The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.1 Attachment 1 ~ e ',..-" CITY OF DUBLIN REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES It It It January 18, 1995 Prepared by: Hilton Famkopf & Hobson HI8I11 January 18, 1995, Draft 71 ft' ') CITY OF DUBLIN REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES Table of Contents Section I. Description Introduction Purpose of RFP Background Scope of Services Requested Proposal Process II. Description of Current Services Description of Service Area Current Municipal Solid Waste Collection and. Disposal Services Current Rates AB 939 Planning III. Proposal Guidelines Procurement Schedule Preparation of Proposals Other Proposal Requirements Submission of Proposal City Rights and Hold Harmless IV. V. Proposal Evaluation Attachments 1. 2. 3. 4a. 4b. 4c. 5. 6. 7. Draft Franchise Agreement Dublin SRRE Excerpts Current Rates Price Proposal Summary Form Price Proposal Form Guidelines Price Proposal Worksheet Anti-Collusion Affidavit EEO Certification Notary's Certification January 18, 1995, Draft ~ 1 1 1 1 4 5 5 5 9 9 10 10 11 26 26 26 28 f: II" A. PURPOSE OF RFP The City of Dublin (City) is requesting proposals from qualified firms to provide refuse collection, transport and disposal, and yard waste and recyclable materials collection, processing and marketing services to the residents and businesses in the City for a period of seven (7) years with an option for up to three (3) twelve (12) month extensions. Through this procurement process, the City hopes to achieve long-term rate stability in both collection and disposal and to increase the level of solid waste services provided in the City. B. BACKGROUND The City is currently receiving refuse coll~ction, transport and disposal services and recyclables collection, processing and marketing services from Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. (WMAC) thtough separate agreements. There is currently no yard waste collection service. The agreements with WMAC will terminate on March 31, 1996. C SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUESTED The following sections briefly describe the services that are requested by the City. 1. Refuse Collection, Transport and Disposal a. Refuse Collection i) Residential Refuse Collection (Option A- Current Service) · Manual, mandatory, weekly backyard refuse collection with customer provided containers; H) Residential Refuse Collection (Option B-Automated Service) · Automated, mandatory, weekly curbside residential refuse collection in Company-provided containers and a method to service hard-to-serve areas if other than automated service; Hi) Other Residential Refuse Services -1- January 18, 1995, Draft " · Four (4) annual clean-ups with an option for an incremental reduction to three (3) or two (2) annual clean-ups; · On-call bulky waste collection; , iv) Other Refuse Collection · Bin service (includes multi-family, commercial and industrial refuse collection); · Debris box service (includes residential, commercial and industrial refuse collection); and, · Service to City facilities, and special events. b. Refuse Transport i) Refuse transport to disposal site. Co Refuse Disposal i) Refuse disposal 2. Recycling Collection, Processing and Marketing a. Recycling Collection i) Weekly, residential (all can or cart accounts) curbside recyclable materials collection, on the same day as refuse collection, of at least the following materials: newspaper, glass, aluminum, PET, tin and bi-metal cans. Option A shall include the collection and processing of corrugated cardboard and mixed paper (including magazines, phone books and junk mail). Option B shall include the COllection and processing of HOPE. Proposals must include the additional incremental costs per household for each option; ii) Weekly, multi-family recyclable materials collection, processing, and marketing of .at least the following materials: newspaper, glass, aluminum, PET, tin and bi- metal cans. Option A shall include the collection and processing of corrugated cardboard and mixed paper (including magazines, phone books and junk mail). Option B shall include the collection and processing of -2- January 18, 1995, Draft Pf ~): HOPE. Proposals must include the additional incremental costs per household for each option; Hi) Commercial recyclable materials collection (to be implemented at the City's option); and, iv) Service to City facilities and special events. b. Recycling Processing and Marketing i) Recyclable materials processing and marketing. 3. Green Waste Collection, Processing and Marketing a. Green Waste Collection i) Residential Green Waste Collection; · (Option A) - Weekly, residential (all accounts receiving cart or can service) curbside green waste collection with Company provided containers, on the same day as refuse collection. · (Option B) - Bi-weekly, residential (all accounts receiving cart or can service) curbside green waste collection with Company provided containers, on the same day as refuse collection. ii) Christmas tree collection; iii) Multi-family green waste processing and marketing to those complexes requesting the service; and, i v) Service to City facilities and parks. b. Green Waste Processing and Marketing i) Green waste processing and marketing; and, ii) End uses for green waste. 4. Periodic Reporting Related to AD 939 Diversion Goals a. Company shall be responsible for accurately reporting progress toward State mandated diversion requirements (see Article 8 of the draft franchise agreement). -3- JanuarylS, 1995, Draft t. D. PROPOSAL PROCESS Written questions will be accepted before the Mandato." rre-fmposal Bidders Conference on Fel,Jrual:f 22. lti5. and written responses will be provided at the Conference. Oral questions will be accepted at the Conference and written responses will be provided thereafter. The City has requested that all communications regarding this Request for Proposal be conducted through its consultants, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson. The contact person there is Scott Hanin, who can be reached by phone at 510/713-3270 and by facsimile at 510/713-3294. In order to fairly evaluate all proposals, the City has attempted to describe the types of services and business terms and conditions in a manner that will allow a reasonable level of comparability between the proposals. Therefore, the City discourages and may disqualify any and all proposals that substantially deviate from the RFP. Also,pro.posals received after the submission deadlitte of M,rch 30. 1995. will not be acc~t~d. A contractor will be selected on the basis of the City's evaluation of the qualifications and reputation of the firm, the technical and financial proposals, and the number and nature of exceptions taken to the Draft Franchise Agreement which is provided as Attachment 1 to this RFP. Upon selection, the firm will be required to enter into an agreement based on its proposal in a timely manner. The City reserves the right to reject or accept any or all complete proposals, or parts of proposals, to issue addenda to the RFP, to modify the RFP, to -modify the draft franchise agreement or to withdraw the RFP. -4- . January 18, 1995, Draft c )- The City has prepared the following descriptions based upon information readily available to it, and upon historical trends. It is the responsibility of the proposers to undertake at their sole cost any verification of this information necessary to submit a response to this Request for Proposals (also, see Section lV.B.) A. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE AREA The City has a population of approximately 26,270. The City is located at the intersection of Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. The current City limits comprise approximately 9 square miles, with the majority of existing development occurring within 4.5 square miles. Much of the u.ndeveloped area is currently comprised of Institutional uses including: the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, the Federal Bureau of Justice Correctional Facility, the Alameda County Jail, and the Alameda County Public Works facility. The County owns approximately 614 acres which is slated for future mixed use development as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City has an approved General Plan and Specific Plan, which outline the potential for additional development both within the City Limits, and in areas which may eventually be annexed. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment covered approximately 6,920 acres of which approximately 3,300 acres are also covered by a Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Area alone includes approximately 700 acres projected to be used for commercial/industrial purposes. The Specific Plan area proposed for residential uses cOVers approximately 1,690 acres, which can accommodate approximately 12,350 residential units". The projected population for this area is 27,551. B. CURRENT MUNIOPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES 1. Refuse Collection a. Residential Collection The City currently has mandatory, once-a-week backyard residential collection services; however, a substantial, but unknown, number of customers place their containers at the curb. A total of 5,453 households are serviced under this category, classified as follows: Single family Duplex Townhouse 4,977 92 384 -5- January 18, 1995, Draft , These residential customers are currently serviced by two (2) routes. One route uses a two person crew and one route uses a three person crew. Rear...load vehicles are used for these routes. The estimated residential can count is currently: 1-Can 3,085 2-Can 2,261 3-Can 186 4-Can 12 5-Can 3 In addition, in 1994, a total of 1,618 tons were co1leded through the four annual clean-ups. The current hauler also operates a "Handy Hauler" program where a 4-yard bin can be ordered by residential customers on an occasional basis and is serviced by the regular commercial route vehicles. b. Commercial Collection The approximate number of current commercial accounts is 642. The approximate number of commercial customers by size of container and collection frequency is presented in the following table. Fc:y/Size 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week Totals Dublin Commercial Cust9mer Data (December, 1994) Pick-up Frequency Per Container Size lfi~ ~fiM 3fiM 4fiM 6~M 100 ~ ~ ~ M 5 13 84 44 3 o 8 8 28 8 o 0 140 o --D. -2 -12. --D. 105 109 177 180 42 Table 1 7 YaM 9 2 16 1 1 29 Commercial customers are currently serviced by two (2) routes composed of one-person front-end load vehicles. In addition, there are 2,404 multi-family units receiving bin service, 1,027 with their own compactor. -6- January 18, 1995, Draft c. Debris Box Collection ( ) The approximate number of annual debris box pulls is 2,197, as described below. DrQP Box SiB 2o-yard compactor 24-yard compactor 25-yard compactor 3O-yard compactor 40-yard compactor 6-yard 2o-yard 3O-yard 4o-yard Number of PvU, 13 46 81 350 21 246 925 294 221 2. Waste Transport and Disposal. WMAC currently utilizes a direct haul to their Altamont facility for disposal. The City does not have any provision for long-term disposal capacity beyond the term of the current agreement. The approximate amount of waste disposed is: . Residential Residential clean-ups Commercial (including multi-family) Debris Box 1993 A~tual 5,836 tons 1,416 9,990 ~.195 25,437 tons . . . Total 1994 Proj~cted 5,724 tons 1,618 9,523 za42 24,714 tons Approximately 555 additional tons were estimated to be collected at City facilities in 1994. 3. Current Recycling Programs a. Residential Curbside Recycling The City contracts with WMAC to operate a weekly curbside recycling program for collection of newspapers, glass, metal -7- January 18, 1995, Draft. ( , food !beverage cans, and plastic (PET). Participation in the program is voluntary; however, all residents pay for recycling services which are subsidized by City Measure D funds. The recyclable materials are placed at the curb on the regular refuse collection day. The current recycling agreement with WMAC expires on March 31, 1996. The estimated amount of residential recydables collected and processed in 1994 was: Newspaper Glass Tin Aluminum PET Sil\gle familY 734 338 76 15 U 1,177 M:ulti-F,mt1y 233 59 5 1 2. 300 Ima1 967 397 81 16 16 1,477 b. Commercial Recycling There is currently no formal commercial recycling program. However, any commercial recycling taking place must be source separated according to the City ordinance. 4. Green Waste Currently, the City does not operate a green waste collection program. 5. Household Hazardous Waste Management Household hazardous waste (lniW) management programs ale operated by the County. Dublin residents are encouraged to utilize the HHW facility in Uvermore which is managed by the County Health Department and funded by landfill tip fees. 6. Billing Process The City currently bills all residential customers for one 32-gallon can for refuse collection, weekly recycling collection, and four special clean-ups on their property tax bills, and forwards this revenue to the current hauler. Any additional residential container and other non-standard service, multi-family, commercial or debris box service is billed directly to the customers by the hauler. -8- January 18, 1995, Draft ~ C. CURRENT RATES The City's current schedule of rates is presented as Attachment 3. However, companies are not expected to include rates as part of their proposal. D. AD 939 PLANNING The City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (sRRE) of the County's Integrated Waste Management Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 23,1992. The sRRE describes plans to achieve 30.9% diversion by 1995 and 54.4% diversion by the year 2000. This will be accomplished through source reduction, recycling and composting as described in Attachment 2. The City and County have estimated that the 1995 diversion rate for the City will be 27.1%, using a disposal based methodology. -9- January 18, 1995, Draft ! The City is soliciting proposals to provide solid waste services for residences, businesses and City facilities beginning April 1, 1996, for a period of seven (7) years with an option to extend the agreement for up to three (3) twelve (12) month extensions. For all services, the Company is required to comply with federal, state and local environmental standards, Provide reporting to meet City, County Recycling Initiative - Measure D, and AB 939 requirements, provide high-quality public service/education and other related activities as described in the draft franchise agreement. A copy of the draft franchise agreement containing the business terms and conditions under which service will be Provided is included as Attachment 1 and is an integral part of this RFP. The agreement includes information related to service standards, rate setting, billing, reporting and other activities related to the performance of these services. The City reserves the right to modify the draft franchise agreement. A. PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE Request for Proposals available om: Scott Hanin Hilton Famkopf &t Hobson 39350 Civic Center Drive, Suite 100 Fremont, California 94538-2331 · February 22, 1995 Pre-Proposal Conference: · March 30, 1995 Proposal Submission by 4:00 P.M. Finance Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, 2nd Floor Dublin, California 94568 · April 24-25, 1995 Interviews with Selected Firms · May 15, 1995 Preliminary Approval by City Counci · June 26, 1995 Final Approval by City Council · April 1, 1996 Start of Waste Collection Services These dates are tentative only, and subject to change by the City. -10- January 18, 1995, Draft 1 B. PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS 1. Proposal Outline All proposals shall be prepared using the following outline: i. TItle Page ii. Transmittal Letter iii. Tables of Contents, Attachments, etc. iv. Proposal Summary a. Company Description i) Overview ii) Details of Ownership of Company iii) Description of Company Experience iv) Description of Company's Service Initiation Experience v) Information Regarding Pending Litigation vi) Financial Information vii) Key Personnel b. Technical Proposal i) Refuse Services - Refuse Collection, Transport and Disposal ii) Recycling Collection, Processing and Marketing iii) Green Waste Collection, Processing and Marketing i v) General Requirements v) Implementation Plan vi) Customer Service/Billing vii) Environmental Component Co Financial Proposal i) Financing Plan ii) Cost Proposal d Exceptions to Proposed Business Terms and Conditions in the Draft Franchise Agreement Description of the contents of several of these sections are presented below. -11- January 18, 1995, Draft 2. Proposal Content a. Company Description i) Overvi~w Indicate w~r the legal entity which would enter into the Agreement is an individual, a partnership, a corporation, or a joint venture. Indicate the number of years the entity has been organized and doing business under this legal structure (if other than an individual). ii) Details of Ownership of Company a) Corporation (including Non-Profit and Not-far-Profit) - If you are a corporation, indicate in which State you are incorporated. Also, provide the names and addresses of all: · Officers; · Stockholders owning ten percent (10%) or more of any class of stock in the corporation; and, · Creditors who are owed a debt equal to ten percent (10%) or more of the firm's total assets. . b) Partnership - If you are a partnership, list the names and addresses of all general and limited partners and their percentage ownership. c) Joint Venture - If you are a joint venture, list the names and addresses of all venturers. If any venturer is a corporation or partnership, provide the information requested in Sections a. and b. for each. iii) Description of Company Experience Each firm must submit a description of experience that qualifies it to perform the services being procured thtough this RFP. In describing your firm's experience in each area, list the following information: -12- January 18, 1995, Draft a) The city and state where activities were performed. b) What service was performed (e.g., refuse collection, yard waste collection and recyclable materials collection). . c) The type of equipment used. d) The dates during which services were performed. e) The name, address and telephone number of the responsible city representative. f) The number of households or commercial establishments served, tons collected, and number of vehicles dispatched per day, etc. iv) Description of Company's Service Initiation Experience Describe how your firm has handled the specific requirements for: a) Procurement of vehicles and personnel. b) Training of personnel. c) Establishing billing and fee collection services, particularly interfacing with billings on the property tax bill. d) Determination of routes and operating procedures. e) Delivery of refuse containers. f) Liaison with the community including complaint resolution, public relations and promotion of new programs. g) Preparation of procedures to ensure a smooth transition from one contractor to another and one type of service to another in other communities. Include examples of lead time and critical path or other time charts used in start-up situations similar to Dublin. Indicate how your firm will assure an -13- January 18, 1995, Draft . ' effective, trouble-free, timely start-up of your operation in the City. v) Information Regarding Pending litigation List all dvillega1 actions with potential liability above $10,000 and all criminal1egal actions now pending or threatened against the individual or entity identified in answer to Section 2. For each action, please provide: a) The name of the action; b) The court in which it is pending; c) The action number; d) The amount at issue; and, e) A brief statement of the current status of all criminal actions and all civil actions involving amounts greater than $100,000. If the legal entity identified in Section 2 is a corporation, include in your answer all actions which are pending that involve as a party a current corporate officer or a person who served as an officer within the last two years, which arise from the officer's activities on behalf of the corporation. If you answered the portion of Section 2 regarding "parent" corporations, include in your answer to this Section all criminal actions and all civil actions involving potential liability greater than $100,000 involving that "parent" corporation. If this legal entity identified in Section 2 is a partnership, include in your answer to this Section all legal actions involving individual partners, which arise from their activ- ities on behalf of the partnership, not otherwise disclosed in your answer. vi) Financial Information Submit audited financial statements for your firm for the most recently completed fiscal year. All such reports are to be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis including a statement -14- January 18, 1995, Draft by the chief financial officer of your firm that there has been no material adverse change in such condition or operations as reflected in the submitted balance sheet and income statements since the date on which they were prepared. If your company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a parent company, also submit audited financial statements for the parent company for the most recently completed fiscal year. vii) Key Personnel Provide an organizational chart and. job descriptions indi- cating the qualifications and experience the City could expect of key personnel your firm would assign to the transition and to this contract and the percentage of time dedicated to work related to the City. Provide resumes of the proposed management team member that will fill the described jobs in the City. Indicate which positions should, in the opinion of your firm, be considered "key" in a procurement of this nature. b. Technical Proposal i) Refuse Collection, Transport and Disposal Refuse collection, transport and disposal proposals must include a description of how you propose to provide all of the following services: a) Residential Refuse Collection (Option A - Current Service) - Manual, mandatory, weekly backyard refuse collection with customer provided containers. b) Residential Refuse Collection (Option B - Automated Service) - Automated, mandatory, weekly curbside residential refuse collection in Company-provided containers. Provide an. alternative method to service hard-to-serve areas, senior citizens, and handicapped individuals, if different than automated service. Include an estimate of the number of accounts requiring this alternative and the number of routes required to service them, if any. -15- January 18, 1995, Draft c) Other Refuse Services .. · Bulky Goods Collection; Describe your plan for the collection, processing, reuse, marketing, and residue disposal of bulky goods, including; A description of your bulky goods collection, processing and marketing plan, including the staff and equipment that will be utilized. Continuation of the current "Handy Hauler" program. (It is not anticipated that an additional bin route be required for this program.) A method of collection and recovery of reusable or recyclable materials. A listing of collection equipment by type, make, model! year, including collection, transport, and support or supervisory vehicles. A listing of, and maintenance schedule for, bulky goods processing I dismantling equipment with key specifications about method of storage, haul, and disposal of non- processible waste and process residues. Primary and contingent marketing plans for the major types of bulky goods, including quantities, prices, specifications, and other terms and conditions. A description of your plan to incorporate non-profit and for-profit reusers and recyclers. A description of public education materials to be used. -16- January 18, 1995, Draft i · Four annual dean-ups and a description of how the extra vehicle and labor requirements will be handled (costs should be included in residential refuse cost proposal). A description of annual clean-up collection, processing and marketing plan should include the staff and equipment that will be utilized Proposers should also include the incremental cost reduction for lowering the number of clean-ups from four to thtee and/or two; · Commercial and multi-family refuse collection (bin service); · Industrial, commercial, residential and refuse collection (debris box service); and, · Service to City facilities. d) Refuse Transport (or Transfer) Refuse transport (or transfer) proposals must include a description of how you propose to provide all of the following services: · Refuse transport to disposal site - Proof that direct haul (if proposed) for City refuse is not prohibited at the proposed disposal site. · If a transfer station is to be used, at a minimum, the following information specifically related to refuse transfer is required: Statement regarding affiliation to transfer station. Proof that the proposed transfer station has the proper permits. Information on the transfer station induding a description of facility operations, tons per day currently processed and available tonnage capacity per day. -17- January 18, 1995, Draft Transfer station tonnage commitments/ guaranteed capacity for the term of the agreement, including price per ton transferred and method of future price adjustments. · Description of the transfer process in the event that a transfer station is not proposed for use. · If the transfer station or transport service is owned or operated by a third or related party, the terms and conditions of the agreement must be summarized and a copy of the formal agreement for services made available to the City for review. e) Refuse Disposal · Refuse disposal must include a description of where and how you propose to provide refuse disposal service. · For rate purposes, disposal expense (tipping fee), and regulatory fees will be treated as a pass-through expense. · At a minimum, the following information specifically related to refuse disposal is also required: Name and location of disposal site. Current daily permitted capacity and traffic. Type of permit in place (i.e., Class 1, 2, 3). Permit amendments required (e.g., Water Board, Air Board, etc.). Statement regarding affiliation to the disposal site. -18- January 18, 1995, Draft Proof that the proposed disposal site has the proper permits. Information on the disposal site including a description of facility operatio1l$, tons per day currently disposed and available tonnage capacity per day. Disposal site tonnage commitments/ guaranteed capacity for the term of the agreement. Initial price per ton delivered for disposal (tip fee) and method of future fee adjustment and method for treating local fees. Information on the disposal site including: remaining capacity and projected years to closure; if closure arid post-c1osure costs ~e included in the tip fee; if Subtitle D requirements are fulfilled; and any pending litigation against the landfill owner or management.. The proposer must agree to hold the City harmless for hazardous waste as described in Section 9.2 of the draft franchise agreement, which may be amended. H the disposal site is owned or operated by a third or related party, the terms and conditions of the agreement must be summarized and a copy of the formal agreement for services made available to the City for review. ii) Recycling Collection, Processing & Marketing Recycling collection, processing and marketing proposals must include a description of how you propose to provide all of the following services: -19- January 18, 1995, Draft a) Weekly, residential (all can or cart accounts) curbside recyclable materials collection, on the same day as refuse collection, of at least the following materials: newspaper, glass, aluminum, PET, tin and bi-metal cans. Option. A shall include the collection and processing of corrugated cardboard and mixed paper (including magazines, phone books and junk mail). Option B shall include the collection and processing of HOPE. Proposals must include the additional incremental ..- costs per household for each option. b) Weekly, multi-family recyclable materials collection, processing, and marketing of at least the following materials: newspaper, glass, aluminum, PET, tin and bi-metal cans. Option A shall include the collection and processing of corrugated cardboard and mixed paper (including magazines, phone books and junk mail). Option B shall include the collection and processing of HOPE. Proposals must include the additional incremental costs per household for each option. c) Source-separated commercial recyclable materials collection, processing, and marketing (to be implemented at the City's option). d) Recycling services to City facilities. At a minimum, the following information specifically related to recycling collection, processing and marketing is also required: · Estimated annual tons of recyclable materials that will be collected, processed and marketed. Include basis for assumptions and participation rate. .. · Estimated annual tons of residual waste that will be disposed, and disposal site. · Name and description of faci1ity(ies) where recyclable materials will be processed, proof of capacity, processing fee per ton, method of -20- January 18, 1995, Draft future fee adjustments, and tonnage commitment. . · Processing methods and procedures. · Marketing plan and materials marketing experience. e) Any opportunities for the use of Measure D Capital Grants should be identified. iii) Green Waste Collection, Processing and Marketing Green waste collection, processing and marketing proposals must include a description of how you propose to provide all of the -following services: a) Option A - Weekly, residential (all cart and can accounts, except that 384 townhouse units may be excluded) mandatory pay, residential curbside green waste collection on the same day as refuse collection. b) Option B - Bi-weekly, residential (all cart and can accounts, except that 384 townhouse units may be excluded) mandatory pay, residential curbside green waste collection on the same day as refuse collection. c) Green waste processing and marketing. d) Christmas tree collection, processing and diverting. e) Multi-family green waste collection, processing and marketing to those complexes requesting the service. . f) Service to City facilities. At a minimum, the following information specifically related to green waste collection, processing and marketing is also required: a) Estimated annual tons of residential green waste that will be collected, processed and marketed from curbside. Include basis for assumptions and participation rate assumptions. -21- January 18, 1995, Draft b) Estimated annual tons of residual waste that will be disPOSed, and disposal site. c) Name and description of facility(ies) whete residential green waste will be processed, proof of capacity, fee per ton delivered, method of future fee adjustments, and location capacity commitment. d) Processing methods and procedures including information on how contamination will be controlled. e) Description of finished product (i.e., compost, mulch) and customers. f) Marketing plan and green waste marketing experience. iv) General Requirements At a minimum, for eaCh service for which proposals are submitted, the following information is required: a) Collection methodology to be employed. b) Equipment to be utilized (e.g., vehicle, number, types, capacity, age, etc.). H equipment can be considered non-standard (e.g., dual collection vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles, etc.) you must provide examples of where the proposed equipment is currently being utilized as it is proposed. c) The number of routes required per day, per week, and the estimated number of actual stops and drive-bys per route. d) Assumptions and basis of each assumption for labor requirements (number of employees by classification (i.e., drivers, helpers, mechanics, etc.)). e) Types and numbers of containers to be utilized. f) Location for equipment and personnel staging. -22- January 18, 1995, Draft g) Arrangements for maintenance of equipment. h) Office location for management and franchise administration operations. i) Estimated annual tons collected. j) Billing/Customer Service. v) Implementation Plan Prospective companies shall provide an implementation plan describing its approach to facilitating a smooth transition to the new franchise agreement and, if applicable, a smooth transition between types of service and refuse haulers. The proposal must clearly demonstrate that the company has the ability to implement the services by April 1, 1996. Such a plan should include: a) A timeline and accompanying written explanation for complete project implementation including: · "Back-up" plan during the transition (e.g., personnel, vehicles, etc.). · Equipment procurement. · Hiring of personnel. · Acquisition of storage and maintenance facili- ties and administrative offices. · Development and printing of customer rela- tions materials (such as collection schedules, route maps, billing forms, complaint forms, service request forms, etc.). b) Assumptions regarding the City's staff participation and (as appropriate) the current hauler's participation. c) A description of and resumes for the transition team members highlighting previous experience in transitioning/ start..up of new operations. d) Methods for handling customer inquiries. -23- January 18, 1995, Draft e) Announcements and publicity. vi) Customer ServiceIBilling Prospective contractors &hall describe their procedures for dealing with customer service requests and for customer billing. The current billing process of the basic residential rate on the property tax will be continued. vii) Environmental Component Applicants should address the following points and provide additional information, as needed, for preliminary environmental review of proposed services. a) Environmental Issues. Describe potential environmental effects and their mitigation measures. Address each of the following issues separately, as applicable: odor, noise, dust, vectors, traffic, litter, and visual effects. b) Hazardous Waste Management. Describe procedures for identifying and handling hazardous waste disposed with the solid waste stream. The plan shall describe screening procedures, notification plan, and employee training program. c. Financial Proposal i) Financing Plan Each Company shall describe its plan for financing its capital requirements in a "Sources and Uses of Funds" format which describes the sources of required capital (e.g., banks, leasing companies, cash reserves, etc.) and uses (property, trucks, equipment, containers, reserves, etc.) and shall attach such supporting documents that demonstrate its ability to implement the plan. Proposers should provide written documentation (e.g., letters from banks or leasing companies) demonstrating their ability to finance their capital requirements. .24- January 18, 1995, Draft ii) Cost Proposal Attachment 4 describes how each company should complete its cost proposal and provides forms and workSheets that must be completed in order for your proposal to be considered. d Exceptions to the Proposed Business Terms and Conditions Proposers should describe in detail any exceptions to the proposed business terms and conditions described in the draft franchise agreement (Attachment 1). -25- January 18, 1995, Draft A.' SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL 1. Submit five (5) copies (one (1) unbound, camera..ready) of the complete proposal in a sealed package. Included with the proposal should be the following: a. Transmittal letter, signed by an official authorized to bind the proposing firm. b. Anti-Collusion Affidavit (Attachment 5). c. EEO Certification (Attachment 6). d Notary's Certification (Attachment 7). e. Proposal Bond. The company is to furnish a proposal bond with submission of their proposal. The proposal bond shall be furnished as surety for performance and completion of the 'work in accordance with the terms of this RFP and its attachments, the service contract and its attachments, and for the prices contained in the contractor proposal. The proposal bond must be approved by the City and must be in an amount of $50,000. The proposal bond shall be returned to any proposer not ultimately selected to provide these services. 2. Label this package: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION PROPOSAL NAME OF PROPOSER ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON TELEPHONE All proposals must be received at the City of Dublin Finance Department, 2nd Floor, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, by March 30, 1995, at 4:00 p.m. Proposals received after this time and date will be retumed unopened. Postmarks will not be accepted as proof of receipt. B. an RIGHTS AND HOLD HARMLESS The data presented in Section U. of this Request for Proposals is for information only and the proposer agrees to hold the City harmless for the accuracy of this -26- January 18, 1995, Draft data. All proposers should take whatever steps they feel are necessary to reasonably establish the actual service information in preparing their proposal. The City reserves the right to reject or accept any or all complete proposals, or parts of proposals, to waive non-substantial irregularities in the RFP, to issue addenda to the RFP, to modify the RFP and draft franchise agreement, or to withdraw the RFP. Proposals must comply fully with the requirements detailed in this document. Required supporting documentation should be included as attachments and should be appropriately identified. Incomplete proposals, proposals containing errors or inconsistencies, failure to submit the proper quantity of copies, or other process or content errors or deficiencies may constitute cause for rejection. Dublin must have the right and your firm must agree to cooperate with the City's investigation and review of your firm's ability to perform the work required. Such cooperation shall apply not only to the verification of the firm's capability and experience in the provision of services but also to the provision of any other component of work which may be required under this procurement. The City reserves the right to retain all propos~ submitted and the proposals shall become the property of the City. The City also reserves the right to use any or all ideas presented in any proposal submitted in r~ponse to an RFP without charge or limitation. The selection or rejection of a proposal does not affect these rights. The City may request clarification or additional information from the proposer at any point in the RFP process. Submission of a proposal shall constitute acknowledgment and acceptance of all the terms and conditions contained in this RFP and draft franchise agreement unless exception to particular terms and conditions are expressed in writing in the proposal. Upon acceptance of its proposal, in whole or in part, by the City, the contractor is bound to execute a contract and furnish a performance bond approved by the City for performance of the contract in accordance with the draft franchise agreement, as may be modified by the City , and all documents referenced therein, as modified by this proposal, the terms of which are firm for a period of 120 days. . -27- January 18, 1995, Draft . SECI10N V · PROPOSAL BY ALUATION The proposals will be objectively evaluated based on the following factors: . Company's Qualifications · General Experience - Demonstrated experience providing similar services, including diversion programs, to other areas. Experience of key personnel. · Jurisdiction Satisfaction - Satisfaction of company references with services received, including implementation, customer service, billing, payment of fees, reporting, and the handling of legal and labor issues. · Public Education - Company's public education experience and adequacy of the company's public education plan. Technical Proposal · Implementation Plan - Reasonableness of implementation schedule and ability to meet deadlines (i.e., equipment procurement schedules, personnel available, back-up plan, notice to customers). · Operations - Reasonableness of assumptions (i.e., number of routes, drivers). · Equipment - Collection methodology used and proven. · Disposal, Processing and Marketing - Realistic plan and guaranteed capacity for refuse disposal, recyclable material and green waste processing and marketing. · Other Technical Services- Provisions for bulky waste collection, annual clean- ups, Christmas tree recycling and hazardous waste management. · Ability to achieve the AB 939 diversion goals. Exceptions to the Terms and Conditions · Exceptions to the RFP - Number and nature of the exceptions and effect upon the City's ability to evaluate the proposal. · Exceptions to the Draft Franchise Agreement - Number and nature of the exceptions and effect on entering into.an agreement. -28- January 18, 1995, Draft Financial Ability Profit - · Reasonableness of requested profit. · Financing - Evidence that financing requirements will be fulfilled. Reasonableness of terms. Proposed collateral against loans. · Financial Stability - Comparison of additional revenue from contract to company's current revenue stream. Vulnerability of company based on its debt-to-equity ratio. Demonstrated ability of company to obtain adequate insurance. Costs · Costs - Reasonableness of costs. Rational relationship between costs and operational assumptions. · Competitiveness - Cost of service to customers. Cost competitiveness relative to other similar types services in other jurisdictions and other proposals. Predictability · Costs - Ability to provide rate stability assurance in collection and disposal for the term of the franchise agreement (e.g., without major capital purchases including, but not limited to, the need to replace vehicles and equipment). · Operations - Ability to provide efficient and timely service for the term of the agreement. -29- January 18, 1995, Draft AlTACHMENT 1 PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT 2 JANUARY 23, 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF REPORT January 18, 1995, Draft ATTACHMENT 2 DUBlwIN SRRE (Excerpts) . . City of Du~lin Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element Adopted March 23, 1992 rc 'f/~ t, R. ~T S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Dublin (Dublin) has prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRR Element) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHW Element) in accordance with statutory requirements of the State of California. This Executive Summary describes what is required for these documents and presents the essential information they contain. INTRODUCTION The California Integrated Waste Management Ad In 1989, the California legislature enacted the California Integntted Waste Management Act (Act) requiring diversion of waste materials from ]at)dfill~ in order to preserve decreasing landfill capacity and natoral resources. This Act requires cities and counties in California to diven 25 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent of solid waste by January 1, 2000. The Act further requires every city and county in Califomia to prepare two documents to demonstrate how the mandated rates of diversion will be achieved. The fiIst of these documents is the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, (SRR Element), a report describing -( 1) the chief characteristics of each jurisdiction's waste, (2) existing waste diversion programs and CUIIeI1t rates of waste diversion, and (3) continuations of existing waste diversion programs and new or expanded prognuns the jurisdiction intends to implement. The seconddocumem is the Household Hazardous Waste Elemen~ (HHW ~ement), a report describing what each jurisdiction will do to ensure _that household hazardous wastes are not mixed with regular nonhazardous solid waste. . Household hazardous wastes are defined as any discarded material from homes that may threaten human health or the. environment if disposed of incouectly. OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ELE:MENT Solid Waste Generation Study The fiIst requirement for the SRR Element is preparation of a Solid Waste Generation Study. This repon identifies the quantity and composition of wastes generated by a jurisdiction and the total waste generated which is disposed and diverted. For Dublin and other Alameda CIty of DtlbIID 'Priuted Oft ~ded OIl...... ES-2 County jurisdictions, the source of infozmation on waste quantities and characteri.stics for the Solid Waste Generation Study was a countywide report prepared by Brown and Caldwell Consultants. This countywide report generated waste composi~n and quantity data on a countywide ,basis. Dublin's specific waste characteristics were detemrined by the city' s relative share of the county's population or by the city's ~ of the total number of Alameda County businesses. The Solid Waste Generation Study for Dublin includes four parts. These are: · A Demo2Y3Phic Studv showing the total CU1ICnt population of Dublin, the proportion of residents in single- and multifamily dwelling units. and in low, medium, and high income households, and the number and type of commercial and industrial establishments in Dublin. · A Solid Waste Characterization Study showing the quantity and composition of wastes generated by Dublin residents and commercw and industrial waste generators. · A Solid Waste Disposal Study showing the quantity of residential, commercial and industrial wastes collected in Dublin by franchised waste haulexs and additional Dublin solid waste taken to 1aDnfi11~ both by nonfranchised commercial haulers collecting primarily construction and demolition debris and by members of the public hauling smaller individual loads of sclf-hlmlett wastes. · A Solid Waste Diversion Studv showing the quantity and types of Dublin wastes currently diverted from hlIlnfill disposal. The results of these studies indicate that in 1990 the major types of waste generated in Dublin were concrete and asphalt (163 percent), paper (33.7 percent), and yard waste (8.4 percent). The total quantity of waste generated in Dublin in 1990 was 55,143 tons, of which 41,707 tons were taken to ]annfi11~ for disposal and 13,437 tons were diverted through source reduction and recycling programs. The overall rate of diversion of waste materials for Dublin for 1990 was 24.4 percent. - Existing Material Recovery Programs Waste diversion in Dublin occurs both as a consequence of publicly org~nl"',ed recycling programs and waste diversion activity emanating solely from private injrimive. The major publicly organized program is its curbside recycling program. In September 1990, Dublin contracted with its franchised waste hauler, Livermore-Dublin Disposal, to provide a tbree-bin curbside recycling program for single-family residences in Dublin with a provision to expand this service to Dublin multi-family residences in the future. In addition, since 1986 Dublin has contracted with Livermore-Dublin Disposal to provide as part of its base solid waste collection service, a quarterly cleanup program. Livermore-Dublin Disposal has also provided a one-day CIty of DllbUD ES-3 household hazardous waste collection event for residents of the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Even more significant is Dublin's privately initiated waste diversion activity. Priv~ recycling activities provided an estimated 7;.1.71 tons of concrete and asphalt to a major paving materials contractor in Oakland, where they were remade into road construction materials. Cmrent state regulations [CCR section 18722(j)(7)(A)] identify concrete, asphalt and other inert solids as a waste type which must be accounted for in a joxisdictiOIi's Solid Waste Generation Study, and materials of this waste type class which are diverted may cmrently count toward the 25 and 50 percent diversion credit if they are solid wastes which are nOImally disposed of at pennitted solid waste landfills or ~itted solid waste transformation fact1i1ies [CCR. section 18722 (m)]. In late 1991, legislation was introduced which would alter the procedures for detennining whether and to what extent diversion credit could be claimed for recycled concrete and asphalt; This issue, however, will probably not be resolved by the state legj~lature until late 1992; in the interim period during which Dublin is producing its initial SRR Element, existing state regulations regarding the counting of concrete and asphalt inert solids will be observed. As a result of private commercial recycling activities, significant quantities of conugated cardboard (1,526 tons) and high grade ledger paper (725 tons) were also diverted from landfill disposal. Likewise, privately iniri~ted source reduction activities provided an estimated 34 tons of cloth diapers to Dublin by commercial diaper services and 100 tons of used clothing were diverted from landtill disposal through being taken instead to second-hand clOthing and used textile stores. SUMMARY OF SRR ELEMENT COMPONENTS Introduction and Statement of Goals and Objectives-Chapter 1 The first chapter of Dublin's SRR Element describes the requirements of the Califomia Integrated Waste Management Act and the required format for the SRR Element. Solid Waste Gene11ltion Analysis-Chapter 2 Each jurisdiction preparing an SRR Element is required to prepare a Solid Waste Generation Analysis chaptex: serving as a summary of the characteristics of the solid waste generated within a jurisdiction. For Dublin and most other jurisdictions in Alameda County, the Solid Waste . Generation Analysis chapter summarizes a larger, more detailed countywide waste characterization IepOn which is included in the SRR Element as Appendix A-l(2). InfOImation pertinent to solid waste characterization in Dublin is excerpted from the larger countywide study and presented in the Solid Waste Generation Analysis chapter. CIty of Dablla Priated oa recycled paper """"~~'t,~ ES-4 Source Reduction Component-Chapter 3 Source reduction is defined as a set of activities which resolt in the reduction or prevention of solid waste generation. Since source reduction is focused on the p.timm~tion of waste generation rather than management of materials after they become wastes, the Califomia Integrated Waste Management Act requires cities and counties to place this fonn of waste diversion at the top of the hierarchy of waste management practices for local solid waste management programs. Source reduction programs selected for Dublin's SRR Element include: · . RestrUcturing garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for additional cans of service with a goal of eventually achieving a unifoxm can rate. · Continuation of support for a countywide home composting education program. · Development of a recycled and reusable products procurement policy. Recycling Component-Chapter 4 Recycling, the diversion of waste materials for use in the manufacture of new products, is intended to be a sigTIificant waste diversion activity in Dublin. New recycling programs to be implemented by 1995 include: · A two-fold expansion of the existing residerlti~) curbside collection program as follows: First, an expansion of the existing curbside progxam to include multifamily residences in Dublin. Second, as a consequence of a decision to require mandatory solid waste collection service to all residences, an- increase in the number of single-family homes participating in the curbside collection program. · A requirement that specifies loads of concrete and asphalt inert wastes be delivered to apPlopriate recycling facilities; · Consider establishing a collection program for source-separated white office paper, and · Consider participation in a regional m~tp.ri~)li: recoveIY facility (MRF) to divert additional recyclable materials from Dublin's waste stream. Participation by Dublin would be considered in order for the city to achieve the mandate of SO percent diversion of wastes by 2000. CUy of DtlbIIa ES-5 Composting Component - Chapter 5 Composting is a biological decomposition process that converts, under controlled conditions, organic constituents of the material into a stable humus-like product. In Dublin, composting will become an important asPect of the waste diversion programs after 1995. At this time, Dublin will support the development of a subregional composting facility for source-sq>arated yard waste and will evaluate a program providing for collection of source-separated yard waste.. Special Waste Component-Chapter 6 Special waste is solid waste that requires unique hanrl1ing and disposal methods in order to mmimi7.e ~ to public safety and health. Special waste includes bulky, difficn1t to handle wastes (such as tires, large appliances, and mattresses), sewage sludge, and potentially harmful wastes such as asbestos and medical wastes. . In most cases, special wastes generated from Dublin can only be accounted for on a countywide basis; the only special waste types for which it is possible to generate an estimate of Dublin-specific special wastes are asbestos, bulky items, street sweeping and catch basin debris, and used tires. L1kewise, the only feasible special waste programs for Dublin to consider are countywide programs. These include: . Continued support for the countywide asbestos monitoring program of the County Environmental Health Department. . Work with the County to implement the Medical Waste Management Act- new state legislation to reduce hazards associated with improper hanrl1ing of biomedical wastes. . Support for new countywide programs to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse and to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires. Education and Public Information Component-chapter 7 The Education and Public Information Component is designed to increase the source reduction and recycling awareness of public and private sector target andiences. The component identifies three target groups for education and public infonnation activities-residents, businesses, and schools. To reach these groups and increase their awareness of source reducti~ recycling and composting activities, Dublin will promote the following program activities: · Community outreach, through use of speakers, to publicizC waste divelSion activities and participation in booths and demonstrations at filiIS and special events. · Utilization of available educational matP-riah:,promotional items and opportuniries for media exposure in the local community newspaper and cable TV channel. Oty of Dalllla PriDted OD recTcJed oaoer _......~"".-..---.,.... ES-6 · Suppon for the development of local school recycling educational activities. · Implementation of targeted educational programs for industry and commercial groups, government agencies, and professional groups. Disposal Facility Capacity Component. Chapter 8 This chapter discusses the capacity of solid waste disposal facilities receiving wastes from Dublin. It notes there are no solid waste disposal or transformation facilities located in Dublin. Cw:rendy, wastes collected by the city's franchised waste hauler, Livennore-Dublin Disposal are taken for disposal to the Altamont Landfill in eastem Alameda County. In addition, some self- hauled wastes from Dublin are also taken to the Vasco Road Landfill in eastem ~eda County. The chapter also includes projections of the capacity of landfills receiving Dublin wastes and concludes that if Dublin and other jurisdictions achieve the 25 and 50 percent diveISion rates, there will be sufficient capacity to provide for the needs of Dublin and other participating jurisdictions until 2005. Funding Component-Chapter 9 This chapter describes the funding sources and alternatives for the SRR Element for the City of Dublin and shows the potential funding for implementation of the SRR Element programs. Integration Component-Chapter 10 This chapter explains how Dublin has integrated the Source ReductiOlly Recycling, Composting and Special Waste components to achieve the 25 and 50 percent mandates specified by the California Integrated Waste Management Act. It also includes a schedule illustrating the proposed time frame for implementation of an programs presented in the SRR Element and the anticipated achievement dates for the solid waste diversion mandates. ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS Source Reduction In the shott tenn, it is anticipated that source reduction programs will consist of a continuation of the programs of restructming collection and disposal rateS to p.1immme quantity- based discounts, and city-supported county home composting prognun and a city govemment procurement policy establishing a means to increase purchases of repairable products and products with recycled matp.ri~Is content. The total cost for these prognuns, including monitoring and evaluation is expected to be around $1,750 per year. CIty of Dablla ES-7 Recycling In the shan tenn, the programs in the. recycling category include an expansion of the existing residential curbside collection program to include multifamily housing units, establishment of a collection program for source-separated office paper and a program for . directing inens to appIopriate recycling facilities. It is estimated that the costs for these programs will total $45,900 per year in the. short teml. Special Waste Programs in this category include city support for the following county programs: an asbestos monitoring program, a program to promote bulky item recycling and reuse, a program to promote sandblasting material reuse, a medic3l waste monitoring program, and a used tire program. It is estimated that these programs will cost approximately $8,000 per year including monitoring and evaluation. Education and Public Information Programs in this category include a community outreach program, a public infonnation program, a school information program and a program of education and public infonnation targeted toward Dublin's business community. It is estimated these.programs will cost $22,000 per year, including monitoring and evaluation. OVERVIEW OF THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT When inm~l1y enacted in 1989, the California Integrated Waste Management Act required a household hazardous waste component to be included in an SRR Element, in addition to the . components discussed above. Subsequently, a new piece of legislation was enact~ AB 2707, which elevated the importance of the HHW component by making it a separate element, similar to. the SRR Element. The HHW Element includes a discussion of obj~es, existing conditions, . an evaluation of several HHW program altematives, selection of a program, implementation details, monitoring and evaluation efforts, HHW education and public information programs, and funding for proposed HHW programs. . For Dublin and other jurisdictions in Alameda County, management of household hazardous wastes will be a county govemment responsibility. In June 1990, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved a countywide Household/Mini-Generator Hazardous Waste Collection Program consisting of the development of tluee pem1anent household and mini-generatOr hazardous waste collection fa~'jries located in the northc:m, southem and eastem valley areas of Alameda County. In August 1990, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Authority), a joint powers agency comprised of city and county elected representatives, approved a funding mecl'lani$l't1 for this program, by imposing a fee of $1.32 per ton of solid waste CIty of DabUII PrUat.d oa ncydecI paper m~"" l I ES-8 received at Alameda County solid waste disposal facilities. The money generated by this fee will cover the program costs associated with the development of these facilities. In Aprl11991, the Authority acted to reduce the fee to $1.25 per ton and to retain the approximate $77,000 already collected by the fee differential for future household hazardous. waste related purposes to be. design~ted by the Authority. The Dublin HHW Element indicates that Dublin's principal HHW activity will be its support of the cOWltywide. HHW program. Additionally, household hazardous wastes from Dublin and other Alameda COWlty jurisdictions will also be detected and removed through implementation at Alameda COWlty solid waste disposal facilities of a program to randomly inspect loads of incoming waste for the presence of HHW. In addition, Dublin will also support the COWlty in its committnent to develop and disseminate educational materials on the proper use of the permanent HHW collection facilities and on steps Alameda County residents can take to minimize HHW generation by substituting non-hazardous household products for equivalent hazardous products. CllyofDabUa CHAPTER 4 RECYCLING COMPONENT Clty of DabUD PrintJ!d 00 ~cled .......... CHAPTER 4 RECYCLING COMPONENT This chapter describes the recycling objectives, existing conditions, program altematives and selected programs for the City of Dublin (Dublin). The chapter begins with an overview of recycling. To familiJ:lrize readers with the general features of recycling as a preface to the technical discussions of recycling which follow, a more detailed description of the constellation of activities which generally comprise recycling can also be found in Appendix B. After the recycling overview discussion, the chapter describes the objectives of the Recycling Component, existing recycling activities in Dublin, altematives for consideration in selecting recycling programs for this SRR Element, the particular alternatives which Dublin has selected, and the programs for implementation and monitoring and evaluation of Dublin's chosen recycling programs. These topics are in accordance with the requirements of the Model Component FOImat of State's Planning G(JjdeHnes for Implementation of Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans. Recycling Overview Recycling involves a set of activities which result in mJ:ltf!T'ia1s which would otherwise be discarded for disposal being used for the manufactoIe of new prodncts. Recycling occurs when a waste material is removed from the waste stream and remade into a new prodnct without changing the essential natnre of the material itself. Thus, when meta4 glass and paper are taken out of the waste stream and remelted or rcpulped into new products, recycling has taken place. Recycling waste materials differ from the reuse of waste products, a source reduction technique. Reuse is the use, in the same fonn ~ it was produced,..of a material which might. otherwise be discarded. For example, when damaged appliances are repaired and resold, reuse, but not recycling ~ occurred. Recycling is also not the same as transfonnation which is defined as the combustion, conversion, or processing of a waste prodnct for the pmpose of volume reduction, synthetic fuel production or energy recovery. This latter distinction is important because the Califomia Integrated Waste Management Act of 198.9 (Act) allows full diversion credit for recycled m~tP.riJ:lls; for materials which are transformed, however, this bill allows no diversion credit for the shon-tenn period. up to 1995 and a credit of 10 percent during the medium-tenn period up to 2000. Recycling typically involves the following set of interdependent activities: CIty of DaIlUa :P...;"t~.~ ~~IM "'~n,lIt" 4-2 Separation. Often the first step in the reCycling process, separation is the removal from the waste stream of the recyclable material which will ultimately be remade into a new product. Separation can occur either at the source of waste generation or at a central materials recovezy facility where recyclable materials are soned and separated manually, mechanically, or both. Collection. This is typically either the pick-up and transpOnation of source-separated recyclables by an authorized hauler (curbside collection) or the transponation of recyclable materials by individuals to facilities where these materials are either sold {buy-back facilities) or left for donation (drop-off facilities). . Materials Processing. This stage involves the preparation of recyclable materials for marketing. It can include the initial stage of separation of recyclables from residue materials intended for disposal, and also typically involves the removal of C()l1tammants and reconfiguration of recyclable materials through baling or other fonns of materials consolidation. Marketing. The marketing phase of recycling involves the identification or the development of end users for recycled materials. Typically, the end users are the manufactUrers who create new products from the recycled materials. Manufacturing. At this stage, industrial processes occur to remake the recyclable material into a new product. In the United States, this aspect of the recycling process is undertaken by private industrial enteIprises. Th.is chapter focnses mainly on. the separation, collection, materials processing, and marketing aspects of recycling. The chapter, howeve:-, does not deal with the manufacture of products from recyclables; this aspect of recycling is affected principally by free l)'U,ljeet forces of supply and demand and is not typically under the control of factoIS emanating from local government recycling plans. RECYCLING COMPONENT OBJECTIVES Shon- and medium-tenn objectives have been established for the recycling component to 1995 and the year 2000: respectively. For each time period, waste types targeted for diveISion are identified based on Chapter 2, the Solid Waste Generation Analysis. As Chapter 2 indicates the key constituents of Dublin's waste stream are conaete and asphalt (16.3 percent), paper (33.7 percent), and yard waste 8.4 percent). Short Term to 1995 Through source reduction and recycling, Dublin has already achieved an overall diveISion rate of 24.4 percent in the 1990 baseline year and existing programs are expected to continue at 1990 levels. Thus, in 1995, through existing efforts, Dublin will almost exceed the mandated CIty of DubliD 4-3 diversion rate of 25 percent. However, the city intends to inaugurate additional efforts prior to 1995, to improve the recycling rate and provide additional relief to landfill pressures. Waste Types Targeted for Diversion. The following waste types have oQeen targeted and will be evaluated for diversion: · High-grade office paper. · Newspaper, PET, glass containers, tin and aluminum cans to increase panicipation in the existing residential curbside collection program. Securing 50 percent of these materials remaining in the Waste stream will generate an additional 1.2 percent diversion from the total waste stream. · Inert Solids-Concrete and asphalt generated in Dub~ currently being disposed in area ]annfil1!':, are estimated at 3.2 percent of the total waste stream. Securing 50 percent of these materials remaining in the waste stream will generate an additional 1.6 percent diversion from the total waste stream. Objectives. The following objectives have been established for Dublin to implement in the shon teml. 1. Expand the existing residential curbside collection program for the collection of source-separated newspaper, and glass and metal containers, to include all single and multi-family households in Dublin. This program will diven 1.2 percent of the waste stream (662 tons). 2. When feasible direct all appiOpLiate loads of concrete/asphalt generated in Dublin to existing recycling facilities for these materials. This could be done on city government projectS, for example, by including, as part of the specifications for city contract work, a requirement to recycle when feasible and to report all materials recycled to city staff. This program will diven 1.6 percent of the waste stream (870 tons ). 3. The collection of high-grade office paper from the commercial sector will diven 3.5 percent of the waste stream (1,937 tons). Medium Term to 2000 By the end of the medium term, Dublin is projected to have achieved a.diversion rate of 54.4 percent. Waste Types Targeted for Diversion. The following additional waste typeS have been targeted for diversion in the medium teml: City of DUUa 1',..;...,..... ,..... ,...,...,...,,~~ "~~ _.----~.... -.....,...,~.- 4-4 · All materials commonly recovered at a material recoveIY facility (MRF), baclcing out the. yard and concrete/asphalt waste. Objectives. 1. Participate in evaluating a regional :MRF altemative which would accept all of Dublin's nomesidential waste to that facility, diverting 17.1 percent of the. waste stream (9,444 tons). Market Development Objectives CCR Section 18735.1 requires SRR Elements to contain a statement ofmar.ket development objectives to be achieved in the shon-and medimn-teon planning periods. In addition to the market development objectives which follow, this subject is discossed extensively in subsequent sections of this chapter and in Appendix D. 1. Encourage the local siting of commercial recycling processing facilities, especially those employing processing procedures wbich enhance material quality. 2. Encourage the local siting of enteIprise wbich use recycled material feedstock. 3. Continue pmsuit of the option of enabling Dublin to become a Recycling Market Development Zone. 4. Publicize the CIWMB' s Material Exchange Program (CALMAX), a cl~s~ed ad listing for "waste" materials available and wanted throughout Califomia. RECYCLING COMPONENT EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing recycling activities in Dublin accounted for 22.5 percent ~ the total solid waste generated in 1990. No existing recycling activities wilfbe phased out or decreased in the shon or medium teon. The fonowing infomation is provided per CCR Sections 18733.2 and 18735.2. In September 1990, Dublin 'contracted with its franchised waste hauler, Livemlore-Dublin Disposal, a division of Oak-land Scavenger Company, to provide a three-bin curbside recycling program for single family residences in Dub~ with a.provision to expand this service to Dublin multifamily residences in the future. In addition, since 1986, Dublin has contracted with Liveonore-Dublin Disposal to provide as part of its base solid waste collection service a quarterly cleanup program. CJty or DabllD 4-5 Recycling activity is not bound by city or county jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, in order to track: as much existing recycling activity for materials generated in the City (Jf Dublin, all relevant sources in the greater Bay Area were contacted. Those responding are indicated in Table 4-1. The data collect~ analyzed, and summarized in the following tables were derived from written survey responses, telephone interviews, and relevant reports. Where infonnation was provided for multiple jurisdictions without specificity, allocations were made on the basis of population to all relevant jurisdictions. In order to secure 'data from commercial sources in highly competitive businesses, it is necessary to present this data in such a manner as to prech1de specific numbers directly associated with specific businesses. Therefore, only aggregated numbers, shown in Table 4-2, will be presented apart from the listing businesses responding. RECYCLING CO:MPONENT EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES This section includes an evaluation of the recycling diveISion altern~tives that State Planning Guidelines require cities to consider for local impleml'!ntation. In accordance with Section 18735.3 of the State of Califomia Planning Guide1i71es and Procedures for Preparing and Revision Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans (State Planning Guidelines), recycling alternatives to be considered include the following: · Source separation of recyclable materialS · Drop-off recycling centers · Buy-back recycling centers · Manual material recovery operations · Mechanical material recovery facilities · Salvage at solid waste facilities Separation at Source _ This altcmative. entails the removal of recyclable materials at the source of waste generation. Such an activity will involve segregation of the recyclable mMfl'rial!ll from the regular waste stream and their separate storage. A program of source separation must also involve a separate collection program for segregated recyclable marfl'rials. Source .separation programs can be developed as voluntary or, by regulatory requirement, mannariTlg participation. Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Material separated at somce and collected will result in high rate of recovery, especially if accompanied by an ordinance mandating such separation. Hazards Created. If material is not stored in containers prior to collection, and set out loose, there is the potential for litter and attraction of vectors. ~ CJcy or DabUD Priated oa recycled DII~r .m""'-~lJ:ItN':MA~_,I. Table 4-1 Businesses Contacted for Recycling Waste Diversion Study City of Dublin Alum. Rock&. Food Company Metals Cans Paper Glass Plastic Asphalt Tires wastes Recycling Data Provided 2 Independent supennarketsb .[ AD2020a , .[ .[ .[ Action Recycllnga .[ .[ .[ .[ Alco Iron &. Metal Co. a .{ .{ .{ .[ ~ Day IJolymcra .[ enl West Scrap Metals Co.b .[ Circo Recyclers- .{ .[ .[ Container Recovery Corporation- .{ .[ .[ ..[ .[ Envlpco CaUrond. Co.. .[ ..[ .[ Fitch &. Associates. ..[ , llillman Metals- .[ Independent Renderen- ,( l..aVlsta Quarry- ,- { Llvennore Auto Recycllngb .[ .[ .[ - Uvenllore-Dublin Disposal - curbsideb .[ .[' .{ .[ Luckyb .{ Oxford Tire. .{ Paper Recovery or Nortllern California Inc.- .{ f' Table 4-1 Businesses Contacted lor Recycling Waste Diversion Study Cley 01 Dublin (continued) Alum. Rock&. Food Company Melals Cans Paper Glass Plaslic Aspball Ures wasles Recycle Now Inc. a { { { I" t Royal Tallow &. Soap. , Safewayb { I" -- Secondary fiber. I" , 11,e Sullu Co.a I" WaslC fiber Hecovery. I" Wesl Coasl Melnls Process Inc.- /" .j Weyerhauser Paper Co.- I" Quantitative Recycling Data Nol Available Aaron Melals .j I" Allstaac .( { { { American Metals { .j Appling &. Sons Recycllng . .( I" .f .f .f Berkeley Iron &. Metals, Inc. iloilo's m ferrous &. Non-ferrolls Melals .( I" California Cline .f Coles Aulo Wrecking { CommunilY l~ecycnnl Center { .j { .f .f - Dave's Recycling .f { .f Table 4-1 BlIslnesses Contacted for Recycling Waste Diversion Study City or Dublin (continued) r.= . Alum. Rock&. Food Company Melals Cans Paper OIass Plasllc Asphall TIres wasles --- Encore .[ Pounlni" RuUdina Demolhion, Inc. Gaylord Container I" Independent Paper Stock, Inc. I" I" I" I" John Dollo I" , , KMC Paper I" I" I" I" I.akeslde Export, Inc. I" Lakesldc Non-Ferroul MCCall I" I" Major Salvaac Co. Nordle", California Pulp &: Paper Co. ..{ Paper Tradc Inc. .[ Pelers Scrap Iron &: Meaal I Radomsky Salvage Co. Sclmllzcr SId. I I .' Slandard Iron &. Metal I .{ Tri-Golden Services " Velss-Zaken Scrnp Metal &: Iron I W. C. Rose ..{ f -uuslllesses COlllllCleo mal rovloea recycling aaut on a coumY-WllIC OIlS IS. p bDusincsses contacled Ihal provided city-spectnc recyclina dala. Table 4-2 Existing Recycling Quantities -1990 City of Dublin ~~~~~;:;~~.:...... ',; ..~.~<<.~::. .......":.: .:t!j~..~" "",... ",: . .. ..... ...... .....;. . .~~.. . .:.:-: :.....:.~ .::::~.;; .... . -.'.... . High-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers Polyethylene terephth~ l~te (PET) con~;ners Film plastics Other lastics :~.till~~it~.t1:m._i. Rcfill.able glass beverage containers Califamia Redemption Value glass* Other recyclable glass Other non- Iable A}nmmmn cans Bi-metal r.onrn;n~ . Feaous metals and tin cans Non-feaous metals in.cl. alum. saap White goods Other metals :~__~i~r~~~~.w&~t~i!l. Food waste Rubber products Wood wastes Agricultural crop residues - Manure Textiles and leather Other miscellaneous . cs Inert solids in.cl. concrete, asphalt Gypsum wallboard Household hazardous materials*. Other sr<:':::''''''':..'.W'~1f.*~Jf-m.~'j_. * Includes all recycled coominer glass. ** Includes containerS and contents. Residenri~1 (mc1udcs AB2020 & Non-ftSideDrial curbside) tons tonS. 'Total 1.526 172 72S 153 581 240 97 109 4- 7'2. 9 4 12 1 13 12 1 :SititOrat."Th_Il~~~t%a~~;lit~~~ 697 937 97 Siblo~_~W.tf@f#1...,.:: ~'%:1~~~~:~ 2 4- 110 146 300 111 8 182 146 300 .....x:.:.. .;(.:;..:.::..-:.:-:....;...,. .....~ ........:......;.', ..x..~......... ... " .. :.~~.v... ..."':.. . . ..~>>" ..... :i 105 105 29 29 :SQtjfj~~.i41t~l;~~*lll'lfli9~~i1\1m 7;zTl 7;1.71 :SUli6r_i:W_f6Wiil$l~:~:..".: ::;.;., -.~..~ :tf~ml 7fW91 4-10 Ability to Accommodate Change. Subdivided tmcks and storage containers provided may limit flexibility in adapting to new materials or widely changing proportions of existing materials. Single material collection may be more flexible. Consequences on the Waste. If a particular material is mandated for source separation and collection, a generator may look to altemative materials to avoid the additional effort. Implementable in Short or Medium Term. Can be implemented within short term. Need for. ExpandingIBuiIding Facilities. Some facility expansion or building may be required to accommodate the sorting and processing of the material' collected. Consistency with Local Conditions. Source separated collection of residential recyclables is required under Dublin's cmrent franchise. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. None Estimate of Costs. $1.50 to 2.00 per household per month is the general range for net costs based on a survey of curbside recycling programs in the San Francisco Bay Area. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. End use markets for newspaper, PET, rin and aluminum cans, and glass containers are plentiful in the greater San Francisco Bay Area for any such matP-ri;lls generated. Yard waste marlcets will be available as public uses, both individual and institutional. Drop-OfT Recycling Centers These facilities are designed to facilitate the donation of selected materials for recycling by the public. Material from both the residential and non-residential waste streams are impacted. The public contributes the m~t~al and provides the transpOrt to the site. The site may be staffed or unstaffed; accessible or not after nonnal homs. Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Fairly limited if in conjunction with source-separated curbside collection. Some increase in volume recovered may be anticipated if material types not separately collected are included. . Hazards Created. If unstaff~ or accessible when staff is absent, the potential for illegal dumping and littering is high. Ability to Accommodate Change. Can accommodate material quantity and/or type changes easily within a relatively short time frame and with minimum expenditure. Consequences on the Waste.. None CIty of Dablln 4-11 Implementable in Short or Medium Term. Drop-off sites can be put in place in the shon term. Need for Expanding/BuDding Facilities. Adequate paved spaces with good access, at convenient locations for the public and avoidance of unsightly appearance will be IeqUired in addition to the contalnCl'S and signage for the material to be accepted. ' Consistency with Local Conditions. The siting of drop-off facilities will be consistent with local conditions. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. Possible siting problems such as NIMBY reactions, particularly if the site is to be unstaffed and susceptible to littering and vanda1i~. Estimate of Costs. $300 to $2,000 per stoIage container, $7 per square yard of paving, and $12 per linear foot of fencing. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. Materials accepted will be related directly to the existence of end use m3Ikets. Buy-back Recycling Centers These facilities are generally multi-material and are equipped with truck and platfOIID. scales, paymaster space. They are often connected with additional sorting and processing facilities. Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Good potential directly related to the pricing of the material. As market prices dip, material delivered for sale decreases. Hazards Created. None, if traffic management is adequate. Ability to Accommodate Change. Pricing mechm1;~s make it easy to accommodate change in quantities, qualities, or material types desired. Consequences on the Waste. High pricing for selected material types may encOUrage generators to shift from less valuable or wholly nonrecyc1able materials. Implementable in Short or Medium Term. Can be implemented in the shon term. Need for Expanding/Building Facilities. Usually required as an addition to planned sorting/processing facilities. Consistency with Local Conditions. Buy-back is fully consistent with commercial commodity markets present in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. City or Dablla "D,..;"f~ ..._ __I...,.... "..,.~... 4-12 Institutional Barriers to Implementation. None apart from the siting problems inherent in the larger sorting/processing facility. There may be some difficulty arising out of increased traffic generation. Estimate of Costs. Minimal increment to sorting/processing facility cost. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. Buying l1Ultnjal must be directly related to immediate availability of end use markets. Manual Material Recovery Operations (MMRO) An M:MRO relies on hand picking of materials that are typically deposited at a transfer station or landfill site by a variety of vehicles delivering commercial, industrial, constmction, and demolition debris. For this type of operation, a concrete pad for depositing the materials is preferable, though not required. A dedicated area for the sorting keeps the sotteI'S away from normal waste disposal operations. Waste Diversion Potential. The potential amount of material divened from the nomesidential waste stream utilizing an M:MRO can be moderately high. Hazards .Creation. Although there are several hazards which arise in an MMRO facility, they can be minimi7.ed by a safety-oriented operation sttategy and a wc11-designed facility layout. . The number of vehicles and the variety of equipment used can create potential hazards to workers. Proper traffic management and a training program related to equipment use can mitigate these hazards. . The volume and diverse characteristics of the waste ir:self can presem a hazard to workers. Therefore, protective gear such as bard hats, gloves, ear protection, eye protection, and dnst masks arc essential. . ~azardous materials that are illegally disposed present hazards. A load-cl1e,.1nng program can minimi7.p. hazards and identify generators (see Household Hazardous Waste Elem~nt). Ability to Accommodate Economic, Technological, and Social Change. The effect of economic changes on an MMRO is expected to be moderate. The recent wave of activity in the solid waste indnstty is triggering attention to developing mechanical processes for extracting recyclables from Waste. It is m1ricipated that the :MMR.O will have a high ability to incorporate technologies that are proven, as they become viable. The ability of the facility to accommodate social change will be high. Shift in Waste Type Generation. An MMRO will have no effect on shifts in waste generation nor be affected by them. 0"" of Dablln . 4-13 Ease of Implementation. A significant amount of planning may be required in the implementation of an MMRO, including siting, j)"!nnitting, approval, economic evaluatiOn, and facility design and construction. Implementation may be achieved in the short- and will be achievable in the medium-term planning periods. Facility Needs. An M:MR.O requires a facility that can safely receive, process, store, and' haul material to markets. Coosistency With Local Conditions. If a regional facility were developed, Dublin could consider participation. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. Siting a new MMRO could be difficnlt due to local NIMBY reaction against the siting of any solid waste facility. Development of a MMRO at an existing transfer station or landfill would cause less local opposition. Although there is currently a lack: of aflPlOPriate1y zoned sites within Dublin, this represents an obstacle but not a barrier to implementation. Estimate of Costs. There are marginal costs involved in the establishment of an MMRO, sited at an existing solid waste facility, wbich can be partially offset by revenues from materials extracted and sold. No such solid waste facility exists in Dublin and an MRF is the more likely regional facility of this type. A vaiJability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. The MMRO is designed to extract a limited variety of mlltP.rial~ that can be easily marketed. Mechanical Material Recovery Facility (MRF) A mechanical MRF differs from manual matP.rial~ recovery operations in how matP.rial~ are handled after they are unloaded from the collection vehicles. An MMRO is typically a labor-intensive "dump and pick" type facility, while a MRF is usnally equipped with special material handling and processing components such as conveyms, balers, and magnets, to name just a few. - Waste Diversion Potential. The potential amount of material diverted from the nomesidp.ntial waste_ stream utilizing an MRF can be relatively high. Hazards Creation. Other than traffic, potential hazards to surrounding areas such as noise and dust can be mitigated. The Operation of an MRF can CICate potential hazards to workers considering the number of vehicles and variety of equipment required. As mechmn7M"ion of recovery increases, the hazards of operation will also increase. As with the MMRO, proper traffic management and employee safety training can mitigate much of these. CIty of Dalllla Priated oa rec:yded paJler ~ 4-14 A potential hazard to personnel is present due to the volume and diverse characteristics of the waste itself. These hazards can be minimi'7ed by providing workers with protective gear such as hard hats, gloves, ear and eye protection, and dust masks. Another hazard could be presented by hazardous ~ that are illegally disposed. These situations can be mitigated by instituting a load-checking program and identifying the generators. Ability to Accommodate Economic, Technological, and SOc:ia1 (:bange. The effect of economic changes on an MRF is expected to be moderate. The recent wave of activity in the solid waste industty is triggering attention to developing mechanical processes for extracting recyclables from waste. It is anticipated that the MRF will have a high ability to incorporate technologies that are proven, as they become viable. The ability of the facility to accommodate social change is high. Shift in Waste Type Generation. An MRF will have no effect on shifts in waste generation nor be affected by them. Ease of Implementation. A significant amount of planning is required in the implementation of an MRF, including siting, permitting, approval, economic evaluation, and facility design and COnstIUction. This may be achieved in the shOlt- and can be achieved in the medium-teml planning periods. Facility Needs. An MRF requires a facility that can safely receive, process, store, and haul materials to markets. Facility requirements are high. Consistency with Local Conditions. H a regional facility were developed, Dublin could consider panicipation. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. There are a number of potential bmicIs to a facility. First, the existing collection franchise with Oakland Scavenger wID have to be reviewed to determine whether it needs to be revised to accommodate an MRF. Dublin's cum:nt franchise with Liveonore Dublin Disposal, a division of Oakland Scavenger, expires in April 1996. Second, there may be a problem with acquiring building permits for an expansion of the Davis Street Transfer Station, should that be the preferred site. Fmally, there may be a problem ofwaste flow control should a facility be owned and/or operated by any party other than the franchised hauler. Estimate of Costs. There are significant costs involved in the establishment of an MRF, wbich can be partially offset by revenues from materials exttaeted and sold. Savings can be realized by panicipating in a regional facility of this type (see Appendix B for detailed cost data). These costs are applicable to Dublin because the city will be participating in a regional or subregional MRF. Dublin's portion of the capital and operational costs will be based on their throughput tonnage. Oty of Dablla . 4-15 Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. The MRF has been designed to extract only those materials that can be easily marlceted. Salvage at Solid Waste Facilities Salvage at solid waste facilities, typically l:miffiTI$ and transfer Stations, involves an attempt to extract recyc1ables from the waste stream at the Jantffi11 face or on the tipping floor of the transfer station. Time and waste disposal requirements generally limit such extraction to those bulky materials that are easy to identify and remove, such as corrugated cardboard, wood, and metals. Since Dublin has no solid waste faCJ1ities, this altemative is not considered a viable ODe. ' Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Salvage at solid waste facilities is marginally effective in contributing to the reduction of waste. ,Hazards Created. The principal hazard associated with salvaging operations is that arising from worlreIs interfering with the ongoing disposal operation. Getting in the way of heavy waste-moving loadexs, for example, can be dangerous. Materials handling in this environment is also potentially hazardous in ways discussed in the previous two alternatives. Ability to Accommodate Change. The flexibility to accommodate change is su~nriany limited by the pressures of the waste removal operation which has high priority at such fiI~1iries. Shift in Waste Type Generation. An operation of this type will have no effect on shifts in waste generation nor be impacted by them. Ease of Implementation. An operation of this type can be easily implemented at any solid waste facility. Facility Needs. Dublin has no transfer station, transfcmnationor solid waste disposal facilities. Therefore, no salvage operation is possible. CODSistency with Local ConditioDS. As there are no solid waste facilities in Dublin, this alternative is highly- inconsistent with local conditions. Institutional Barriers to Implementation. It is most lmH1cp.ly that. a solid waste facility will be sited in Dublin, but participation in efforts to develop a regional program of salvaging at existing solid waste transfer stations or disposal sites would be a possibility. . Estimate of Costs. A salvage operation can be implemc::nted at marginal costs, ntt1i7ing existing labor and equipment. Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. Only materials with established end use markets would. be salvaged. f . CIty of DUIID Prillted 011 ~cJf!d __" m"'~~ 4-16 Additional Recycling Options Section 18735.5 of the State Planning Guidel11'1es requires consideration of the fonowing recycling options: . Changing zonmg and building codes to encourage recycling. Methods to increase markets for recycled materials. Actions to encourage handling to preserve material integrity. .' . . These options are discussed below. An additional required discussion, changing existing rates to encourage solid waste recycling, has been discussed previously in Chapter 3. Changing Zoning and Building Codes to Encourage Recycling. Storage and collection of recyclables from points of generation are often hampered by inadequate allocation of space for storage containers and by limited access to such storage areas by conection ttncks. This limited access is commonly a combination o~ IWIOW width access lanes and no tom around opportonity for the vehicles. These space and access deficiencies are most often to be found in multifamily complexes, office pa:dcs, shopping malls, and concentrated commercial downtown areas. These deficiencies are subject to signifiCant mitigation in revised building codes requiring adequate design to accommodate efficient removal of discarded m~tmtJl Existing codes will be reviewed with such mitigation in mind. Various f01lIls of recycling activities, such as drop-off and buy-back: sites, and, to a lesser extent, materials recovery faciJjries, would be better suited to their purpose if located conveniently for use by the public. Well designed facilities could be located in commercial and light industrial areas. Zoning restrictions will be evaluated to detennine if any barrierS exist in such sitings and, if so, whether they can be safely removed. Methods to Increase Markets for Recycled Materials. As a jurisdiction in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, Dublin is fortunate in having ready access to almost all West Coast and many export marlc:ets, particolarly in the Pacific Rim. Consequently, efforts to inci:ease markets will be most useful in increasing the quantity and especially the quality of recovered materials. In this regard, Dublin will cooperate with other Alameda County jurisdictions and the County Waste Management Authority to achieve positive results. Dublin recog:nizes- that such cooperation may be extended to other counties and jurisdictions in the Bay Area. A market analysis is included as Appendix D in this SRR Element. State and local efforts are smnmm'T.M bel~. . Local Policies. To the extent it is consist with Dublin's development plans, those enteIprises processing or otherwise ~haTlcing the quality of recyclables as well as those utilizing recycled feedstock will be encomaged to site their facilities within the city. Additionally, as mentioned in Chapter 3, the Dublin city government will explore purchasing procedures which establish a price preference for the purchase o~ recycled materials. CIty of DabUD 4-17 State Polides. The State of Califomia recognizes that matkets need to be developed to consume the collected secondary materials and several bills were passed in 1989 introducing state programs. The Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board will implement most of these programs. Procurement, mJ~ development, and recycling investment tax credit are three areas which the State is focusing on for ~t ~velopment. · Procurement promotes the purchase of recycled products. An example of In:OCU1'eDlent legislation is AB 4 which requires both state and local procuring agencies to give purchase preference to speci:tic recycled products over nonrecycled products when price and quality are comparable. · Industrial development programs combine economic development and waste diversion by providing incentives for manufactUrers which consume waste matP.riaI~. SB 1322 established the Recycling MaIket Development Zones program. Dublin would consider becoming a Recycling Market Development Zone. The program provides financial and regulatory incentives for particular manufacturers to site in these zones. · The Recycling Investment Tax Credit program provides incentive for manufactUrers to purchase equipment that conswnes waste materials generated in Califomia and produces finished products composed of these materials. .. ActioDS to Encourage Handling to Preserve Material Integrity. AIl other factors being equal, Dublin will strive to encourage those recovery efforts that maximize segICgation at the source. Source separation is especially valid for high grade papers, . yard waste; and glass. If sorting is required, Dublin prefers hand-sorting over mechanical separation for all materials that would be- downgraded by passing through met'l1an;cal systems. Public vs. Private Ownership/Operation Section 18735.3 further requires an evaluation of public vs. private ownership and/or operations of recycling facilities. The underlying imperative for local jurisdictions when considP.ring the various options for public or private ownership and/or operations of recycling programs and facilities is that of public responsibility. Regardless of the option(s) chosen, the local jurisdiction remains responsible for waste management and, especially under AB 939, for the results of waste reduction and recycling efforts in their commODity. There is a continuum of public control that is manm;'7P.Ci with public ownership and operation and m;n1m;'1',ed with private ownership and operatio~ with varying combinations of public ownership and private operation falling in between. Other advantages and disadvantages for the public jurisdiction are noted below. . Ot)' of Da" Prl~ _ ~e~ "I"....... 4-18 Public Ownership and Operation Advantages. Direct control and access to data. Primacy of policy compliance over short- term negative profit conditions. Stability of operation over changing market conditions with access to a1temative revenue sources. Disadvantages. Probably need to hire exterD:U expertise or allow for significmt intcmal leaming curve. Possible legal or administtative constraints to shOIt-teml marketing flexibility. Similar constraints to flexible staffing changes. Private Ownership and Operation Advantages. Potentially quick start-up of ~ons. Immediate expertise without a leaming curve. MaIket and staffing flexibility (the latter less so if the industty is unionized). Availability of private capital resources. Disadvantages. Loss of direct operational control and data access, requiring more intensive monitoring. Breaks in policy compliance motivated by short-teml negative profit market conditions. Analysis of Alternatives Dublin cmrently provides single family residences wbich have chosen to have garbage collection service a residential curbside collection progI31ll for source sepaxatetf recyclables. The city intends to contract to extend this curbside collection service to multi-famiIy residences. The city will also consider contracting to establish a commercial source-sepatated wbite office paper collection progI31ll. High-grade office paper represents 13.4 peICCnt of comm~ waste disposal. An additional expansion of source separation programs will be efforts by the city to require city projectS to divert loads of concrete and asphalt inert wasteS to GpJ.110priate recycling facilities. Inert solids represent 4.2 percent of waste disposed. There are no CUIIeDt plans in Dublin to establish drop-off or buy-back facijjries. The amount of additional waste divened via such far.11iries would not be as cost-effective as other progI31lls planned for implementation. Dublin will consider participating in effortS to develop a regional MRF for additional processing and diversion of wastes. Participation by Dublin would be considered in order for the city to achieve the mandate of 50 percent diversion of wastes by 2000. The MRF will target the commercial and industrial sectors which are not included in the IeSidential curbside progI31ll. The high-grade office paper collected in the commercial recycling program would have an exU'Clnely low recovery rate at a MRF; therefore, this progI31ll will continue after participation in a MRF begins. Waste types that represent high percentages of the total waste disposed (e.g., wood waste-8.2 percent; non-feII'Ous metals-1.8 percent) have high recovery rates at a MRF. CIty of DabUa 4-19 RECYCLING COMPONENT PROGRAM SELECTION Recycling program selection for Dublin has been based. on the results of the above evaluation of alternatives, the Solid Waste Generation Study, and on the ease of implementation by the city. The existing recycling activities are achieving 22.5 percent diversion. ShoIt-teim programs will add 6.3 percent to the total waste diverted. Short Term to 1995 Based on the levels of various materials reported in the waste characterization component, the existing recycling activities in Dablin and the review and analysis of alternatives, the following have been selected to enhance short tenn divemon and to meet the mandated diversion goal of 50 percent by the year 2000. Expansion of Residential Curbside Collection. Expansion of the residential curbside collection program carried out by the city's franchised hauler, LiveImore-Dablin Disposal, a division of Oakland Scavenger, will be accomplished by requiring mandatory garbage collection service, a step wbich would expand residential cmbside collection to all single-family houses in the City. The City will also consider adding all multi-family households to the single families now receiving1'eSidential cmbside collection service and increasing program participation through enhanced publicity and community organi7arion. Assuming a recovery rate of 50 percent for all the remaining matP.rial~, we anticipate an additional divexsion of 1.2 percent of the total waste stream (662 tons). Direction of Specified Inert Loads to Recycling Facilities. It is estimated that approximately 1,740 tons per year of concrete/asphalt generated in Dablin are cum:nt1y disposed at area landfills. Since there are existing commercial facilities in and around Alameda County that will accept this material for recycling, such as GallagJ1er & Burk, and American Rock and Asphalt, the city will undertake to ensure, through its issuance of construction and demolition pemrits, that such loads be diverted. to such recycling facilities. In addition, the recycling of generated concrete/asphalt will be made a part of an relevant city contracts. Assuming that 50 percent of the material is -acceptable to recycling rnr.11iries. an adrlirionaldiveISion of 1.6 percent of the total waste stream is anticipated (870 tons). High-Grade Paper Recycling. It is estimated that approximately 3,995 tons per year of high-grade paper generated in Dublin are cum:nt1y disposed at the landfill The city will undertake a commercial source separated high-grade office paper collection program. Assuming a recovery rate of 50 percent of the high-grade paper now going to landfill, an additional diversion of 3.5 percent of the total waste stream is ant1Qpated (1,930 tons). City of DablID PriDted GO rec:ycJed paper ~ 4-20 Medium Term to 2000 Given the enhancement programs in the shon term noted above, adding approximately 6.3 percent to the 24.4 percent divetSion CUIre11tly enjoyed, the programs implemented in the shon term will leave 19.1 percent to be added to reach the SO percent diversion required by the year 2000. Participation in a Regional MRF. In preparation for the time a regional MRF comes on line to which Dublin may direct its nomesidential waste stream, Dublin will take such steps as are necessary to insure that such direction of said waste stream can take place. Backing out the material already being diverted by programs described above, the remaining diversion of recyclables from Dublin's waste will provide an additional diversion of 17.1 percent of the total waste stream (9,444 tons). Unfavorable Market Conditions H unfavorable marlret conditions seem likely to prevent Dublin reaching the 25 and SO percent diversion goals, measures to be taken may include: · Enhanced efforts to increase quality since there is rarely a zero market and maIket share will go to those with the best quality materiaL · Shift of targeted material to more marketable components. · Consideration of temporary storage if unfavozable marlcet conditions are deemed to be . short term. RECYCLING COMPONENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION This section discusses implementation of those programs selected and discussed in the previous section. Table 4-3 shows an implementation sclicdule for recycling programs. The composting program will be funded through direct user fees. The planning estimate of the cost of expanding Dublin's existing residential curbside . collection program is $28,800 per year. The costS associated with implementing a policy to encourage diversion of concrete and asphalt inert wastes to recycling facility are estimated at $1,500 per year for program implementation. The costS associated with implementation of a commercial office high-grade paper recycling program are estimated at $11,000 per year. Government Agencies Responsible tor Implementation. The Dublin City Manager's Office will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of all programs selected. City 0( Dablla "...:-......... n-_ ~ ...,.......... ,..,...._ Table 4.3. New and Expanded Recycling Program Implementation Task Schedule City of Dublin 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Task description Implementing entity 1 2 3 I 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 RECYCLING PROGRAMS , Residential Curbside Expansion DCCa -Contact existing recycling , . contraclor -Develop prosram . -Slart-up expanded prosram . -Monilor and cvalualc . Onsolng Office Recycling Program DCMOblPCcC -Idcnlify additional rccyclablcs . , -Conlract for additional services . -Slart-up expaqded recycling . programs -Monllor and evalualc . Ongoing , Dln:ct Inerts DCMOIDCC -RevilO City poUcy . -Slart-up program . -Monitor and evalualc . Ongoing -DubUn CllY CouncU boubUn Clly Managcr's Offlcc cPrivate contract collector 51 tMRPORTS\DUBl.JN\DUBUN.TO 4-22 Expausion of Residential Curbside Collection. City staff will continue discussions with Oakland Scavenger to determine a program and scbedule for canying out and monitoring an expansion of panicipation from cmrent levels including the addition of service to multi-family residences. Direction of Inert Loads. Staff will initiate a city-wide ordinance that will mandate the diversion of acceptable loads of concrete and asphalt generated in Dublin to a facili~ that recycles these materials. Costs will be mainly administrative and there will be no revenue genentted High-Grade Paper Recycling. City staff and the private contract collector will conduct a stUdy to identify additional commercial sources of high-grade paper for recycling. Other activities for implementation include negotiating changes to the collection contract and then starting up the expanded program. The estimated dates for each step of implementation are given in Table 4-3. Participation in a Regional MRF. Staff will panicipate in any process involving the evaluation of developing an MRF to wbich Dublin could send its nonresidential waste. One action already taken in this regard was a stUdy undertaken in 1991 by Brown Vence and Associates, consultants to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. This stUdy evaluated the costs and feasibility of siting one or more regional MRF's and/or composting facilities. Dublin will provide input to this stUdy and will review and comment on its findings. In addition. staff will evaluate and take whatever action is required with respect to Dublin's franchised hauler to facilitate the city's ability to panicipate in the MRF. A timeline, similar to Figure 4-1, will be developed to detail impleme11ta1ion before 2000. Unauthorized Removal of Recyclables CCR Section 18733.5 requires the recycling component of an SRR Element to address actions planned to deter unauthorized removal o~ recyclable materials. It is imponant to note that any program in wbich the material to be collected fore recycling is accessible to unauthorized persons is subject to "scavenging," ie., the unauthorized removal of some or all of these materials by unauthorized parties. Since, in most cases, the economics of such programs include - the potential revenues from collected materials, such scavenging can have significant impact on program viability. 'ThiS problem is made worse for the public jurisdiction involved in that the tracking of scavenged materials for local diversion credit is vinnally impossible. To deter such unauthorized removal of recyclables, Dublin will publicize the imponancc of not allowing unauthorized scavenging of recyclables and will encourage its citizens to repon scavenging in progress. The city will enforce its anti-scavenging ordinance along with state law. City of DabUa Tasks Environmental Pennits (Start 3/95) Site Selection Design Services RFP Process Facility Design Construction Bid Process Equipment Procurement Building Pennits FacUlty Pennits FacUlty Construction Equipment Installation Equipment Testing Public Information Facility Start.Up Year 1996 1997 1999 2000 1998 Figure 4-1. MRF Implementation Schedule (Medium Term) 4-24 RECYCLING COMPONENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION There are several methods to quantify and monitor achievement of objectives. These are discussed and analyzed below. . Solid Waste Generation Study. Monitoring of waste generation, disposal, and diversion may be accomplished through the peIfonnance of periodic Solid Waste Generation Studies (SWGS). SWGS must be peIfonned in accordance with Chapter 9, Article 6.1, Section 18722 of the California Code of Regulations. This section of the State Planning Guidelines for Preparing and Revising Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plans requires each jurisdiction preparing an SRR Element to submit to the Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board (ClWMB) an annual analysis of whether there is a need to zevise the SWGS. H the jurisdiction or the CIWMB make a detfo.nnination that a revision of the SWGS is rcqui:red, a revised SWGS will need to be prepared. . As defined in the zegulations, the total waste generated is: GEN = DISP + DIVERT where the total quantity of solid waste generated within a jurisdiction (GEN) equals the waste disposed at permitted solid waste facilities (DISP) plus the total quantity of solid waste generated within said jurisdiction wbich is divened from such disposal through source reduction, zecycling, and composting programs (DIVERT). In the medium term, ttansfonnation may be counted as contributing a maximum of ten percent to the diversion. The SWGS needs to be repzesentative of the sources of solid waste generation, and of solid waste categories such. as residential, commercial, etc. and be sensitive to seasonal variations. Additionally, the SWGS must be' canied out in such a manner as to characterize the various snbstreams by material types. Allowable monitoring methodologies include quantitative field analysis (sampling), tracking of material flows through the jurisdiction, the use of jurisdiction specific published data, and the use of existing data from statisti~y comparable jurisdictions. DISP. Regardl~ of the characterization methodology used, disposal data is most commonly secured by tracking quantities and waste categories delivered to permitted solid waste facilities, i.e. transfer stations and landfills. While ~ingly straightforward, this process is complicated by the following factors: · V chicles delivering waste to the facility are not unifonnly weighed in and out. Small self haul vehicles are almost never weighed. . · Vehicles are not consistendy tracked by the generation S01JICe (i.e. jurisdiction) of the waste they are transporting. rt.... ,..# n.....Jf~ 4-25 · Vehicles are not consistently tracked' as to the catcgoxy of waste they ate cmying. This factor, too, is further complicated by the fact that more than one waste categoxy may be carried in the same load. For ~ple, waste from multifamily ~deuces is often commingled with commercial wastes on commercial collection routes. DIVERT. Trar.Inng of diversion through recycling historically has been accomplished by surveying of businesses and public operations engaged in the collection, processing, and marketing of recyclables. The businesses involved ate in a highly competitive maz:ket place and are generally reluctant to release data, particnlarly source or material specific data. This data . collection process, already possessed of limited reliability is further complicated by the following: · Securing data specific to a particular jurisdiction is new. It is contrary to the real way recyclables flow through the marlc:etplace with no regard to jurisdictional boundaries. Businesses generally .keep records as to the identity of the patty from whom they received the material. This patty is not necessarily the generating source. · Recyclables commonly pass through a number of bands before reaching an end user, thereby making the problem of double counting a substantial one. · The definition of recycling diversion that "countS" has been narrowed by State regulation, requiring entities to distinguish one from the other in ways not heretofore necessary . Waste characterization has been evaluated using a variety of SWGS methodologies as indicated. Quantitative Field Analysis. This has traditionally been the most commonly used method for characterizing the solid waste stream.. Random sampling of various type truckloads entering the solid waste facility is most often caIIied out. This sampling has historically under rated the heterogeneity of the solid waste stream, especially the various non-residential categories. The number of samples have consequemly been . - too few, resulting in very wide variances at acceptable confidence levels. These wide variances make. planning very uncertain in tcnns of the predictability of futme composition. Tracking of Material Flows. This methodology involves the tracking of a material type (ego glass containers) generated or coming into the jurisdiction and remaining there until discarded. Therefore, it requires an identification of every source for this material (generator, distributor, etc.) and surveying them to ascertain that percentage which remains 11DIil discard. Since commercial activity crosses jurisdictions, tracking disposition is very complex and uncenain in highly urbanized areas. Targeted Solid Waste CharaderizatioD Studies. This method of monitoring and evaluation involves the 'selection of all or a representative sample of generator sites to be t:racked to measure both relative quantities and composition of solid waste over time so as to be able to CUyotDabUa 1'''';",''''' ""_ ............l.....,.t ....~...""....... 4-26 observe changes useful in fulfilling reporting requirements and planning needs. This method requires extensive knowledge of the jurisdiction's demographics (residential, commercial, and industrial). Residential variables may include housing type, eg., single-family , townhouse, multifamily, high rise, etc. Other variables may be population density, socioeconomics, etc. CommeIcial variables may include business type, size (as number of employees, gross sales, rooms, tables, etc.); concentration (office parle, shopping man,. etc.). For many commercial enteIprise categories, the degree of expected variance of waste discards may be small (eg, beauty parlors, banks, realtors, etc.) and representative sampling may be carried out to monitor the categmy., ' Industrial enteIprises in any given jurisdiction are more likely to be relatively unique; one from the other. In these instances, it may be desirable to select all of the facilities for tracking. Industrial sources can have tremendous impacts on the waste disposal and/or diversion within a jurisdiction. After the representative sources have been selected, initial data would be. obtained to describe the source and identify the quantities and characteristics of the waste materials generated by the source. It is also necessary to identify any existing source reduction or recycling activities being perfoImed. The selected sources would be tracked by keeping records of waste matP.rial~ sent to disposal or transformation facilities, mat~;l1s recycled, and activities implemented to source reduce waste generation. In addition, it may be necessary to periodically sample the waste from the source to evaluate changes to waste character.istics and hazards. Data obtained from tracking of the representative sources can be used to project and assess changes occurring within the nonse1ected sources of waste within the jurisdiction. The results of this assessment will ttack progress towards meeting the diversion xcquirements. Board-Approved Other Method. Other methods may be used to monitor and evaluate progress toward achieving the mandated diversion goals. However, the method must be approved by the Board prior to its use. Selected Monitoring aDd Evaluation Method Based on the description and analysis of the monitoring and evaluation methodologies above, the following elements have been selected. Dublin will build its system based on the Targeted Solid Waste Characterization Study (TSWCS) approach. Building on the stUdy in Chapter 2, the city will need to annually determine whether a revised SWGS is required. The city will evaluate instituting an operational fonnat by which all non-residential waste generators will be required to track: diversion through either recycling or reduction. CJty o( Dahl... . 4-27 To assist the city in cmying out this effort, existing records such as construction and demolition pemtits, business licenses, and available service level data from waste haulers will be examined and evaluated for future use. The city will review its franchise agreement with its waste hauler,' its relationship to all permitted dispOsal f3cilities receiving Dublin waste, to determine what modifications may be necessary to secure direct weigh data, Le., not derived from a volume conversion, for all discards properly identified as generated in Dublin and, wherever feasible, by waste category. WIth regard to the permitted disposal facilities, Dublin will work with the"County of Alameda and the County Solid Waste Management Authority to ascertain and secure the modifications of use pemrits necessary to secure the data desaibed above. Criteria for Evaluating Effectiveness of Progress Program progress will be considered successful if the following waste diversions are achieved: · Diversion of 3.5. percent of the total waste stream through collection of high-grade office paper (1,937 tons). · Diversion of 1.2 percent of the total waste stream through collection of newspaper, PET, glass containers, and tin and alnminum cans (662 tons). · Diversion of 1.6 percent of the total waste stream through collection of inert solids (870 tons). · Diversion of 17.1 percent of the total Waste stream through participation in a ~ (9,444 tons). Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting For Dublin, the responsible patty for coordinating the monitoring and evaluation will be assigned by the City Manager. Identification of Funding Requirements and Revenue Sources The funds required for the implementation of the monitoring and evaluation program will be available from direct user fees or grants. Monitoring and evaluation of the curbside recycling program is estimated at $3,000 per year; for directing inerts, $500 per year; and for the commercial recycling program, $1,100 peI'-year. Clty of DabUa PriDIed OR nncled oa_r .'m:~~,,.t_.~~_""""J 4-28 Measures to be Implemented in the Event of Shortfalls in Meeting Diversion Mandates If the shortfall is only by a small percentage (1 to 2 percent) the monitoring frequency will. be increased and the monitoring prognun evaluated for possible expansion and/or improvements to ensure that as much valid data as possible are being obtained. If the shortfall is greater than 2 ~ the objectives and altematives will be modified to incorporate expansions and additional activities as necessaxy. CIty of Dabl.. CHAPTER 5 COMPOSTING COMPONENT , ' I CItJ of..... Prtaad 011 recycled paper CHAPTER 5 COMPOSTING COMPONENT This chapter descn1>es the composting objectives and program altematives analyzed for the Composting Component of the City of Dublin (Dublin) SRR Element. The chapter discusses composting objectives, existing conditions, alternatives, program selecti~ implementation and monitoring and evaluation in accordance with the requirements of the Model Component Format set forth in the State's Planning Guidelines. Please refer to Appendix C for a detailed description of composting processes, which is provided to fami1i:n;7.e readers of this chapter with the varieties of technologies employed in composting programs. This appendix also contains an extensive analysis of the various regional options in which Dublin may take pan. COMPOSTING COMPONENT OBJECTIVES Dublin will not pmsue implementation of composting programs until the- medium teml (1995-2000); the city's plans for continued, exp~ and new recycling and source reduction programs will provide sufficient waste diversion to meet the mandated short-tenD goal of 25 percent by 1995. After 1995, however, Dublin will consider participation in a regional composting program to enable the city to achieve the 50 percent level of waste diversion by 2000. For the medium ~, waste types targeted for diversion through composting activities are identified. Waste type priorities were established based on the waste generation analysis in Chapter 2, Solid Waste Generation Analysis. Medium Term to 2000 The section below descn1>es the waste type targeted for diversion through composting by Dublin. - . Yani Waste. This refers to any waste generated from the maDttfl!l'lance or altetation of public, commercial, or ~nf'!T1rial landscapes including, but not limited to, yard clippings, leaves, tree trimmings, pronings, brush and weeds. In Dublin, yard waste comprises about 8.4 percent of the total waste stream. ~ this quantity, part is self- Cllf ef Dablla Priated oa recycled pa.,er _........--__.. ......._ 1._ 5-2 hauled to disposal and the remaining part is collected with solid waste collection vehicles where it is commingled with the municipal solid waste (MSW) collected on regular residential pick: ups. Assuming an 80 percent recovery rate, through source separated yard waste collection and participation in a regional composting facility, . Dublin could divert an amount equivalent to 6.6 percent of its total waste stream by 2000. Objectives The following goals are established through which Dublin can achieve the mandated diversions: · Support the feasibility evaluation and subsequent development and implementation of subregional composting programs for source separated yard waste. · Evaluate and consider source-separated collection and delivery of yard waste from residences to a subregional composting facility and direct self-hauled yard waste to this same facility. The following objective is established: . · Divert 6.4 percent of the total waste stream through collection and composting of yard waste (3,359 tons) by 2000. . COMPOSTING COMPONENT EXISTING CONDITIONS In order to determine levels of composting needed in the future to meet the mandated diversion requirements, it is necessary to ascertain and describe existing public and private composting activities. The existing conditions description presents the waste types and quantities of cmrent composting activities in Dublin. To determine the existing conditions for composting, the landfill operatOIS, the Dublin Public Works Deparanem, and Caltrans were contacted. At this time, there is no sigrtificant public or private composting activity in Dublin. CIty of Dablla 5-3 COMPOSTING COMPONENT EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Two sets of alternatives are discussed in this section: yaId waste versus municipal solid waste and a local facility versus a regional facility. The discussion of these altematives here is a snmm3-ry of a more detailed analysis of these same altematives in Appendix C. Yard Waste vs. MSW Different mixes of the organic constitnents of MSW can be composted into a marketable product. In this section an evaluation is presented on the relative advantages of yard waste versus municipal solid waste (i.e., all of the compostable organic constituents of the municipal waste stream). Two other composting altematives are not considered. A leaves~y altemative is not evaluated because the quantity of leaves would not support a composting facility. Co- composting organic wastes with sewage sludge is also not considered becanse sewage sludge is not accounted for in Dublin's waste stream. The State Plannmg Guiclelwes inc:flc9tp. that sewage sludge is to be accounted for at the local wastewater treatment facility, which in Dublin's case, is the Dublin San Ramon Services Distria treatment facility in Pleasanton. Effectiveness In Reduction of Waste. A yaId waste composting program would be highly effective in the reduction of waste; a municipal solid .waste composting program would reduce other organic wastes in addition to yard wasteS. Hazards Created. No hazards are created by composting either yard waste or MSW. However, the potential for odors is higher for MSW. Contamination of the produa is also more likely to occur wjth MSW because yaId waste is easier to keep sepantte. Ability to Accommodate Change. It is anticipated that a yard waste composting program would be more flexible than a MSW program. . Shift in Waste Type Generation. None are expected with either type. - Ease of Implementation. Both a yaId waste and a MSW composting program would be easily implemented in the medium-tcml, as recommended to meet diveISion goals. Facility Needs. A yani waste composting program requires more land than a MSW program. A MSW composting program requires a bul1if1ng; yard. waste composting does not. Consistency with Loc:a1 Policies. Neither type of compost will conflict with local policies. Institutional Barriers. BaIIiers are ~ with MSW because of the poor quality of the end product. CIty of DtlIIUII . Prbded oa rec:yded ,.per ~ 5-4 Estimate of Costs. Costs for a yard waste composting program are expected to be moderate for a MSW program. they would be higher because it requires higher technology. The impact of these increased costs on collection rates will depend on the proportion of total collection, transpOrtation and disposal costs attributable to new composting program costs (see Appendix C for cost data). Availability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. The quality of material produced by yard waste is relatively low, which could affect the options available for end:uses and the revenues received, if any. MSW product is of even poorer quality. Local Facility vs. Regional Facility Dublin has the option of operating its own local composting facility or supporting a regional facility. These alternatives are evaluated beloW; a discussion of the various regional options available' to Dublin is presented in Appendix C. Effectiveness in Reduction of Waste. Local and regional composting programs would be equally effective in the reduction of waste. Hazards Created. No hazards are related to composting. Nuisances related to composting (e.g., odor) would not differ with a local or ICgional facility. Ability to Accommodate Change. Because of its size a.regional composting program may be more flexible in accommodating change than a local. program. Shift in Waste Type Generation. This problem is not created by a composting program of any tYPe. Ease of Implementation. A regional composting program may be easier to implement because of the greater flexibility in siting the facility. Facility Needs. _ Both a local and regional composting program will need a facility, however, with the regional program the burdens of cost and location are shared. Consistency With Local Policies. There are no local plans, policies or ordinances which conflict with the siting of either a local or required composting facility. A regioDal facility is probably IP:0Ie feasible because of lower 1lDit costs. Institutional Barriers. No barriers are expected with either a local or regional program. Estimate of Costs. Operation costs for a regional composting facility are expected to be lower than with a local facility. Collection costs will be comparable, but t:ransponation costs would be higher for the regional facility. The two potential subregional facilities would cost Clt)' of DllbUa PriDted oa ncTcled paM!" ~ 5-5 ( - I . Dublin $54,000 to $76,000 annually (see Appendii C). The regional facility would cost Dublin $43,000 to $50,000 annually. A vaiJability of End Uses of Diverted Materials. The quality of material produced is not affected by the size of the facility. Alternatives Evaluation ", ~ There would be higher unit costs, greater difficulty in marketing the end product, and a greater potential for odOIS and other hazards associated with participation in a MSW composting facility than with a facility composting yam waste alone. For these zeasons, consideration of participation in a yard waste facility would be a preferred altemative for Dublin. Likewise, because there would be significantly lower unit development and operating costs for a regional composting facility than for a local composting facility, the pzeferred alternative for Dublin would be to explore participation in a zegional composting facility. COMPOSTlNG COMPONENT PROGRAM SELECTION This section describes the selected pmgnrm, the proposed composting facility, and the market uses of the compost product. Program Description Based on the quantities of biodegradable matP-rial!C: reponed in the Solid Waste Generation Study, Dublin will consider contracting for the provision of source separated yard waste collection and will exploze participation in a subregional or zegional composting facility to assist in meeting the city's requirement of 50 percent diversion of waste by 2000. As noted in Olapter 2, Table 2-7, yard Waste is estimated to comprise 8.4 percent, of Dublin's total waste stream. Assuming an 80 percent recovery rate, through somce separated yard waste collection and participation in a snhtegional or regional composting facility Dublin could divert an amount equivalent to 6.4 percent of its total waste stteam by 2000 (3,359 tODS). Facility Description Dublin may participate in either a subregional or zegional facility. There are Ct1IIently facilities in the development stage. When Dublin receives detailed infOImation on these alternatives, including costs, the city will select a facility. '-- l'_' CIty of J>.1JUa Printed _ l"ee'YeLo-f n........ I : 5-6 /" End Uses of Compost Products End useIS (markets) must be established to accept the compost product in aider to qualify as diversion goals. Potential end users can be id~~ed in the county and need not be limited to useIS in Dublin. The potential end users are listed" below; 1. Agricn1toral use of compost product as soil enhancer. -- 2. Residential uSe of compost product for mulching and landscaping by individual homeowners and home building enterprises. 3. Regional Park District use of compost product for landscaping. " 4. Caltrans use of compost product as soil enhancer on road embankment. A more detailed discussion of markets for compacted yard waste is located in Appendix D of this SRR Element. The following methods will be used to develop compost useIS (mm:kets): 1. Consider ways.to encourage residents and home builders to use compost product. 2. Consider establishing policies to use compost product "in-house" whenever possible. \-," 3. Establish understandings/agreementS with Caltrans to use compost product whenever posSlble. COMPOSTlNG COMPONENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Responsible Organizations The Dublin City Manager's Office will be the lead agency for Dublin's involvement in composting program implementation and monitoring. It is likely that the implementation and monitoring responsibility for regional composting facilities will rest with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA). Implementation Tasks Medium Term. The implementation of Dublin's composting program consists of three pans: source separated yard waste for self-haDl, participation in the new regional composting facility, and secure end users of compost product. CJty of DabllD 5-7 t' , - ; Dublin will consider implementing residential curbside conection of yard waste to be carried out by the franchised waste hauler. The collection of separated yard waste will use a dedicated collection tmck. Additionally, Dublin will explore all mmuiatcny' self-hauled yard waste to be delivered to the composting facility. The tasks for implementing a curbside yard waste conection program are as follows: · Establish program staff needs · Pass ordinance requiring residet'ltS to participate · Amend collection contracts Require franchised" hauler to submit collection program design and costs. Evaluate proposal. Award contract. · Purchase collection containexs · Implement a public education program · Implement ttaining program for collection staff · Receive and distribute collection conra;I,ers · Start-up program The implementation time1ine is summarized on Figure 5-1. Implementing a subregional or regional composting facility involves the following major tasks: o. Obtain CEQA approval 1. Create composting task force to review the composting program. . 2. Issue RFP to solicit professional engineering services. 3. Sign agreement for pzeHminary nfl$ig11 services. ' 4. Begin detailed design and prepare plans and specifications. 5. Bidding and award CODStmction contract. 6. Cmy out facility CODStmction. 7. Develop requirementS for source separated wastes. 8. Prepare Report of Compost Site Infmmation (RCSl) and obtain operation pen:nit. 9. Start-up aIJ.d training. 10. Complete operation and maintenance manual. --- This part of the composting program will take 18 to 24 months to complete. FIgUre 5-2 shows the implem~on schedule. The facility will be implemented to allow for at least two YeaIS of operation before 2000. Securing end users of compost production, the thini feature of Dublin's proposed composting program, should begin no later than commencement of facility CODStmcti.on. The facility will conduct pilot tests during the first 18 months of operation. Yard waste will be obtained from. residential self-haul. "-- L' CIty of hbUa Pri8Ied oa rec:yded peper m~A Year Tasks 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Start-Up Program Establish Program Staff Needs Pass Ordlnance Requirlng Residents to Participate Amend Collection Contracts Purchase Collection Containers Implement Public Education Program Implement 1i'aining Program lor Collection Staff Receive tlnd Distribute Collection Contalners Figure 5-1. Curbside Yard Waste Collection Implementation Schedule r \, '''"'; . \ \ . .; . ~ . ',-. \ l. , '" ~ . '" . ,'-- r. -.. (----- , (-- .---, oj i - "--1 / ..-- . . .' 1 -....; '-. .,,,, I .1 ....,-... -.-..... ... I Tasks 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Envlronmenta' Permi,s f}J (Start 3/95J Site Se'ectlon f}J Design Services Bid Process . Facility Design fZI . Construction Bid , fm Process Equipment Procurement 1m Building Permits , Facility Permits Facility Construction Equipment Installation fBj Equipment Testing B TI'alnlng of Processing CI'ews rm Public InformatIon I Facility Start-Up II II Figure 5-2. Compost Facility Implementation Schedule (Medium Term) 5-10 I' Costs and Revenues ,... The capital costs of the possible facilities are shown in Appendix C to i:ange between $1 to $2 m.i1Iion, excluding land purchase costs. Operating costs, not including residual hauling costs, range below $12 to $16 per ton. Costs in this range are not likely to be cheaper than landfill disposal costs. The annual cost to Dublin would range from $40,000 to $54,000. Revenues for this program will come from tipping fees and the sale of compost (if any). COMPOSTlNG COMPONENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION Monitoring and evaluation of the composting program is most easily performed by the Dublin City Manager's Office. Monitoring and Evaluation Method Dublin will require that the regional facility record weights of yaIdwastes that are brought in by self-hauls. Dublin will perfonn a targeted waste generation study that will fmther assess the amount of yaId waste diverted or disposed. For Dublin's yaId waste curbside collection program and self-haDl vehicles, the regional facility operator will weigh all incoming vehicles. 01apter 4, Recycling Compon~ details a more complete monitoring and evaluation program, including the perfounance of periodic Solid Waste Generation Studies. Program Effectiveness Criteria Program progress will be considered successful ifby 2000 yaId waste composting programs are divening 6.4 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal (3,359 tons). Responsible Parties for Monitoring, Evaluatio~ and Reporting The responsible patty for coordi1'l~rjng the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of the progress of the program will be assigned by the City Manager. Funding Requirements Revenues for monitoring and evaluation will come from tipping fees and the sale of comp>st (if any). Monitoring and evaluation of this program is expected to require only minor administrative costs. CIty of DabUa 5-11 Measures to be Implemented in the Event of ShortfaDs in Meeting 'the Diversion Mandates /,. 1. IT the shortfall is only by a small pen:entage (1 to 2 percent) the monitoring frequency will be increased and the monitoring program evaluated for possible expansions and/or improvements to ensure that as much valid data as possible are being obtained. 2. IT the shortfall is greater than 2 per~ the objectives and alternatives will be modified to incoIpOIate expansions and additional activities as necessary. '-, CIty of DtlIIIIa P1iaced OD recJded paper ~;l"'-..mu ~ .' CHAPTER 10 INTEGRATION COMPONENT ,., . \- -- CIty or Da'" PriJsted oa nnded na'Def' r " CHAPTER 10 INTEGRATION COMPONENT 'Ibis component contains a desaiption of the solid waste management practices that promote integrated waste management in the City of Dublin (Dublin), and an explanation of how Dublin has integrated the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, and Special Waste components to achieve the 2S and 50 percent mandates specified by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The chapter begins with a description of the solid waste management practices which Dublin will implement to promote integrated waste management and follows this with an explanation of how Dublin has integrated the components to maximize the Use of all feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting options. The chapter then discusses how thecomponems jointly achieve the 2S and 50 percent diversion mandates and provides an explanation of how priorities between components were detemrined. Finally, the chapter concludes with an integmted schedule snmmari7:ing all implementation tasks previously iden1i:5P.d in the Source Reduction, Recycling, Composting, Special Waste and Education and Public Information components and the anticipated date of achievement of the required solid waste diversion mantjates. Integrated. Solid Waste Managem~t Practices To achieve the diversion reqaiIements of the Califomia Integmted Waste Management Act, Dublin must develop and implement waste diversion programs which confonn to the integrated waste management bieraIchy of (1) SOUICe reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and disposal. In Dublin, this has been achieved by first identifying source reduction activities which the city can_implement to decrease the quantity of" waste generated in Dublin, by then developing recycling and composting programs for waste which will continue to be generated within the city and then by developing programs to cnsore hazard reduction and environmentally safe disposal of the remaining wastes" which are not likely to be diverted through other source reduction, recycling or composting activities. The specific source reduction, recycling, composting and sPecial waste activities which Dublin intl'!nns to implement are as follows: Source Reduction '- . A restIUctUIing of garbage collection rates to reduce the discount provided for additional cans of service with a goal of evenmaUy achieving a uniform can rate. . , ' ," . CllJ .,... PrIIIUd CIII recyded paper ~.. 10-2 · Support for the Alameda CoUIIty Home Composting Education Program. · Consider implementation of a city government offices proct1Iement policy that favors purchase of products with recycled material content. Recycling · Expansion of Dublin's exIStIng Residem:ial Curbside Collection Program to multifamily households and single-family residences electing to participate in this program after the imposition of mandatory garbage collection service. · Consideration where appropriate of directing inert loads of concrete/asphalt to existing commercial facilities that recycle these materials. · Consideration of establishing a source-separated high grade office paper collection program. · Study and evaluation of participation in the medium term regional matP.rial~ recovery facility (MRF) by directing all of Dublin's nonresidential waste to that facility. Composting . Study and evalnarion of the development and implementation of subregional composting programs for sonn:e-separated yard waste. . Consider providing for source-separated collection and delivery of yard waste from residences to the subregional composting facility and direct self-hauled yard waste.to this same facility. Special Waste · Continue to sUpport the asbestos monitoring program of the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the County Environmental Health Department in order to reduce as much as possible the risks associated with asbestos removal. This activity will be maintained throughout the short and medium tem1S. · Consider sapporting clp.1J~opriare programs to divert bulky items for recycling or reuse. · . Work with the County to implement the new Medical Waste Management Act, in order to reduce hazards associated with improper handling of biomedical wastes and provide docmnentation of quanriries. · Support appropriate programs to reuse, recycle, or transform used tires. CIty of n.1ll1a ., 10-3 .Component Integration Dublin, through existing source reduction, recycling, and composting activities, Cum:nt1y divertS 24.4 percent of its waste stream. This rate of diversion is only slightly less than the 25 percent diversion' rate required by 1995; thus, Dublin bas nearly achieved this short-tenn planning period goal. To reach the medium-term planning period goal of SO percent diversion by 2000, Dublin will continue its existing diveISion activities and implement the programs discussed above. Dublin will achieve 25 percent diversion in 1993 and SO percent in 1998. Table 10-1 shows how the programs combine to achieve the required diveISion rateS. Component Priorities The following criteria have been utilized to determine priorities for implementation of source reduction, recycling, composting and special waste programs: · Confonnity to the integrated waste management hierarchy. · Cost-effectiveness and ease of implementation. · Effectiveness in reducing total wastes generated. · Effectiveness in reducing hazard potential and other potential advc:me environmental effects. Integrated Schedule Table 10-2 shows the proposed timeframe for implementation of all programs presented in this SRR Element and the anticipated date of achievement of the solid waste diversion mandates specified in the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. FIgUre 10-1 shows the schedule for availability of funds. . '- i l _ CIty of DaItUa Priated _ recyded paper "---'- -- Table 10-1. Component Program Diversion Rates Waste diversion program Baseline 1995 2000 Somce reduction County home composting program .2 .2 Procurement guidelines <.1 <.1 Unifmm can rates . <.1 <.1 Existing second-hand distributors 1.9 1.9 1.9 Total source reduction 1.9 2.1 2.1 Recycling programs Curbside recycling expansion 1.2 1.2 Direction of inerts 1.6 1.6 Office paper recycling 3.5 Materials recovery facility 17.1 Existing recycling distributors 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total recycling 22.5 28.8 42.4 Composting Direction of yard waste to composting facilities 6.4 Total composting - - 6.4 Special wasteS - - - Total diversion 24.4 30.9 54.4 -"^.""__--..-.-..T'-.....-..,...,.,..__. ~,.... "I I, Page 1 of 4 Table 10-2. New and Expanded Program Implementation Task Schedule City of Dublin , 1991 1992 1993 1994 199,5 T.1k dcacription Implementins entily 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAMS I Unifonn Can Rile DCC- -.Analyze uniform can nite. . -Slut-UP. program . -Monitor and evalu.te . . Onsoins County Home Compollins Program ACHCBPb/OCMOc -BstabUIh Uaison with County . -Publicize program . -Di'lOminate mllerial. . -Monitor and oValll.to . Procuremont GuldoUn" DCMOIDCC -Review Model GuldeUne. .. -Adopt a. City Policy . -Train procurement .Iaff . -Monitor and evalu'lo I . Ongoins RECYCLING PROGRAMS Roaidenlial Curbaido Bxpan.ion DCC , -Contact oxictins recyc1inS . contractor -Develop prolnm . -Start-up oxpan~d Pro8ranl . -Monitor and evaluate . On8oln8 Table 10-2. New and Expanded Program Implementation Task Schedule Page 2 of 4 City of Dublin (continued) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Task description Implementing entity 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 .3 4 Office Recycling Program DCMOIPCcf -Identify additional recyclable. . -Contract for additional .ervice. . -Start-up expanded recycling . I prosram. -Monitor and evaluate . Ongoins Direct Inert. ADPW -Revi.- City policy . -Start-up program . -Monitor and evaluate . Ongoing COMPO~GPROGRAMS All cornpollins prosram. to commonce after 1995 (medium- tcon plannJnS pedod) SPECIAL WASTE Albo.to. Monitodn, ACBHDSIDCMO -Continue countywide ..bello. . I monitodns program -Monitor and evaluate . Allbt Witb Medical Wa.te ACEHDIDCMO Management -SlIablilb UailOn with County . -Monitor and evaluate . Onsoin, A..ilt With County Sandblall Sand ACBHDIDCMO Proarun -EstabUsh Uallon . ~ . ~ ' i I I I ! " I i I I ' , ! , I I , ( ." Table 10-2. New and Expanded Program Implementation Task Schedule City of Dublin (continued) Page 3 of 4 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Task dclCription Implementins entity 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 -Monitor and evaluate . OnsoinS A.Ii.t With Bullcy Item Pros ram ACWMAJDCMO -BatIbHah HallOn I . -Monilor and evaluale . Onsoins A.ai.t With U.cd Tire Program ACWMAJDCMO -BIlIb~sh Halson . -Monilor and evaluale . Onsoins , EDUCA nON AND PUBLIC JNFORMA nON paOGRAMS Community Outreach DCMO -Develop outreach pideline. . -DI'lOInlnate WNto cIIvorlion . Informadon -Nelshbomood and civic group . Ongoing pre.entation. -Monitor and ovaluate . Onsoins. MedieJPubHc Infonnadon -Develop media .tratesy . .Publicize proSraJn' . OnSoinS -Monitor and evaluate . Ongoing School ProSraJn' PUSDh/DCMO -Ani.t in cuniculum . development -School prcaentalionl . Onsoins . -Monitor and evaluate . Ongoing . Table 10-2. New and Expanded Program Implementation Task Schedule City of Dublin (continued) Page 4 of 4 1991 1992 1993 1994 199.5 TuIc dclCription fmplemenlins enlily 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Commen:ial, Indu.bial, DeMO ProfCl.lonal -Conlllel local .ervlce . ol)udzalion -Conl~1 by wulo seneraton . . -Monllor IUld evaluale . Onsoins aDubUn City Council. b Alameda County Home Compollins Education Program. cDubUn City MlUlaser'. Office. dAlameda Counly Wa.te MIUla8ement Authorily-Technical Advl.ol}' Committee. OUvennoro-DubUn Di.posal. 'Private contract coUector. SAlameda County Environmental Heallh Departmenl. hDubUin Unified School Di.rict. , . '., I . 1 , I . V.ar I I Prog",m 1882 ! 1881 1883 1884 18N 18fHJ 1887 1"". 18_ Primary Funding Sourc.. Re.ldentlsl Curb.ide Recycling Ch.rg. . will be Implem.nted to psy for co.t of curb.lde expsns/on i I Commerciel Recycli"g Chsrge I . will b./mpl.mented to psy for I , cost of commerclsl recycling progr.m I W..1e Imp.ct Mltigstlon Fee I Contlnpnt Funding Source. . will b. con.ld.red if primary funding aourc.. do not provide sufflci.nt rev.nu. I I Res/dentlsl R.t.lncr.... f--- 100--. --- --- --- --- --- --- ,..-- --- --- ---. --- --- 1---. ---I Comm.rclsl R.t.lncre..e 1--- ---. --- --- --- ---- --- --- 1---' --- --- ---. --- --- 1--_. --- Aclvsnced DI.poslIl Fee. t--- ---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- 1---' --- --- ---. --- --- 1---. --.I I . Funding ltOurce in plsce - Funds avsllsble FundIng .ource to be consIdered If shortfsll eKlsr. Figure 10-1. Funding Source Schedule - City of Dublin ATTACHMENT 3 ~ January 18, 1995, Draft . CITY OF DUBLIN RATES FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL SERVICES CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO A FRANCHIS! AGR!!M!RT B!'l'W!!N THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND OAKLAND SCAVlNGERCOMPANY [Now Called Waste Management of Alameda County} I. IfFEC'fIVE DA~ The rates shown for the collection of refuse within the City of Dublin are effective as of January 1, 1994. II . RES;}:DINTIAL SERVICE A. Minimum Residential Co!le9tion cpst Minimum residential service shall apply separately to each unit within a duplex or other attached housing, which receives individual garbage collection services. The rates shown below shall apply to the initial can of service and include once per week collection and disposal of the standard sized container. Addi tional services described in Section IV are also provided as part of the minimum service. The rate shown includes $1.37 (one dollar and thirty-seven cents) charge for weekly Curbside Recycling. 32 gallon container (Standard Container) Monthlv Cost $ 8.63 B. pavment and Billina for Minimum Residential Service City shall make arrangements to collect assessments on the property tax bill for all services identified in Section A above. Further, payment for said services shall be made to Company by City pursuant to agreements and ordinances regulating solid waste collection. C. Additional Conta~ner Collection Costs Once per week collection of each additional container beyond service provided under "(A)" above: 32 gallon container (Standard Container) $ 5.95 . D. Soecial Services Large accumulations: Special Pick-ups: $8.05 per cubic yard $12.00 minimum per pick-up III. DESIGNAT~ON OF POINT OF COLLECTION For Single Family Residential Service, the above rates shall be' for "back yard service" for regular garbage service. The term "back yard service" shall mean the container(s) shall be on the outside of and in close proximity to the structure being served, and at a location which is the customer's option. Padlocks or other devices which deny the Collector reasonable access will relieve said collector from responsibility of such collection. The Curbside Residential Recycling Program requires that containers be placed in location which _ can be easily seen and readily accessible, within five feet from the curb. IV. ADDITIONAL SERVI~$ PROVIDED IN RATE~ The above rates shall include four ( 4 ) annual residential cleanups. Dates of said cleanups shall be at the discretion of the City upon reasonable notice to the Company. The rules regulating the special Cleanup shall be approved by the Contractor and the Director. The Contractor shall separately account for costs associated with this service and report information as requested by the City. V. COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY BIN SERVICE A. The following rates include collection, disposal, and bin rental at commercial establishments and multifamily projects serviced by centralized bins. The rates shown are for a monthly period. All charges are based upon bins being filled no higher than water level. Excess rate for waste which exceeds water level: $8.05 per yard. -1- . VolulII8 of Service Fr,ayeoqx Mont.p.... f-.""....;j;;., 1 Yard 1 week $ 25.40 A'1"l'ACIH.!:tl 3 1 Yard 2/week $ 57.15 1 Yard 3/week $ 88.90 1 yard 4/week $120.65 1 Yard 5lweek $152.40 2 Yard 1/week $ 50.80 2 Yard 2/week $101.95 2 Yard 3/week $165.10 2 Yard 4/week 1$222.25 2 Yard 5/week $219.40 3 Yard 1/week $ 76.20 3 Yard 2/week $158.75 3 Yard 3/week $241.30 3 Yard 4/week $323.85 3 Yard 5/week $406.40 4 Yard \ 1/week $101.60 4 Yard 2/week $209.55 4 Yard 3/week $317.50 4 Yard 4/week $425.45 4 Yard 5/week $533.40 6 Yard 1/week $152.40 6 Yard 2/week $311.15 6 Yard 3/week $469.90 6 Yard 4/week $628.65 6 Yard 5/week $787.40 7 Yard 1/week $171.80 7 Yard 2/week $361.95 7 Yard 3/week $546.10 7 Yard 4/week $730.25 7 Yard S/week $914.40 B. Commercial Can Service Commercial locations subscribing to service on a per COIItainer basis shall be charged the following monthly rates accord:f.nq to the size of the container serviced: 32 Gallon container (Standard COntainer) 40 Gallon container (OVersi~ed Container) 45 Gallon container (OVersized Container) 48 Gallon container (Oversized Container) Monthlv Cost $ 7.45 $ 9.35 $10.50 $10.70 / VI. HANDY HAULER The followinog rates apply to the collection of a 4 eubic yard Handy Hauler Collection Bin. Total Cost for Placement, One Week Bin Rental & Disposal of Container filled no higher than water level Rental COst beyond first week Cost for Additional Dump E~cess Charge for Bin Filled higher than water level . $45.00 $10.00 per week $32.20 $8.05 per yard -2- r AT1'AC1MENl' 3 VII: Q\tOP BOX '!'be followinq rates shall be charged for drop box services rena.red. The cost shall be on a per pick-up basis and costs are based upon the load not exceedinq the water level. Certain miscellaneous chuves as noted in, subsection (H) ..." also apply. A. 6 Cubic Yard Con-taine!:' (Oirt/Roclst~l;)ds) The pick-up cost of this container shall be the same as the 14 yard container due to the weight 'accommodated. ~:.~'~br~r:a~nta~ner 2~ pubic Yard Containe!:' $8.0S/cubic yard ig.~'~bi~~a~ntainer 40 Cubic Yard CQntaiper SB.OS/cubic yard Rat. Dt~ Bas, Pick-uo $112.70 $112.70 $161.00 $241.50 . $322.00 $8.05 per cubic yard $16.10 per cubic yard H. Miscell,neous Charaes The following charges are in addition to the container charges desCJ:'ibed above. / I' Ex-aGar. agenda 11 5 B. C. D. E. F. Excess Rate Per Yard If container loaded above water level G. Como,c~e~ Rate Per YJrd For service and collection of compacted materials, the total rate shall include cubic yard rate. 1- 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. Flasher Charge Initial Placement Charge Weekly Container Rental Fee Beyond 1st Week Daily Container Rental Fee After First week Stand-by Time Relocation Fee Cancellation of Automatic Collection at End of Rental Period $1 0 . S S PER PLACIIIIlHr $23.00 $11.90* $1.70/day* $77.00 per hour $31.50 per request $41.90 *Note: This charge is waived if the following service frequency is maintained: Service Level 6 yard/14 yard/20 yard 30 yard 40 y-ard -3- Fr~QUency 4 pUlls/month 3 pulls/month 2 pulls/month ATTACHMENT4a January 18, 1995, Draft Attachment 4a SOUD WASTE COLLECTION AND YARD WASTE SERVICES (Company) has thoroughly read and examined the draft franchise agreement and all documents referenced therein, and understands said documents. The Company proposes to provide these services for the prices quoted below, and to perform all other necessary acts related thereto. The attached detailed cost estimates supporting the lump sum amounts are provided as part of this proposal. Residential, weekly, manual back yard re service usin resident- rovided containers. lb. Residential, weekly, automated curbside refuse service using company-provided containers. 2. Residential recycling collection, processing and marketin . 3. Commercial recycling collection, processing and marketin . 4a. Weekly residential green waste collection, rocessin and marketin . 4b. Bi-weekly residential green waste collection, rocessin and marketin . 5. Bin service. 6. Debris box service. 7. Refuse disposal fee per ton. 8. Refuse transfer cost per ton (if other than direct haul). Company agrees to provide the services described herein for the first and second years of the Agreement for the amounts shown above, which are to be adjusted thereafter as described in the draft franchise agreement and documents referenced therein. Items la. and lb., and 4a. and 4b. are options, of which the City will select only one. January 18, 1995, Draft .. ATrACHMENT4b . January l8, 1995, Draft Attachment 4b SOUD WASTE COLLECTION AND YARD WASTE SERVICES The following worksheets must be used to support the prices proposed in the Price Summary Form (Attachment 4a) for this contract. Additional cost items, unless prohibited, may be inserted in the worksheet if the item is specifically described and does not fit into one of the listed items. The 'cost' items described in Section 6.3 of the draft franchise agreement are specifically prohibited; i.e., the City will disallow such costs should they be included in this chart of accounts or any later chart of accounts under this contract. For the purposes of this contract, vehicles, equipment and containers must be depreciated on a straight-line basis over seven (7) years. Contractor must docwnent initial capital costs, useful lifetimes assumed, and salvage values assumed for all such equipment. This information shall be listed separately as an attachment to this worksheet. If any vehicles will be "shared" with service provided under another contract, contractor must indicate such a situation by allocating the costs between the two contracts. Contractor should point out any such allocations on the attached forms. When completing the worksheets you should be aware of the following: 1. Include the desired percentage Operating Ratio. The Company will be allowed a fixed Operating ratio for the duration of the agreement. ' 2. Disposal costs must include all components and fees (e.g., County and other regulatory fees) and will be treated as a pass-through expense. Categories of costs should be presented on a cost per ton basis. 3. For the green waste processing costs line item, only the cost at the gate should be included. All other related costs (e.g., transfer, personnel, etc.) should be included as part of the appropriate worksheet line items. 4. You must define "other" if dollar amounts are included on these lines. 5. For the administrative and maintenance divisions, you must allocate these expenses to each service area, as appropriate. If there are changes in administration or maintenance costs related to the different service options (i.e., manual versus automated and weekly versus bi-weekly green waste collection), they must be identified and explained. January l8, 1995, Draft . 6. For each service proposed you must provide the following (include separate sheets as necessary): · Number of routes per day per week · Number of workers · Number of and type of vehicles · Number of tons collected · Hourly wage by employee classification (e.g., driver, helper, mechanic, etc.) · Number, cost and type of containers purchased · Number of actual stops per route as opposed to pass bys · The participation rate for .recycling and green waste for both commercial and residential. 7. Interest expense will be treated as a pass-through expense. 8. The worksheet for transfer should only be completed if the Company is nw: direct hauling the refuse to a disposal site. If refuse is direct hauled to a disposal site, the transport costs should be included in the individual refuse service areas (residential, bin service, and debris box service). January 18, 1995" Draft ATTACHMENT ok . January 18, 1995, Draft Oty01 DabUn PmpciAllor Solid Waste Franchise Dttailed Pinanciallniormation la.. RESlDENnAL SOUD WASTE MANUAL COUScnON (OmON A) Labor Costs RepJarWages Overti.D8 Wages Holiday Wages Vac:ation Wages Sick Leave Wages . Worlcers CoItlp8O$Ation Insurance Ie Claims Employers Liability Insurance Health Ie Welfare Pension/Retirelnent Benefits Payroll Taxes Other (Please List) Total Labor Costs Vehicle Related Costs Fuel Tires Ie Tubes Parts Supplies (fluid, oil, etc.) Taxes Ie Licenses Other (Please List) Total Vehicle Related Costs Other Costs Liability Ie Property Damage Insurance Equipment Insurance Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Training Ie Safety Programs Public Education and Promotion Unifol'Jl1S Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Depreciation Container Depreciation Truck and Other Depreciation Total Depreciation Profit <- ey. Operating Ratio) Allocated Costs From Administrative Oivisioft From Maintenance Division Other (Please List) Total Allocated Costs Total Revenue Requirement Annual Costs Year 1 . I '" .._.__. ... AttacIlment 4c Annual Costs Year 2 City of Dublin PropGsaI for Solid W.. franchise Detailed FinaneW Jnformatioll lb. RESIDENTIAL SOUDWASTE AuroMATED COLLEC'l10N (OmON B) Labor Costs Regular Wages Overtime Wages . Holiday Wages Vacation Wages Sick Leave Wages Workers Compensation Insurance & Claims Employers Uability Insurance Health & Welfare Pension/Retirement Benefit$ Payroll Taxes Other (Please List) Total Labor Costs Vehicle Related Costs Puel Tires & Tubes Parts Supplies (fluid, oil, etc.) Taxes & Licenses Other (Please List) Total Vehicle Related Costs Other Costs Uability & Property Damage Insurance Equipment Insurance Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Training & Safety Programs Public Education and Promotion Uniforms Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Depreciation CanWner Depreciation Truck and Other Depreciation Total Depreciation Profit L'Ye Operating Ratio) Allocated Costs Prom Admini<strative Division Prom Maintenance Division Other (Please List) Total Allocated Costs Total Revenue Requirement Annual Costs Year 1 . Attachment 4c: Annual Costs Year 2 CUr of Dub1ht P10paRl f<<SolidWaIte Prd~ Detail_ Pbuadal ~<<ticm 2. WEEXLY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING COLLEcnON Annual Tons Processed MRFTip Fee Annual Pl'OC8S5ing Fees Labor Costs Regular Wages Overtime Wages Holiday Wages . Vacation Wages Sick Leave Wages . Workers Compensation Insurance &: Claims Employers Liability [nsurance Health &: Welfare Pension/Retirement Benefits Payroll Taxes Other (Please List) Total Labor Costs Vehicle Related Costs Fuel Tires &: Tubes Parts Supplies (fluid, oil, etc.) Taxes &: Ucenses Other <Please List) Total Vehicle Related Costs Other Costs Liability" Property Damage Insurance Equipment Insurance Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Training &: Safety Programs Public Education and Promotion Uniforms Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Depreciation ContaiMr Depreciation Tnack and Other Depreciation Total Depreciation Profit (_"Operating Ratio) Allocated Costs From Administrative Division From Maintenance Division Other (Please List) Total Allocated Costs Total Revenue Requirement Anltua1 Costs Yeart .-,---- ....., .............,..u_ AttadDent u Anltua1 Costs Year 2 .----- ------- _____ ..._'1' ...... Qty of Dublin Pl'OpONIlot Solid Waste Francla_ Detailed PinanciaJ JnfotInat1on lilltimated I..idential I.ec:yclins l.evenue Estimated Newspaper Tonnage Estimated Newspaper Price per ton Batimated Newspaper I.evenue Estimated Glass Tonnage , Estimated Glass Price per ton Batimatecl Gl.. I.evenue Estimated PET Tonnage Estimated PET Price per ton Batimated PET Revenue Estimated Tin/BiMetal Tonnage . Estimated 1m/BiMetal Price per ton Batimated TInlBiMetal Revenue Estimated Aluminum Tonnage Estimated Aluminum Price per ton Batimated Aluminum Revenue Batimated Total Recycling Revenue Actual Revenue Requirement (Total Costs less Revenue) Incremental Additional Material Costs Mixed Paper HOPE Waste on Annual Costs Yearl Attachment 4c Annual Costs Year 2 City of OubUD Proposal for Solid Waste Franchise Detailed Finmdallnformation Annual Costs Yearl 3. COMMEROAL RECYCLING COLLEC110N AMual Tons Processed MRFTip Fee AMual Ptoc:essing Fees Labor Coats Regular Wages Overtime Wages HoUday Wages Vacation Wages Sick Leave Wages Workers Compensation Insurance &: Claims Employers Uability Insurance Health &: Welfare ' Pension/Retirement Benefits Payroll Taxes Other (Please List) Total Labor Costs ..--.-."-." ~ . Vehicle Related Costs Fuel Tires &: Tubes Parts Supplies (fluid, oil, etc.) Taxes &: Ucenses Other (Please List) Total Vehicle Related Costs ........M......'.lrl...n..n... Other Costs UabiUty &: Property Dariuage Insurance Equipment Insurance Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Training &: Safety Programs Public Education and Promotion Unifonns Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Depreciation Container Depreciation Trock and Other Depreciation Total Depreciation Profit <_" Operating Ratio) Allocated Costs From Administrative Division From Maintenance Division Other (Please List) Total AIloc:ated Costs Total Revnue Requimnent Attadunent 4c Annual Costs Year 2 City of Dublin Proposal for Solid Waste Frandaise Detailed Pinandal Information Estimated Commen:ial ~iDlltevenue Estimated Newspaper Tonnage Estimated Newspaper Price per ton Eatimated Newapaper Revenue Estimated Glass Tonnage Estimated Glass Price per ton Estimated Glasa Revenue Estimated PJast:ie Tonnage . Estimated Plastic Price per ton Estimated Plastic Revenue Estimated Tin/BiMetal Tonnage Estimated 1m/BiMetal Price per ton Estimated naiBiMetaJ Revenue Estimated Aluminum Tonnage Estimated Aluminum Price per ton Estimated Aluminum Revenue Estimated White Paper Tonnage Estimated White Paper Price per ton Estimated White Paper Revenue Estimated Corrugated Tonnage Estimated Corrugated Price per ton Estimated Corrupted Revenue Estimated Other (please list) Tonnage Estimated Other (please list) Price per ton Estimated Other (pI... list) Revenue Estimated Total Recycling Revenue Actual Revenue Requirement (Total Costs less Revenue) Annual Costs Year 1 Attachment 4c . Annual Costs Year 2 City of DahU. . Ptoopoeal for Solid W.... Jruda_ Detailed Finaadallalormatloa fa. WEEKLY JlESIDENnAL YAIlD WASTE COLLlC'l1ON Annual TQI1S Proc8ssed Proc:essing/Composins Fee Per Ton P1ocessing/Composting Costs Labor Costs Regular Wages Overtime Wages Holiday Wages Vacation Wages Sick Leave Wages Worlan Compensation Insuranc:e.lt Claims EmployeJs Liability Imurance Health &c Welfare Pension/Retirement Benefits Payroll Taxes Other (Please List) Total Labor Costs Vehicle Related Costs Fuel Tiles &c Tubes Parts Supplies (fluid,.oil, etc.) Taxes &c Licenses Other (Please Ust) Total VeNcle Related Costs Other Costs Liability &c Property Damage Insurance Equipment Imurance Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Training &c Safety Programs Public: Education and Promotion Uniforms Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Depreciation Container Depreciation Truck and Other Depreciation Total Depreciation Profit L% Operating Ratio) Allocated Costs From Administrative Division From Maintenance Division Other (Please List) Total Allocated Costs Total Revenue Reqaire....m Annual Costs Year 1 AttacIuaeat 4c: Annual , COIlS Year 2 Ot)' of Dublin PIOpOHI for SoUd Watbt PranchiA Detailed PinlUlcial Inlonnation 4b. BI-WEEKLY 1lESJDEN11AL YARD WASTE COLLECDON Annual TOIlS Processed Processing/Composing Fee Per Ton Processing/Composting Casts Labor Costs Regular Wages Overtime Wages Holiday Wages Vacation Wages Sick Laave Wages Workers Compensation Insurance Ie ClaUns Employ81'S Liability Insurance HealthleWe1fare Pension/Retirement Benefits Payroll Taxes Other (Please u.t) Total Labor Costs Vehicle Related Casts Fuel TiNs Ie Tubes Parts Supplies (fiuid. oil, etc.) Taxes Ie Ucenses Other (Please u.t) Total Vehicle Related Costs Other Costs Liability Ie Property Damage Insurance Equipment Insurance Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Training Ie Safety Programs Public Education and PromOtion Uniforms Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Depreciation Container Depreciation Truck and Other Depreciation Total Depreciation Profit Ley. Operating Ratio) Allocated Costs Prom Administrative Division From Maintenance Division Other (Please List) Total Allocated Costs Total R.evenue R.equirement Annual Casts Year 1 Attachment 4e Annual Costs Year 2 City of Dublin Proposal for Solid Waste Franchise Detailed Financial Information ,5. MULn.PAMlLY/COMMEltCJAUINDUSTlUAL BiN SERVICE Labor Costs RepJar Wages Overtime Wages Holiday "Wages Vacaliol\ Wages Sick Leave Wages Workers Compensation 1:nsurance Ie Claims Employers Liability Insurartce Health Ie Welfare Pension/Retirement Benefits Payroll Taxes Other <Please List) Total Labor Costs Vehicle Related Costs Fuel Tires Ie Tubes Parts Supplies (fluid. oil, etc.) Taxes & Ucenses Other (Please Ust) Total Vehicle Related Costs Other Costs Uability & Property Damage Inswance Equipment Insurance Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Training & Safety Programs Public Education and Promotion Unifonns Other (Please. Ust) Total Other Costs Depreciation Container Depreciation _ Truck and Other Depreciation Total DepNCiation ' Profit (_ 'lrt Operating Ratio) Allocated Costs From Administrative Division From Maintenance Division Other (Please List) Total Allocated Costs Total Revenue Requirement Annual Costs Year 1 Attadtmeat 4c: Annual Costs Year 2 .......-.--.....-...-.-. ..--..-- Oty of Dublbt PropoA1 for SoDd Waste &a11.chUe Detailed Plnandal hUonnation 6. DEBRIS BOX SERVICE Labor Costs Regular Wages Overtime Wages Honday Wages Vacation Wages Sick Leave Wages Workers Compensation Insurance lk Claims Employers Liability Insurance Health lk Welfare Pension/Retirement Benefits Payroll Taxes .Other (Please List) Total Labor Costs Vehiele Related Costs Fuel Tires &: Tubes Parts Supplies <fluid, oil, etc.-) Taxes &: Licenses Other (Please List) Total Vehicle Related Costs Other Costs Liability &: Property Damage Insurance Equipment Insurance Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Training &:Safety Programs Public Education and Promotion Uniforms Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Depreciation Container Depreciation _ Tn.ac:k and Other Depreciation Total Depreciation Profit (_ CJ(, Operating Ratio) Allocated Costs From Administrative Division From Maintenance Division Other (Please List) Total Allocated Costs Total Revenue Requirement Annual Costs Yeart _..__...... n............ _....~..IIIT --_.....~-- AttadIment 4c . Annual Costs Year 2 .. 7. REPUSE DISPOSAL FEE PEK TON Estimated Annual Tons Disposed Capital Costs Per Ton CeJJ Construction Amortization Closure/Post Closure Total Capital Costs Operating Costs Per Ton Equipment/LandftU Labor Equipment Operating Expense Other Operating Expense Equipnwnt Maimerlance Insurance Claims Facility Costs Depreciation Expense Landfill Maintenance Landfill Expansion Liquids Disposal Groundwater Monitoring SG&A Expenses Corporate S&D I Managoment Fees Total Operating Costs . Total Capital and Operating Costs Operating Ratio Profit <_ ~ Operating Ratio) Taxes and Regulatory Fees PerTon Local Fees AB 939 Fees State Facility Fees Other Other Other Other Total Taxes and Regulatory Fees Interest Expense Per Ton Otyof Dublin Ploposid for Solid Wute Franchise Detailed Fbwldalbtformation Total Cost Per Ton (Total Capital & Operating Costs plus Profit plus Total Taxes and Regulatory fees plus Interest Expense) Total Revenue Requirement <Cost per Ton · Annual ToftJlage Disposed) Per Ton Costs Year 1 _.11.... Attachmellt 4c Per Ton Costs Vear2 .___ ..1 _un. J. s. REFUSE TRANSFER (If Dot direct bauD Estimated Annual TODS Transfemd Labor Costs Per Ton Wages Insurance It Claims Health, Welfare It Benefits Payroll Taxes Total Labor Costs Vehicle Related Costs Per Ton Fuel Tires, Parts It Supplies Taxes It Licenses Total Vehicle Related Costs Other Costs Per Ton Insurance Rent It Utilities Non-vehicle Related SuppUes Training It Safety Programs Public Education and Promotion Other To.tal Other Costs Depreciation Per Ton Total Operating Costs Profit C_ 'JO Operating Ratio) Taxes and Regulatory Fees PerTon Total Taxes and Regulatory Fees Interest Expense Per Ton CttyofDublin Pzopa8al for SoIld Waste PtaDcl:WIe Detailed PhtnadallDformatloll Total Cost Per Ton (Total Operating Costs plus profit plus Total Taxes and Regulatory Fees) Total Revenue Requirement (Cost per TOD · Annual Tonnage TraJlSfened) Per Ton Costs Year 1 . AttacluDent ~ Per Ton Costs Year 2 -. Qtyof 0uWin rro,o.l for Solid Waste Fraacbl.e DetGled PhaaadallDtoaa.. ADMINJS'I'RAnvE DIVISION Labor Costs . Regular Wages Overtime Wages Holiday Wages Vac:atioft Wages. Sick Leave Wages Workers Compensation Insurance &r: Claims Employers Liability Insurance Health &r: Welfare Pension/Retilement Benefits Payroll Taxes Other (Please List) Total LaborCosts Vehicle RaJatad Costs Fuel Tires &r: Tubes Parts Supplies (fluid, oil. etc.) Taxes &r: Licenses Other (Please List) Total Vehicle Related Costs Other Costs Liability &r: Property Damage Insunmce Equipment Insurance Bonds Rent Utilities Telephone Postage Non-vehicle Related Supplies Non-vehicle Related Taxes and Licenses Bank Fees Legal Fees Accounting Fees Dues &r: Subscriptions Advertising Office Equipment Rental Uniforms Training and. Safety Programs Corporate Service and Development Fees Corporate Management Fees Deposit Amortization. Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Depreciation Profit (_ '1ft Operating Ratio) Interest Expense Total Costs Am1ual CaRs Year 1 _....11.11 ~......_4c AImua1 COIlS Year 2 Oty of DuJ;.Un Proposal for Solid Waste Franchise Detailed finandal htfom.lation ADMJNISTRAllVE DIVISION (c:ont.) Allocated. Out To Residential Collection To Residential Rec:yding CoDec:tion and p~ To Residential Green Waste Collec:tionand Proceuing To Bin Service To Debris Box Service To Commercial Recycling Collection and Processing Total Allocated. Out Total Revenue Requirement Annual Costs Year 1 Attachmen~ .fc Annual Costs Year 2 o o CltyofDabIia Pmpoeal for SoUcI Wute Ftanchise Detai1ecI. ~'ftA1IdlJ Iafomaation Allocated Out to Residential Collectioft To Resiclential Rec:ydhig CoUection and Proc.esIinS To ~I Green W... ColJectlon and Processing To Bin Service To Debris Box Service" To Commercial Recyc11ng CoUdon and Pl'oc:essing Total Allocated Out Total Revenue Requirement A1'lnual Colts Yearl Attachmestt 4c Annual Costs Year 2 o o CltyofDabh Proposal forSolld Waste Franchise Detailed FlaandaJ Ialannation MAINfENANCE DIVISION Labor Costs Regular Wages ~meWages Holiday Wages Vacation Wages Sick Leave Wages. Wortcen Compensation Insunmce Ie Claims Employers Liability Insuranee HeaJth Ie Welfare Pension/Retbement Benefits Payroll Taxes Other CPtease List) Total Labor Costs Related. Costs ' Fuel TIres & TubeS Parts Supplies (fluid. oil, etc.) Taxes & Licenses Other (Please List) Total Related Costs Other Costs Liability & Property Damage lnsunsnce Equipment lnsunsnce Rent Utilities Telephone Non-vehicle Related SuppUes & Parts' Non-vehicle Related Taxes and I..icenses Training & Safety Programs Uniforms Shop Equipment Rental Outside Repair Services Other (Please List) Total Other Costs Total Depredation Profit C_ " Operating Ratio) . Interest Expense Total Costs Annual Costs Year 1 Attadu:aent 4c Ammal Colts Year 2 -...---..----- .----- Cltyof01abb Propoeal for SolId Waste PrandWle ~~aqdu~ Allocated Out To Residential Collection To Residential RecycJiftg Co1lection and Processing To Residential Green W.... Col1ection and Processing To Bin Service To Debris Box Service' To Commercial Recycling CoUection and Proc:essing Total Allocated Out Total Revenue Requiftment A1uwal Colts Year 1 Attadustent 4c: " A1uwal Costs Year 2 'J o o ~ ATIACHMENT 5 January 18, 1995, Draft J. Attachment 5 The following affidavit is submitted by Proposer as a part of this proposal: The undersigned deponent, of lawful age, being duly sworn, upon his oath deposes and says: that he has lawful authority to execute the within and foregoing proposal; that he has executed the same by subscribing his name hereto under oath for and on behalf of said proposer; that proposer has not directly or indirectly entered into any agreement, express or implied, with any proposer or proposers, having for its object the controlling of the price or amount of such proposal or proposals, the limiting of the proposals or proposers, the parceling or farming out to any proposer or proposers or other persons of any part of the contract or any part of the subject matter of the proposal or proposals or of the profits thereof, and that he has not and will not divulge the sealed proposal to any person whomsoever, except those having a partnership or other financial interest with him in said proposal or proposals, until after the said sealed proposal or proposals are opened. Deponent further states that the proposer has not been a party to any collusion among proposers in restraint of freedom of competition; by agreement to make a proposal at a fixed price or to refrain from submitting a proposal; or with any state official or employee as to quantity, quality, or price in the prospective contract; or in any discussions between proposers and any City official concerning exchange of money or other things of value for special consideration in the letting of a contract; that the proposer/contractor has not paid, given or donated or agreed to pay, give or donate to any official, officer or employee of the City directly or indirectly, in the procuring of the award of contract pursuant to this proposal. Executed under penalty of perjury on this day of at SIGNED BY Name of Proposer TITLE Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of . at Notary Public My Commission expires: January l8, 1995, Draft "' ATTACHMENT 6 January 18, 1995, Draft '< Attadunent 6 NOTICE THIS COMPANY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bidders are required to accept the following operating policy for Equal Employment or submit their own. lilt is the policy of this Company to assure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, religious creed, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry. Such action shall include but not be limited to, employment upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, lay-off or termination; rates of payor other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship training and on-the-job training. II Dated: By: Legal Name of Contractor Title, Signature January l8, 1995, Draft ~ ~" ATIACHMENT7 January 18, 1995, Draft STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ) ss: ~. Attachment 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the County of this day of My Commission Expires: Notary Public January 18, 1995, Draft