B
3.61 1.55 3.~ 6.~ 8,14 12~ 17,03 3T.3T 1~.~ 147.~ 4t7.17
3.7~ 0,~ 4.QO
91~5 ~3 78.~ ~.~ 13.03 ~.21 7341 ~.7~ 1~.59 ~.2~ ~1.~ 1~1~.~
TOTAL CCtM~FJ:~C:IAL TONS COLLEGTED
May 27, 2003
WASTE MANAGEMENT
6175 SouthkontRd.
Livermore, CA94550
(925) 447-1300
(925) 447-7144 Fax
Mr. Jason Behrmann
Administrative Analyst
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Jason,
Attached you will find the totals for the Dublin E-Waste/Household Hazardous Waste
(HHW) event on April 26, 2003. We are very pleased with the outcome of the event and
felt it was very successful. We had a total of 339 cars pass through dropping off E-
Waste, and 367 cars dropped off Household Hazardous Waste. We collected a total of
38,580 pounds of E-Waste, and 31,046 pounds of HHW. You will find on the attached
report that the tonnage for E-Waste is slightly lighter than previously reported, this is due
to the tare weight of the box being inadvertently included in the tonnage. That nUmber
has since been corrected and the tonnage on the attached report is the correct, final
tonnage amount. We look forward to meeting with you in the near furore to further
discuss the event and any suggestions you may have for future events. Per our agreement
with the City of Dublin, we will provide you with an invoice within 30 days of the end of
the rote year, for costs associated with this collection event.
Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Minser
Municipal Relations Manager
Waste Management
ATTACHMENT 2
Totals for Dublin Event- April 26, 2003
Electronic Waste
Televisions
Monitors
Low Grade Breakage (computers, phones, stereos, etc)
Re-use vendor- Industrial Surplus Foundation
Total pounds-
Total tonnage-
Pounds
13,795
9,669
8,116
7,000
38,580
19.29 tons
Household Hazardous Waste
Flammable/Poison
Acid
Base
Oxidizer
PCB- containing
Aerosol
Reclaimable- antifreeze, car batteries, oil filers, paint, etc.
Other-
Household Batteries
Class 9 - non RCRA
Propane
Other compressed gas
Total
Car Count
E-Waste
Household Hazardous Waste
12,600
500
8OO
250
0
800
14,276
50O
250
90O
170
31,046
339cam
367 cam
m
Residential Recycling Services in Alameda County
Curbside Recycling Yard Waste Bulky Clean-Up
Jurisdiction Weekly Bi-Weekly Wheeled Cart Weekly Bi-Weekly Monthly 1 x Year ~ x Year
City of Alameda X X X X
I1 on-call + 1
City
City Of Albany X X X
City of Berkeley X X X
City of Dublin X X · X 3x year
City of Emeryville X X X
City of Fremont X X X X
City of Hayward X X X X
City of Livermore X X 3x year on call
City of Newark X X X
City of Oakland X X Buildings with 1-4 X X
housing units get bins,
those with 5+ units get
carts
Northern Half of City Southern Half Buildings
of City with 14
housing units
City of Piedmont X X X X
City of Pleasanton X Recyclables may be X Not Included
mixed with trash, or
~eparated by type into
"hhle h~*"
City of San Leandro X X X X I
I
City of Union City X X 3x year
Castro Valley Sanitary X X X X
District
0to Loma X X X X
Sanitary District
Survey conducted by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority - May 2003
Residential Refuse Collection Prices in Alameda County
(Includes Solid Waste/Recycling/Plant Debris/Bulky Clean Up)*
(Gallon sizes Refer To Weekly Refuse Collection)
Mini 30-35 60-64 90-96
Jurisdiction Can Gallons Gallons Gallons
City of Alameda $12.26 (10 gallon) $21.54 $37.23 $52.92
$13.85 (20 gallon)
City Of Albany $20.16 $22.74
City of Berkeley $7.10--$10.92 $17.22 $ 34.44 $51.66
(13 & 20 gallon)
City of Dublin $10.15 $18.65 $27.15
City of Emeryviile $6.05 $10.02 $20.13 $30.06
City of Fremont $19.82 $20.18 $21.78 $30.88
City of Hayward $10.85 $15.87 $28.32 $40.75
City of Livermore $6.00 $10.00 $22.00 $36.50
City of Newark $15.34 $27.17 $38.98
City of Oakland $14.96 $20.08 $43.76 $67.43
City of Piedmont $14.40 $26.55
City of Pleasanton $20.04 $22.30
City of San Leandro $14.02 $17.48 $29.08 $40.68
City of Union City $21.96 $43.93 $65.90
Castro Valley Sanitary District $11.35 $17.56 $30.50 $43.45
Oro Loma Sanitary District (1) $9.60 $14.33 $20.05 $33.78
Average $12.72 $17.57 $29 ~00 $41.60
Dublin % from Average N/A -42% -36% -35%
*Frequency and Availability of Collection Services Varies Among Jurisdictions.
(1) Rates include annual payment of $55.20 collected as part of property tax payment.
Survey conducted by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority - May 2003
Commercial Refuse C'ollection Prices in Alameda County
1 Yard 1 Yard 3 Yard 3 Yard 14/15 40
Bin Bin Bin Bin Yard Box Yard Box
Jurisdiction I X Week 3 X Week 1 X Week 3 X Week Per Pull Per Pull
City of Alameda $80.23 mo. $212.70 mo. $212.70 $597.99 mo $414.75 $1,106.00
City Of Albany $83.32 $249.96 $249.96 $749.88 $305.62
City of Berkeley $86.44 $238.06 $235.38 $690.26 $316.00 $678.00
City of Dublin $43.46 $152.02 $ ! 30.38 $412.78 $207.70 $547.00
City of Emeryville $59.06 $177.21 $177.21 $531.62 $297.20 $594.40
City of Fremont $50.33 $144.80 $113.15 $333.24 $210.95 $440.46
City of Hayward $65.76 $183.50 $174.18 $486.10 $167.16 $477.60
City of Livermore $47.00 $146.64 $141.00 $449.28 N/A $456.40
City of Newark $60.14 $116.16 $159. l 2 $433.96 $171.88 $491.08
City of Oakland $105.52 $335.81 $276,64 $872.00 .. $439.76 $879.53
City of Piedmont $24.50 $292.50 $318.50 $877.50 $455.59
City of Pleasanton $84.33 $240.82 $240.82 $722.46 $188.55 $502.80
City of San Leandro $76.62 $231.64 $231.64 $694.92 $192.13+ $77.97 p/ton $281.79+ $77.97 p/ton
City of Union City $63.44 $175.21 $166.24 $453.04 $223.30 $552.54
Castro Valley Sanitary District $72.86 $203.94 $194.00 $543.41 $282.55 $219.25
Oro Loma Sanitary District $66.50 $186.15 $177.12 $496.13 $201.88 $576.80
Average $65.95 $204.96 $199.88 $583.11 $277.35 $611.44
Dublin % from Average -34% -26% -35% -29% -25% -11%
Survey conducted by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority - May 2003
Ili
I 1ST :)ND 3RD 4TH 2002
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC QRT QRT QRT QRT YTD
Vlissed Pick-up Commitment 30 22 38 46 29 23 41 28 21 24 53 50 90 98 90 127 405
Mess 0 0 0 0 0
Property Claim ,. 0 0 0 0 0
Lid/Can 0 0 · 0 0 0
Compliment 0 0 0 0 0
Complaint 0 0 0 0 0
Tone of Service 0 0 0 0 0
Truck Complaints 0 0 0 0 0
Quality of Service 2 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 5
Unresolved Issaes I 3 1 ~ 1 4 0 1 5 4 10
Reoccurrin9 ComplaintJ 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 32 22 39 47 30 24 44 29 22 24 57! 50 93 101 95 131 420
excellcomDiocl .
1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 2003
JAN :EB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT~NOv DEC QRT QRT QRT QRT ~D
Missed Pick-up,Commitment' 31 3a 36 31 23 9 21 29 21 23 256~ 63 71 23 413
Mess 2 2 0 0 0 2
Prope~y Claim 0 0 0, 0 0
Lid/Can 0 0 0 0 C
Compliment 1 1 0 0 0 1
Complaint 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 16 4 6 1 ~ 27
To.e of Se~ice 0 0 0 0 0
Truck Complaints 0 0 0 0 0
Qualit~ of Se~ice 0 0 0 0 0
Unresolved issues 0 0 0 0 0
~eoccurrin~ Complaint 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 35 34 38 33 24 10 23 30 24 24 0 0: 107 .67 77 24 275
excel/complog