The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-02-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE RFP (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT UNFINISHED BUSINESS City Manager Approv 1: Item to be presented by: Jill Fosselm DATE: February 25, 2003 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS DEPARTMENT: Field Services RECOMMENDED ACTION Council review and approve all recommended changes to the Request for Proposal (RFP) and Franchise Agreements and authorize staff to finalize the documents for release to potential bidders. Council appropriate $50,000 from the Council Contingency Fund, Account No. 2250.7401, to the Environmental Services Professional Services Account, Account No. 3811-8110 for additional funds needed for technical and legal consulting assistance with the preparation of the Commercial and Residential Solid Waste Franchise Request for Proposals and franchise agreements. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Council's direction at the October 1, 2002 Study Session, staff and the City's consultants crafted a Draft RFP and Commercial and Residential Franchise Agreements that were released for public review and comment on December 30, 2002. After the closing of the public review and comment period, staff and the consultants evaluated the responses and prepared a revised redline version of the RFP and Franchise Agreements for Council review and approval, which reflects public comments received through February 7, 2003 (over a week after the deadline). Any additional comments received between this date and the Council meeting will be presented during the staff presentation. Key Items in the Draft Agreement City Council direction that was provided during previous Study Sessions and incorporated into the Draft RFP and Franchise Agreements prior to releasing the documents to the public include: • Fully automating the collection program (RFP Pg. 2) • Increasing the greenwaste and commingled recycling container sizes to 90 -gallons (Residential Franchise Sec. 4.2.1, Pg. 29 and Sec. 4.3.1, Pg. 33) • A 15 percent senior citizen and low-income household discount (Residential Franchise Sec. 5.1.3, Pg. 55) • Increased bulky item collections (Residential Franchise Sec. 4.1.10, Pg. 27) Agenda Item :A. 'I Continued To: b,S • City -exclusive collection routes (Commercial Franchise Sec. 4. 10, Pg. 40; Residential Franchise Sec, 4.11, Pg. 49) • Enhancing auditing provisions and requirements (Commercial Franchise Sec. 8, Pg. 58; Residential Franchise Sec. 8, Pg. 69) • Requirements for providing reports and data to the City (Commercial Franchise Sec. 8, Pg. 58; Residential Franchise Sec. 8, Pg. 69) • Non-profit grant funding from diversion revenue (Commercial Franchise Sec. 4.2.3, Pg. 28; Residential Franchise Sec. 4.2.5, Pg. 31) • Provisions for alternatives to landfilling and new solid waste technologies (RFP Pg. 22, 24) • Landfill disposal and priority capacity (Commercial Franchise Sec. 4.12, Pg. 42; Residential Franchise Sec. 4.13, Pg. 50) • Manure collection for horse owners (Residential Franchise Sec. 4.4, Pg, 34). Public Outreach Conducted The City implemented a broad strategy to insure that many people had an opportunity to comment on the RFP, which included: • A press release announcing the availability of the draft agreements. • Posting of the documents on the City website. • Advertisements on cable channels 6 and 20. • Five advertisements placed on four different dates in two newspapers. • E-mails to community workshop participants. • Placed advertisement/flyers at City Council and Planning Commission meetings and at other public counters. • E-mails to the Chamber of Commerce membership. • Presentation to Chamber of Commerce representatives. • Preparation of an executive summary for easier review of the proposed programs. Public Comment During the comment period, and including a few days following the deadline, the City received 22 written comments on the agreements and the RFP. According to the City's consultant, Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson (HF&H), cities usually receive two or three comments from residents, and a few comments from haulers. Therefore, the City received far more comments than usual. The following is a summary of the reviewers who submitted written comments to the City: Number of R I. Members of Public 9 2. Haulers 3. Ctty (nnfro t 4 8 — Total 22 1 Allan Cameron, Mary Lindsay, Jeff Lui, Michael A. Naoum III, Cam Noltemeyer, Mike Shaffir, John Steffen, Richard Varenchik, Robert Oberg 2. BFI, Blue Barrel, Consolidated Disposal Services, Crown Disposal 3. William Anderson (Curbside, Inc.) 4. Cheryl Adams, Troy Brown, Renee Callaway, Toi Chisom, Jan Downey, Patrick Downing, Vicki Johnson, Roland Leclair This if- n on was summarized and reviewed with the Solid Waste Sub -Committee on January 30, 2003, and was provided to the Council on February 5 2003. Based on the written comments received from the community and the review of these comments with Council Sub -Committee, a revised redlined version of the RFP and Franchise Agreements has been prepared for Council review and approval. Key Public Comment Incorporated Over 90 recommended changes through public comments were implemented in the redlined documents. The changes include: • Eliminating the recyclables revenue rebate on materials brought to a City -owned MRF, if it is developed (Commercial Franchise Sec. 4.2.3, Pg. 28; Residential Franchise Sec. 4.2.5, Pg. 31) • Creating a set discount of $2.00 per month for customers who request no greenwaste services (Residential Agreement - Sec. 4.3.2, Pg. 34 and Sec. 5.1.3, Pg. 55) • Creating a set discount of 8 percent for bulk billing customers (Residential Agreement - Sec. 5.1.3, Pg. 55) • Creating a set discount of 25 percent for mobile home park residents (Residential Agreement - Sec. 5.1.3, Pg. 55) • Eliminating a penalty for the haulers for not achieving 50 percent diversion if the City directs tonnage to a City -owned MRF that does not offer recycling services comparable to the services provided by the previously used MRF (Commercial Agreement -Sec. 4.2.4, Pg. 28; Residential Agreement -Sec. 4.2.6, Pg. 31). Proposed Timeline Upon approval of the redlined changes, staff will finalize the document and release the document to potential bidders. The bidders will have approximately two months to review the RFP and Franchise Agreements and submit a bid for either the commercial, residential, or both franchise agreements. Upon the close of the bid period, staff and the consultants will review the proposals with the Solid Waste Sub -Committee and will present recommendations to the Council. Staff anticipates that the timeline for the remainder of the program will be as follows: Date February 25, 2003 March 3, 2002 March 18, 2003 March 25, 2003 March 28, 2003 May 5, 2003 June 2003 July 2003 September/October August 1, 2004 April 15, 2006 Council approves final RFP/changes Request for Proposals available, communications code of Pre -Proposal Conference at 11:30 a.m. Collection area tour at 8:30 a.m. Last day for bidders to submit written questions due to the City by 1:00 p.m. Council Subcommittee to review Presentation of best propos® Award by City Council Start of commercial services Start of residential services at regular council meeting Budget The Council originally budgeted $200,000 for technical and legal consulting assistance with the preparation of the Commercial and Residential Solid Waste Franchise RFP and Franchise Agreements. Since staff has actively pursued high quality documents that will insure the best possible rates and services for City residents, the total estimated cost for the preparation of the documents has increased in comparison to previous estimations by approximately $50,000. The estimated additional costs included additional projects that were not previously included in the agreements between the City and the consultants, including the MRF feasibility study performed by HF&H and new revised solid waste ordinances that will be prepared by Patrick Mufioz of Rutan and Tucker. In addition, rather than conduct one or two public workshops to discuss the RFP, the City conducted five separate workshops, each concentrating on specific sectors of the community affected by trash services. In most cases, a city will receive 2 or 3 comments from residents and a few comments from local haulers, for this RFP, the City received 22 comments resulting in over 90 changes to the documents. Staff estimates that the total cost for preparing and finalizing the Commercial and Residential Solid Waste Franchise RFP and Franchise Agreements will now cost an additional $50,000. The total amount of $250,000 needed for the preparation of the Commercial and Residential Solid Waste Franchise RFP and Franchise Agreements will be reimbursed to the City by the hauler who is awarded the Residential Franchise Agreement ($125,000) and the hauler who is awarded the Commercial Franchise Agreement ($125,000). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the Council. FISCAL IMPACT The additional anticipated cost for preparing the Solid Waste Franchise RFP is $50,000. The proposed budget increase is to be transferred from the City Council Contingency Account No. 2250-7401 to Account No. 3811-8110. Pending upon the approval of the transfer of funds, the remaining balance of the City Council Contingency Fund would be $1,415,421. It is anticipated that all RFP related expenditures will be reimbursed to the City's General Fund upon execution of the contract, during the 2003-2004 fiscal year. ATTACHMENTS • Redlined version of Request for Proposals for Residential and Commercial Waste Management Services • Redlined version of Residential Solid Waste Management Franchise Agreement • Redlined version of Commercial Solid Waste Management Franchise Agreement • Summary of Public Comments CD:JAF:JES:BAL:sas /admin/ccitems/2003/review and approval of RFP