HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-02 - AGENDA REPORTS - SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGMT (2)Agenda Item: 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS City Manager Approval--
Item
pproval-Item to be presented by: Jill Fosselman
DATE: October 2, 2003
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS -- REVIEW AND AWARD
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council to receive presentation on the evaluation of the final franchise agreements from Blue
Barrel Disposal, Burrtec Waste Industries, and Consolidated Disposal Services for the City's
Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Management Services.
Council to award Burrtec Waste Industries the contracts for Residential and Commercial Solid
Waste Management Services for the City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The signed contracts with Burrtec for residential and commercial trash collection and recycling
are focused on the City Council's direction and goals of requiring the successful hauler(s) to
implement programs that will maximize diversion and expand community and business
education efforts to achieve a 75% diversion rate for the City of Santa Clarita. Some of these
include:
• Commingled curbside recycling
• Unlimited residential recycling and greenwaste
• Multi -family recycling
• Free commercial recycling
• Commercial waste audits
• New food waste recycling program
• Greatly enhanced education and outreach efforts
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
One of the key components of the Bumec contract is the provision of a Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF). Bun -tee proposed to develop a MRF/Transfer Station and provide it to the City
at the end of the contract terms (for the remaining debt service on the facility) if they are
awarded both the residential and commercial franchise agreements. The estimated total cost for
Burrtec's MRF is $6.0 to $8.2 million and the City may opt to acquire the MRF at the end of the
contracts for payment of the remaining debt service on the MRF. The value provided to the City
Continued To: cWe- u,,,(�
�;go-rJ 0,- o 20 da6 &sc ,"Ss o', ppn o&
through this option is approximately $1.8 million, which is based on purchasing the land and an
estimated interest rate of 6.5%. No other definitive means for the city to obtain the MRF was
identified by the other proposers.
Costs/Rates Identified
Bumec provides the best overall value to the City. Burrtec is offering services and efforts to
exceed diversion requirements for the best overall price. Including the value of the MRF ($1.8
million) and equalizing food waste container fees (Blue Barrel did not include the cost for the
food waste containers in their rates. Consolidated only offered a pilot food waste program), the
Bumec proposal for both the residential and commercial agreements is overall 0.77% less than
Blue Barrel.
In a nutshell, with Burrtec, the City, its residents and commercial customers save 0.77% over the
next closest proposer over the life of the contracts. In addition, with Bumec, the City will have a
guaranteed and developed MRF, with a clear cut set of terms for ownership at the end of the
contract.
Waste Diversion Highlights
Bumec is going above and beyond what the City asked for in its contract for waste diversion.
Bumec has committed to a more costly method of commercial recycling pick up in order to
significantly increase commercial trash diversion. This effort will yield an estimated 25% to
36% more diversion from the commercial waste stream.
The provision (and ultimate ownership by the City) of a MRF will significantly increase the
City's ability to achieve a 75% diversion. Additionally, Bumec has agreed to terms that require
they build the MRF by April, 2006 or be in default of both franchise agreements.
The addition of a first-ever foodwaste collection program that includes an indoor collection
container for residents, is also being offered by Burrtec as part of their contract. According to
recent studies, foodwaste is one of the largest commodities currently going into landfills.
Additional Information Regarding the Burrtec Proposal
Burrtec has offered litter clean up services that will triple the trash franchise contract
requirement (requirement is one truck and eight staff hours per quarter. Bun -tee is providing one
truck and eight staff hours per month) as part of their agreement.
A new grant program benefiting the community and non-profit organizations, funded by the
haulers, and based on the amount of recyclables collected, was more than doubled in the Bumec
contract. The city asked for a donation of $2.50 per ton collected and Burrtec agreed to provide
an additional $3 per ton collected to the grant program. This will result in a total of at least
$496,428 over the life of the two contracts for community and non-profit organizations.
2
Burrtec will be utilizing all brand new alternative fuel vehicles for all of its trash collection
services in the City at the start of the commercial service in 2004.
Unique outreach efforts aimed at increasing diversion numbers, including free "how to" videos
for residential customers, and community carnivals that include educational workshops, are
included in the Burrtec residential and commercial franchise agreements.
Finally, in evaluating the three haulers, it is a fact that the City's current haulers have been
unsuccessful in helping the City divert 50% of its waste as required by A11939. Additionally,
one of the haulers have made the claim that they could not lower the City's rates, but now have
proposed significantly lower rates for enhanced services.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Award the Residential Franchise Agreement to Blue Barrel Disposal and the Commercial
Franchise Agreement to Consolidated Disposal Services.
2. Other action as determined by the Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The franchise fee for both the residential and commercial franchise agreements is 10% of the
hauler's gross receipts. Based on staff's recommendation to award both contracts to Burrtec
(total estimated gross receipts of $104,257,000), the City will receive an estimated $10,425,700
in franchise fees throughout the terms of the two contracts. Although overall this represents a
decrease in franchise fees collected by the City (due to lowered rates throughout the terms of the
agreements), the City will receive additional financial benefits that offset the reduction in
franchise fees.
• One time reimbursement of $250,000 for the costs that were incurred by the City through
the RFP process ($125,000 per franchise agreement which are payable to the City within
seven days of execution of the franchise documents),
• Funding for a Project Development Coordinator ($35,000 per year per franchise
agreement or 50% of the total personnel costs for this position, which will increase
annually based on the City's approved COLA rates) for an overall total estimated value
of $560,000,
• Funding to assist with the City's outreach programs ($3,000 per year per franchise) for a
total overall value of $48,000,
• Funding from a $5.50/ton recycling fee on residential and commercial recycling collected
for a special grant program for organizations that provide benefits to the community
and/or the environment for an estimated total of $496,428, and
• Expenditure savings over the terms of the agreement of $688,708 for services that will be
provided in-kind to the City (including City facilities' trash and recycling, City parks'
trash and recycling, and collection of the City's street litter trash and recycling carts).
3
ATTACHMENTS
A. Staff Analysis, Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Management Services
B. Contract Enhancements to Current Services Being Provided to the City
C. Hilton Famkopf & Hobson, Evaluation of Proposed Solid Waste Agreements
D. Landfill and MRF Tour Itinerary, August 28 and 29, 2003
E. Blue Barrel Invitation Letter to Tour Lodi MRF Facility
F. Burrtec Letter Regarding Interim Disposal
G. Redlined Versions of Finalized Franchise Agreements
'"a cls M, P_ K�f f}
STAFF ANALYSIS
CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 2003 the City Council evaluated the proposals submitted to the City as a result of
the City's Request for Proposal (RFP) for Residential and Commercial Waste Management
Services and instructed staff to enter into negotiations with three of the six proposers. The three
proposers selected by the Council to enter into negotiations were Blue Barrel Disposal (Blue
Barrel), Burrtec Waste Industries (Burrtec), and Consolidated Disposal Services (Consolidated).
Pursuant to Council's direction, staff met with each of the three proposers on July 8, 2003 to
clarify and discuss the programs, issues, exceptions and contract terms identified in their
proposals. Following the meetings, Hilton Famkopf & Hobson (HF&H) prepared follow-up
letters that went out to the haulers. The purpose of the letters was to clarify and develop specific
contract language to be inserted into the contracts that would capture the terms and the programs
proposed in the haulers' proposals and during the meetings on July 8. The haulers reviewed the
clarification letters and responded in writing regarding their acceptance of contract terms and
language for inclusion in their contracts. Next, HF&H and Rutan & Tucker (the City's outside
legal counsel for the RFP) inserted the resulting changes into the original franchise agreements
that were released with the City's RFP.
At the request of Councilmember McLean, staff organized tours (that were attended by
Councilmembers McLean and Weste) on August 28 and 29, 2003 of the disposal and recycling
sites identified in each of the proposers' proposals. The tours provided staff and the Council an
opportunity to view the facilities that are either identified for use or are similar to the facilities
that are identified in the haulers' proposals. The tours consisted of a landfill and a materials
recovery facility (MRF) for each hauler. (Attachment D is the itinerary for the tour.) In
addition, while at the League of California Cities Conference in Sacramento, on September 9,
2003 Councilmember McLean attended a tour of Blue Barrel's materials recovery facility in
Lodi, which is a facility that Blue Barrel represents is similar to the type of facility they propose
to construct in Santa Clarita. (Attachment E is the letter of invitation from Blue Barrel to the
City Council.)
On September 2 and 4, 2003 staff and the consultants met with the haulers to discuss their
revised franchise agreements that reflected the clarifications and to negotiate final terms. Upon
completing the changes and finalizing the franchise agreements negotiated, each proposer signed
their final contracts that warrant their best and final offers to the City. Through this process all
exceptions identified by Blue Barrel and Consolidated were removed (Burrtec identified no
exceptions), and each of the three proposers agreed to contract and rate enhancements.
5
Enhancements to Current Services Being Provided to the City
Staff is pleased to inform the Council that the City's solid waste and recycling programs will be
significantly enhanced and improved through the implementation of the new franchise
agreements. The contracts are focused on requiring the successful hauler(s) to implement
programs that will maximize diversion and expand community and business education efforts to
achieve the Council's policy direction of 75% diversion. The residential and commercial
contracts provide a measurable roadmap to achieving this vision, including providing the
successful hauler(s) both incentives to achieve diversion and disincentives for not achieving
diversion. Significant programs such as commingled curbside recycling, unlimited residential
recycling and greenwaste, multi -family recycling, free commercial recycling, commercial waste
audits, and greatly enhanced education and outreach efforts are the primary components of this
roadmap. In addition, the materials recovery facility as identified in the Burrtec proposal offers
the City a significant long-term opportunity to obtain critical infrastructure at a discounted price.
This opportunity will position the City strategically in the future; financially when the contracts
are up for competitive bid and programmatically to implement new diversion and recycling
programs. A summary of the residential and commercial program and contract enhancements is
highlighted and attached for your review (Attachment B).
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
The City's approach in the RFP process was to require specific recycling programs and diversion
targets and allow the proposers to develop the best method to deliver the programs and achieve
the targets. Two of the final three proposers, Blue Barrel and Burrtec, both proposed citing and
constructing a MRF/Transfer Station as a method to manage the disposal and transport of solid
waste and recyclables for the City's franchise agreements. Although the contracts are designed
not to require a MRF within the City's borders to achieve the City's desired diversion targets, a
MRF is a valuable asset to the City in reaching its environmental goals.
Buntec proposed to develop a MRF/Transfer Station and provide it to the City at the end of the
contract terms (for the remaining debt service on the facility) if they are awarded both the
residential and commercial franchise agreements. Bun -tee's agreement contractually requires the
company to develop a MRF prior to the start of the residential franchise agreement (April 2006),
and the City can find them in default of the franchise and terminate their agreements if they do
not achieve this date. The estimated total cost for Burrtec's MRF is $6-8.2 million, and the City
may opt to acquire the MRF at the end of the contracts for payment of the remaining debt service
on the MRF. The value provided to the City through this option is approximately $1.8 million,
which is based on purchasing the land and an estimated interest rate of 6.5%.
Blue Barrel proposed to develop a MRF/Transfer Station if they are awarded the residential
franchise, and agreed to negotiate the purchase by the City if they decide to sell the MRF (the
City would have the right of first refusal). The estimated cost for the facility would range from
$6.192-7.121 million. No other definitive means for the City to obtain the MRF was identified,
and Blue Barrel did not agree to a material default if the MRF were not built prior to the start of
the residential franchise.
0
Based on HF&H's calculation, the City may opt to add a 5% MRF surcharge to the rates which
would collect approximately $5.2 million that could be used toward the purchase of the MRF, if
the Council would like to obtain funds to offset the purchase of the MRF at the end of the
contract term. Based on the information provided in the Burrtec proposal, HFH estimates that
the cost of the MRF to the City will range between approximately $4,703,000 and $6,427,000.
Evaluation Process and Issues to Consider
As directed in the Council -approved RFP, the final proposals (and contracts) were evaluated
based on five primary criteria that were identified in the RFP:
• Proposer's Qualifications (general experience, jurisdiction satisfaction, public education),
o All of the proposers are qualified and have significant experience to provide the
requested services.
• Technical Qualifications (waste diversion implementation plan, operations),
o Each of the three proposers demonstrates similar capacity to implement all of the
programs and manage all desired operations. Burrtec offers a significant
enhancement in the commercial franchise by offering select load mixed waste
processing of 50-65% of commercial refuse.
• Exceptions to the Terms and Conditions (number and nature of the exceptions),
o All of the contract exceptions were dropped during the negotiation process.
• Financial Resources (financing, financial stability, insurance), and
o All of the proposers offer strong financial resources, limited financial risk (to
implement the franchise agreements) and strong ability to meet short-term
financial obligations.
• Costs (cost of services — rates — and reasonableness of costs).
o The cost of services and rates appear to be reasonable — average overall rates
will decrease from the current rates by between 11% and 18%. Overall, the
proposers are within approximately 7% of each other.
Throughout the process, staff sought to obtain the best possible services at the best possible
price, which will provide the best overall value to the community. Included in the evaluation
was the determination of whether the best overall value to the City will be provided by awarding
both contracts to one proposer or awarding separate contracts to two proposers. Staff is pleased
to inform the Council that the City obtained six franchise agreements (three residential and three
commercial) that greatly improve upon the City's current services while significantly lowering
the cost. Including the value of the MRF ($1.8 million) and equalizing food waste container fees
(Blue Barrel did not include the cost for the containers in their rates, and using $260,000 as the
average of their rage of costs presented), the Burrtec proposal for both the residential and
commercial agreements is 0.77% less than Blue Barrel.
7
MRF DS
Haulers
Residential
Food Waste
Subtotal
Commercial
Subtotal
Value
TOTAL
Blue Barrel
68,861,000
260,000
69,121,000
34,126,000
103,247,000
0
103,247,000
Burrtec
69,159,000
0
69,159,000
35,098,000
104,257,000
-1,800,000
102,457,000
Difference
298,000
-260,000
38,000
972,000
1,010,000
-1,800,000
-790,000
Percentage
0.43%
0.05%
2.77%
0.97%
100.00%
-0.77%
7
In addition, through the negotiation process, the City obtained rate freezes in varying years
(varies by proposer) which provide for stability and reduced overall costs to rate payers
throughout the terms of the contract. The original contract in the RFP specified no increase in
the first two years of each contract. Blue Barrel did not offer an additional rate freeze, Burrtec
offered rate freezes in the two final years of each contract, and Consolidated offered additional
rate freezes in the 4`h, 6h, 8`h, and 9`h year of the commercial contract and for the last year in the
residential contract. Please see "Attachment 2" in the HFH Evaluation of Proposed Solid Waste
Agreements Attachment for the evaluation summary of the final contracts from each of the three
proposers. It is important to note that this summary only highlights the differences between each
of the three proposers.
In addition to the evaluation criteria identified in the RFP, staff evaluated the proposals against
the following policy considerations:
• Is it important to the City to have multiple haulers?
• Is it important to have the opportunity to own a MRF through this process?
• How important is cost? How important is cost compared to overall propensity to achieve
desired diversion?
• How important is local preference, and how do we define "local?"
• How important is historical challenges with meeting AB 939 requirements and historical
rates/costs?
Staff Recommendation
Based on the overall cost and programs offered to the City, staff recommends that the Council
award both the residential and commercial franchise agreements to Burrtec Waste Industries.
Staff concurs with the following finding of HF&H in their analysis of the final proposals,
"Because of the City's commitment to maximizing waste diversion, the Bumec proposal appears
to offer the best long-term value to the City because the company is contractually committed to
developing a MRF and, perhaps most importantly, offering a defined option for the City to
acquire it at the end of the contract term." As overall proposers, Burrtec and Blue Barrel offer
the most cost effective overall proposals. However, Bumec also offers the City the opportunity
to acquire a MRF that will belong to the Citv at a contractually discounted price through their
proposal.
Pros to the Recommendation
• Bumec offers the best overall value to the City — the programs and services offered
demonstrate a real commitment to meeting and exceeding the City's diversion goals at
the best possible price. Overall, Burrtec is 0.77% or approximately $790.000 lower
than the overall proposal offered by Blue Barrel.
• Bumec provided the City with an option to acquire the MRF at the end of the contract
terms, and is the only proposer that provided a contractual method to sell the MRF to the
City if the City desires to purchase it. The financial value of the seven years of debt
service Burrtec will offer to the City for this option is approximately $1.8 million (based
P]
on purchasing the land and an interest rate of 6.5%). The franchise agreements require
Burrtec to build a MRF by April 2006 and will be in default if they do not build it in
time.
• Burrtec is the only hauler which is contractually required to provide mixed waste
processing for 50% to 65% of its commercial customers. This can increase commercial
recycling by 25%-36% in comparison to the amount that will be diverted by just
providing free recycling. By doing so, Burrtec is agreeing to schedule routes in a way
that would allow them to divert 25 to 36% more of the commercial waste stream by
capturing recyclables from businesses that are not recycling enough, do not recycle due to
space constraints, or do not wish to recycle. This proposed method would be more costly
for Bumec, but would bring the City closer to meeting and exceeding its recycling goals.
Cons to the Recommendation
• At the end of the franchise terms there will be one incumbent hauler, which may affect
the ability to create a competitive environment when the franchise agreements are eligible
for bid.
• Burrtec is not an incumbent hauler; therefore, the entire City will experience a transition
to a new hauler.
• Bumec's signed contract states they will be disposing of the trash in Orange County.
Although Blue Barrel offered a cost effective proposal, staff did not evaluate it as highly as
Burrtec's when examining overall long-term value to the City, nor did not consider Consolidated
to award both contracts for the following reasons:
• During the course of its services to the City, Blue Barrel has claimed that it could not
lower its cost of collection or significantly enhance the City's service without increasing
rates. While gaining approximately 15% of the "market share" if awarded both contracts,
Blue Barrel has now provided the City with a proposal that decreases rates overall by
18% while providing enhanced and improved services. This seems inconsistent with
what has been represented to the City in the past.
• The City's current haulers have been unsuccessful in helping the City divert 50% of its
waste required by AB 939. Currently the City is diverting 42%n of its waste (as of 2000)
and needed to apply for a time extension request with the California Integrated Waste
Management Board for not meeting its 50% diversion requirement.
Alternative Recommendation
An alternative to the above recommendation is to award separate haulers the residential and
commercial contracts. If the Council desires to exercise this option, staff and the consultants
recommend awarding the residential franchise to Blue Barrel Disposal and the commercial
franchise to Consolidated Disposal Services.
Blue Barrel has offered the lowest residential rates (0.05% lower than Burrtec) and currently has
approximately 85% of the residential franchise. In addition, Blue Barrel agreed to construct a
MRF/Transfer Station if awarded the residential agreement, and may consider negotiating to sell
it to the City at the conclusion of the contract term (price and terms to be determined at the time
of negotiation). Although Bumec offered commercial rates that are lower than Consolidated,
9
Burrtec is unwilling to construct a MRF if only awarded one contract, which will greatly affect
the benefits of their proposal. In addition, if only awarded one contract, the only local disposal
arrangement Burrtec pre -arranged was with Sunshine Canyon which staff does not support as a
viable disposal facility. Consolidated offered a very competitive commercial agreement, and has
the benefit of owning Chiquita Canyon Landfill. In addition, Consolidated offered significant
rate freezes in the commercial agreement that would provide rate stability for the business
community.
Pros to the Recommendation
• The incumbent haulers would maintain their businesses with the City, splitting the
services among the commercial and residential sectors; therefore, easing transition
experiences and spreading operating risk between two companies.
• The City would have two incumbent haulers when the franchise agreements are eligible
for bid.
Cons to the Recommendation
• The City would not have a clear-cut plan (including a guarantee the MRF will be sold to
the City, specified cost and terms) for obtaining a MRF.
• The City would be awarding the franchise to two haulers which in the past could not help
the City meet its diversion goals and stated that the City's rates could not be lower,
especially for enhanced services.
Next Steps
Upon receipt of Council direction on the award for Residential and Commercial waste
management services, staff will immediately commence coordinating with the hauler(s) the roll-
out of the new programs. Staff will meet with the hauler(s) approximately twice a month or as
much as necessary to insure that the programs are on track and that the hauler(s) are meeting
their minimum thresholds in the appropriate amount of time. Staff will also meet with the Solid
Waste Committee on a regular basis to provide updates on the hauler(s) progress and the
implementation of the new programs proposed by the hauler. The new commercial franchise
services will commence on August 1, 2004 and the new residential franchise services will
commence on April 16, 2006.
-htl-aCkM"O_ Kt ,B
Contracts Enhancements to
Current Services Being Provided to the City
The City's new solid waste and recycling programs (as contractually defined in the franchise
agreements) contain significant enhancements to the level of programs and services that the City
currently enjoys, as well as providing for greatly enhanced accountability of the successful
proposer(s). Some of the highlights of the new contracts are as follows:
Residential Franchise
11
Residential
Service
Franchise
Location
Haulers must identify and propose additional recycling technologies and
See 2.9
alternatives to landfilling such as gasification or pyrolisis.
The agreement further clarifies what can be accepted as a bulky item and
Sec 4. 1.11
expands the program to 4 free collections per year (currently residents have
2) and to include electronic waste (e -waste).
The hauler must divert electronic waste (e -waste) from landfills. The haulers
Sec 4.1.14
must take the materials to a properly permitted facility.
Hauler must provide 90 -gallon containers as the standard container size for
Sec 4.2.1
reenwaste and commingled recycling. unlimited containers available
Sec 4.3.1
Hauler must implement a multi -family recycling program; the hauler must
See 4.2.3
provide the collection of rec clables from the locations free of charge.
Hauler shall provide a minimum of four free drop-off recycling sites in the
Sec 4.2.3
City.
Hauler must pay to the City $2.50 per ton of recyclables collected for use by
Sec 4.2.5
the City in awarding grants to non-profit organizations, based on current
recycling rates estimated at $169,195 for the life of theagreement.
Hauler must divert a minimum of 50% of the waste it collects. Failure to
Sec 4.2.6
meet the requirement will result in financial penalties. If the hauler meets
Sec 4.2.7
specific thresholds established by the agreement, they will qualify for a term
extension to the a reement.
Hauler is not permitted to commingle City generated waste collected within
Sec 4.11
the City with waste from other cities or counties.
Hauler must have prior arrangements to guarantee capacity ata landfill for
Sec 4.13
the life of theagreement.
Within six months of the City's request, the hauler must implement a volume
Sec 4.15
based rate pilot program in three neighborhoods with a goal of a minimum of
500 participants each. If the program is successful the City may choose to
implement the program citywide.
The hauler must use a City MRF if the City chooses to build one.
Sec 4.16
The hauler must provide a 15% senior and low-income discounts.
Sec 5.1.3
The hauler must pay an amount equal to 10% of the gross receipts
Sec 3
(franchise fee) and an additional amount starting at approximately $35,000
per year to assist the City with its education and outreach efforts (1/2 of the
funds necessary for the City to obtain a Project Development Coordinator .
Hauler is required to properly maintain records for audits and to cooperate
Sec 8
with the City when the City chooses to conduct an audit.
Hauler must submit monthly, quarterly, and annual reports.
Sec 8
11
Commercial Franchise
12
Commercial
Service
Franchise
Location
The hauler must identify and propose additional recycling technologies and
Sec 2.9
alternatives to landfilling such as gasification or pyrolisis.
Hauler must provide residential sized containers for space constrained
Sec 4.1.3
commercial customers.
The hauler to divert electronic waste (e -waste) from landfills. The haulers
Sec 4.1.8
must take the materials to a properly permitted facility.
The hauler must provide free recycling services to commercial customers.
Sec 4.2.1
Hauler must pay to the City $2.50 per ton of recyclables collected for use by
Sec 4.2.3
the City in awarding grants to non-profit organizations, based on current
recycling rates estimated at $65,545 for the life of theagreement.
Hauler must divert a minimum of 50% of the waste it collects. Failure to
Sec 4.2.4
meet the requirement will result in financial penalties. If the hauler meets
specific thresholds established by the agreement, they will qualify for an
Sec 4.2.5
extension to theagreement.
The hauler is not permitted to commingle City generated waste collected
Sec 4.10
within the City with waste from other cities or counties.
The hauler must have prior arrangements to guarantee capacity at a landfill
Sec 4.12
for the life of theagreement.
The hauler must use a City MRF if the City chooses to build one.
Sec 4.13
The hauler must pay an amount equal to 10% of the gross receipts
Sec 3
(franchise fees) and an additional amount starting at approximately $35,000
per year to assist the City with its commercial audit, education, and outreach
efforts (1/2 of the funds necessary for the City to obtain a Project
Development Coordinator).
Hauler is required to properly maintain records for audits and to cooperate
Sec 8
with the City when the ity chooses to conduct an audit.
Hauler must submit monthly, quarterly, and annual reports.
Sec 8
12
0TTd c m C �
HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
Advisory Services to
Municipal Management
3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone: 949/251-8628
Fax: 949/251-9741
www. hf h -consultants. corn
September 17, 2003
Mr. Travis Lange
Environmental Services Manager
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196
Evaluation of Proposed Solid Waste Agreements
Dear Travis:
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Sacramento
Portland
Robert D. Hilton, CMC
John W. Farnkopf, PE
L. Scott Hobson, CPA
Laith B. Ezzet, CMC
We have completed our review of the solid waste agreements that the City Council will
consider at the study session on September 25, 2003. Our assessment of the proposed
agreements is contained in Attachment 1. A matrix describing key features of each
agreement is provided in Attachment 2.
We look forward to discussing the agreements with the City Council at the study
session. Please call me at 949/251-8902 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Laith Ezzet, CMC
Senior Vice President
m lad 0 paper
C
Attachment 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SOLID WASTE AGREEMENTS
This memorandum summarizes Hilton Farnkopf & Hobsori s assessment of the
three solid waste agreements proposed for the City of Santa Clarita (City) by:
• Blue Barrel Disposal (Blue Barrel);
• Burrtec Waste Industries (Burrtec); and,
• Consolidated Disposal Service (Consolidated).
All three companies are qualified to provide the requested services. Each has
significant experience providing solid waste collection and recycling services.
Blue Barrel and Consolidated both currently provide services in the City.
No Contract Exceptions
The City included its desired franchise agreement in its request for proposals
(RFP) and proposers were asked to identify in their proposals any exceptions to
the City's desired terms that the companies wanted to negotiate. During the
subsequent negotiations, the companies that proposed exceptions agreed to
remove them. As a result, the standard terms and conditions in the agreements
are the same for all three companies. The only differences in the agreements are
the extra items over and above the RFP requirements that each company offered
to the City. These are reflected on pages 3 and 4 of Attachment 2.
Future Rate Adjustments
The City's standard agreement required all of the contractors to offer fixed rates
for the first two years of the agreement, after which the rates would be adjusted
annually based on a standard rate adjustment formula. Over the past nine years,
the rate adjustment formula specified in the agreement increased by an average
of 2.6% per year.
All three companies were offered an opportunity to offer additional rate stability
by waiving the annual rate adjustments in the future. Burrtec agreed to waive
the final two rate adjustments. Consolidated agreed to waive the final
adjustment in the residential contract, and to waive adjustments in the
commercial agreement in the fourth, sixth and final two years. Blue Barrel
declined to waive future adjustments. The waiver of these adjustments is
City of Santa Clarita Page 1 of 6 9/17/03
Attachment 1
specified in the agreements and included in the rate revenue calculations as
shown on page 6 of Attachment 2.
Costs Over Contract Term
The costs to the City's ratepayers of the Burrtec proposal over the contract term
($104 million) and Blue Barrel proposal ($103 million) are similar (within one
percent) as shown on page 1 of Attachment 2. This comparison is based on the
cost to the City's ratepayers, and excludes the $1.3 to $1.8 million benefit to the
City of the MRF debt service paid by the contractor under the Burrtec proposal
as discussed later in this report under "MRF Facility Costs."
The cost of the Consolidated proposal over the contract term ($110 million) is
about 7% higher than the Blue Barrel proposal. Consolidated's residential
proposal is 9% higher than Blue Barrel and Consolidated's commercial proposal
is 5% higher than Blue Barrel.
The above costs are all based on new automated carts being provided to single
family customers. Blue Barrel proposed a reduced cost if it is allowed to use its
existing refuse and green waste carts and only provides new recycling carts to
replace the existing recycling containers. If allowed to use its existing refuse and
green waste carts, Blue Barrel's proposed costs would be reduced by
approximately $5 million over the contract term.
Comparison of Current and Proposed Rate Revenues
Current rates would be reduced under any of the proposals. Compared to
current rate revenues, the Blue Barrel proposal would reduce overall costs by an
average of 18% in the first year, although individual customers could see more or
less than this amount. The Burrtec proposal would reduce overall costs by an
average of 16% in the first year and the Consolidated proposal by an average of
11% in the first year.
Waste Diversion
We understand that the City places a high priority on maximizing its waste
diversion and is committed to exceeding the State's 50% waste diversion goal.
All of the companies are required to divert at least 50% of the waste they collect
and pay performance penalties to the City for failing to achieve the required
diversion. Each company has indemnified the City against penalties that may be
assessed under AB 939 for failure to achieve the State's goals. Each company
must provide a minimum set of defined waste diversion services, including
City of Santa Clarita Page 2 of 6 9/17/03
Attachment 1
residential recycling and green waste collection and providing free commercial
commingled recycling to any customer that requests it.
Among the unique proposal features described on pages 3 and 4 of Attachment
2, the Burrtec proposal appears to offer the most defined commitment toward
maximizing diversion. Burrtec has contractually agreed to perform mixed waste
processing of at least half of the commercial waste stream. Additionally, Burrtec
has committed contractually to develop a material recovery facility (MRF) by the
start of the residential agreement in 2006 and has provided the City with a
definitive option to acquire the facility at the end of the contract term at a price
equivalent to the remaining debt service used to finance the facility.
MRF Facility Costs
The initial cost of the Burrtec MRF is estimated at $6.0 to $8.2 million, and the
unamortized principle balance at the end of the contract term is estimated to be
$4.7 million to $6.4 million. Therefore, the benefit to the City from the debt
service paid by Burrtec during the contract term is $1.3 million to $1.8 million if
the City acquires the MRF.
Under the Burrtec proposal, rates are projected to decrease by an average of 16%
from current rates. If the City wanted to pre -fund the MRF costs in order to have
sufficient funds available to purchase the facility at the end of the agreement, it
could include a MRF surcharge in the collection rates of approximately 5%. A
5% MRF surcharge would generate $5.2 million for a City MRF fund over the
contract term and still result in average rate reduction of 9% compared to current
rates (16% - 5% = 9%).
Reference Checks
We contacted six references in other jurisdictions for each contractor to
determine their satisfaction with the services provided by the companies. We
asked an initial series of questions regarding customer service, waste diversion
programs, and working with City staff, and at the end asked about their overall
performance. All six of the Burrtec references reported that the company
performed above expectations. Four of the six Waste Management references
reported that the company performed above expectations, and two of the six
Consolidated references reported that the company performed above
expectations.
We believe that the reference checks are helpful for evaluating a company such
as Burrtec with which the City has not had prior experience. We would suggest
that the City's own experience with Blue Barrel and Consolidated would provide
City of Santa Clarita Page 3 of 6 9/17/03
Attachment 1
the best reference point for evaluating the performance of those companies, since
the number of local references available for Blue Barrel and Consolidated are
geographically limited. In the case of Blue Barrel, four of the six references were
from cities served by other Waste Management divisions in Los Angeles County
outside the Waste Management of Antelope Valley service area, and in the case
of Consolidated, five of the six references were for other divisions outside of the
Chatsworth division service area.
Contracting Options
The City has the option of awarding both the residential and commercial
agreements to one contractor, or awarding them to two different contractors.
There are different advantages to these two strategic alternatives:
If the City awards both agreements to one contractor, it reduces the City's
administrative burden and allows the City to coordinate and monitor the
performance of a single contractor. In some instances, awarding to a single
contractor also allows the City to gain benefits that would not be available to
it if the agreements are awarded to multiple companies. For example, Burrtec
will only construct a MRF and provide the City a defined option to acquire it
at the end of the contract term if it is awarded both agreements. As another
example, Consolidated offered a 1.25% discount to its proposed rates if
awarded both agreements.
If the City awards the residential and commercial agreements to different
contractors, there are two main benefits. First, it spreads the operating risk
among two different companies. Second, it ensures that at least two
companies are operating in the City and may better position the City for a
competitive procurement when the agreements expire in 2013.
Contractor Selection
Since each of the companies is qualified and each agreed to the City's standard
terms and conditions, and because the costs of the proposals are close, we believe
the focus of the contractor selection should be on which company(ies) the City
desires as a partner in meeting its long term solid waste management and
recycling goals, and which proposal(s) best position the City to meet or exceed
these goals.
Awarding Both Contracts to One Proposer
If the City desires to award both the residential and commercial agreements to a
single contactor, then the Burrtec and Blue Barrel proposals merit consideration
City of Santa Clarita Page 4 of 6 9/17/03
Attachment 1
as they are the most cost effective. Because of the City's commitment to
maximizing waste diversion, the Burrtec proposal appears to offer the best long-
term value to the City because the company is contractually committed to
developing a MRF and, perhaps most importantly, offering a defined option for
the City to acquire it at the end of the contract term. If Burrtec is unable to
develop the MRF, then it would be in default and the City could terminate the
contract. The MRF would include both processing and transfer of solid waste
and would require a solid waste facilities permit.
The Blue Barrel proposal commits the company to use "all commercially
reasonable efforts" to build a MRF, but failure to develop the MRF would not
constitute default. Further, Blue Barrel would not agree in negotiations to
provide the City with a definitive option to acquire the facility; Section 4.3.6(B) of
the Blue Barrel residential agreement says only that the City is entitled to
negotiate for the facility.
Awarding Separate Contracts
If the City desires to award separate residential and commercial agreements for
the reasons previously discussed, then awarding the residential contract to Blue
Barrel and the commercial contract to Consolidated would merit consideration.
Since Burrtec would not construct the MRF unless it is awarded both contracts,
its proposal loses much of its added benefit and is less favorable under the
separate contracts scenario.
Awarding the residential agreement to Blue Barrel and the commercial contract
to Consolidated would allow both of the existing service providers to continue
serving the community, spread operating risk between two companies and
reduce the number of transition issues because the companies are already
operating locally.
Short -Term Considerations Regarding Processing and Disposal Arrangements
Services under the commercial agreement commence on August 1, 2004. Burrtec
is not required and it will not be able to construct its MRF prior to the
commencement date of the commercial agreement, and Burrtec will need to
make short-term arrangements with other facilities for the processing and
disposal of its waste prior to developing the MRF. (Burrtec and Blue Barrel
would both need to secure short-term processing arrangements, and
Consolidated would need to secure long-term processing arrangements as it has
not proposed to construct a MRF).
City of Santa Clarita Page 5 of 6 9/17/03
Attachment 1
Waste at the Orange County landfills must be delivered in transfer vehicles.
Therefore, Burrtec would need to contract with an existing transfer station
operator such as Crown to deliver waste to Orange County until its own MRF is
constructed, or utilize the Chiquita Canyon landfill. Consolidated has offered in
its correspondence to the City to offer the City long-term disposal capacity at
Chiquita if it is not the successful proposer. We would expect Burrtec to
negotiate with Crown and Chiquita to secure arrangements.
If Burrtec is awarded the agreement, we recommend that the company be
provided 45 days to secure written contracts evidencing that sufficient
arrangements have been made to handle the City's waste stream prior to the City
executing the contracts. If Chiquita Canyon is designated as the disposal site, the
City would have to approve its use as it is not an authorized site in the Burrtec
agreement and the City should expect to receive further rate reduction associated
with reduced transportation costs.
City of Santa Clarita Page 6 of 6 9/17/03
ki
;a
v •o
m
� �'
O
0
v
V
0
0
lfj
0
�o
L
N
O
-It
G
'S\
+
F.I
O�
0000
co
�
\
\
\
W cM
•uj
iii
U
iri
it
o
z
z
z
o
w o
N
m
O
'Ri
°
•ce
a
3
3
G
v
7�
cmz
z
7
O
o
v v
0
CD
>ra
CD
rn
3
O
O
O
o
o
O
N
. G
w
00
00
C)
O
O
O
~
~
�m
t
��
m
�
O
v
a
h
O
O
A
Co
o
0
0
0
0
0
>°
.r
m
�
3
❑
f.S
o
c
o
z
u
o
w
0
0
0
0
CD
It
o
m
m
d
x
O
O
O
c
O
d'
O
O
m
0
0
0
0
O
fp�
o
z
A
m
o
0
0
o
C:)
a
P]
�»
»
E»
n
2
0
o
m
`s
fA
w
w
O
rt
V
,
cz
y
°
�
�3
v
U
°
3
�
3
U
o
°
d
75
Q)
W
O
Ci
�y
V
�
Y
O
x
.�•I
i.1
�
v
1--1
mual
6�!
V
' V
w0
i
'�
tC
�"�
�"
"
�+
tvd
N
-
3V
o
o
V
°=u
c7
M
5
V
m
a,
v
o
p
o°
o
0
0
v
G
o
o
0
o
ll
v
�F-494
V
nQV
F
wdF
VE0-�V>m
uo
I
pm
ki
;a
N
o
y
Nid
•n
�. �_
w
H
p
G
v
cC
v R
FSI
(
V
U
G
w
o
m
coa
v °
v
czs
ri)
um)
zz
¢U
z
z
z
ti Q
y
tz
v o
00
U.
G
v
to
U
GCD
No
a
to
o
G
vcz
o
o
v
cs3
p
o m
v>
o
m CZ
m
o
a
U
¢
r
o0
75 ca
v
P
CD
O
bA
m
o
v
O
A
G
G
v
�
opM��s
c
z:3
��
t°
>,'>
� �
�
o
O °�
�
�
cc
�
3
3
c
����v�
¢��mmzzz
O
v
po
to
O.
CIS
U
G
tz -C
CA
v
o
v�
v
al
o°
E
�o
v cz
G°
0
O
>
Ln
to
s
0
G a;
tC
a,
"
o
ao
i
v
O
o
o
0
�-
cz
v
'�
m
G v
o •d
v
i
:'-'
CL
o
co
V
m��
�o
4411
ca
G
v
O
.v
w
cz
V
y
�
O
O
b
u
VC
to
U
v
O
U
c
f
"
t
N
M
i
ti
V
a
>,
cc
3 m '—
°0
3
�` .,
w.C)
cn
o
m
>
�
v
'O
c
o
:� v
O F
G
¢,
rl
°
3
n,E
"
bzU
f.F�
bO
O
.
.
.
p
�.,
Co
'i+ o
v
c Lo
3
0
o
a
° vii w
r'Jr
r,
p
>
to
O
Gv1`n
bQ X
w +: o
>
pV
x+
pm
O
N
�aJ
O>
v
3
3
a)
O
v
Nm s0.
°v
�
cn u.
a
O
.
.
.
p
O
.L
a.+
v
fq
O
v
_
d
O
cC
'�
w
O �..
•a. �+
'�
v
P.
ct
O
t
•�;
CL)+�+
aJ
V
75
C.
.p
O
'�
a1
=
Op
FG
o
tom.
N
aJ
Q)>
p
o
d
m
o
(ta)
p v v
cz(z
3
3
v
x
;a
6
E
y
v
u v
o
v
v
a
v
p
o
+^
m
o O
v
o
o
ps�cz.,
o
p
Ocz.
sip
cz
3
u
�
0
CL)
w°
cz
ai
Z1
x
U)
p
a
N
y
U
U
p
M
N
F
z
�
w
.w
¢'
O
E
m
0
w
'd
° U
m
3
�
�
0
o Q.
C7
�cs U
0
v
o
°
V
a)
r tC
s
Cajbb
od
a)
i
a
°
tG
M
o
u °
v A
a)
-0 CD
o
M
p �
, aG
x
G G
N
°
'
p
bo.�
20
nS
a
UD
b0 > tl
_y
A
i'"
o
v
O v
'�
Ov
?,
' s�'+
0
O
�
°
�
yy
v
2i
,
'r+
tc o
v
it
O°
V
N
0 G O
a
v
y0
Cn
sv.
nom.
+ u
amu°'
3v3��x��
it
o
°
v
.3
0
aj
3
CZ
to u
19
CO
� ski
w
of
U'u�'
� TS
°
m
0.w°
cz
o
°
°
°
w°
.��.
v
m
0
0
i
Pa
P
w
o
7
a
°o
c
�.'
c%n
w
0
R
m
0
N
O
aj
Q
2j
m
iL
�
N
�
O
Q
N
v
N
O
°
�o
m
m
o
0
0
0
0
M
dO
r
O
N
O
y,
m
°
Ln
�Q
'C$
i
W
'cM
N
O
d
\
O
p]
a
O
Y
v
Q)
co
d
v
Y
p
m
m
Cn
'v
> G
[•-.1
3-i v
r..
Yr.
O
v�
p
id
tC
'—'
v
v
v
U
Ucc
v
mw
Y
u
X
w
a
v v
y
a
v�°
d°>71
v
X
w
3
40
Cd
U 0
Fr
3k
�k
Yk
m
sa
hie
S
N
O
�
N
�
W
C
W
W
ti
ti��
Q
d
Q
�zzzz
n
�coarnrnoO
Yf
c+i��
.N.
e'v'v'�ri
ti
ti
o0
ammni
�
b
o
0
0
0
rn
rn
v A
� d
Y
R �
v
.O
a
Y3
m
<A
FA
EA
H3
Y3
FA
Vi
t»
C
N
O
N
O
N
O
ti
z
0
EA
U a
EA
N3
EA
K
O
O
b
U
U
w
h
.
z
0
(V
O
N
O
N
O
O
0
°3
F»vr
c
v3
F»
c»
<»F»
0
0°
m
v�
q
C
R
d
K
N
N
N
O
"3
N
x
w
y
�
h
O'J
O�
O
O
c4
a
M
b
N
�
C4
Fa
E»
en
ea
v>
F»
F»
F»
yUi
4i
N3
EA
Efi
V O
Ui
EA
Vi
f!j
a y
Q
o
0
0
0
0
0
Q
o
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
zo��Noo
z
0
lV
N
N
N
N
O
O
0
Vf
fA
di
Y3
H3
Y3
N3
K
n
n
uM'i
�p
NO
M
M
b
n
w
N
m
mi
n
o
c?
u;
o0
ft
06v
M
_+ b
�j
EA
EA
EA
EA
fA
EA
£A
fA
Y
m
Vi
fJ3
R b
¢
o
0
0
0
0
0
a
7
0] y
W .C,
A
o°
V3
V3
Y3
Y3
U3
EA
N3
A
�
O
O
i
to
u
O
M
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
N
0
O
0OS
hie
S
N
O
�
N
�
W
C
W
W
ti
ti��
Q
d
Q
�zzzz
n
�coarnrnoO
Yf
c+i��
.N.
e'v'v'�ri
ti
ti
o0
ammni
�
N
D
N
rn
rn
rn
M
� d
Y
R �
v
.O
Y3
V3
<A
FA
EA
H3
Y3
FA
Vi
t»
C
N
O
N
O
N
O
ti
z
0
EA
U a
EA
N3
EA
O
b
U
w
h
.
z
0
(V
O
N
O
N
O
O
0
°3
c
0
0°
m
v�
q
R
K
N
N
N
O
"3
N
x
w
y
�
h
O'J
O�
O
O
c4
a
M
b
R
a N,
yUi
4i
N3
EA
Efi
Vj
Ui
EA
Vi
f!j
b
A
w
Q
o
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
z
0
lV
N
N
N
N
O
O
0
n
w
N
ft
M
_+ b
adi N
m
Vi
fJ3
V3
U3
Vi
En
V3
U3
V3
Efl
a
7
0] y
A
o°
A
�
O
i
to
u
O
M
°�
O
O
0
O
0OS
0
ti
O
N
N
N
O
O
U
hie
S
N
O
�
N
�
W
°
Q
Q
d
Q
�zzzz
Yf
fA
N
O
N
N
D
N
rn
rn
rn
rn
N
O
N
O
N
O
ti
z
0
EA
EA
EA
N3
EA
O
U
w
h
.
oV
G�^o
°3
c
0
0°
m
v�
q
R
g3
"3
N
x
w
y
�
h
a
hie
S
Aifack me K�- 'J�
Itinerary for RFP Tour
Thursday, August 28, 2003 through Friday, August 29, 2003
PLEASE NOTE: City Staff requests those planning to attend the tour at any of the
locations listed below to contact City Staff prior to Thursday, August 28, 2003, so
the necessary arrangements can be made.
Thursday, August 28, 2003
8:00 a.m. Depart from City Hall
8:30 a.m. Chiquita Canyon Landfill Tour (Consolidated)
29201 Henry May Drive, Valencia, CA 91355
10:30 a.m. Quality Paper Tour (Consolidated)
20833 Santa Clara Street, Canyon Country, CA 91351
11:30 a.m. Lunch
2:00 p.m. Antelope Valley Landfill Tour (Blue Barrel)
1200 West City Ranch Road, Palmdale, CA 93550
3:00 p.m. Leave Landfill
4:00 p.m. Arrive at City Hall
Friday, August 29, 2003
8:00 a.m. Depart from City Hall
10:00 a.m. Tour of MRF at Orange (Blue Barrel)
2050 North Glassell, Orange, CA 92865
11:30 a.m. Tour of Brea Olinda Landfill (Burrtec)
1942 Valencia Avenue, Brea, CA
12:00 p.m. Lunch
2:00 p.m. Tour of West Valley MRF in Fontana (Butrtec)
13373 Napa Street, Fontana, CA 92335
3:30 p.m. Leave MRF
5:00 p.m. Arrive at City Hall
TLL:BAL
S:fieldsvcs/envsrvs/solwast2/franchis/rfp/itinerary for RFP Tour.doc
September 3, 2004
Received
Blue Barrel Disposal SEP 0 3 ?003
A Waste Management Company Jiii=:ssalman
Assistant ±o the City Manccer
Council Member Marsha McLean
Council Member Laurene Weste
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd
Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Council Members McLean and Weste,
Thank you for visiting the Waste Management Orange Materials
Recovery Facility and Transfer Station last Friday. I hope that you
didn't encounter traffic problems on your trip back to Santa Clarita due
to the holiday weekend. We all appreciate the fact that you took the
time to visit our Orange facility first hand.
I wanted to reiterate and clarify several things that we discussed and
several questions you raised during your visit.
The reason we asked you to visit the Orange facility is because it
handles approximately the same capacity as the proposed MRF in the
City of Santa Clarita. It is also the approximate size of the facility that
Blue Barrel Disposal would build as a stand-alone facility. The site
could be larger if the appropriate parcel could also accommodate our
truck parking and maintenance and a liquid natural gas fueling facility.
You asked excellent questions about diversion and the quantity of
diversion at the Orange facility. The Santa Clarita MRF will be
designed to handle the following waste streams:
Waste Stream
Commingled residential single stream
Residential green waste
Residential Solid Waste
Diversion %
95%
95%
Transferred to Landfill
25772 Springbrook Road. Saugus. California. 91350 • ( 661)259-2398. (661 259-4253 Fax
Commercial Solid Waste
Dry commercial waste loads
Clean Inert concrete and asphalt
Wood wastes
Mixed construction and demolition
-2— September 3, 2003
Transferred to Landfill
30-50%
100%
100%
50-100%
In addition to the processing that will be done at the MRF, an ongoing
waste audit program will identify businesses that are recycling but are
not reporting that information to Blue Barrel or to the City. Here are
some examples of these customers:
• The Daily News recycles all of their over issue newsprint
• Bayless Engineers recycles approximately 50,000 pounds per
month of scrap metal
• Supermarkets return all of their corrugated cardboard to their
distribution centers where it is baled and recycled
Although the Orange transfer station is approximately the size of the
proposed Santa Clarita MRF, the Santa Clarita MRF will employ larger
and more advanced recycling processing equipment to achieve our
solid waste diversion goals. The equipment we intend to install in
Santa Clarita includes:
• Conveyors to move material throughout the facility
• Sorting disk and trommel screens to separate material by size, type and
shape
• Magnetic and eddy current sorting machines to separate ferrous and non-
ferrous metals
• Glass and finishing screens to sort small particles that are too small to
recover by hand sorting
-3—
September 3, 2003
• Scales and reporting software to enable proper tracking of incoming and
recycled waste streams
• Balers, bunkers and compactors to prepare material for shipment to
recycling markets
Be assured that the Santa Clarita MRF will be built to include all of the
state-of-the-art equipment needed to divert as much waste from the
landfills as possible.
Before closing, I would like to extend an invitation to you, your fellow
Council Members and staff members to visit our Lodi MRF. This facility
is located approximately 20 minutes outside of Sacramento, where the
League of Cities will be meeting next week. Please contact me directly
to make tour arrangements. I can be reached at (661) 259-0592.
Thank you again for taking time to visit our facility in Orange County
and to learn more about material processing. As we continue to work
through the RFP process together, please feel free to call me at your
convenience with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Chris Fall
District Manager
cc: Mayor, Cameron Smyth
Mayor Pro Tem, Bob Kellar
Council Member, Frank Ferry
Assistant to the City Manager, Jill Fosselman
Director of Field Services, Chris Daste
Environmental Service Coordinator, Travis Lana
09/17/2003 17:19 9492519741
Sep -17-03 i0:43am From-
RURRTEC
WASTE INMSTMESo MM
September 17, 2003
Mr. Laith Emet
Hilton, Famkopf do Hobson, LLC
3990 Westerly P4 Ste 195
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Rc: City of Santa Clanta
DearLaith:
HFH PAGE 16/17
1-100 P 001/002 F-406
via facsimile (949) 351-9741
Af[&Cv�me f -I--
This letter addresses the City of Strata Clwita's concerns regarding interim disposal under the
proposed collection contracts.
As we understand, the issue of concern is chat if we are awarded the residential rind commercial
solid waste services conancc, we are then obligated to build the Santa Clanm Recycling and Reuse
racility. Under this scenario it caning gap crusts between the August, 2004 commercial services
concoct start and the opening of the recycling facility. In order to bridge this gap, we present the
following contingency plan:
1. The Allan Company facility locaaaf in Sun Valley is available to process rhe
conuaercial reeyelnbles.
2. Disposal of solid waste could still 6o to the Orange County Landfill at Olinda/Alpha.
To access this site we would utilize an crusting trensfer station in the San Fernando
Valley. Our initial selection is Crown DisposaL however, if we are not successful
with this facility, we will move to anotber for negotiations,
The Chiquits Canyon landfill cotdd be utilized. Since the solid waste is currently
going to this facility for disposal continuing access is possible. A nwsonable tipping
fee will need to be negotiated for the interim use of this facility. Bnscee will cemrioue
to try this option for long-term disposal since we believe this is a better solution than
the longer, haul to Orange County. However, capacity and pricing aaangements widr
Republic still need to be [Wade.
Tbc City can be assured thar Burnet Waste Industries will work out a solution to this and any
odux concerns without an increase in care or decrease in service to the reaidunts or cormnercial
customers,
9890 Cherry Avenue • Fontene, Calitornle 92335 r 909-429-4k00 • FAX 909.429-4290
09/17/2003 17:19 9492519741
Sep -17-03 I0:U m Pr
Mr. Laith Eixet
September 17, 2003
Page 2
HFH
PAGE 17/17
T-200 0.002/002 F-005
If awarded both conaacm we will bring forwud a finalized plan with signed agreements as
necessary within 30 days to demonstrate our solution.
We are available to discuss this issue in more dc* m any other elmment of our
connects/proposal, with you or the City.
B=tec Waste Industries loops forwatds to the City of Sana Clatim's final selection.
Sincerely,
6��4'�
Eric D. Hetbert
Vice President