HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_2014-04-08 Agenda PacketCITY OF A TA SCA DERO
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
(Enter on Lewis Ave.)
City Council Closed Session: 5:00 P.M.
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M.
1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT
2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION
KKOW9b9 4111 x+11 Eel Ll mey_wm 11exel 7 Q=1 N
a. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Govt. Code Sec. 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: Rachelle Rickard, City Manager
Employee Organizations: Atascadero Firefighters Bargaining Unit;
Atascadero Police Association; Service Employees International
Union, Local 620; Mid-Management/Professional Employees; Non -
Represented Professional and Management Workers and Confidential
Employees
4. CLOSED SESSION -- ADJOURNMENT
5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS
6. CLOSED SESSION — REPORT
REGULAR SESSION — CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Kelley
ROLL CALL: Mayor O'Malley
Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant
Council Member Fonzi
Council Member Kelley
Council Member Moreno
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Roll Call
PRESENTATIONS:
1. Proclamation declaring April 2014, as "Sexual Assault Awareness
Month"
2. Proclamation declaring May 2014 as "Bike Month"; May 16, 2014 as
"Bike to Work Day"; and May 8, 2014 as "Bike to School Day"
3. Proclamation declaring May 10, 2014 as "Letter Carrier's Food Drive
Day„
A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (All items on the consent calendar are considered to
be routine and non -controversial by City staff and will be approved by one motion
if no member of the Council or public wishes to comment or ask questions. If
comment or discussion is desired by anyone, the item will be removed from the
consent calendar and will be considered in the listed sequence with an
opportunity for any member of the public to address the Council concerning the
item before action is taken. DRAFT MINUTES: Council meeting draft minutes
are listed on the Consent Calendar for approval of the minutes. Should anyone
wish to request an amendment to draft minutes, the item will be removed from
the Consent Calendar and their suggestion will be considered by the City
Council. If anyone desires to express their opinion concerning issues included in
draft minutes, they should share their opinion during the Community Forum
portion of the meeting.)
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes — March 25, 2014
■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes
of March 25, 2014. [City Clerk]
2. Contract Plan Checking Services - M Bertaccini & Associates
■ Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact of the contract public works plan check
services is estimated to be $40,000 of General Funds.
■ Recommendation: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a
contract with M Bertaccini & Associates for ongoing public works contract
plan checking services. [Public Works]
3. Impact Fees for New Library
■ Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact will be a $10,000 expenditure of Library
Impact Fee funds.
■ Recommendation: Council authorize the Director of Administrative
Services to appropriate $10,000 of Library Facility Impact Fees to be
remitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library for equipment and
furnishings for the new Atascadero Library Facility. [Administrative
Services]
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER: (The City Manager will give an oral report on
any current issues of concern to the City Council.)
COMMUNITY FORUM: (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to
address the Council on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Council has
jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the
record before making your presentation. Comments made during Community Forum
will not be a subject of discussion. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for
Community Forum, unless changed by the Council. Any members of the public who
have questions or need information, may contact the City Clerk's Office, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at 470-3400, or mtorgerson atascadero.org.)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. Solid Waste and Recycling Agreements Forum
■ Fiscal Impact: New agreements, even with the potential additional
services, could result in no increase or minimal increase in monthly
garbage rates to City residents and businesses.
■ Recommendation: Council provide staff direction to renegotiate
agreements with the existing service providers for solid waste collection
and recycling. [Public Works]
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS: (On their own initiative, Council
Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities.
Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take
action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may
take action on items listed on the Agenda.)
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary):
Mayor O'Malley
1. City / Schools Committee
2. County Mayors Round Table
3. Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)
4. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
5. SLO Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant
1. City / Schools Committee
2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee
3. League of California Cities — Council Liaison
Council Member Fonzi
1. Air Pollution Control District
2. Oversight Board for Successor Agency to the Community Redevelopment
Agency of Atascadero
3. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
Council Member Kelley
1. Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Committee
2. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
3. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC)
4. Homeless Services Oversight Council
Council Member Moreno
1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) Board
2. City of Atascadero Finance Committee (Chair)
3. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION:
1.
City Council
2.
City Clerk
3.
City Treasurer
4.
City Attorney
5.
City Manager
F. ADJOURNMENT
Please note: Should anyone challenge any proposed development entitlement listed on this Agenda in court, that
person may be limited to raising those issues addressed at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to this public hearing. Correspondence submitted at this
public hearing will be distributed to the Council and available for review in the City Clerk's office.
I, Lori Mlynczak, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Atascadero, declare under the penalty of perjury that
the foregoing agenda for the April 8, 2014 Regular Session of the Atascadero City Council was posted
on April 2, 2014, at the Atascadero City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 and was
available for public review in the Customer Service Center at that location.
Signed this 2nd day of April, 2014, at Atascadero, California.
Lori Mlynczak, Deputy City Clerk
City of Atascadero
City of Atascadero
WELCOME TO THE A TA SCA DERO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The City Council meets in regular session on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Council
meetings will be held at the City Hall Council Chambers, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero. Matters are considered by the
Council in the order of the printed Agenda. Regular Council meetings are televised live, audio recorded and videotaped
for future playback. Charter Communication customers may view the meetings on Charter Cable Channel 20 or via the
City's website at www.atascadero.org. Meetings are also broadcast on radio station KPRL AM 1230. Contact the City
Clerk for more information (470-3400).
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on file
in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during City Hall business hours at the Front Counter of
City Hall, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, and on our website, www.atascadero.org. Contracts, Resolutions and
Ordinances will be allocated a number once they are approved by the City Council. The minutes of this meeting will
reflect these numbers. All documents submitted by the public during Council meetings that are either read into the record
or referred to in their statement will be noted in the minutes and available for review in the City Clerk's office.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting
or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office or the City Clerk's Office, both at (805)
470-3400. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in
assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Under Agenda item, "COMMUNITY FORUM", the Mayor will call for anyone from the audience having business with the
Council to approach the lectern and be recognized.
1. Give your name for the record (not required)
2. State the nature of your business.
3. All comments are limited to 3 minutes.
4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council.
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other
individual, absent or present
This is the time items not on the Agenda may be brought to the Council's attention. A maximum of 30 minutes will be
allowed for Community Forum (unless changed by the Council). If you wish to use a computer presentation to support
your comments, you must notify the City Clerk's office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Digital presentations must
be brought to the meeting on a USB drive or CD. You are required to submit to the City Clerk a printed copy of your
presentation for the record. Please check in with the City Clerk before the meeting begins to announce your presence
and turn in the printed copy.
TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS (from Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Atascadero Municipal Code)
Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. The Mayor will identify the subject, staff will give their
report, and the Council will ask questions of staff. The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is open and
will request anyone interested to address the Council regarding the matter being considered to step up to the lectern. If
you wish to speak for, against or comment in any way:
1. You must approach the lectern and be recognized by the Mayor
2. Give your name (not required)
3. Make your statement
4. All comments should be made to the Mayor and Council
5. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or negative personal remarks concerning any other
individual, absent or present
6. All comments limited to 3 minutes
The Mayor will announce when the public comment period is closed, and thereafter, no further public comments will be
heard by the Council.
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 04-08-14
CITY OF A TA SCA DERO
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
City Hall Council Chambers, 4th floor
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, California
(Enter on Lewis Ave.)
City Council Closed Session: 5:00 P.M.
City Council Regular Session: 6:00 P.M.
INIII WK9161111►[a1>10401.4411&1x*14Is] IN, MEW1I1lall LTi I
Mayor O'Malley announced at 5:02 p.m. that the Council is going into Closed Session.
1. CLOSED SESSION -- PUBLIC COMMENT - None
2. COUNCIL LEAVES CHAMBERS TO BEGIN CLOSED SESSION
3. CLOSED SESSION -- CALL TO ORDER
a. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Government Code Section 54957 (b)(1)
Title: CITY ATTORNEY
Atascadero City Council
March 25, 2014
Page I of 6
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 04-08-14
4. CLOSED SESSION -- ADJOURNMENT
5. COUNCIL RETURNS TO CHAMBERS
6. CLOSED SESSION — REPORT
City Attorney Pierik announced that there was no reportable action taken.
REGULAR SESSION — CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
Mayor O'Malley called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and Council Member Fonzi led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Council Members Kelley, Moreno, Fonzi, Mayor Pro Tem
Sturtevant, and Mayor O'Malley
�=
Others Present: City Clerk / Assistant to City Manager Marcia McClure Torgerson
Staff Present: Acting City Manager/Community Development Director Warren
Frace, Administrative Services Director Jeri Rangel, Public Works
Director Russ Thompson, Police Commander Joe Allen, Fire Chief
Kurt Stone, and City Attorney Brian Pierik.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION: By Mayor Pro Tem Sturtevant and seconded by Council
Member Moreno to approve the agenda.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote.
PRESENTATIONS:
1. RSVP Senior Volunteer Services Proclamation — April 1St as "National
Service Recognition Day"
Council Member Fonzi read the Proclamation and the Council presented the
Proclamation to Marie Brinkmeyer, Executive Director of RSVP Senior Volunteer
Services.
Atascadero City Council
March 25, 2014
Page 2 of 6
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 04-08-14
2. Proclamation — April 2014 as "Month of the Child" and "Child Abuse
Prevention Month"; and April 12, 2014 as "Day of the Child"
Council Member Kelley read the Proclamation and the Council presented Proclamations
to Raechelle Bowlay-Sutton from Community Action Partnership of SLO County, and a
representative from the Shepherd Christian Preschool.
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. City Council Draft Action Minutes — February 11, 2014
■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action Minutes
of February 11, 2014. [City Clerk]
2. City Council Draft Action Minutes — March 11, 2014
■ Recommendation: Council approve the City Council Draft Action
Minutes of March 11, 2014. [City Clerk]
3. February 2014 Accounts Payable and Payroll Disbursements
■ Fiscal Impact: $1,980,021.15
■ Recommendation: Council approve certified accounts payable, payroll
and payroll vendor checks for February 2014. [Administrative Services]
4. December 2013 Investment Report
■ Fiscal Impact: None
■ Recommendation: Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report for
quarter ending December 2013. [Administrative Services]
5. Pavilion Caterina Services - Contract Award - City Bid No. 2014-001
■ Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact is estimated to be revenue of $35,000 -
$45,000 per year.
■ Recommendations: Council authorize the City Manager to execute a
contract with Pacific Harvest Catering for exclusive catering services at
the Atascadero Lake Park Pavilion. [Public Works]
6. CDBG Barrier Removal — Atascadero Lake Park Project Award City Bid
No. 2014-002
■ Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact of the construction of this project is
$139,038.43 of CDBG funds.
■ Recommendation: Council -
1 .
ouncil:1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Viborg
Construction in the amount of $139,038.43 for construction of the
Atascadero Lake Park CDBG Barrier Removal Project; and,
2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion
with the County Recorder upon satisfactory completion of the
project. [Public Works]
Atascadero City Council
March 25, 2014
Page 3 of 6
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 04-08-14
MOTION: By Council Member Fonzi and seconded by Council Member
Kelley to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. (#A-5: Contract No.
2014-005, #A-6: Contract No. 2014-006)
UPDATES FROM THE CITY MANAGER:
Acting City Manager Warren Frace gave an update on projects and issues within the
City.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
The following citizens spoke during Community Forum: Pastor Ted Mert, and Theresa
Shepherd.
Mayor O'Malley closed the COMMUNITY FORUM period.
X101-3A[ONCI*101ILlel." ZreiT:�
C. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
1. General Plan & Housina Element Annual Proaress Reaort 2013 (PLN
2006-1133)
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends:
The City Council direct Staff to submit the attached 2013 Annual
General Plan and Housing Report to both the Office of Research
and Planning (OPR) and Housing and Community Development
Department. [Community Development]
Community Development Director Warren Frace gave the staff report and answered
questions from the Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
MOTION: By Council Member Fonzi and seconded by Council Member
Kelley to direct Staff to submit the attached 2013 Annual
General Plan and Housing Report to both the Office of
Research and Planning (OPR) and Housing and Community
Development Department.
Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote.
Atascadero City Council
March 25, 2014
Page 4 of 6
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 04-08-14
2. 2014 Fire Season
■ Fiscal Impact: None.
■ Recommendation: Council receive and file this report. [Fire Department]
Fire Chief Kurt Stone gave the staff report, provided handouts, and answered questions
from the Council (Exhibit A).
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
The City Council received and filed this report.
COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS:
The City Council Members made brief announcements.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Mayor O'Malley
1. City / Schools Committee — Will be meeting on Friday.
2. County Mayors Round Table — Will be meeting in Atascadero on April 4t"
3. SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) — There will be more funding for
Hwy. 46 improvements.
Council Member Fonzi
1. Air Pollution Control District — Will meet tomorrow to discuss the Pismo Beach
Dunes.
2. SLO Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) - Attended a meeting
last week.
Council Member Kelley
1. Atascadero State Hospital Advisory Committee — Have offered to provide a
tour to our Council Members.
2. Economic Vitality Corporation, Board of Directors (EVC) — Meeting tomorrow.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND / OR ACTION: None
Atascadero City Council
March 25, 2014
Page 5 of 6
ITEM NUMBER: A-1
DATE: 04-08-14
F. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O'Malley adjourned the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C.
City Clerk / Assistant to the City Manager
The following exhibit is available for review in the City Clerk's office:
Exhibit A — Handouts from Fire Chief Kurt Stone.
Atascadero City Council
March 25, 2014
Page 6 of 6
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 04-08-14
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report — Public Works Department
Contract Plan Checking Services
M Bertaccini & Associates
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with M Bertaccini &
Associates for ongoing public works contract plan checking services.
DISCUSSION:
Background: In May 2013 the City Council, as part of the overall strategy to prepare the
City's Storm Water Program in-house, and maintain a rapid and responsive plan check
process, authorized the use of a contract plan checking service to resolve staffing
limitations in the Public Works Department to ensure engineering plan checks were
provided to the public in a timely manner. The estimated contract amount for the initial
6 -month time period was $30,000.
On May 15, 2013 Staff retained the services of M. Bertaccini & Associates for on-call
public works plan checking services. The firm has been successfully providing those
services since that time.
Analysis: The City has experienced an extremely high volume of permit applications and
the need for additional public works plan checking help continues. Due to high volumes
of activity, encroachment permit, public improvement permit and grading permit revenue
this fiscal year has significantly exceeded those included in the current budget.
Public works permit plan check fee revenue to date for fiscal year 2013/2014 in Public
Works is nearly $97,000, which exceeds the annual revenue projection within the
current budget by over $33,000. Staff projects permit activity this fiscal year will
continue over the next three months at its current rate, and estimates plan check
ITEM NUMBER: A-2
DATE: 04-08-14
revenue for Public Works plan checking to exceed the budget projections by well over
$40,000.
Conclusion: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to
execute an ongoing contract with M Bertaccini & Associates for on-call public works
plan checking services.
The contract plan checking services per the existing contract are billed hourly on an as -
needed time & materials basis, and have been averaging $4,000 to $5,000 per month.
The ongoing contract would allow the City to use M Bertaccini on an as needed basis
for public works plan checks. The service agreement can also be terminated by the City
at any time should the need for service no longer exist or permit revenue decreases.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of the contract public works plan check services is estimated to be
$40,000 of General Funds. The cost of the proposed contracted services would be
offset by the corresponding Public Works plan check revenues resulting from an
increased level of residential and commercial development.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council may not award the contract extension and cancel the on-call plan
checking.
2. Council may direct staff to go out for bid on plan check services.
ATTACHMENT: None
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 04-08-14
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report — Administrative Services Department
Impact Fees for New Library
RECOMMENDATION:
Council authorize the Director of Administrative Services to appropriate $10,000 of
Library Facility Impact Fees to be remitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library for
equipment and furnishings for the new Atascadero Library Facility.
DISCUSSION:
Because the City's residents and businesses have an interest in maintaining library
service levels, the Council established a Library Facilities Impact Fee that is charged on
all new development. These fees have been accumulating in the Library Expansion
Facilities Fees Fund, to be used for the expansion of the library facility space and the
library collection.
In December 2010, the County purchased a new library facility at 6555 Capistrano
Avenue. The purchase, construction and furnishing of the new library facility resulted in
a total project cost of approximately $5,719,820. The County's policy with regard to any
large library project requires that half of the project funding must come from the
community. The Friends of the Atascadero Library (the Friends) have served as that
community connection, actively raising funds for the new library project.
The City contributed $254,750 toward the new facility in December 2010. This amount
was made up of a combination of impact fees and other funds that had been set aside
for library expansion. In November 2012, Council authorized an additional $20,430 in
funds that had accumulated in the Library Expansion Facilities Fees Fund to be
released to the San Luis Obispo County Library.
In February 2013, Council authorized an advance of up to $30,000 in Library Impact
Fees for the project. At that time, the Library Expansion Impact Fee Fund did not have
that much available, but could borrow from the Wastewater Fund and be charged a
small amount of interest. These funds were not drawn on until September 2013.
ITEM NUMBER: A-3
DATE: 04-08-14
At this time, the Library Impact Fee Fund has received enough revenue to recover the
cost of the advance and the interest and has an additional amount available for the
project. The Friends have requested $10,000 in funds from the Library Expansion
Facilities Fees Fund be sent to the San Luis Obispo County Library for additional
equipment and furnishings for the new library facility.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may decide not to authorize payment of this contribution to the new
library.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact will be a $10,000 expenditure of Library Impact Fee funds. These
funds have been earmarked for Library expansion and will not impact City operations.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ion
Atascadero City Council
Staff Report - Public Works Department
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
Solid Waste and Recycling Agreements Forum
RECOMMENDATION:
Council provide staff direction to renegotiate agreements with the existing service
providers for solid waste collection and recycling.
REPORT -IN -BRIEF:
Solid waste collection, recycling, and landfill disposal within the City of Atascadero are
currently provided through agreements with three separate companies, namely:
1. Atascadero Waste Alternatives (AWA) — solid waste collection
2. North San Luis Obispo County Recycling, Inc. (NSLOCR) — recycled
materials
3. Chicago Grade Landfill, Inc. (CGLF) — landfill disposal
The three agreements are inter -related, as each provider has specific requirements
affecting the other. The City of Atascadero recently executed a new agreement with the
Chicago Grade Landfill that directs all solid waste generated in the City of Atascadero to
CGLF for the next seven years, until September 01, 2019. AWA is required to haul
solid waste (trash) to CGLF directly, and transport recyclable materials and green waste
to the NSLOCR facility in Templeton. NSLOCR charges AWA $7/ton for recyclables
and $27/ton for green waste; and any residual material (comingled trash in the
recyclable material) must then be separated and then hauled to CGLF by the recycler.
The initial term of the City recycling agreement with NSLOCR expires on June 01, 2014,
and the agreement contains provisions for a five year extension to 2019. In November
of 2013 the Council authorized the City Manager to extend the agreement to January 1,
2015. As of the date of the posting of this report, the extension agreement has not yet
been signed by NSLOCR.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
Similarly, the solid waste collection agreement with AWA is set to expire on January 01,
2015, and the agreement contains provisions for three one-year extensions to 2018.
Staff believes that the current service providers have provided the City with consistent
and reliable service and have been good partners with the community. Furthermore,
Staff believes the renegotiation process would be the most efficient way to secure long-
term solid waste service for the community that allows for improved environmental and
customer service programs that benefit the entire community.
DISCUSSION:
Background: Solid waste, commingled recycling, and green waste collection,
processing and disposal are regulated by the Statewide California Integrated Waste
Management Authority and CalRecycle. The California Public Resources Code
declares that the responsibility for solid waste management is shared between the
State and local governments. Local agencies and the County enter into agreements
with service providers to perform the activities needed to meet State and local health
standards, and recycling diversion rates set by the State of California.
The City of Atascadero has the flexibility to enter into an exclusive garbage franchise,
with or without competitive bidding. This is pursuant to California Public Resources
Code §40059 (a) (2) which states:
"(2) Whether the services are to be provided by means of nonexclusive franchise, contract,
license, permit, or otherwise, either with or without competitive bidding, or if, in the opinion of
its governing body, the public health, safety, and well-being so require, by partially exclusive or
wholly exclusive franchise, contract, license, permit, or otherwise, either with or without
competitive bidding. The authority to provide solid waste handling services may be granted
under terms and conditions prescribed by the governing body of the local governmental agency
by resolution or ordinance. "
In addition, California Public Resources Code §49300 states:
"The legislative body of a city may contract for the collection or disposal, or both, of garbage,
waste, refuse, rubbish, offal, trimmings, or other refuse matter under the terms and conditions
that are prescribed by the legislative body of the city by resolution or ordinance. "
The Atascadero Municipal Code §6-4.13 contains the terms and conditions for
contracting for garbage service, specifically:
(a) It is unlawful for any person to collect, haul, or transport for hire solid waste on any
roadway within the City unless there is in force, with respect to such person, a contract to engage
in such occupation, as provided in this chanter. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
persons or business establishments hauling household, industrial, or commercial waste or residue
from their own premises, to farming or agricultural operations; however, those exempt from the
requirements of this section shall not create a public or private nuisance, and shall comply with all
other requirements for collection and transportation of solid wastes.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
(b) Such contract shall provide that the contractor shall collect and dispose of the refuse,
garbage, rubbish and other solid waste materials in the City in the manner as set forth in this
chapter, and shall not charge any amounts in excess of the rates specified in the contract
agreement or by resolution of the Council. The contract shall be required to furnish a cash or
surety bond to the City in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand and noll00ths ($25, 000.00)
Dollars, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the contract agreement and the provisions of
this chapter.
(c) The contract agreement shall provide that the contractor shall be required to dispose of
all refuse or garbage and rubbish at a disposal site approved by the County Health Department of
the County.
(d) The contract agreement shall require that the contractor procure for the period covered
by the contract, full compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of the State Labor
Code.
(e) The contract agreement shall require that the contractor carry public liability insurance
to the extent of at least Five Hundred Thousand and noll00ths ($500, 000.00) Dollars for the death
or injury to one (1) person and at least One Million and no1100ths ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for the
death or injury of more than one (1) person, and property damage insurance of at least Five
Hundred Thousand and noll00ths ($500, 000.00) Dollars, upon each of the trucks or vehicles used
by the refuse collector in carrying out the work called for in the contract agreement, such
insurance to cover both the City and the contract. Said insurance amounts shall be reviewed
periodically by the City and amended by resolution of the Council.
(f) The City Council, by resolution, shall have power to provide for the inclusion in the
contract agreement of such terms as it deems necessary to protect the interest of the City. (Ord. 56
6-4.13, 1982)
Regional Solid Waste
The Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) acts as an advisory and advocate
agency for the planning and implementation of solutions to common solid waste
problems in the County. IWMA was formed pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement
executed in 1994, and approved by the Atascadero City Council on March 28, 1995. All
incorporated cities and the County of San Luis Obispo are members of the IWMA, and
are represented on its Board of Directors. The IWMA operates in compliance with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act (Public Resources Code §40000 et seq.).
The agency is funded by a $0.30 per residential account surcharge, 2% per commercial
account surcharge, and a $3.00/ton landfill tipping fee.
In the North County, there are two landfills providing disposal of solid waste, namely:
1. Paso Robles Municipal Landfill (owned and operated by the City of Paso Robles)
2. Chicago Grade Landfill, Inc.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
Solid waste, recycling, and green waste collection is contracted out by individual
agencies pursuant to negotiated agreements with private waste hauling companies.
Some of the agreements are:
1. Atascadero Atascadero Waste Alternatives (Waste Management)
2. Paso Robles Paso Robles Waste (Gomer)
3. Templeton (TCSD) Mid -State Solid Waste and Recycling (Goodrow)
4. Heritage Ranch San Miguel Garbage Co. (Kardasian)
5. Unincorporated County Various haulers
Roll -off containers for construction waste and demolition activities are regulated by a
county -wide agreement and are provided by numerous waste haulers on a non-
exclusive basis.
The processing of commingled recyclables (glass, plastic, metals, paper and cardboard)
occurs at designated Material Recovery Facilities (MRF), and green waste composting
operations are even fewer on the Central Coast. The curbside collected materials are
processed primarily at:
1.
San Miguel Garbage
San Miguel
2.
Paso Robles Waste
Paso Robles
3.
North SLO County Recycling
Templeton
4.
Waste Connections
San Luis Obispo
5.
Waste Management
Santa Maria
Other smaller operations exist around the County. All of these MRF facilities sort,
package and transport the recycled materials to regional facilities located in the Bay
Area and Los Angeles where they are exported primarily to China and then processed
back into materials used for manufacturing new consumer products.
Local Solid Waste
The City currently has agreements for solid waste collection, disposal, and processing
of recyclable materials through agreements with three companies, namely:
• Solid Waste Collection: Atascadero Waste Alternatives (Waste Management)
• Solid Waste Disposal: Chicago Grade Landfill (Mike Hoover)
• Recycling: North SLO County Recycling, Inc. (Brad Goodrow)
With help from the Integrated Waste Management Agency (IWMA) the combination of
the three agreements provides the community with reliable, stable, and environmentally
responsive management of the solid waste stream generated within the City limits,
ensuring that State solid waste and recycling mandates are met.
While IWMA provides high level support of solid waste issues, State reporting and
advocacy, as well as hazardous waste programs, the City's solid waste program is
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
provided by individual agreements administered by City Staff. Each agreement is
currently on a separate schedule for extension and renewal. A summary of each is
outlined below:
A. Solid Waste Disposal. In 2012 the City negotiated and approved a seven year
extension to the solid waste disposal agreement with Chicago Grade Landfill (CGLF),
and services are contracted through September 1, 2019. Key provisions of the
agreement are:
■ Landfill Rate: $42 per ton
■ Tipping Fee Paid to City: $ 1 per ton
■ Term: 7 years (Sept. 1, 2012 thru Sept. 1, 2019)
■ City guaranteed lowest "per ton" disposal rate for compacted solid waste
delivered to the site in AWA compactor trucks.
■ CPI adjustments (50% of current CPI) on: January 1, 2015, 2017 and 2019.
■ Accepts all WWTP sludge, and road kill for disposal at no charge.
Terms Related to Collection:
■ All solid waste collected within City limits must be delivered to CGLF.
■ Collection agreement or (AWA) pays disposal site per ton fee.
Terms Related to Recycling:
■ Recycler (NSLOCR) must haul "residual material" (trash in recycle material
delivered by AWA) to CGLF, and provide quarterly report of same to City.
B. Solid Waste Collection. In 2008 the City renewed an agreement with
Atascadero Waste Alternatives (AWA), a subsidiary of Waste Management Corporation.
The agreement provides for the curbside collection of trash, commingled recyclables
and green waste within City limits. AWA has been the curbside waste collection
provider since 1998. Key provisions of the agreement are:
■ Term: 7 years (Jan. 1, 2008 thru Jan.1, 2015)
(City has option to extend agreement for three additional one-year
periods through Jan. 1, 2018)
■ AWA provides Spring and Fall citywide "Residential Clean -Up Day" at no charge.
■ AWA provides Creek Clean -Up Day support at no charge.
■ AWA directly bills and collects fees from users to cover collection, recycling and
disposal of trash.
■ User rates are set by the agreement in place with the City. CPI adjustments
(85% of current CPI) every other year on Jan. 1.
Terms Related to Landfill:
■ All solid waste (trash) from City to be delivered to CGLF.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
■ AWA pays CGLF current City per ton landfill rate.
Terms Related to Recycling:
• All collected curbside commingled recyclable and green waste materials to be
delivered to NSLOCR facility in Templeton.
■ AWA pays NSLOCR $7/ton for delivered recyclable materials.
o Material shall not exceed 10% by weight of trash (residual material).
■ AWA pays NSLOCR $27/ton for delivered green waste materials.
C. Recycling / Green Waste. In 2004 the City entered into an agreement with
North San Luis Obispo County Recycling, Inc. (NSLOCR) owned and operated by Brad
Goodrow for the disposal of curbside recyclable and green waste materials originating
within the City limits. The activity requires the operation of a Materials Recovery
Facility, commonly referred to as a MRF (pronounced "murph'). Key provisions of the
agreement are:
■ Term: 10 years (June 1, 2004 thru June 1, 2014)
(City may approve up to 5 -year extension to June 1, 2019).
■ Pays City $2/ton franchise fee for recyclable materials received.
Terms Related to Collection:
■ Recyclable material and green waste delivered to NSLOCR Templeton facility.
1110'i11"INZ aF[ T- 607711111151TiiIlA
■ Recycler must haul "residual material" (sorted out trash mixed in with the recycle
material delivered by AWA) to CGLF and pay current disposal fee.
Agreement Timing Requirements
The projected schedule to complete the solid waste collection and recycle program
agreement renewals is:
1. April 08, 2014 General discussion of services and renewal process
2. May 27, 2014 Approve renegotiated agreements or, approval to
release a Request for Qualifications / Proposals.
3. August 2014 Approve new RFQ/RFP based collection / recycle
agreement(s).
4. January 2015 New agreements in place with existing or new service
provider(s). Transition plan may require short term
extension of current agreements if new provider is
selected.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
Staff is requesting direction tonight on whether to extend current agreements, enter into
negotiations with current service providers to revise the agreements, or go out for new
proposals for services in a request for qualifications and proposals.
Industry Trends
State Regulations are evolving over time and are anticipated to require higher levels of
diversion of recyclable materials from landfills. There is current legislation being
considered by the State that would raise the diversion rate from 50% to 75%. The
current 5 -cent "California Redemption Value" or "CRV" charge paid by consumers
results in rebates to the solid waste industry, however these funds are anticipated to be
reduced or eliminated in the near future. The elimination or reduction of these funds will
impact solid waste industry as revenues to IWMA and MRF's would decrease. This
revenue loss would likely need to be made up with higher garbage rates to the public.
Where do the CRV funds go? CalRecycle pays out collected CRV deposits to:
1. Rebates to consumers at Buy -Back Centers
2. Curbside recycling program funding
3. Conservation grants for environmental programs
4. Funding for supermarket based recycle centers, like Re -Planet
5. Grants and program funding that encourage recycling
6. Statewide public education programs
7. Program administration
Currently almost all commingled recyclables are compacted, palletized and shipped to
China in container ships where the material is processed back into re -useable materials
for consumer products.
Bill Worrell, the Executive Director of IWMA will be present at the City Council meeting
to present information on his organization, what they do for the City, and address
Council questions on industry trends in San Luis Obispo County and the State in
general.
Current Issues in Atascadero
Both the solid waste collection and recycling agreements are nearing their initial
expiration dates. While both agreements have short term extension options available,
the long-term planning and agreement issues needed to ensure stable and predictable
rates for the public take time to execute should major changes be considered, or a new
service provider be retained.
What Influences Our Current Garbage Rates?
Residents and business owners receive a single garbage bill from Atascadero Waste
Management each month, but what influences that rate? Many of the cost associated
with solid waste management are considered "pass through charges"; for example the
per ton landfill rate of $42.00 per ton, the 10% City Franchise fees, IWMA service
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
charges, the commingled recyclable and green waste fee paid to NSLOCR just to name
a few. All three components to the solid waste disposal process (landfill, collection and
recycling) affect the rates paid by residents, and are included in a single bill managed
by the solid waste collection provider.
The unique setting of Atascadero, when compared to other cities, also influences the
rates we pay for solid waste services. The larger more rural lot nature of Atascadero,
along with rolling hillside terrain and miles of narrow roads causes more vehicle miles,
vehicle maintenance, and higher staff time collecting materials. More compact cities
with higher residential and commercial density tend to have more efficient solid waste
operations, and lower garbage rates.
Currently the three service providers provide several services to the City that are
included in the current garbage rates. The City receives trash service to all City
facilities, disposal of sludge from the wastewater plant, and disposal of animals killed on
City streets at no charge. Atascadero Waste Alternatives is also required to assist the
City with the Spring and Fall Residential Clean -Up Days, and Creek Clean -Up Day at no
charge.
Staff has also been working with AWA on keeping the recycling "Buy -Back Center' on
San Luis Avenue open even after it was realized the current solid waste collection
agreement doesn't specifically require AWA to operate the center. As a gesture of good
will to the City and the community, AWA agreed to operate the center until the franchise
agreement was renegotiated or re -bid.
With respect to the recycling component of the solid waste program, market forces in
the recycled materials market can influence the viability of municipal recycling
programs. Typically aluminum and other metals, and bulk cardboard have had strong
markets needing those materials and prices continue to improve. However glass,
plastic and paper are more of a challenge. The materials often have to be stockpiled
until wholesale prices improve making it viable to transport the materials to Los Angeles
or the Bay Area for shipment overseas.
North SLO County Recycling has made a substantial investment in permitting and
constructing a north county composting operation in Creston. The facility has the
capability of accepting wood construction waste and green waste and processing the
materials into a rich organic compost material that can then be marketed back to
consumers for landscaping and gardening purposes. This is another example of the
innovation required to meet State diversion rates so those same materials don't end up
in our landfills.
The City of Paso Robles in 2011 retained a consultant to prepare a financial and
operational audit of their current provider. The commercial garbage rates from the
study are included below. Staff has researched how Atascadero's current residential
garbage rates compare to our neighboring communities. The following is a summary of
those findings:
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
Residential Rates.
;using a stan(jara sz-gallon cart as the unit Tor comparison)
2014
Agency
Population
Local Hauler
32 -gal Can
Weekly
San Luis Obispo
44075
San Luis Garbage (WC)
$
13.64
Paso Robles
28677
Paso Robles Waste
$
25.02
Atascadero
27800
Atasc Waste Alternatives (WM)
$
20.58
Arroyo Grande
17238
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
15.97
Los Osos / Baywood Park
14351
Mission Country Disposal (WC)
$
17.38
Grover Beach
13200
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
14.77
Nipomo CSD
12626
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
17.04
Morro Bay
10391
Morro Bay Garbage (WC)
$
15.18
Pismo Beach
8640
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
14.51
Oceano CSD
7260
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
13.24
Cambria CSD
6233
Mission Country Disposal (WC)
$
18.00
Templeton CSD
4687
Midstate (Goodrow)
$
23.80
San Miguel / Shandon
2786
San Miguel Garbage (Kardasian)
$
32.70
Commercial Rates.
Using a 1.b -cubic yard bin picked up once per week as the unit Tor comparison
From 2011 Paso Robles Rate Study
1.5 yard
Agency
Population
Local Hauler
1x/week
San Luis Obispo
44075
San Luis Garbage (WC)
$
94.95
Paso Robles
28677
Paso Robles Waste
$
92.93
Atascadero
27800
Atasc Waste Alternatives (WM)
$
139.04
Arroyo Grande
17238
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
82.49
Los Osos / Baywood Park
14351
Mission Country Disposal (WC)
$
76.76
Grover Beach
13200
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
71.89
Nipomo CSD
12626
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
68.66
Morro Bay
10391
Morro Bay Garbage (WC)
$
85.19
Pismo Beach
8640
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
78.78
Oceano CSD
7260
So. County Sanitation (WC)
$
69.66
Cambria CSD
6233
Mission Country Disposal (WC)
$
70.76
Templeton CSD
4687
Midstate (Goodrow)
$
93.18
San Miguel / Shandon
2786
San Miguel Garbage (Kardasian)
$
105.90
Atascadero rate includes 90 -gal recycle, and 90 -gal. green waste once per week
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
What's on the City's Wish List?
There are several areas of the City's maintenance and operations that continue to
present staffing and funding challenges to providing a high level of service to the
residents of Atascadero. During preliminary discussions with the City's solid waste
provider, Staff has explored the potential for certain services to be contracted out to the
solid waste collection provider (typical in many areas of California), namely:
• Park trash collection — where exterior trash cans would be serviced once per
week
• Street sweeping — areas of town with curb, gutter and sidewalk would be swept
regularly
• Commercial Food Waste Program — pre -consumer waste collection for
composting.
Several other initiatives were identified by Staff as being important to City residents,
including:
• Local and convenient Buy -Back Center, and
• Senior citizen discounted rates
And a couple items suggested by AWA, namely:
• Solar Powered "Big Belly" Recycling Units (3)
• Free Document Shredding Day open to the public
Analysis:
Extend Existing Agreements: This option maintains the status quo, by maintaining the
terms and conditions of the existing agreements. While this option produces a known
outcome that is consistent with past performance, it does not take the opportunity to
improve service levels to the City and the public, and fully coordinate the solid waste
collection and recycling service. Staff feels an opportunity to broaden the benefit of
these agreements would be lost.
Renegotiate Agreements with Existing Providers: This option would open up the terms
and conditions of the agreements through exclusive negotiations with the two current
service providers, in exchange for increased time (additional years) to the term of their
respective agreements. The two service providers have, in staff's opinion, been good
partners in serving Atascadero's solid waste and recycling needs, and are known
commodities. They have both provided the City with reliable service with little or no
administrative burden, and responded well to the needs of the public. AWA currently
serves over 8,400 accounts within Atascadero, most of which get trash, recycling and
green waste service every week. That is over 1.3 -million service "touches" community
wide per year. In the past five years City Staff has responded to less than ten
complaints that were not handled directly by AWA to a customer's satisfaction.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
Staff is confident, based on past dealings with both providers, that good faith
negotiations could be productive. Any negotiations would be based on providing the
best possible service to the community at the lowest cost, and ultimately would be
considered and debated at a public hearing. Staff would develop a new scope of
service, followed by an open dialogue where modifications could be negotiated to
capture efficiencies not readily apparent at the onset. This flexibility would give both
sides the opportunity to shape the services in a manner that meets both parties' needs
while ensuring the public's best interests are maintained. This flexibility could not be
achieved in the more rigid nature of an RFP where all proposals would be forced to
comply with a pre -determined scope of service.
All City agreements and contracts for services are open to public review, scrutiny and
input. Both the RFQ/RFP process and the negotiated contract alternative have similar
levels of public input and involvement. Tonight's discussion and public forum are
examples of the public's opportunity to be involved. The public would again be involved
when the proposed agreements are brought back to Council for approval. Should
negotiations for some unknown reason be unproductive or untimely, there would still be
adequate time to proceed to a back-up plan, namely going out for an RFP/RFQ process
and entertain multiple proposals from other providers. Providers agreements need to
be in place at least six months in advance of any change in provider to allow for an
orderly transition.
Request for Proposal / Qualifications (RFP/RFQ): This process for selecting a provider
would be a similar process to that used for procuring professional services under the
City's purchasing policy. As with professional services, both the expected quality of the
service and the price must be considered when selecting a provider. A very low cost
provider that could not perform the work in a consistent manner would not serve the
community well. Conversely a very high cost provider that gives amazing service may
also not be in the best interest of the community. All aspects of a potential provider
would need to be examined to come to a decision on which provider would be best for
our community.
Staff (with the help of a consultant) would have to develop a thorough scope of service
that clearly sets out the City's goals and services desired in a very black and white, fully
defined up front manner. Numerous potential providers would then submit proposals
outlining qualifications, experience, financial condition, capacity, references, costs and
other information requested in the RFP/RFQ. A selection committee consisting of City
staff and industry professionals would evaluate the proposals based on the specific
evaluation factors such as:
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
1. General quality and responsiveness to the request, including but not limited
to:
■ Responsiveness to the terms, conditions, and items of performance;
■ Completeness and thoroughness of the proposal;
■ Grasp of the work to be performed, and approach to be used.
2. Organization and personnel making the proposal:
■ Evidence of good organizational and management practices.
■ Qualification of the personnel.
• Specialized experience of the provider and its personnel relative to the
required services.
■ References who can be contacted to verify past record of performance
(i.e., completion of a quality product in a timely manner and within
budget constraints).
■ The financial condition of the provider.
■ Capacity of the provider to perform the work within a required timeframe.
■ Commitment to the environment.
■ Proven track record of customer service.
■ Operational integrity.
■ Innovative programs and services.
■ Equipment maintenance and reliability.
■ Breadth of services provided.
3. The price
■ Total price and price breakdown.
Based on the selection committee evaluation, staff would recommend to the Council the
provider that best meets the needs of the City. Similar to the negotiation process,
Council would then hold a public meeting to approve the recommendation.
The advantage of the RFP / RFQ process is the providers have one shot to bring
forward their best offer and they may be motivated to operate on a smaller profit margin
to ensure their proposal is looked upon favorably. All would "sharpen their pencil" to
provide the City the requested service at the lowest cost, making assumptions of how
they would be able to achieve the end result. This could mean lower costs for our
community.
There are also disadvantages to this method of reaching agreements with providers.
Under the RFP/RFQ method, staff would spend significant time verifying the level of
service provided by a prospective provider in other jurisdictions, evaluating financial
records to prove long-term viability, and developing detailed agreements that minimize
any misunderstandings. The RFP/RFQ method is also more rigid in nature and does
not allow a lot of back and forth exchange of information. Because the communication
is more limited in nature to give all participants the same information, there are often
more misunderstandings later in the contract. Much like the construction agreements
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
we execute on capital projects, once in place the scope of work is often debated, the
meaning of terms and conditions disputed, and the manner in which service is provided
may need to be carefully monitored.
While this process has its unique challenges it is not unfamiliar to staff, and staff
certainly feels it is a viable option for Council to consider and or select.
Should the City Council select the direct re -negotiation option or the RFP / RFQ
process, there would be several recommended objectives:
1. Modify the recycling and solid waste collection agreement timelines so they
coincide, allowing the City to more easily modify terms, or make inter -related
changes to the agreements.
• Payment options, tipping fees, operational improvements, improved
customer service programs.
2. Include additional services to be provided by the providers
• Recycle Center operation, commercial food recycling, composting, street
sweeping, trash collection, and other environmental services.
3. New location of processing and transfer station.
• Locate transfer station at an appropriate industrial site.
4. Respond to changing industry trends and programs
• Greenhouse gas reduction via use of vehicles powered by compressed
natural gas (CNG).
Public Benefit
The City's goal is to provide the best service at the lowest cost to the public. New
agreements could provide improved environmental services related to trash, storm
water pollution prevention, and recycling that are provided in other communities. New
agreements will afford the City the opportunity to add additional services at a
competitive price.
Integrated Waste Management Agency (IWMA) staff has identified the following
services that are now common in solid waste agreements:
1. Senior citizen reduced rate.
2. Food waste collection and recycling / composting for commercial customers.
3. Regular street sweeping of all areas with curb, gutter and sidewalk assisting
agencies in meeting new storm water regulations.
4. Collection of solid waste at agency facilities, for example parks, bus stops,
agency buildings / parking lots, such as Community Centers.
5. Recycling buy-back centers.
6. Community "Clean Up Day" services.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
Summary:
The initial term of the City recycling agreement with NSLOCR expires on June 01, 2014,
and the agreement contains provisions for a five year extension to 2019. Similarly the
solid waste collection agreement with AWA is set to expire on January 01, 2015, and
the agreement contains provisions for three one-year extensions to 2018.
The City now has the opportunity to secure long term agreements for solid waste and
recycling into the future, and improve on the level of service offered by its providers.
A basic decision point is whether to proceed status quo by extending the current
agreements, or take the opportunity to modify the level of services provided to the City
and the public either through direct renegotiation with the providers, or by a Request for
Proposal/ Request for Qualifications (RFP/RFQ) process. There are pros and cons for
each option.
The following is a list of the key decision points:
Recycling Agreement:
1. Extend existing agreement for up to 5 -years under the current agreement terms.
2. Enter into negotiations with NSLOCR for an agreement extension with new terms
and conditions to the agreement.
3. Circulate a new RFP / RFQ for a potential new vendor and agreement.
4. Combine recycling agreement with solid waste collection, or keep separate.
Solid Waste Collection:
1. Extend agreement for up to 3 -years under the current agreement terms.
2. Enter into negotiations with AWA for an agreement extension with new terms and
conditions to the agreement.
3. Circulate a new RFP / RFQ for a potential new vendor and agreement.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City renegotiate long term agreements
with the existing providers. The additional services outlined above should be included
in those negotiations, with the goal being agreements for a higher level of service at
little or no increase in garbage rates. Staff feels the economic benefit to the two
companies in question, and longer agreement periods will be enough of an incentive to
result in the additional services at the same cost to the public.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council may provide staff direction to extend agreements with the existing
service providers for solid waste collection and recycling. Staff does not
recommend this option as staff feels that there are opportunities to modify
the agreement to obtain more services at no or little cost.
ITEM NUMBER: C-1
DATE: 04-08-14
2. Council may provide staff direction to prepare a request for qualifications /
proposals for combined solid waste curbside collection and recycling
processing services. Council should weigh the benefits of a focused
negotiation process, where the service providers are a known quantity,
verses an RFP process that would likely involve the five firms that provide
similar service to communities within San Luis Obispo County. A new
provider may or may not prove, in the future, to be a challenge to administer,
and achieve and maintain the contracted level of service. A combined
contract may offer opportunities for the providers to achieve economies for
the combined services.
3. Council may provide staff direction to prepare a request for qualifications /
proposals for separated solid waste curbside collection and recycling
processing services. Council should weigh the benefits of a focused
negotiation process, where the service providers are a known quantity,
verses an RFP process that would likely involve the five firms that provide
similar service to communities within San Luis Obispo County. A new
provider may or may not prove, in the future, to be a challenge to administer,
and achieve and maintain the contracted level of service.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In discussion with the staff at IWMA it is suspected that a new agreement, even with the
potential additional services, could result in a no increase or minimal increase in
monthly garbage rates to City residents and businesses. Through this process the City
could also fund improved compliance with State storm water regulations (i.e. street
sweeping and trash removal). Similarly Parks and Zoo staff could focus more time
maintaining City facilities and less time manually sweeping streets and parking lots, and
emptying trash and recycling cans.
City revenues from landfill tipping fees would be unaffected.
ATTACHMENTS:
None