HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2008-04-18 (2)
2
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Belvedere:
George Rodericks
Corte Madera:
David Bracken
County of Marin:
Matthew Hymel
Fairfax:
Michael Rock
Larkspur:
Jean Bonander
Mill Valley:
Anne Montgomery
Novato:
Daniel Keen
Ross:
Gary Broad
San Anselmo:
Debbie Stutsman
San Rafael:
Ken Nordhoff
Sausalito:
Adam Politzer
Tiburon:
Margaret Curran
Date: April 23, 2008
Executive Committee .,....... 48,. ~,- It Ij 1-
From: Michael Frost 1W t/1J1..
Report on Current Staff Activities and Approve Letter of Support
Re: AB 2058, Plastic Bag Diversion
To:
Re:
The J P A has many ongoing responsibilities and activities in addition to the
state mandated reporting and roles as a regional entity. Staff is involved with
regional and statewide groups, performs outreach, and is continuously working
with our advisory committee.
Staff will be participating in multiple Earth Day Activities. Free reusable cloth
grocery bags will be handed out along with educational materials at the Samuel
P. Taylor State Park Earth Day Event and two days at the Plastic Bag Free
Marin Farmers Market.
Staff has developed model single-use bag reduction and expanded polystyrene
ordinances that are targeted to eliminate the associated waste streams. These
ordinances will be brought to the Local Task Force for discussion, revision, and
recommendations before being presented to this Committee. Additionally, the
AB939 Local Task Force has formed three subcommittees to research and
discuss foodwaste composting, solid waste rate structures, and construction
and demolition diversion. The subcommittees meet intermittently, in addition to
monthly Local Task Force Meetings. As the Local Task Force forms positions
on different issues they will be presented to this Committee.
As a result of statewide support of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
legislation is beginning to include EPR language. The JPA's EPR Resolution
has permitted JPA staff to prepare multiple legislative support letters for bills in
the State Assembly and Senate. Recently, letters of support have been sent
for AB 2347, AB 501, AB 1860 that require manufacturers take responsibility
for the safe disposal of mercury thermostats, recalled products, and sharps.
Additional legislation is moving through the State Assembly to build upon the
California's In-Store Plastic Bag Recycling Law. The proposed legislation AB
2058 would require retailers to meet specified plastic bag diversion
requirements. Specifically, retailers would be required to demonstrate 350/0
diversion by July 2011 and 700/0 diversion by July 2013. If goals are not met,
retailers will be required to charge a 15 cent per bag fee, the proceeds of which
are to be used for local litter clean-up. This approach is modeled after an Irish
law that reduced plastic bag consumption by over 900/0. Staff has prepared the
attached letter of support for AB 2058, it is requested you authorize the JPA
Board Chair to sign and approve submittal on behalf of the JPA Board.
Attachment
F:\WasteIJPAIJPA Agenda ltems\ExCom 080423\Staff Report.doc
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
5
6
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Belvedere:
George Rodericks
Corte Madera:
David Bracken
County of Marin:
Matthew Hymel
Fairfax:
Michael Rock
Larkspur:
Jean Bonander
Mill Valley:
Anne Montgomery
Novato:
Daniel Keen
Ross:
Gary Broad
San Anselmo:
Debbie Stutsman
San Rafael:
Ken Nordhoff
Sausalito:
Adam Politzer
Tiburon:
Margaret Curran
Date: April 15, 2008
To: Assemblymember Jared Huffman
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0006
RE: AB 2058 (Levine) Plastic Bag Litter Reduction - Support
Dear Assembly Member Huffman:
The Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority
urges your support of Assembly Bill 2058 by Assembly Member Lloyd
Levine, which proposes to reduce plastic bag litter by requiring retailers
who wish to continue to freely distribute plastic bags to meet a plastic
bag reduction and recycling benchmark.
Plastic bag litter is a dangerous, costly and growing problem.
Californians use an estimated 19 billion plastic bags annually, far too
many of which are littered. Plastic bags have historically suffered from
low recycling rates. Even when properly disposed of, plastic bags are
often blown from receptacles and become litter. Because plastic bags
are so lightweight and aerodynamic, they are quickly transported into the
watershed.
Plastic bag litter is responsible for the deaths of thousands of birds,
marine mammals, and endangered sea turtles which mistake them for
food. Plastic bags essentially never biodegrade; instead they slowly
photodegrade, attracting ambient toxins as they break into smaller
pieces and overwhelming the local plankton food chain. In some of the
worst affected areas of the Pacific, there is already 46 times more plastic
than plankton by weight.
Local governments are incurring significant costs attempting to deal with
plastic film litter. This is especially true of Southern California
communities with impaired waterways that are required by US EPA Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for trash to reduce litter. One study
conducted by San Francisco concluded that every plastic bag costs the
city over 20 cents in hidden cleanup expenses. 'Because of the costs
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
7
and environmental dangers associated with plastic bags, San Francisco, Oakland and
Fairfax have all decided to ban plastic bags from large stores. Los Angeles County
recently adopted a benchmark reduction program for unincorporated county retailers
that require significant gains be made in plastic bag recycling or plastic bags will be
banned. Dozens of other municipalities including the Marin County Hazardous and Solid
Waste Management Joint Powers Authority are currently considering similar measures.
AS 2058 would require extended producer responsibility for plastic bags by requiring
high volume retailers that wish to continue freely handing out plastic bags to
demonstrate significant reductions in plastic bag distribution and increases in plastic
bag recycling. AS 2058 will augment creating a state-wide solution to the growing
problem of plastic bags and will give local governments a powerful resource to reduce
local plastic litter.
The Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority
supports AB 2058 and urges you to back this bill.
Sincerely,
Debra Stutsman
Chair
Cc: JPA Board Members
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
?;
3
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Belvedere:
George Rodericks
Corte Madera:
David Bracken
County of Marin:
Matthew Hymel
Fairfax:
Michael Rock
Larkspur:
Jean Bonander
Mill Valley:
Anne Montgomery
Novato:
Daniel Keen
Ross:
Gary Broad
San Anselmo:
Debbie Stutsman
San Rafael:
Ken Nordhoff
Sausalito:
Adam Politzer
Tiburon:
Margaret Curran
Date: April 23, 2008
To: Executive Committee
From: Michael Frost
Re: Proposed JPA 2008/2009 Budget
Enclosed is the proposed FY 08-09 budget for the Hazardous and Solid
Waste JPA. The budget has been reviewed and is recommended by
your Budget Subcommittee Members Debbie Stutsman and George
Rodericks. The proposed budget has two separate budget centers listed
below:
(6.1) The County contract for the JPA's Planning and Administration
(6.2) The Household Hazardous Waste Program (HHWP) funded
through the San Rafael Fire Department.
As in prior years, budget reserves of 20 percent are targeted as prudent
for both budget programs to accommodate cash "dry periods" because
the JPA revenue stream is bi-annual. During the past several years, it
has been necessary to draw on budget reserves to cover HHWP's costs.
It is estimated that FY 07-08 HHWP will be within budget and the
program will not need to draw from reserves to cover costs. This is a
continuation of a leveling-off in HHWP costs that began in FY 05-06.
The proposed FY 08-09 budget expands core JPA program elements to
include zero waste strategy development. The HHW Program is stable
and program growth can be accomplished by shifting program cost and
implementing a minimal 30k overall tipping fee increase of fourteen (14)
cents per ton in the FY 08-09 Budget.
However, the recently released amendment to Redwood Landfill's Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) includes a reassessment of
Redwood Landfill's current permitted minimum site life estimate to less
than the 15 year required minimum. The 15 year minimum disposal
capacity requirement can be potentially satisfied by the mitigated
alternative project proposed in Redwood's FEIR. If the FEIR is certified,
it is anticipated the mitigated alternative project will be permitted by the
end of this year. Nonetheless, the current estimate of less than 15 years
capacity triggers the Siting Element requirement contained in Marin's
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
q
Integrated Waste Management Plan to initiate a process to develop a strategy to
manage Marin's waste in the future. The first step in this process can be
accommodated in the proposed budget and involves review of siting goals and policies
with our Local Task Force. If the FEIR is not certified it may be necessary to accelerate
planning strategies and move additional appropriations from reserves at a future JPA
Board meeting.
Please note the following:
1. The County contract for JPA Administration Budget (6.1) proposes an increase of
$270,823 increase from FY 07-08 budget. The itemizati~n of this proposed increase
is as follows:
· $200,000 to fund development of zero waste strategies for countywide waste
reduction program planning and implementation. Currently the JPA has
circulated a Request For Information (RFI) and it is anticipated specific
strategies will emerge from this process.
. An increase in JPA insurance and auditing costs, $5,000 for backyard
composting, rent increase, and adjustments to staff salaries. Funds budgeted
for salaries are fixed contract amounts.
· Funding for staffing to accommodate the increased workload that has come with
an increased schedule of Local Task Force meetings and emerging issues. In
the current fiscal year, it is anticipated there will be up to 48 Local Task Force
and subco~mittee meetings.
2. HHWP budget (6.2) proposes a $53,341 .72 (4.2 percent) increase from last year's
budget. This increase is primarily due to increased rent for the expanded HHW
facility estimated to be occupied in September 2008. San Rafael Fire Department's
letter (enclosed) outlines the other specifics of the HHWP budget request.
3. HHWP budget (6.2) per the Executive Committee's recommendation includes grant
revenue $33,503 for the Novato HHW program. The Novato HHW grant amount is
equal to the Novato self-haul fee amount ($18,500) levied on Redwood Landfill plus
$15,003 for JPA fees in past years. This is the sixth year of the Novato HHW grant.
4. As in previous years, included in the HHWP budget is funding for satellite HHW
collection in West Marin. The budget includes $18,000 for three 40 car-by-
appointment-only HHW collection events.
5. County staff time is increased from three percent (30/0) to ten (100/0) to reflect
increased time spent on 6.2 programs to manage the HHW Infrastructure Grant and
facility expansion.
6. The proposed budget is funded by a $4.19 per ton tipping fee ($1.01 for program
budget 6.1, $0.48 for zero waste and $2.70 for HHW program budget 6.2) charged
Page 2 of 3
\6
to Marin's solid waste haulers and facility operators. This proposed tipping fee is an '
increase of $0.14 per ton from FY 07-08.
7. The JPA fees for FY 08-09 utilize calendar year 2007 tonnage.
8. Pursuant to Section II of the JPA's contract with the County, it is proposed that the
existing contract and work program be extended for a one-year period.
It is requested your Committee approve and recommend the FY 08-09 Budget and
related documents to JPA Board.
Enclosures
c: Farhad Mansourian
Bob Beaumont
Jeff Rawles
Bradley Mark
~{J {i
s:\waste\jpa\budget\fy 08-09\ex com budget Itr.doc
Page 3 of 3
tt
t-z..
co
o
o
N
~
~
~
~
Co-'
Q
~
~
~
~
~
Q
<(
c..
-,
....
Z
W
:E
W
C>
<(
z
<(
:E
W
....
en
~ ~
Z~~~~
O--O:J
i=~~::JW
~.... CD 0::
....Z
(f)::J
zO
-u
:E....
ClU
<(W
~~
-'0
>-
OJ
....
W
C>
Cl
::J
OJ
:E
~
u
X
(0
en
en
o
o
N
W
~o::
CI):J
COW~
!2....JO
I'-<Z
O~W
00...
~X
W
:Jco
~~g
--t-~
t;o...~
x-
WM
W
>
~
<
0::
0::
<
Z
il
W
.~
<
Z
~
Z
:J
o
o
o
<
~I~I
<Ii
E
l1l
rn
a
0::
cD
.E
00
<1l
OJ
l1l
~
"0
C
l1l
00
<1l
.~
(ij
00
:t::
l1l
Ui
t5
~
C
a
o
0) .~
oo~1O
3 .~ ~
8 ~ ~
(ij(ij:J
~'o ~
- c.-
<l1l<
a.. .S a..
-,u..-,
t
<1l
>
"0
<
<1l
<1l
~
00
00
l1l
E
x
06
<1l
"0
'S
<9
OJ
,S
<Ii
Ui
a
o
OJ
c
~
.~
o
00
'E
~ Q;
o .s::;
~~ '0
~-6,~ ~~
~~~~ to.
l1l~ ~ aUi
~,~ ~ ~ a. a
ai oo~~~ ~~
00 5 a. a.. Ui (ij -Q;
~ . ';; ~ <Ii l1l ~ ~ '6
o ro ~Q)~::aittlc.l=
.S ~"ri a. E jg e ~ ~ l1l :5
~5l~~~l!3~~.g~
.~ ~ ~ aj <Ii ~ ,~ ,~ '~,g
<1ll1ll1l>CC<1l<1lOJ"O
~ ftCl).~ ~ ~ ~ ~'.5 ~
~ .E .~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ R *
~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Cl)o::~o::ooenenoo...
M M
00
M M
NN
M M
WW
000 -.:- 00 -.:-
gg~. g g.~gg-g-g~g~::::.
~g~~~~~gg~~~~~
~ W w~ W
o
..-0000000000100
MOOOOOOO..-O..-NO
..-NIOOlNM-':-IOIO..-..-..-1'-
OOOOT"""~~-C-T"""OOOO
NNNNNN~NN~~~:n
1OIOIOIOIOlOlOIOlOIOIOlOlO
;;
~
l1l
o
~
00 00
<1l <1l
OJ OJ
l1l l1l
~~
"0 "0
C C
l1l l1l
00 00
<1l <1l
.~ .~
(ij(ij
en en
00
<1l
<1l
u..
:.a
:J
<
06
~~
<1l 0
~< ~
W <1l C
_"Ol1l
l1l 'jjj :J
~8E
I'- I'-
00
Ol 0>
mo>.
-.:--.:-
NN
ww
<0<0
0>0l
a. a.
NN
WW
1'-1'-
00
Ol 0>
mm
-.:--.:-
NN
ww
~ 3 ~ ~ .~ ~
~ ~ & 8~~
~ 0 00 "0 CI) .~
~ C ~~ e(ije..
<1l ~ ~ ~.~ g- 'g g-
c; 0:: <1lCl)CiO::l1lCl)
'S 06 .s::; ~ Q; g- ~ J: ~
Jr g>~:il~~enE~~
o c :~ ~ ~ e E ~ a 3 .~
~~~~6~8588~
gg'go~oog oooo~
01010_ g :;_g.~ ~~ ~ g_g_~_:;-
~~~w;;;;w~ w;;;;~~
og ~M g 0 ~
agIO. 0 "-.00 N.O 0 ~ 0 0 M.
W .<0 WIO<OW<oWW .wwI'-
~;; ;;w;; ;; ~
gg~o~oog OOOO~
O.IO.:;} g.:;_g.g ~~g_g.g_~_:
:~;;;;;;;;w~ ;;~~~~
CD
.....
<:)
N
<:)
CD
~
tV
<5
~
tV
<5
~
E
f!
OJ
o
0:
.....
cD
<(
a..
.,
-.:-
0>
<:)
u)
N
M
~
CD
~
a5
.....
.....
~
<(
c..
...,
I-
Z
W
:E
W
C>
<(
z
<(
:E
W
I-
en
<(
~
W
Q
~
....
Z
::J W~
Oo>::>en
" 0 Z W
'-'-w::>
WCO>a
Oww
~ 0::0::
::J
o
en
W
::J
Z
W
>
W
0:::
>-
OJ
....
W
C>
Q
::J
OJ
W
::J
Z
W
>
W
0:::
:E
~
u
X ~w
~co~::>
en!2....JdJ
01'-<>
oo~w
N 20::
::>co
0::0
COIO
O~N
~>~
w-
o::M
M
10
N..
.....
M
M
W
~
:J
o
o
o
l1l
OJ
C
.~
<1l
.0
Ui
<1l
Q;
.~
.S
00
"0
C
.2
<
a..
-,
N
N -.:-
~-~~~
..- M
W <0
W
WWI
::>0
Zo::
w::>
>0
~CI)
10000
NO"-O
..-00>0
0000
T"""M"'=tT"""
-':-10<01'-
-.:--.:--.:--.:-
W
~
<
Z
~
Z
::>
o
o
o
<
00
<1l
<1l
u..
C
*~
(;52
:-Q ~
Ui<~
~Q;"Oo
2 -E '5 .!Q
Eoen~
M
MO-':-
~.g.~~
<01'-..-
WWM
W
co
I'- Ol
~-~~~
-.:- <0
W ;;
co t:u I
00
~O
0::>
CD
M
NO-':-
~.g.~~
..-1'-..-
WWM
W
00
<1l
<1l
u..
(ij
00
a
a.
00
(5
<1l
Ui
l1l
s:
:-Q
o
CI)
o
co
co
ai
co
W
Q;
>
o
t-
ro
o
0>
<0
-.:-
M
co
W
Ol
<0
-.:-
M
co
W
Ol
<0
-.:-
M
co
W
M
.....
co
N
N
.....
~
<1l
::J
c:
Ql
>
Ql
0::
tV
<5
~
-.:-
.....
en
M
~
W
-:t
.....
en
a5
-:t
N
W
M
o
10
en
o
-:t
W
I'-
M
I'-
a.
N
;;
;:f-
a
N
o
;;
o
o
o
Ol
CI)
W
o
Z
woo
<9 ,~
Zc
~<1l
zo>
0,-5
oc
4!8
O::(ij
~~
W<1l
0<9
o
lO
N..
I'-
W
\3
(()
o
o
N
~
~
Ii...{
~
~
c.,:,
Q
;;:J
~
~
~
~
Q
<(
a..
,
....
Z
W
~
W
(!)
<(
Z
~<(
~~
(!)W
ot;
0::<(
a..~
Ww
....0
~~ 1-1-
~~~~~
~z~g~
0::::> Clla:
00
o::U
~M
:c'
om
..JO
0>-
:cm
w....
enW
::::>(!)
00
:c::::>
m
o
z
z
>-
CD
0>
0>
o
o
N
W
I-a:
U)::J
roWI-
!2...JO
I"-<(z
Ol-w
00...
I-x
W
::Jro
~~g
--I-~
::;o...~
x--
W(")
W
>
i=
<(
a:
a:
<(
z
~
<V
E
~ ~
o :J
.0
.9IOE
~ a; .~
(")r--:<v
E"--~
g':B
~c~
~'~ ~
<V <V .....
u5:.E
.~ I '2
(/) I >-
Ec:o
ro 'C ~
L.<1lro
g~ ~
a:u;o
('I <v 10
05:;;
.....(/)~
O<V(")
.....'00
(/):JO
~~~
3:a.:-~
-g~~
<1l _
(/) '0 c:
<V c: <1l
.- <'0 '-
~5:<9
mI5:
~II
~<vI
(/) '0 0
oI~
~~~
00.....
oo.E
10 Il)
010 Il)
0(") 0
I"-~OcD
.;t- <D Efl 0)
(")C') M
~~ ..,;
Efl ~
~
000
...-0...--
...-...-...-cu
~~~o
..-NNI-
101010
W
~
<(
Z
I-
Z
::J
o
o
o
<(
Iii
'0
:G (jI-
g ~ ~
>ooOJ
~a;a;~
(/)OON
,~ <1l <1l cD
~~E<(
<1lOOa.
U)oo..,
mooO)
('I..--OM
1"-..--000
r--:~c:icO
EI} <D 0 CD
N C') Il)
"r""- ER- -r---
Efl ~
10(")01"-
<DroEfl'<t
ro(") N
Mm 0
EI}..- N
10 Il)
Efl W
~I~
m 00
m::: :;;
~r--:o'<i
- 0 Efl ...-
I"-C') M
Ell ~ -r-
Efl Efl
<(
a..
,
....
z
W
~
W
(!)
<(
z
<(
~
W
....
en
<(
~
W
o
~
>-
I-
Z
::::>
o
Uw Wi
::Jcn
U~zw
a:::--w::J
::::>~Giw
o a:a:
en
W
::::>
z
W
>
W
a:::
>-
m
....
W
(!)
o
::::>
m
W
::::>
z
W
>
W
0::
o
Z
Z
>-
CD
0>
0>
o
o
N
t)w
row::J
0-1Z
~~~
OW
I-OC
::Jro
a:o
roIO
Ol-N
t:::>;:
ow:::::
ocC')
~
:J
o
U
U
<1l
OJ
c:
.~
<V
.0
en
<V
Qj
.~
,!:;
(/)
'0
c:
.2
<(
0...
-,
l"-
N C;;
:gomo
~ Efl ~_ Efl
;;
wWI
::JO
Zoc
w::J
>0
~U)
0000
...- 0...- a
...-00>0
0000
...-(Y')..q-,.-
.;t 10<0 I"-
.;t.;t.;t.;t
w
~
<(
Z
I-
Z
::J
o
o
o
<(
(/)
<V
<V
LL
C
~~~
U5!!~
'0 en >
en~~~
~Q)Uu
~:;:o .~
EOU)~
OO~
<DOO>
<D 0.0.0
.oOOEfl
C')ON
Efl~;;;
10 0>
.;t <D
I"- 0 .;t. 0
mEl}OEfl
('I 0
Efl <D
Efl
~I~I
I"-
~ ~.
0000
~ Efl ~. Efl
;;
(/)
o
1ii
Qj
C-
o
g
'u
~
'0
c:
<1l
<J)
Qj
"S
<1l
.I::.
.9
'0
<V
Ol
ro
.I::.
u
en
<V
<V
LL
(")
o
C')
N
<D
<D
Efl
Qj
>
o
~
ro
o
10
~
10
~
0>
<D
Efl
10
~
10
~
0>
<D
Efl
10
~
10
~
0>
<D
EI}
N
00
I"-
,..:
...-
"-
...-
~
Q)
:J
C
Q)
>
Q)
a:
Iii
'0
I-
M
'<t
...-
...-
M
N
N
Efl
0)
10
"-
...-
N
~
;;
.;t
M
10
~-
o
~
...-
Efl
I"-
('I
1"-.
N
(")
Efl
~
M
N
o
o
o
o
o
0>
U)
w
U
Z
W(/)
~ .~
_ c:
I-<V
ZOl
OE
Oc:
-1 0
<(0
OC(ij
W.....
Z ~
W<v
<9<9
(")
o
C')
('1-
<D
<D
Efl
I"-
10
<D_
Ol
co
10
Efl
en
Q)
Q)
u-cn
o
Cl
C CO
"c.. 0
a.~
i=>-
<(U-
a..
-,
<C
.....
c:
(1)
E
.s::
(J
C'tI
.....
.....
<C
o
l"-
N
~3:~
u.J:
CU J:
o
o
Q.
.~
o
s:::
o
I-
">t
ro~
-0
I-
E
"C
<!
Q)
...
o
CUCO
3:">t
00
...~
Q)
N
(j) I"- ">t (j)
...- lO I"- ...-
o ('I') ('I')
NNl()
('I') N ...-
lO I"- 0
('I') <0 N
~N...-
~ ~
I"- 0) 0)
N<O<O
o <0 l()
<Oo)N
I"- ...- ">t
N N l"-
N I"- I"-
~...-~
Y7
co I"- I"- ('I')
0) l() N ('I')
CO ...- 0 CO
<ONl()('I')
CO I"- ">t I"-
"'=t N CO CO
l() N ~ 0
Y7 Y7 lO
Y7
a 0) CO ...-
a l() N l()
a ...- l() 0)
Y7"'=t"'=t<O
<0 "'=t ">t
"'=t lO N
...- Y7 0)
Y7 N
~
I"-
('I')
Y7
<0 ('I')l()<O('I')CO a
">t"-<Ol"-a<o1"-
0<01"-<0<(0)<0
">ta('l')I"-NY7O)
~ ('I') ..- ..- ~ <0
Y7Y7Y7 ~
..Jen
<!z
1-0
~I-
OI"-<Ol()('I')1"-1"-
('I')I"-I"-NN..-"'=t
">t I"- <0 co "'=t_ 0 ..-
CO ('I') CO <0 l() N l()
<0 N ('I') "'=t
..-
:::J
cu
:r:~~~<(<(<(<(
~zzzzzzz
Q)
en
OI"-<Ol()('I')1"-1"-
('I')I"-I"-NN..-"'=t
">t I"- <0 co "'=t 0 ..-
CO ('I') co <0 l() N l()
<0 N ('I') "'=t
..-
U)0
s::: .-
o ...
....0
- Q)
..JO
<!~
en
03:
a.. en
~:E
o
r--
o
o
N
(j)
(f)
~
Q)
(/)
:J
o '+-
... Q)
Q) 0:::
:::J (/)
CU Q)
:r: E
3: u
en ~
:E CO
Q) 0-
U E
.~ w
Q) Q) ""0
(f) (/) 0
2:' :J 0
~~~
~~~
(f) ro 0
C > m
.C _ >
ro == 0
~~Z
CU
(/)
o
0-
.~
o
Q)
L..
,,-...
co
(/)
o
0-
(/)
i:5
~
0-
E
w
""0
o
o
~
""0
Q)
0:::
'--"
:r....
Q)
:::J
co
:r:
"C
Q)
.~
.s::
o
o s:::
~ (f) ~
Q)U~
o E ...
..c ro 0
(f)1-1-
<0 <0
('I') ('I')
0) 0)
o 0
lO lO
CO CO
o 0
0) (j)
Y7 ~
('I') ('I')
<0 <0
lO lO
('I') ('I')
">t ">t
lO lO
CO CO
l() lO
Y7 ~
0) (j)
N N
<0 <0
0) 0)
0) (j)
CO CO
...- ...-
N N
Y7 Y7
I"- l"-
I"- I"-
a 0
"'=t ">t
o 0
...- ...-
Y7 Y7
CO CO
N N
CO CO
<0 <0
...- ...-
N N
CO CO
N N
CO CO
<0 <0
..- ...-
N N
<( ~
z z
~
i;:
"C
_0 ""0 s:::
o CU
i;: 0 ..J
"C ~ CU
s::: ""0 ...
CU Q) 0
..J 0::: I-
NN">t
al"-l"-
<O">t~
~ ~ l()
('I')CO"-
Y7lO<O
NN
Y7Y7
aNN
<0"'-1"-
<OlON
~~l()
N <0 co
Y7<O~
;;Y7
co N 0
l() a <0
0)
~i!('I')
I"- N 0
Y7N('I')
<0<0
Y7Y7
"'=t<ON
<0 0) "'=t
('I')l()o)
Y7 0) l()
N 0)
Y70)
N
Y7
co I"- l()
l() l() ..-
I"- <0 "'=t
..- N
<0 <0
co I"- lO
l() l() ..-
I"- <0 "'=t_
..- N
<0<0
<( <( <(
zz z
o
Q)
~
o ~ ~
Q) > CU
~ C 0 U.
o .9 ~ cu
co m 0::: 0
u.U)Q)8.
L.. u 0
~2:Jo
o (/) 0 I
Q.c(/)S:::
.~ CU Q) 0
C: 0::: Z
9'-
s::: (f)'E cu
o(f)CU'"
z~~{:.
M
~
co
w
r--_
co
r--
w
ro
o
o
N
~
...-
~
T""
Yt
10
co
W
N
~-
W
~
0_
T""
Yt
N
N
~
M
w_
co
N
~
Yt
10
M
r--
o
r--_
M
o
N
Yt
o
m
M
~
N
~
M
~
N..
m
r--
N
r--
~
T""
10
~
T""
en
..J
<!
I-
o
I-
\5
{b
Council Members
Greg Brockbank
Damon Connolly
Barbara Heller
Cyr N. Miller
Fire Chief
John Montenero
March 14, 2008
Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste JPA
Attn: Jeff Rawles - JPA Administrator
P.O. Box 4186 - Room 401
San Rafael, CA 94913-4186
Re: Proposed 2008/2009HHW Budget
Dear Mr. Rawles:
It is projected that Fiscal Year 2007/2008 will be under budget 3.6% by year end.
The 2008/2009 budget proposal will be 1.330/0 over the 2007/08 budget mostly
for the following reasons:
1) In the Non-personnel categories only, a 3.270/0 CPI increase was
added to all objects except the Equipment Replacement Fund and the
Advertising and Promotions categories.
2) For the life of the HHW program there have been two Marin Resource
personnel coordinating the administrative and logistical responsibilities
of the day to day operations. These two positions work 300/0 of their
time each (600/0 total) on HHW duties and yet the position is
underfilled.
Due to an increase in Marin Resource and HHW program personnel
responsibilities, and the need for logistical continuity using one person,
it is time for Marin Resource to hire 1 FTE position. This partnership
will provide that 800/0 of this new position time is dedicated to the
operations of the HHW program and 200/0 to Marin Resource
Fire Department Offices: 1039 C Street, San Rafael, CA 94901
Administration (415) 485-3304 Fax: (415) 453-1627
\ 7
receptionist duties. As a receptionist at the MRR front office, the
location will be strategic for the meeting and greeting of CESQG
businesses as they make their appointments and payment
arrangements.
In 2007/2008 $27,076 was budgeted in this object code - 8291 Admin
Allocation and was under funded. For the 2008/2009 budget $17,924
has been added to this previously allocated amount for a total of
$45,000 for the new position.
The projected 2007/08 year end 8111 Classified Personnel and 8113 Overtime
objects show discrepancies from what was budgeted. When these two objects
are combined however it only reflects an overall 1.60/0 difference in budgeted and
actual amounts. This is due to the following:
1) The projection of new hires did not take place as expected. This
therefore lowered the overall Personnel Costs, the Holiday, Workers
Comp and Retirement categories.
2) Overtime was increased due to not hiring additional personnel.
3) Personnel received an un-projected 50/0 pay increase in January.
Additionally, budget category 8121 Group Life/Health is difficult to project as
these increases are only received mid way through the fiscal years. For 2007/08
we are projecting a 390/0 increase in this category.
These projected object code changes have been carried over to the proposed
2008/09 budget.
\~
2
CESQG ProQram (a lower cost alternative to waste disposal to Small Quantity
Generator Businesses).
During fiscal 2006/07, 552 businesses participated in the CESQG waste disposal
portion of the HHW facility.
At 6 months into the 07/08 budget completed, the CESQG business participation
shows an unexpected revenue increase - the revenues collected for the CESQG
program are already at the estimated $51,000. The CESQG program provides a
lower cost alternative for waste disposal to Small Quantity Generator
Businesses. We will be exceeding the anticipating expected revenue and have
added that anticipation to the 2008/2009 budget proposal.
3
tq
07/08 Year End
Projection 6 2008/2009
2007/2008 Budget months data Budget
8111 Classified Personnel $274.420.41 $222,239.14 $233,351.14
8112 Temporary Help (into 8111) $ - 0 0
8113 Overtime Pay $18,674.14 $75,514.00 $75,500.00
8114 Holiday Pay $9,962.92 $5,504.64 $6,000.00
Vacation $7,012.23 $11,337.82 $11,500.00
8121 Group Life/Health InsurancE $33.402.22 $43,275.76 $43,000.00
8125 Worker's Compensation $35,000.00 $29,001.22 $30,000.00
8126 Retirement $17.427.41 $8,481.78 $8,500.00
8129 Payroll Taxes $28,004.50 $22,490.36 $22,500.00
PERSONNEL SUBTOTAL $423.903.82 $417.844.72 $430.351.14
8130 Legal and Professional $2,550.00 0 $2,633.39
8211 Travel & Conference $510.00 0 $526.68
8212 Training Instruction & Medic $3,124.26 $4,512.20 $3,226.42
8216 Professional Dues and Sub $510.00 0 $526.68
8240 Rental/Land $51,888.00 $51,888.00 $97,816.19
~ I$q~jpm~ptfR~p~~~~m~p~....F1~ $1,020.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
...,.B242....... ~.Ujl(jiQg....~l'1g.....~~tUptUt~...:R~(;)l $ - 0 0
8243 Equipment Rental $1,249.70 $1,889.42 $1,290.57
8260 Printing $1,530.00 $5,685.92 $1,580.03
8261 Duplication $1,530.00 $166.66 $1,580.03
8262 Books and Publications $765.00 0 $790.02
8263 AudioNideo Materials $ - 0 0
8270 Contractual Services $20,000.00 $18,000.00 $20,654.00
8271 Waste Disposal Costs $524,708.42 $520,365.38 $541,866.39
8280 Advertising & Community P $9,372.78 $4,719.88 $9,000.00
8290 Insurance & Surety Bonds $3,967.00 $5,380.66 $4,096.72
8291 . HHW Lo~ $27,076.92 $38,563.40 $45,000.00
8310 Office Supplies $1,224.00 $2,155.36 $1,264.02
8330 Clothing & PPE Supplies $51.450.00 $44,337.44 $53,132.42
8360 Miscellaneous Supplies & I\i $90,799.53 $98,088.88 $93,768.67
8422 Maintenance Buildings & Irr $ - 0 0
.8043 . ....... Ie. ... ..... 0 0 0
.. ....
NON-PERSONNEL SUBT( $793.275.61 $796.753.20 $879.752.23
Total Operating Expense~ $1,217,179.44 $1,214,597.92 $1,310,103.37
8361 Operating Ratio 126,902.15 125,609.73 125,088.57
GRAND TOTAL: $1,342,850.21 $1,340,207.65 $1,435,191.93
OUTSIDE FUNDING SOURCES:
BOP Grant Monies ($17,340.00) ($17,340,00) ($17,340.00)
SQG Monies ($51,000.00) ($90,000.00) ($90,000.00)
Net Amount: $1,274,510.21 $1,232,867.65 $1,327,851.93
4
10
Facility Year End Expenses - 07 -08 & 08-09 are projected
~f).,
R5
~rp
~<:)
rp
~fl:)
r>>~
~<:)
fl)
~
~
~Oj
c65
~~
R5
~rp
~Cj
rp
~co
R5
~rp
~C5
rp
~
R5
~rp
~(J
rp
~Cb
R5
(\~
~<:)
rp
~Oj
R5
~fl)
~C)
rp
40-Car-bv-Appointment Events
Regularly scheduled 40-Car-by-Appointment events are taking place every 4
months in West Marin: Bolinas Fire Station, Pi. Reyes Fire Station and Woodacre
Fire Station. These multiple events have been well received.
,.
5
'2-(
Performance
1,551,427 pounds of household hazardous waste was processed through the
HHW Facility in 2006/07
Major Waste Categories Collected
Participation
For 2006/07 a total of 27,995 citizens participated in using the HHW Facility. 463
of these were businesses participating in the CESQG program. .
fffil BELVEDERE
_ CORTE MADERA
o FAIRFAX
o GREENBRAE
-_ KENTFIELD
IiliJlARKSPUR
~ IVlARIN\I\OOD
[illJ MILL VALLEY
_ ROSS
II) SAN ANSELMO
[] SAN RAFAEL
IiliJ SAUSALITO
_ STRAVVBERRY
I_ TIBURON
II UNINC f\.DVATO 1
I_ \/\tEST IVlARIN I
IIiliJ V\OODACRE !
Other HHW
3%
Flammable and
Poison
18%
I
\
Other UW
24%
Electronic Waste
(UW) ---------
21%
\
\ Asbestos
1%
Unh.ersal Waste
(UW)
3%
~
Ir)
~
<0
,...
~
-
~
-
-
2Z
6
kid
(1%
Base
/1%
PCB -containing
0%
Oxidizer
0%
Reclaimable
28%
Sharps and Pharmaceutical Proqrams
For 2007/08, there are now 26 locations collecting Sharps and 20 locations
collecting pharmaceuticals. 7,642 pounds of sharps and 1180 pounds of
pharmaceuticals were diverted from the garbage and waterways.
Should you have any further questions, I can be reached at 415-485-3309.
Sincerely,
Bradley R. Mark, Captain
HHWF Manager
San Rafael Fire Department
7
~
13
L L\
4
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Belvedere:
George Rodericks
Corte Madera:
David Bracken
County of Marin:
Matthew Hymel
Fairfax:
Michael Rock
Larkspur:
Jean Bonander
Mill Valley:
Anne Montgomery
Novato:
Daniel Keen
Ross:
Gary Broad
San Anselmo:
Debbie Stutsman
San Rafael:
Ken Nordhoff
Sausalito:
Adam Politzer
Tiburon:
Margaret Curran
Date: April 23,2008
To: Executive Committee
From: Michael Frost
Re: Responses to Zero Waste Request for Information
Three responses to the Zero Waste Request for Information were received
by JPA staff (attached). Staff has reviewed the responses which detail the
contractors' capabilities, methodologies, estimated costs, proposed
programs, and technologies.
Each contractor describes a workplan that evaluates current programs,
waste streams, facility operation, and franchise agreements then analyzes
and prioritizes options, involves stakeholders in a set of meetings, and
develops a plan based on findings and the best available options.
Additionally, the proposals list staff qualifications, resumes and some
potential options for increasing diversion. Staff has prepared a brief
synopsis of the three proposals stating some of their main points.
HDR (Attachment A)
Methodology: 1. Needs evaluation including: existing infrastructure,
planned infrastructure, current and planned program services and
generation projection. 2. Identify and evaluate options to address needs to
reduce residual disposal and identify a range on diversion program options.
3. Develop a stakeholder participation workshops. 4. Refine options with
JPA Board and staff. 5. Develop zero waste plan and integration of
programs.
Timeline: April 2008 through November or December 2008
Cost: $190,000
Related Work: Contracted work for Los Angeles Zero Waste Master Plan,
Palo Alto Zero Waste Operation Plan, Resource Recovery Facility Plan for
Santa Cruz, and assisting the City of San Francisco in implementing waste
reduction programs, and technical assistance for Stopwaste.org.
SCS Enaineers (Attachment B)
Timeline: 21 weeks timeline to develop a Zero Waste Strategic Plan
Cost: $111,230
Methodology: 1. Analysis of current infrastructure and volumes including:
Pa e 1 of 3
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
7-S
facilities, programs and generation (diversion and disposal). 2. Overview and
integration of strategies for designing and implementing a zero waste strategic plan
including stakeholder input and workshops. 3. Plan development based on findings.
Related Work: Development of Solid Waste Management Plans for Spokane County,
Benton County, and the City of Lakeweed. Waste Characterization studies for the
Orange County and Santa Barbara County.
R3 Consultina Group (Attachment C)
Timeline: None specified for plan development. It specifies that development of a Zero
Waste Plan will include an implementation timeline.
Cost: $60,000 to $650,000 depending on the needs of the JPA.
Methodology: 1. Utilize waste composition data and track records of comparable
jurisdictions to select program options to reach 80% diversion. 2. Work with
stakeholders to define uzero waste". 3. Develop zero waste plan tailored to meet
Marin's needs.
Related Work: Assisting with development of the San Jose Zero Waste Plan, identifying
potential diversion for the City of Los Angeles, assisting the Cities of Piedmont, Windsor
and Calabasas with procuring services to move towards diversion goals.
The responding firms all appear to be fully capable of developing a strategic plan to
achieve zero waste for Marin. Therefore, based on the responses alone it is difficult to
assess which contractor has the best response. Each contractor has a background in
analyzing and assisting with environmental programs. However, HDR and R3 have
more experience directly associated with Zero Waste Programs. Additionally, HDR's
proposal addressed issues in Marin County, specific technologies, services, and
contractual developments to be instituted. This level of detail in HDR's response made
their proposal standout.
The following are some options for pursue the development of a Zero Waste Strategic
Plan:
· Select a contractor and direct staff to negotiate a contract to begin the Zero
Waste planning process based on the responses received.
. Select a contractor to begin a preliminary evaluation of our programs and
direction towards zero waste. This approach will allow the JPA to move forward
towards Zero Waste and more clearly define Marin's Zero Waste needs.
· Request additional presentation or backup material from the contractors.
· Direct staff to develop and release a Request for Proposal utilizing the
information gathered from the RFI responses.
Pa e 2 of 3
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
Lb
Staff recommends a combination of the above options. I n order to gain a greater
understanding of each company's capabilities, contractors should be interviewed by
JPA staff and/or JPA members. Following the interviews, a contactor will be selected to
proceed with program assessment. This is the first step in the development of a Zero
Waste Strategic Plan.
Staff requests this Committee's direction on proceeding towards the development of a
Zero Waste Strategic Plan.
Attachments
F:\WasteIJPA\JPA Agenda Items\ExCom 080423\RFI Response.doc
Pa e 3 of 3
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
'27
2<2>
A T-rACHMt:Nul A
March 28,2008
Michael Frost, Program Manager
Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste JPA
C/o Marin County Department of Public Works
P.o. Box 4186
San Rafael, CA 94913-4186
Subject: 1. Letter of Introduction for RFI for Zero Waste Strategic Plan Development
Dear Mr. Frost:
HDR is an architectural, engineering, and consulting firm that excels at complex projects and
solving challenges for clients. More than 7,200 employee-owners, including architects,
engineers, consultants, scientists, planners and construction managers, in 150 locations
worldwide, pool their strengths to provide solutions. For more than 30 years, HDR has been
an innovative leader in developing solid waste management systems and facilities to our public
and private sector clients. We are uniquely qualified to assist the JPA in achieving its Zero
Waste goals.
Experience. Since 1990, we have worked with communities throughout California to plan and
implement programs to achieve high diversion rates. We havedeveloped cutting edge programs
to divert waste from disposal, including collection program design and procurement, food
scrap composting and organics management, commercial technical assistance in waste
prevention and recycling, and producer responsibility initiatives for products and packaging.
We have been involved in all aspects of evaluating, planning, siting, designing and procuring
trend-setting facilities, including material recovery facilities and compositing facilities. We also
ar~ working closely with both our public sector and private sector clients in developing new
technologies for managing residual waste, including anaerobic digestion and bio-separation.
Depth of Bench. Our Sari Francisco and Folsom-based staff have a broad range of expertise to
draw upon to serve the JPA's needs. Our planners and engineers have a wide range of skills in
AB 939 compliance, commercial technical assistance, program design and procurement,
performance and rate' review, facility development, gree~ building, energy efficiency, renewable
energy development, 'sustainability planning, and carbon management. Additionally, we are
thrilled to provide a team of subconsuh:ants with capabilities to complem~nt those provided by
HDR staff, including Cascadia Consulting, HF&H Consultants, Town-Green, and Richard
Anthony & Associates. We have long working relationships with each of these firms, which we
have selected because of their unique abilities and experience.
Very truly yours,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
'(<AC~
'"g~i1:~~~_
, '115'~h5?~'S
$aO Francisco;
Ruth C. Abbe
Project Manager
~
HDR is committed to reducing our environmental impact through increased
use of rerycled post-consumer materials.
115 Sansome Street. Suite 800
San Francisco. CA 94104-3622
Phone (415) 814-6800
Fax (415) 814-6801
www.hdrinc.com
2q
2. Current Users and References
HDR is a national leader in zero waste planning assisting communities that are ready for this bold move, including Los
Angeles, Palo Alto, ~an Francisco, San Jose, Sonoma County, and Santa Cruz County, in identifYing the programs and
facilities that will be needed to achie~e these ambitious goals. Following is a short list of current clients and contact
information for zero waste plans that we have developed.
Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan, Zero Waste Master Plan
City of Los Angeles, California '
Z: E Rea' , The City of Los Angeles is striving to accelerate diversion goals to 70
',,' ',' ' ,', ' "., ," ,'..", ,.,',.'. " percent diversion by 2015, to a~d ,materials and ~urbside collectio. n
. , ' " programs, and to convert the City s 700+ collection trucks to clean-
WASTE PLAN burning liquefied natural gas by 2010. HDR is assisting the City in
SOIktWtiWlI!lMgl,..tdRtiOliifCtJP'lIn developing its Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan that is
envisioned to be the City's 20-year zero waste master plan. During Phase 1 we worked with LA
stakeholders to develop the guiding principles for the 20-year zero waste master plan by conducting
36 public workshops, 3 citywide conferences, 75 business interviews, 100 key constituent meetings, and 36 grass roots
house meetings. Phase 2 will include the development of the policy, programs and facility plan, financing plan,
implementation plan and environmental documentation.
Zero Waste Operational Plan-C!ty of Palo Alto, California
HDR has assisted the staff of the City of Palo Alto Solid Waste Management Program on a number
of projects over the past ten years. The City manages its own landfill (now used primarily for
construction and demolition waste -and other heavy roll-off's), compost facility, recycling center and
contracts for solid waste,.recycling and green waste collection, with recyclables processing at the
, City of Sunnyvale's SMaRT Station. HDR developed a detailed zero waste operational plan
identifying the policies, programs and facilities that the City will need to reach 73 percent diversion
by 2011 and 90 percent diversion by 2022. Tasks include: waste characterization analysis, program
and facility descriptions, regional facility capacity analysis, , economic analysis, and implementation plan.
Assessment of Sh'ort and Long- Term Solid Waste Management Plans-
Sonoma County, California .
Resulting from the closure of the County's Central Landfill, HD R evaluated the County's short-
and long-term solid waste man~gement plans to identify the most appropriate solutions for the
County's diversiqn and disposal needs. HDR developed an action plan for Sonoma County based
upon our findings of the study, which included: short-term out-of-County hauling of solid waste;
working with the local Solid Waste Management Agency; maximizing reuse and recycling of waste;
implementation of zero waste policies; development of mid-term landfill options; development of
long-term landfill options; possible implementation of a Materials Recovery Facility; and possible
implementation of commercial food waste collection.
Long Term Resource Recovery Facility Plan-Santa Cruz, CA
HDR assisted the County in developing a strategy for long-term diversion planning and residuals
management. Our work includeS defining the long term resource recovery alternatives, evaluating
sites in the County that would be suitable for these alternatives, developing economic models for
each facility, developing an outreach strategy and conducting workshops in each supervisory,district,
and the formulation of an action plan for long-range resource recovery and waste management
needs. fu a result of this analysis, we developed the conceptual design, sizing, and siting
requirements for the County's zero waste Eco-park.
~o
ID~
2-1
:)~~iL-:Jl~~:;-:--;-':::~~~~j~-;;~_-< -:~:~;:~~~~t~~ii~~~~\~= -.-~:~:~:;-_~_ --~-~-~_J
3. Methodology
Our approach to providing technical assistance to the JPA is to work closely with JPA staff to
understand the specific needs of the project and to develop a scope of work and team suitable
to accomplishing the work in the most cost-effective and time-efficient manner possible. We
are flexible in our approach and are very happy to work collaboratively with the JPA to
undertake the task at hand and provide precisely the expertise needed for the project:
Following is a summary of HDR's overall zero waste methodology.
Determine and Evaluate Needs
Identify Existing and Planned Infrastructure and Servi~ and Project Generation, Disposal, and Diversi~n
HDR will project the quantity and composition of the County's residual waste stream and project the generation,
disposal and diversion tonnages for the planning period.
Identify Service Voids and Identify Market Opportunities
HDR will document the materials, programs, or waste generator sectors that are un-addressed or under-served currently
in the Counry. The assessment of opportunities will focus on identifYing materials that possess a strong potential market
demand and/or economic advantages associated with recycling or prevention.
Identify and Evaluate Options to Address Needs
Guided by information about the quantities and locations of disposed and
diverted materials, as revealed by our research and the models of the waste
stream that we will develop, our team will research and assess the cost and
viability of options for waste reduction, recycling, and other waste
diversion and the options for management of residual materials.
Identify Range of Diversion Options to Reduce Waste and Increase Recycling
This initial list of options will be generated considering the targeted materials,
the generators of those materials, the rurrent infrastructure, and the local cost
and pricing structure for solid waste and recycling services. The range of options
could include providing new collection services, investing in infrastructure,
providing price incentives, expanding or revising promotion, education and
technical assistance services, and implementing new regulations.
Identify Range of Emerging Waste Treatment Options to Reduce Residual
Waste Volumes prior to Disposal
The County may wish to explore alternative technologies for managing residual
waste. Based on input from stakeholders and JPA staff, we will identifY and
evaluate residual waste treatment options that are appropriate for the County.
Developing a Stakeholder Participatory Decision-Making Process
HDR is a leader in public engagement strategies to advance public policy initiatives. We are currendy applying the concept of the
design charrene (a traditional planning tool for urban planners and architects) to public policy decision-making in the area of zero
waste planning. We recommend that the JP A consider focusing its stakeholder involvement and policy development through a
charrene process or series of workshops. 1bis is detailed further in Section 11. AdditWnal Comments.
Refine Options and Develop Zero Waste Plan
We anticipate working directly with the JP A staff and stakeholders to evaluate policy, program and facility options based on the
goals and objectives established during the charrene or workshop series. We anticipate that this process will include:
· Screening options to develop a short list of high potential 'alternatives. Based on an interactive process during the
charette or workshop series, the initial list of options will be screened qualitatively to focus on those alternatives that
have the highest potential for success, considering cost, impact, feasibility, and implementation requirements.
· Analyzing the remaining options to estimate the impacts and costs over the planning period. The projected
impacts ~f these alternatives will be compared to baseline projections of waste generation and disposal to determine
how much material could be diverted over time. The impacts of different programs will be combined to project
overall progress toward the County's goals and the estimated total cost of reaching those goals.
· Selecting a final package of preferred options based on input about goals and priorities and also based on
assessments about diversion potential, cost-effectiveness, and other community values.
fil"1
3-1
3t
4. Integration with Current Programs
Marin County has a relatively small number of solid waste collectors, with Bay Cities Refuse, Marin Sanitary Service, Mill
Valley Refuse, the Redwood Empire Disposal (Northbay Corporation) and Tamalpais Community Services District active in
the County. The small' number of active collectors and the single facility may make it relatively simpler to engage these
stakeholders in shaping a zero waste future, since the first components of that future will involve maximizing diversion that will
be available through current and future franchises and collection systems. Marin Sanitary owns and operates the primary
diversion-based facility within the County, and will likely be a central factor in additional processing of material.
Redwood Landfill plays a major role for in-County waste flows as the only remaining landfill in the County. The potential
expansion of the facility would have both local and regional impacts. For jurisdictions within the County, a larger expansion
would provide a relatively longer-term and lower-cost disposal option (compared to export), and affect the relative economics.
for alternatives to disposal that would create greater diversion on the way to a zero waste future. Regionally, an expansion would
affect the complex interplay of waste flows now occurring in Marin, Sonoma, Solano,
Alameda and Contra Costa COWlties. Other key pending factors in the regional waste
flow picture include the ability of a private operator to resuScitate the Sonoma County
Central Landfill so that entire County's waste stream is not exported, and the potential
expansion of Republic's Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County.
There is some interest in developing anaerobic digestion for food scrap diversion in
cooperation with the waste water treatment plants. Collecting and creating feedstock for
these systems will likely be a focus of the County's future zero w~te efforts.
Getting the Most Diversion from Current Arrangements
To achieve 80 percent diversion, there are still some easily accessible options for future implementation within the County,
including: -
Adding organics, including food scrap collection to the existing collection systems
Expanding current recycling and organics programs to all multi-family and commercial businesses
Enforcing current member agency contracts by collecting and tracking data, and ensuring 'compliance with contract
terms'
Identifying the incentives and disincentives for enhanced diversion under current member agency contracts
Identifying "best practices" for the member agencies to use in negotiating new contracts or contract extensions
Maximum County Enforcement of the C&D ordinance and consideration of reducing exemption levels and
increasing the 4iversion requirement
Providing technical assistailceto commercial, institutional and multi-family generators to maximize participation in
recycling and organics programs. .
Moving Beyond
To reach beyond 80 percent diversion and to strive for zero waste, the County will likely need to undertake major policy,
program and facility initiatives, including:
Leadership 'in manufacturer responsibility, requiring producers of products and packaging to take responsibility for
the end of life of their products. .Strategies could include recycling requirements, bans on non-recyclable, 1.101.1-
compostable products and packaging, takebackrequirements, etc.
Collection infrastructure changes, which might include wet/dry collection of every-other-week refuse collection
(with every week organics - forcing food scraps into the yard debris container)
Exploring options for restructuring rates to create the proper incentives and ensure adequate program funding as the
disposal stream decreases. Recycling and organics services are not "free" and should have some charge; rates should
decrease as the entire combined volume of generated material (disposal, recyding and organics) decreases - e.g., in
response to true waste prevention. Would likely require a Proposition 218 noticing process, but would ultimately
better reflect true cost of service and hence be more Prop 218 compliant.
Exploring complementary options for contractor compensation. Like restructuring rates, this option could be more
Prop 218 compliant
Sustainable long-term funding
Resource Recovery Parks for all 12 categories of discarded materials
Restrictions on disposal of unp.rocessed material ("MRF first", new technologies for treating residual waste prior to
disposal)
li):{
4-1
~2
~~~~~~~.~-~~~-~-----~
5. Implementation
We will produce a detailed implementation plan that includes all of the tasks,
including the decision points, and detailed implementation steps necessary to
implement the zero waste system, including all policies, programs and facilities.
The implementation plan will be a comprehensive roadmap to the County's
zero waste future and will describe how all existing and planned policies,
programs, and facilities will work together to achieve the County's goals.
Iterations of this plan will be presented to the JP A staff and to the stakeholders.
The following implementation schedule is based on the goals and timelines
described in the RFI and HDR's experience preparing zero waste plans and
implementing zero waste programs in other jurisdictions.
Phase 1. Zero Waste Planning
Authorization to proceed
May 2008
Identify options
August 2008
Refine and analyze options
October 2008
Phase 2. Zero Waste Implementation
Development of member agency programs (e.g., collection system enhancements,
local ordinan~es) ,
i~i!~:~r)~~~1!~;:I
Development of new infrastructure (e.g., composting facility, construction and
demolition, materials recovery, alternative technology)
2012
Phase 3. Future Zero Waste Planning
The HDR Team's greatest
strength has been in using its
multi-disciplined staff to develop
successful strategic action plans
including all of the critical
implementation steps.
ID~
5-1
3:'
6. Staffing and Consultation
The following staffing and consulting cost estimates are provided for informational purposes
only. Actual costs for these services would need to be refined based on the actual scope of
, work or program activity. These estimates are based on our experiences with other
jurisdictions, implementing other similar programs.
Phase 2. Zero Waste Implementation
Development of member agency programs (e.g., collection system
enhancements, local ordinances)
Develop~ent of regional programs (e.g., commercial technical assistance,
organics technical assistance, social marketing, regioriallegislation)
Organics technical assistance
$100,OOO/year
Development of new i~frastructure (e.g., composting facilitY~'
construction and demolition,' mate~ials recOvery, alternative tedmology)
,~l:~!~~~i~~iijtt~!~~~j~~~~~;;ii~',;)r~~11~It;f;~rj~it~,~3~~:~;;':;~;~~1;i~~i
ID~
3'-1
6-1
... ,... :.~~~E.t;:':7<~:: ,c;~ .:::.:' .-~._. ~ .:_~~.:~ .... .-0: :.;~i,;;~_::~-_:?~_.~~3~~?f:~~.~._~~'_.:~__ .___ .m.~ ~~_ _~_. .\
7. Estimated Cost
The estimated costs presented in the table below are based on our list of preliminary tasks, described in Section 3. This is
merely an estimated cost, which would need to be negotiated upon approval of actual scope of work.
Phase L Zero Waste Planning
Identify options
$30,000
Refine and analyze options
$30,000
Total Phase 1
$190,000
ID~
7-1
S5
8. Compliance with Regulations
Since the 1960s, federal and state governments have developed a regulatory framework to ensure that wastes are managed in an
environmentally sound manner. Multiple agencies at the federal and state level have responsibility for regulating each component
of the solid,waste management system, including collection, processing, and final disposal. Generally, solid waste regulation and
initiatives are driven by state and local governments; while the federal government sets basic requirements to ensure consistency
among states and protect human health and ecosystems.
Federal Agencies and Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EP A) is responsible for hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste
management through the Office for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.-The Resource COnservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976 established landflli construction, management, and closure guidelines. The Office of Air and Radiation regulates
the solid waste-related air emissions, enforcing the Clean Air Act (CM.) of 1976 and subsequent amendments. The US EP A
traditionally used a three-prong approach to solid waste management oversight: (1) regulation, (2) voluntary programs, and (3)
outreach. Regulation is generally used to set basic standards for waste transportation, handling, and disposal to ensure consistency
and protect human health and ecosystems. Education and voluntary programs are used to increase recycling, reduction, and
composting rates; and to promote producer responsibility.
State of California Agencies and Regulations
The State of California (State) has historically been more active than other states and the federal government in establishing the
regulatory structure to promote zero waste; and is likely to continue down that path in the future, as it works toward a statewide goal of
75 percent diversion by 2020. The California EPA (CEPA) and the California Resources Agency both regulate hazardous and non-
hazardous solid waste management within the State. Within CEPA the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB)
manages non-hazardous waste collection, processing, and disposal; the Department ofT oxic Substances Control (DTSC) focuses on
preventing exposure to humans and ecosystems of hazardous chemicals; and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible
for maintaining healthy air quality, including developing the regulations to enforce the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32),
enacted in 2006. Within the California Resources Agency, the Department of Conservation (DOC) administers the California
Beverage Container Recycling and Utter Reduction Act (Bottle Bill) enacted in 1986. These agencies use a combination of mandates,
financial incentives, and education to promote a zero waste California. As solid waste is one of the largest GHG contributors under the
control of a municipality, it is likely to be directly impacted by any future regulation. '
Highest and Best Use of Resources
The focus of solid waste m3.nagement nationally has been shifting from dispOsing of waste to finding the highest and best use of
resources through reuse. recycling, composting,and producer responsibility.. The CIWMB has set a gOOl of75 percent diversion by
2020. To reach this goal, the CIWMB is promoting programs and legislation that support the idea of a zero waste California to
maximize the use of resou,rces. Zero waste, according to the CIWMB, is based on the concept that "wasting resources is inefficient
an,d that efficient use of our natural resources is what we should work to achieVe."1 According to the CIWMB, meeting the
diversion goal by 2020 "will require.. . maximizing jurisdiction diversion, pursuing producer responsibility, developing markets and
infrastructure, and pioneering new technologies and strategies to divert waste. "2
As a result, the focus oflegislation is not only on the downstfecun management of products and materials, but also on the upstream
development of those products. The downstream management of products includes reuse, recycling, conversion technologies,
composting, and disposal; which are traditional roles oflocal sanitation depamnents. The oversight of upstream development
ensures that "products are designed for the environment and have the potential to be repaired, reused, or recycled. "3 Traditionally,
communities and sanitation departments have not provided oversight of the upstream development of products with regard to
product materials and design. One of the Strategic Directives approved by the CIWMB on Febnwy 13, 2008, is to seek statutory
authority to foster 'cradle-to-cradle' producer responsibility. Upstream management would be the responsibility of the municipality
and state; and would go beyond the local sanitation department. As part of its Directives,'the CIWMB has pledged to work toward
zero waste, through composting, recycling, and producer responsibility. It is important for the JP A to f>anjcipate in the legislative
and regulatory discussion to ensure that future legislation supports the County's goals and does not oppose them. As CIWMB
begins implementing its Strategic Directives, including reaching a 50 percent composting goal and achieving cradle-to-cradle
authority, the JPA should be an active participant in development of those regulations. In addition to participating, the JP A should
also find areas where JP A regulations could complement or enhance State regulations in working- toward a zero ~e goal.
, C1WMB websile, accessed February 2008
2 CWIMB website
3 ibid
li):{
8-1.
.s6
...._-..f~-fl:~ii~"7,~~~:;;~~_:~_~~ .~..~::::~,~(~~~.~~~~~.=]~2~=:_:..-~~'.~. ~~ ._~.. . .. ....__._ ..... J
9. Support Services
HDR is an architectural, engineering, and consulting firm that excels at complex projects and solving
challenges for clients. We have been involved in all aspects of evaluating, planning, designing and procuring
both traditional and trend-setting facilities, including landfills, transfer stations, and material and energy
recovery facilities. We have developed cutting edge programs to divert waste from disposal, including
collection program design and procurement, food waste composting and organics management,
commercial technical assistance in waste prevention and recycling, and producer responsibility initiatives
for products and packaging. Municipal solid waste planning and implementation is ourbusiness, We have
provided solid waste planning and engineering services to 18 of the 20 largest cities in the United States,
including New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
( ,
Engineering News Record rated HDR 18th of the Top 500 Design Firms and 2nd in Solid Waste in
2005. Since 1970, our waste management professionals have ,implemented projects that handle more
than 50,000 tons of municipal waste each day. This means that 10 percent of the nation's waste is
processed, transferred, disposed, converted to energy or otherwise managed in a facility that HDR
helped to develop, Drawing from our vast experience, we help clients create efficient, environmentally
sound, and publicly acceptable waste management projects.
Solid Waste Needs Assessment
The key element in evaluating solid waste systems and developing program plans is a realistic appraisal of the current
system's capacity and the programs, policies, and facilities needed to meet future needs, HDR is nationally recognized in
our ability to accurately assess the current situation and estimate the future needs of an existing solid waste system and
recommending sustainable, cost effective solutions to address the limitations of the existing system capacities and
efficiency, HDR has conducted needs assessments and waste characterization studies throughout the country and have
developed realistic future trends and projections for communities from
N ew York to Hawaii.
E' ON'; .....R~ '.......::. -..._to
-- eQl\-'--
' " "....... ---- --~
- ...--
~~, ,- ........ -
Engineering News-Record
has ranked HDR the second
largesf solid waste firm in
the United States, (2005)
Regulatory and PolicyPlanning
HD R's understanding of local, regional, and national environmental
regulations has.been instrumental in obtaining the required regulatory,
administrative, and legislative approvals for solid waSte projects
throughout the U.S. We have successfully obtained permits fo~ all types of
facilities, including landfills, transfer stations, and diversion facilities.
Technology Evaluation
HDRis at the forefront of state-<>f-the-arr and emerging technologies. Our
professionals <;:ontinually tour new facilities in Europe and Asia, and maintain
an extensive library of information that allows us to assist clients throughout
the world in assessing the broad range of technology alternatives to address
their solid waste needs. We have unparalleled experience in emerging
tedmology options (including gasification, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis etc.),
and can eValuate th~ options, taking into consideration the potential
technical, economic, environmental, and operational issues of each. Currently,
we are developing a pilot conversion technology project for the Salinas Valley
Solid Waste Authority using an autoclave process to separate fibers from other
materials fo~ recycling, create biogas for energy production, and compostable ,
products. We are also assisting the City of San Francisco in evaluating the use
of anaerobic digestion for treating source-separated food waste and municipal
solid waste.
Site Evaluation
HDR's nationally recognized environmental team has extensive experience in
supporting the site seleaion and permitting process for solid waste projects
nationwide. This environmental team has successfully sited and permitted
solid waste facilities throughout the country.
ID~
9-1
37
1 O~ Additional Features
The HD R team is composed of specialists with the technical expertise to help the J P A meet its zero waste goals. Our
project manager, Ruth Abbe, is HDR's national practice leader in Zero Waste Planning. For more than 18 years, Ms.
Abbe has assisted California municipalities in developing innovated programs in waste prevention and recycling. She has
provided zero waste planning services to Los Angeles, Palo Alto, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz County, Sonoma
County, and the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority. She has expertise in organics and commercial technical assistance
and stakeholder engagement. Tim Raibley, project director, serves both municipal and private dients in the
development of Zero Waste infrastructure. He is completing a siting study and conceptual design of Santa Cruz
County's Eco-Park, which will assist the County in meetings its zero waste goals. He is assisting the City of San Jose in
evaluating Zero Waste infrastructure opportunities at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. He is also
assisting Norcal Waste Systems in developing a busifless plan for its organics management facility development.
Cascadia Consulting, Inc. specializes in waste composition studies and waste generation
k^~ projections for California municipalities. Cascadia has conducted the statewide waste
CAS CAD I A characterization studies for the CIWMB and can develop community-specific profiles based on
CONSULTING GROUP its data resources. Founded in 1993, the firm's mission is to make a difference both for the
environment and its dients in areas as divers~ as solid and hazardous waste management, reCycling, and community
sustainability, with a focus on toxic substances and waste prevention, re~uction, and material reuse.
Cascadia's specific areas of expertise include:
Modeling waste disposal, composting, and recycling flows to support numerous comprehensive solid waste
management planning efforts
Conducting assessments of recycling and composting programs to measure participation rates, track the progress of
established programs and partnerships, and identify opportunities for growth
Collaborating with commercial and industrial waste-generators to develop sustainable waste management options
Developing economic and other incentives to encourage business participation in waste and recycling efforts (this
research was presented at the national SWANA conference in September, 2006)
HF&H Consultants, LLC has extensive knowledge of solid waste and recycling
conditions in Marin County and has completed. a wide range of projects for "Through HF&H's procurement and
jurisdictions throughout the County. HF&H specializes in program design and negotiation assistance, and HF&H's
, on-going assistance with AB 939
devetopment and is currently working with several agencies on the next generation of program implementation, contract and
programs "and funding options for maximizing diversion. HF&H provides a permit oversight, our city's residential
comprehensive range of solid waste advisory services, including planning for diversion rate has increased from 16%
maximum diversion; recycling and resource management; performance management; in 2003 to 38% to date (2004). n
economic and cost -of-service suidies; contractor selection and management; rate Eric Hassel
stnicture and fee studies; litigation consulting; and regulatory support. Through Acting City Manager
more than 1,000 engagements over the past 18 years, HF&H has served more than City of Lawndale
250 municipal agencieS in Northern, Central, and Southern California. '
Town-Green Planners. Town-Green has extensive experience in public involvement processes, most
notably the Charrette. Generally held on-site, Charrettes are social, political and business events. TIley
p~ovide a forum for ideas and feedback, and a venue for collaborating on developing a vision with a broad,
community authorship. The public involvement process developed by Town-Green's Steve Coyle and
former Lennertz, Coyle andkrociates'partner Bill Lennertz culminated in their founding of the National
Charrette Institute <www.charretteinstitute.org> to research and train organizations and professionals in this
TOWN-GREEN collaborative process. Town-Green team members have facilitated more than 200 Charrettes, and have the
skills needed to overcome opposition through a supportive planning process. Through this process, T own-
Green has achieved remarkable goals on bitterly contested projects that would have otherwise remained unattainable.
Richard Anthony Associates helps public and private sector clients on strategic policy and program analyses; develops public and
private zero waste plans; evaluates and develops resource recovery parks; designs incentive-based solid waste and recycling RFPs,
contracts and systems; evaluates garbage rates and services; and develops proposals and joint ventures for innovative reuse, recycling,
and composting companies. Mr. Anthony has assembled the ((zero waste dream team", which will assist the project team in
identifYing state of the art zero waste system components. They will assist HDR in the stakeholder outreach effort and will provide
knowledge and expertise about zero waste programs and policies from across the country and around the world.
~I
13~
Iii I
s~
ID~
10-1
--~-~\~;)Xj~{- :_-:':-c--~~~-; - _ ~_'~'.~: : :~._~,:(.-z~~~~,~~~=:;~.-~~-~ ;-.- - .. ..... .... ... ..~~. _ -... J
Our municipal clients are aware of the many benefits of involving the public in major public
projects and issues affecting taxpayers, ratepayers, and stakeholders. HD R's proven public
involvement process has resulted in public and political support for our planning and system
development work. .
Community Consensus through Charrettes
A "charrette" is a public participatory process first used by design professionals to reach
community consensus around a shared vision for urban planning and community development.
"Charrette" is a French word for "little can" and refers to the intense work of 19th century
architecture students to finalize their drawings, which were carried away in little carts by their
proctors. The most successful charrettes are intense, multi-dayevents, carefully managed by the
multi-disciplinary charrette team, which works with the community members to transform rough
concepts into a detailed plan. As a critical component, the team generally holds confidential
stakeholder interviews with property and business owners, community groups, and public officials. Confidential interviews help
build truSt and allow stakeholders to express their thoughts freely. Several operational principles are essential for the intensification,
transformation and integration phases to evolve. These include:
Using a holistic approach to problem identification and solving
, Allowing diversity of participants
Providing both an intense focus of effort and dear boundaries to
stay within
Creating both vision and implementation strategies
Requiring at least three feedback opportunities between proposed
plans, critiques, and revisions
Using objective measures to gauge the performance of those plans
HDR staff are certified by the National Charrette Institute and are currently applying the charrette process to innovative zero
waste planning projects. The charrette approach can assist the project team in efficiently evaluating the current solid waste
system, identifY state-of-the-an new programs and facilities and ensure that the final recommendations and guiding principles
are truly a shared community vision.
11. Additional Comments
Outreach/Public Involvement
The HDR Team has demonstrated its
effectiveness in working with
stakeholder advisory committees to
gain input in achieving community
acceptance of numerous projects for
cities across the country.
Phases of the Charrette Process
Research. Education &
Evaluation
Planning & Design
Refinement.
Confirmation &
Implementation
2 months
4 - 7 day ChalTette
1 month
Charrette Work Cycles
public input
public review
public
feedback
Approach
We anticipate conducting outreach to a large number of potential
stakeholders to engage them in the process, including:
Residential and commercial generators and ratepayers
Environmental and environmental justice groups
Community groups, including homeowner associations
Private sector haulers, facility operators, processors and recyclers
Business groups, including grocers and restaurant associations,
Building Owners and Managers Association, chambers of
commerce, manufacturers and producers of goods and packaging,
WRAP award winners, and Green Businesses
We would then conduct a series of workshops or a charrette to obtain stakeholder input on the follow topics:
Opportunities and constraints
Goals and objectives
Policies, programs, and facilities, focusing on: Producer responsibility, Reuse, Organics, C&D
Evaluation and recommendations
The most successful charrettes are intense, multi-day events, carefully managed by the multi-disciplinary charrette team, which
works with the community members to transform rough concepts into a detailed plan. The team takes the participants through
a process of intensification of input, transformation, and integration of the output. Stakeholders see the immediate results of
their input. The same process can be achieved through a series of workshops, but these take more calendar time, the immediacy
of the results are lost, and interest in the process can wane over time.
pubic input
~.
~
~
~
~
~
alternative
plans
refll1ed
plans
preferred
plan
li):{
11-1
~1
:~~; :~~ ~:_~~~-~_:~j
12. Cost Savings
Financial Planning / E~onomic Evaluation
HDR has a successful track record of preparing accurate cost accurate estimates and
financial analyses that are relied upon by our clients, rate setting bodies, and financial
institutions. We have prepared evaluations of solid waste facilities for financial institutions,
including the California Pollution Control Finance Authority, commercial and investment
banks and the,bond rating agencies that have supported the financing of more than $3
billion for infrastructure improvements. In addition, HDRhas conducted rate studies,
efficiency studies, and developed business plans for municipalities, enabling them to provide
cost effective and competitive services to their customers. We have also evaluated systems
and facilities for privatization. '
Conduct Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Analysis
Some of the alternative waste treat~ent technologies provide power generation as a by-
product of their process off-setting green house gas emissions by displacing petroleum-based
fuel sources. Some of the emerging conversion technologies have the ability to convert
previ~usly disposed of municipal solid wast~ into renewable, green energy; alternative fuels,
and valuable manufacturing feedstocks.
Waste prevention, recycling and composting also reduce green house gas emissions by saving energy and reducing
creation of methane in landfills. The California Resource Recovery Association recently calculated that if all wastes
currently disposed in landfills in California
were diverted through waste prevention,
recycling, and composting, this would off-set
all automobile greenhouse gas emissions in
California. We recently performed the same
calculation for the City of Palo Alto.
Implementing the Zero Waste Operational
Plan in Palo Alto would have the effect of
eliminating 47,000 ears from the road (total
number of cars in Palo Alto is estimated to be
Energy Savings Per Ton Recycled
(Million Btu)
Aggregate ~'6
Textbooks 0,7
Magazinesllhird CIas, s ma, a 1.1
Glass 2.7
Ay Ash 5.3
Office Paper 102
Rlonebooks 51'9
Corrugated Cardboard 15,7
Newspaper 16.9
Steel Cans 20,5
Personal Corqluters
HJPE
PET
LDf'E
Copper Were
Carpet
Alun'inum Cans
44,0
51.4
53:4
56.5
83,1
38,000).
106,1
206,9
HDR assisted both Fresno and
Sacramento counties in the competitive
bidding of municipal solid waste
selVices (collection and landfilling)
against the private sector and
completed an efficiency study/business
plan for both counties, designed to
close multi-million dollar budget gaps.
Million Btulton HDR's energy engineers, renew~ble energy
experts, and climate change specialists have
expertise in analyzing options for maximizing energy efficiency, alternative energy production, and green house gas
emissions reductions. HDR is currently developing a supplement to the EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM) which
will allow municipalities to adapt the WARM model to local characteristics.
We are also currently working with private investors in the voluntary carbon
market to fund projects for municipalities (such as landfill gas-to~energy projects)
by selling the carbon off-sets of the project. In $lddition to the financial analysis
described below, and as part of.the zero w~te planning process, we propose to
evaluate the opportunity for funding aspects of the plan through carbon off-sets
through either the current voluntary market or the likely future regulated .
market.
Also, HF&H provides clients Economic and Cost-Of-Service Studies and Rate
Structure and Fee Studies.
"I would also like to express my
appreciation for [HF&H's] innovative
thoughts on implementing a Refuse
Vehicle Impact Fee... We were able
to recover $196,000 during the first
year of the assessment. These
funds will assist us in stabilizing the
funding needed for repairing and
resurfacing San Rafael's streets. "
Ken Nordhoff
City Manager
City of San Rafael
Ji)~
L.lD
12-1
..' - - :-<~./ C>~~ ." >.';~~:~-~ ~,. -._ ... '.:~. .-.~:: ;._:~,;~~,~:~~ :::~~3~~~:~~' . _~~-':.'~ _".. ....... .; ~~_ _~_J
13. Copies of Other Solicitations
In arder to provide the JPA with as much infarmatian as passible to inform their
Zero Waste Program goals, we have included capies of the follawing Requests for
Qualifications (RFQ) and Requests for Propasals (RFP) as a separate electronic
attachment. Because of the length of the sample RFPs, and in order to prevent
waste, we have nat provided these in the hardcopy submittal.
HD R has provided zero waste planning far each af these clients.
City and County of San Francisco, California
RFP far Technical Assistance for Environmental Program Areas far the
Department of the Environment
Zero Waste Component
City of Union City, California
RFQ/P Salicitatian to Assist in Preparatian af a Strategic Plan far 75% Solid Waste Diversion
City of San Jose Environmental Services Department, California
RFQ for Cansultant Services for Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Zero Waste Plan Develapment
City of Los Angeles, California
RFP far Cansulting Services far the Develapment af a Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan (SWIRP)
Examples
Our team is currently assisting several jurisdictians in implementing strategies that may be cansidered by the Caunty in
the future.
Stopwaste.org: Providing commercial technical assistance to large cammercial generatars through the Stapwaste
Partnership. Assisting the Recycling Baard in identifying sustainable lang term funding far regianal programs.
City and County of San Francisco: Assisting City departments to madel zero waste behaviar thfaugh
implementatian af recycling and arganics programs, analysis of litter reductian. Assisting the City in evaluating
strategies far mandato.ry recycling and product and packaging reductian (fees and bans).
San J ose: An~yzing aptians far zero waste infrastructure at the waste water treatment plant, including arganics
processing and anaerobic digestian. '
South Bayside Waste Management Authority: Evaluated
best practices far callectian system and franchising ap'tians
to. maximize diversian.
Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority: Develaping
strategies to. achieve 75 percent diversion, including pilat
autaclave technalagy and evaluation af conversion
technalagies.
Individual Qualifications
Resumes far each individual propased to. provide service to. the
JP A are provided in the Appendix.
The littlest stakeholder.
ffi'1
13-1
YI
Appendix: Resumes
L-\Z-
-
ID~
-~~~-
Education
Bachelor of Arts Degree in
Philosophy and Fine Arts,
Amherst College
Professional Affi liations
Past-President, Northern
California Recycling Association
Past-President, Alameda County
Source Reduction and Recycling
l30ard
. ast-Chair, Alameda County
local Task ForcelWaste
Reduction Advisory Board
Past-Chair, City of Alameda
Recycling Task Force
Board Member; East Bay
league of Conservation Voters
Board Member, Californians
Against Waste
Ruth C. Abbe
Vice President
National Practice Leader, Zero Waste Planning
Professional Experience
Ms. Abbe is a recycling and solid waste management specialist and project manager with
more than 18 years of experience in facility and collection procurement, contract
negotiation, program planning, and financial analysis. She is HDR's national practice
leader in zero waste planning and heads up,the sustainability services group which focuses
on zero waste planning, toxics redu~tion, long term energy management and energy
efficiency, renewable energy, green house gas accounting, water conservation, green
building, and sustainable urban planning.
She has worked with more than 50 communities and private sector clients to plan and
develop their recycling and -solid waste management programs. She is familiar with state
of the art collection and recovery equipment and specifications, collection routing
methods, and financing plans. As a member of the City of Alameda Recycling Task Force,.
she developed one of the first citywide residential single-stream collection programs. She
has assisted jurisdictions in planning and implementing residential single-stream collection
and residential and commercial food waste collection programs, including; program
planning, public outreach, technical assistance and employee training.
Relevant Project Experience
SOLID WASTE INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLAN
City of Los Angeles, California
Project Manager. Orchestrating a one-year stakeholder engagement process consisting of
100 key constituent meetings, 75 business meetings, 36 house meetings, 36 working group
workshops, and 3 citywide conferences to obtain public input on the development of the
stakeholder-driven Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan (SWIRP). The SWIRP I plan
will identify the policies, programs and facilities that will be necessary to reach the City's
goal of 93 percent diversion. The SWIRP II planning process will include the development
of an implementation plan, facilities plan, financial plan and Environmental Impact
Report.
ZERO WASTE OPERATIONAL PLAN
City of Palo Alto, California
Project Manager. Conducting public meetings with zero waste task force, city council
committees, and full city council. Developing a detailed operational plan identifying the
policies, programs and facilities that the City will need t6 reach 73 percent diversion by
2011 and 90 percent diversion by 2022. Tasks include: waste characterization analysis,
program and facility descriptions, regional facility capacity analysis, economic analysis,
and implementation plan.
LONG RANGE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY PLAN
County of Santa Cruz, California
Project Manager. Conducting stakeholder outreach process to engage public support for
new "zero waste transfer station". Facilitating public meetings in each supervisorial
district. Developing a long range plan for the development of resource recovery facilities
for the County including: organics composting facility, construction and demolition
facility, materials r~covery facility and transfer station, and potential alternative
Lf3
Education
Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, California State
University, San Jose, 1980
Professional Registrations
Professional Engineer (Civil):
California, Arizona, Oregon
L.l L.-{
Timothy J. Raibley
Vice President
Mr. Raibley has more than 25 years of environmental and civil engineering experience,
including extensive solid waste diversion based facilities such as single stream recycling
facilities, organic/compost facilities, solid waste transfer, materials recovery and recycling
facility engineering and development, landfill permitting and design, landfill operations
efficiency evaluations, waste stream economic analysis and waste stream management. He
has designed or provided project management services for solid waste facilities including
landfill closures, environmental control facilities, transfer stations, and ma,terials recovery
facilities with project involvement ranging from conceptual planning, fatal flaw analysis,
peer review, design of working plans, and specifications to construction management and
construction quality assurance. Further, he has provided solid waste management services
including closure design, economic analysis and operations review and training of solid
waste facilities in the USA, Mexico, Jamaica, South America, Brunei, Morocco, Guyana,
Bulgaria, Vietnam and Guam.
MSW ORGANICS PROCESSING MASTER PLAN, Bay Area, California. HDR is
currently assisting a private client in the development of a business plan outlining the
development of a mixed organics/food waste and potentially mixed municipal solid waste
program as an alternative to transfer and disposal of these materials. Weare currently
working cooperatively with the client and a major university in the development of data
and parameters of how the facility could , function. The goal of the facility is to be capable
of processing the mixed municipal waste materials in such a way as to allow for the
extracting of a wide variety of potentially valuable materials including but not limited to
syngas, volatile organic acids, fiber pulp, recyclable materials and compost feedstock. We
will summarize the technical, environmental, operational and financial aspects of the
program into abusiness plan which will be aimed toward business and political review and
acceptance.
ECO RECOVERY REGIONAL 'TRANSFER STATION, COMPOSTING FACILITY
, AND MRF PLANNING STUDY, Santa Cruz County, California. HDR was retained to
assist Santa Cruz County prepare for the future beyond landfilling when the existing count
y landfill is closed and a new solid waste regime is needed. Our efforts included preparing
a variety of scenario's modeled various communities participating in a variety of waste
stream processing/treatment facilities. Based on the need for achieving maximum
diversion, we concluded two essential facilities will be needed after the closure of the
landfill; 1) a regional Transfer Station, MRF and HHW facility, Buy-Back/Drop-Off
facility, a used Construction materials retail facility, and 2) a combined Green-
waste/Construction Demolition materials processing, staging are and composting facility.
As the combination of these facilities is essential for the county to reach its Zero Waste
goal, we refer to the facilities as an Eco Recovery Park. Our preliminary efforts were to
determine the throughput quantities and corresponding sizes of facilities for various
scenarios, depending upon which of the cities within the County wishes to participate.
We ev:aluated several dozen potential sites, using site selection criteria which we
developed. We identified four potential sites worthy of detailed consideration. Due to the
nature of the sites, only two are suitable for both the regional Transfer StationIMRF and
Compost facility, but some are suitable only for one of the two functions. We also
prepared an economic model of the capital and operational cost of each component of the
facility. The throughput quantities for each component Was developed based on materials
Education
B.A., Environmental Studies,
Califomia State University,
Hayward,1983
A.S., Horticulture, San Francisco
City College, 1972
Certificates
Naturalist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge
l)ocent, Coyote Point Museum,
;tzgerald Marine Reserve, San
lVIateo County
Affiliations
Califomia Resource Recovery
Association
Publications
-Hauler Monitoring for AB 939
Compliance" presented at Solid
Waste Association of America
(SWAN A) Regional Symposium,
San Luis Obispo, California, May
2004
-Three Step Approach to AB 939
Compliance" published Brown,
Vence and Associates, Capital
Update, October 2003
Georgia A. Thompson
Environmental Regulatory Specialist
Professional Experience
Georgia Thompson has more than 20 years of experience as an environmental regulatory
specialist with expertise in integrated waste management. Her experience includes AB 939
hauler compliance monitoring, hauler contract management, hauler rate reviews and
auditing, development and implementation of public information and participation
programs, performance of siting studies and market feasibility studies, and preparation of
AB 939-related documents (e.g., Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Household
Hazardous Waste Elements, and Annual Reports). Ms. Thompson has extensive
experience working with elected officials at the city, county, state, and federal levels, as
well as extensive experience working with solid waste hauling vendors. Ms. Thompson
has tracked and proposed legislation regarding solid waste management and other
environmental issues.
HDR Project, Experience
Franchise Hauler Rate Review - EI Dorado County, California. Assisted in a review
of rate applications for three franchise haulers. Reviewed financial statements and assisted
in the preparation and analysis of pro forma rate models and the design of a Refuse Rate
Index model. Conducted a peer community survey to determine whether existing rates
were reasonable. Assisted in working sessions with the County and franchise haulers,
prepared the reports, and assisted in the presentation before the County Board of
Supervisors. The review resulted in a total savings to County ratepayers of $1.4 million.
Reviewed customer service logs for compliance with franchise agreement requirements.
Conducted a mass balance verification ofMRF diversion for both of the County's MRFs,
verifying tonnages, diversion percentage, and the legitimacy of markets and end-uses to
determine if franchise agreement terms were met.
AB 939 Annual Reports - Cities of Antioch, Pacifica, Greenfield, Gonzales, King
City, and Soledad, California. Prepared the annual reports to the California Integrated
Waste Management Board, documenting each jurisdiction's progress in implementing Source
Reduction and Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Element programs. Reviewed and
compiled the yearly disposal and diversion tonnages and documented ongoing and planned
programs.
Waste Diversion Studies and Site Assessments - Salinas Valley Solid Waste
Authority, Cities of Antioch, Chowchilla and Madera and Montebello, California.
Conducted waste diversion studies in response to a compliance order issued by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board to establish new base years. Targeted sites
for conducting site assessments and participated in the assessments. Directed surveys of all
state, federal and local offices, residential and businesses. Compiled all data and formatted
for CIWMB. Prepared forms, responded to comments and questions from CIWMB staff.
Business Waste Audit and Technical Support Program - City of Irwindale,
California. Conducted 80 business waste audits to determine a feasible diversion rate
mandate for the City's three commercial haulers. Idendfied diversion activities, materials
that are disposed, and potential diversion programs. Compiled the data into a report that
provided analysis and a recommendation regarding what the maximum and minimum
diversion rates for the commercial haulers should be commercial.
4S
Education
Bachelor of Arts, Pre-Law,
University of Florida, 1976
Professional Affiliations
National Recycling Coalition
(NRC), San Diego, Member,
1991-Present
Northern California Recycling
Association, San Diego,
Member, 1992-Present
olid Waste Association of North
America (SWANA), San Diego,
Member, 2000-Present
4(;.
Betsey N. Meyer
Senior Management Consultant
Professional Experience
Betsey has over 17 years of solid waste and recycling experience including hands on
operational knowl~dge of waste hauling, processing and recovery facilities and the
marketing of recovered materials. She also has extensive policy experience in, the areas of
extended producer responsibility, environmentally preferable purchasing, green building
and universal waste regulations. She has worked with municipal, state and federal
regulatory and legislative entities on recycling infrastructure development in seven
Western states.
Project Experience
Aerosol Recycling Partnership. Ms. Meyer took a leadership role in obtaining regulatory
relief from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control in the reclassification
of empty aerosol cans as solid waste. This led to the recycling of empty aerosol containers
via curbside collection and MRF operations throughout California. This action also
allowed generators to increase their diversion under AB 939 by expanding metals
recovery .
Betsey implemented a public outreach and educational campaign on aerosol recycling
through a public/private partnership between consumer product manufacturers( S.C.
Johnson, Sherwin Williams, Lysol, WD-40) and the Ventura County cities(Simi Valley,
Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, Ventura), Long Beach, and Los Angeles reaching 10 million
residents in Southern California.
Appliance Recycling Round-Ups. In collaboration with Southern California Edison and
various metals recyclers and non-profits, Ms. Meyer organized and implemented
community clean-up events to recycle energy intensive appliances. Events in San Diego,
Solana Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento recovered over 7500 obsolete refrigerators,
freezers and other house hold appliances from the waste stream.
Bay Area Shop Smart (San Francisco, Sonoma, Alameda, Napa, Marin, Santa Clara,
and San Mateo Counties). Ms. Meyer was a strategic partner with the City of San
Francisco in the planning and implementation of a region wide campaign to educate
consumers on environmentally preferable purchasing behaviors. The message of reduce
reuse and recycle was communicated through point of purchase displays at Safeway
stores, posters on public transit, bus kiosks, and through incentive based contests in
schools.
Design for Recycling, Grand Rapids, Michigan. As a Regional Manager with Cascade
Engineering, a manufacturer of engineered plastic refuse and recycling carts, Ms. Meyer
provided leadership and market development expertise to the materiel engineering, supply
chain management, R&D, manufacturing and production teams in designing and launching
a new recycled content product line. She acted as Project Manager tasked with identifying
alternative post consumer resin feed stocks. Betsey coordinated the sourcing and
processing of these feed stocks in the most expedient and cost effective manner resulting
in a 35% reduction in raw material costs.
Education
Master of Science, Pharmacy,
University of NE Medical Center,
1991
Bachelor of Science, Chemistry,
University of Nebraska Lincoln,
1987
Professional Registrations
Water Well Monitoring
Technician, Nebraska, No.
""9506 Issued: 01/16/2007,
.xpires: 01/16/2010
Nevada Certified Environmental
Manager, Nevada, No. EM-1924
Issued: 01/26/2007, Expires:.
01/26/2009
Professional Affiliations
Society of American Military
Engineers (SAME), Omaha,
Member
Todd C. Wilson
Program/Project Chemist
Professional Experience
Mr. Wilson has 16 years of experience in providing advice on complex chemistry
problems arising at, and management of hazardous toxicand radioactive waste (HTRW)
sites across the country. He advises on or performs chemical sampling, testing, and
analysis of wastes. He completes field audits and review of laboratory Chemical Quality
Assurance and Health and Safety requirements. He recommends appropriate disposal,
treatment, or processing requirements of materials based on the chemical properties of the
waste to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. He prepares Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPP), Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAP) and Field Sampling
Plan (FSP) for HTR W Environmental Restoration Contracts. He provides onsite training
and auditing of personnel to ensure adherence to the work plans. He investigates, analyzes,
directs, and manages investigations of site operations to determine the presence and
concentration of toxic and hazardous chemicals. He reviews sampling, testing, and
analysis of reports to verify the accuracy and adequacy of the data; and to ensure
compliance with contract requirements and conformance with accepted procedures to all
applicable laws and regulations. He ensures accurate sampling and scientifically defensible
data on which corrective action decisions are made. He interprets federal and state
regulations, u.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Department of Defense (DaD)
manuals and directives. He conducts negotiations with contractors, customers, public,
legal, and regulatory agencies. He evaluates innovative technologies (including natural
attenuation and in situ technologies) for applications in the remediation ofHTRW sites
and assists in the design of bench- and pilot-scale remediation systems to determine
applicability of the technology(ies) for full scale remediation ofHTRW sites.
Mr. Wilson has been a primary decision maker in bench-scale, pilot studies, numerous
remedial investigafion/feasibility studies (RI/FS), interim remedial actions (IRA), remedial
actions (RA), and has served as the Project Chemist for large sites with groundwater in
multiple aquifers impacted by explosives; 2,4~dinitrotoluene (DNT), cyclotrimethylene
trinitramine (RDX), nitrate, solvents; tetrachloroethylene (PCE),. trichloroethene (TCE),
dichloroethylene (DCE), and fuels; benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and total xylenes
(BTEX) due to gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel spills. He has designed and directed numerous
soil gas surveys, direct push testing (DPT) surveys, HydroPunch sampling, and installation
and sampling of numerous monitoring wells for site characterization. The following
projects represent a sampling of Mr. Wilson's experience:
HDR Project Experience
Street Sweeping Analysis, City ,and County of San Francisco, CA. Developed testing
protocols and interpreted test results to determine whether street sweepings can be diverted
from disposal and beneficially reused. Prepare technical memo and advised City staff of
test results.
Regulatory Experience. Project Chemist. Mr. Wilson has extensive experience in
working with federal and state regulators in evaluating and negotiating cleanup criteria. He
has 12 years of experience working with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Leaking
47
Education
Master of Science, Mechanical
Engineering, University of
Nevada Reno, 2005
Bachelor of Science, Mechanical
Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru
Technical University, 2002
~~
Anushaw Nambakam
Solid Waste Planning Specialist
Professional Experience
Anushaw Nambakam has expertise in solid waste planning, municipal solid waste
treatment plant analysis, hydrogen fuel cells. Her project experience includes:
Class II Waste and Biomass Diversion, San Francisco, California. Documented tons of
Class II waste disposed by San Francisco generators at Class II landfills. Documented tons
of biomass diverted from disposal. Prepared biomass forms and disposal modification
forms in support of the City's annual report for reporting years 2005 and 2006.
Los Angeles County Recycling Audit. Contacting the businesses in the unincorporated
region of the Los Angeles County to identify the recycling performed in their facility. This
would help the County to determine the recycling performed in the County. The recycling
audit is to help the County meet the state mandated goal of 50% recycling.
Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority. Prepared a draft for the initial permitting process
(Monterey Air Control Board, EIR, CIWMB, and Water Resource Board) to move a single
unit autoclave system (pilot plant) from Reno to Salinas, CA.
West County Transfer Station Assessment and Design. Analyzed the population growth
in the Western Placer Region. Determined the need for a new Self-Haul transfer facility in
West Placer Region of County. Identified three potential locations for a new Self-Haul
transfer facility providing the scoping information for the facility to meet the needs. Also
developed the conceptual site design of the facility.
Santa Cruz County. Analyzing and evaluating sites in the Santa Cruz County for the
development of a Transfer Station and a Compo sting facility.
McCourtney Road Transfer Station Conceptual Site Plan Development Options.
Assisted the County with remodeling the current Transfer Station to accommodate the
growing population resulting in the increase in traffic.
Design Build Services for the Boulder County Resource Conservation Recycling Center.
Analyzed the proposals sent by three vendors in selecting an appropriate one to convert
Boulder County's dual stream recycling center to a single stream recycling center. This
analysis involved the detailed study of the design parameters and cost comparison.
Elk Grove- Site identification and selection for a Transfer Station. Assisting the City of
Elk Grove to identify and select candidate sites for the construction of a new Solid waste
transfer station that would include Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) reuse location,
materials Recovery facility, Residential drop off/ Reuse ArealBuy Back Center. Also,
evaluating the sizing of this facility.
Education
MPA, Environmental'Policy and
Natural Resource Management,
Indiana University, 2001
B.A., English, Hanover College,
1997
Publications
Coauthor, "Low Carbon Solid
Waste Systems.. MSW
Management
September/October 2007.
Emily Bedwell
Environmental Regulatory Specialist
Professional Experience
Ms. Bedwell has been a Consultant for HDR's Environmental and Natural
Resource Management Group for the past five years. She has an educational
background in economic and policy analysis and public management. She has
provided financial and planning support to many solid waste clients in addition to
supporting environmental planning projects. The following projects represent
Ms. Bedwell's experience:
HDR Project Experience
Single-Use Carryout Bags and Non-Recyclable Takeout Container Analysis, San
Jose, California. Currently evaluating options for mitigating the environmental
impacts of single-use carryout bags and non-recyclable takeout containers.
Identified program and policy options, developed case studies based on model
programs, evaluated the costs of litter clean-up and recycling of plastic bags and
polystyrene containers.
Legislative and Regulatory Issues Related to Zero Waste Planning, Los Angeles,
California. Currently, researching the likely future regulatory and legislative
environment that will impact the City's development of its zero waste plan.
Reviewed legislative history and conducted surveys of regulators, lobbyists, and
program managers.
Recycling in Public Spaces Pilot Statistical Analysis, New York, New York. Ms.
Bedwell was the project manager for this project and coordinated the weekly field
survey, recycling sort and analysis of the data. The pilot project was designed to
determine the percent contamination of the recyclables collected from six public
parks and two ferry terminals, where paper and MGP receptacles were placed next
toa refuse basket in each public location. A final report was developed which will
include the expected contamination level of each stream and their associated
confidence levels.
Consultant to the Department of Public Works, Mayors Office, Indianapolis,
. Indiana. Ms. Bedwell was hired to propose solid waste program alternatives that
would increase the public participation rate in the recycling program. She performed a
fiscal and statistical analysis of the current solid waste program and projected out
expenses and revenues for three solid waste program improvement alternatives. In
developing the policy proposals, she also interviewed current stakeholders, and
researched solid waste policies in other similar size and character cities.
Solid Waste Gate Fee Market Survey, Board of Trustees, Alexandria/Arlington
Waste to Energy Facility, Alexandria, Virginia. Ms. Bedwell helped complete a
lD~
4~
Education
Master of Science,
Stanford University, California
Bachelor of Science,
Stanford University, California
So
Lauren A. Casey
Engineer I, LEED AP
Professional Experience
Ms. Casey's work reflects her interests in both engineering and policy efforts to address
air quality and climate change. Her professional experience has focused primarily on
energy policy and planning, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and greenhouse gas
management. Ms., Casey has experience with preliminary energy system design and
analysis, renewable energy incentives, building energy audits, sustainability planning,
LEED certification, and greenhouse gas assessment. Ms. Casey worked for the Union of
Concerned Scientists on policy analysis for the 2005 Energy Policy Act, as well as on
efforts to model the greenhouse gas impacts of energy efficiency projects in the
commercial, industrial, and residential building sectors in the United States through 2050.
Ms. Casey's Master of Science in Civil & Environmental Engineering focused on energy
systems, their impact on the atmosphere, energy efficiency projects, greenhouse gas
management strategies, and energy policies. Her undergraduate degree incorporated
interdisciplinary elements of business, economics, and engineering.
HDR Project Experience
RENEWABLE ENERGY
WIND POWER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Oregon
Reviewed meteorological data and market characteristics to conduct preliminary economic
analysis for a proposed 100 MW wind farm. Researched development options and
prepared next steps toward project implementation. Worked with Tribal Council and
Tribal Power Enterprise to produce project report to US Department of Energy.
COMBINED HEAT AND POWER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
Green Dorm Project, Stanford University, California
Assessed the thermal and electrical demand of typical student housing projects at Stanford
University. Compared technological options for providing combined heat and power in a
student dormitory. Proposed design concept for building fuel cell. Analyzed performance
and economics of proposed design.
ENERGY PLANNING
BERKELEY RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION ORDINANCE
City of Berkeley, California
Helped the cities of San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland to develop a residential
time-of-sale energy efficiency ordinance for existing buildings. Evaluated cost-
effectiveness of energy efficiency measures.
SEBASTOPOL RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION ORDINANCE
City of Sebastopol, California
Emily Leslie
Engi neer I
Education
MS, Energy Engineering
Stanford University
BS, Energy Engineering
Stanford University
Professional Experience
Emily Leslie's work focuses on the crossov~r between technology and policy in improving
the impacts of energy systems, from local effects to global climate change. Ms. Leslie has
worked with a wide range of clients, from municipal governments and county agencies, to
investor-owned utilities, tribal enterprise, private developers, and private equity investors.
With bachelor's and master's degrees in Energy Engineering, from the Mechanical
Engineering department at Stanford University, Ms. Leslie's graduate research focused on
hydrogen internal combustion engines and solar thermal energy technologies. She uses this
technical background to provide insight and strategy for project development,
implementation, and commercialization of clean energy solutions: supply-side and end-use
technology applications, as well as policy programs.
Project Experience
Renewable Energy Site Ass~ssment, San Bernardino Waste Management Authority.
Economic feasibility analysis and recommendations for solar and wind energy
development on 50 sites in San Bernardino County.
Proposed 100 MW Wind Energy Project, Warm Springs Native American
Reservation. Wind resource assessment and economic analysis for proposed 100 MW
wind project on tribal lands.
Proposed Wind Energy Projects, China. Technical and economic feasibility analysis for
three proposed wind energy facilities in China, on scales of 50-300 MW each, for private-
sector US investor.
PG&E Energy Design Resources. Developed calculator to evaluate non-energy benefits
as market drivers for energy efficiency (for example increased office worker productivity
due to daylighting, increased tenant satisfaction and higher property value, increased
equipment lifetime, reduced maintenance, etc.).
San Francisco Airport Energy Audit. Identified energy saving measures for SFO
airport, including skylight analysis, motor control for escalators and moving walkways,
regenerative braking for the Airtrain.
San Francisco Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance. Worked with the cities of
San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland to develop residential time-of-sale energy
efficiency ordinance, as model code, adaptable to any municipality.
Wind Power Project Preliminary Feasibility Study, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Worked in
conjunction with North American Development Bank, a local Mexican university, and
California Energy Commission to evaluate economic potential for proposed 21 MW wind
power project in northern Mexico.
San Francisco Water System Improvement Program. Computer-aided optimization of
pump sizing and scheduling, maximizing energy cost savings potential for the Lake
Merced Pumping Station.
Student Representative, Woods Institute for the Environment Energy Committee.
Designed curriculum, with a collaborative team of faculty and students, to institutionalize
"Energy Engineering" as a standard engineering discipline at Stanford University.
~'l
Education
Master of Science
Earth Systems: Energy & Natural
Resource Management
Stanford University
Bachelor of Science
Earth Systems:
Environmental Microbiology
Stanford University
Minor
Intematioflal Relations:
International Economics
Stanford University
Honors, Awards &
Professional Affiliations
Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholar
Northern California Scholarship
Foundation Recipient
Participant in the Stanford
, Iniversity School of BiologiCal
JCiences Field Studies Program
Vice Pro'lost for Undergraduate
Education Grant Recipient
Stanford/Mellon Foundation
Grant Recipient
, 2005 MAP Sustainable Energy
Fellow
Member of the Society for
International Development
Member of Young Professionals
in Foreign Policy
Member of Young Professionals
in Energy
25x'25 Electricity Working Group
Member
Contact
115 Sansome St, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.814.6723
Fax: 415.814.6801
ian .rnonroe@hdrinc.com
<32
Ian E. Monroe
Energy Engineer/Analyst; Bioenergy and Development Specialist
Professional Experience
Mr. Monroe's background represents his passion to counter global climate change through
renewable energy implementation in the U.s. and the developing world. With general
renewables experience, and particular expertise in sustainable biofuels, biomass energy,
and carbon accounting, Mr. Monroe has worked with numerous domestic and international
private and public sector clients, including USDOE, USEP A, USTDA, USAID, USDA
Forest Service, California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, DFID, GTZ, SNV,
DGIS, IADB, ADB, World Bank IFC, Worldwatch, FGV, Potlatch Corporation, Pacific
Gas and Electric (PG&E), West African Portland Cement Company (W APCO) / Lafarge
Group, Wheelabrator Technologies / Waste Management, Chevron-Texaco, Shell, ESI,
and EcoLogic. Previous to HDR, Mr. Monroe was working at Winrock International to
pioneer terrestrial carbon accounting and expand sustainable biomass energy utilization
worldwide, ensuring that bioenergy development incorporates sound 'economics,
environmental protection and rural livelihood improvement, with extensive work in Africa
and Latin America. He has experience both at conducting the fieldwork, laboratory
analysis, . data mining and modeling needed to generate results upon which decisions can
be based, evaluating data in the context of international regulatory criteria, and at
presenting results and recommendations to private sector CEOs, government officials, and
international conferences of academics. Mr. Monroe's experience also includes economic
modeling, GIS/GPS and remote sensing analysis, and water quality monitoring, all of
which fit into effective waste management and bioenergy development. Mr. Monroe
received Masters and Bachelors of Science from the. interdisciplinary Earth Systems
Program at Stanford University, where he helped teach graduate level courses entitled
"Pathogens in the Environment" and "Biology and, Global Change," and conducted
research through Matson Biogeochemical Cycling, Boehm Environmental Pathogens, and
Ackerly Plant Ecology laboratories.
Selected Project Experience
Biofuels and Biomass Energy
ANAL YSIS OF TERRESTRIAL-GEOLOGIC CARBON SEQUESTRATION
OPPORTUNITIES IN CALIFORNIA
USDOE; CA, USA
Conducted an initial analysis of opportunities to produce "carbon negative" energy by
linking terrestrial sequestration with biomass energy production and geologic C02
injection, witli particular attention to expanded ethanol production in California.
BIOMASS CO-FIRING WITH COAL IN THE SOUTHEASTERN US
Winrock International; Arlington, VA, USA
Created a model to assess the multi-emission impacts of co-firing biomass with coal at
power plants in the southeastern US, including investment payback periods through
emissions reductions and renewable energy tax credits.
BIOMASS ENERGY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Winrock International; Arlington, VA, USA
Led an effort to consolidate and expand Winrock International's expertise in biomass
energy, including biomass power, waste-to-energy, biogas, and biofuels, with the
r CASCADIA
CONSULTING GROUP
Christy Shelton manages and
conducts policy-oriented research
projects, including strategic plans,
program evaluations, survey research,
focus groups, as well as best
management practices and case
studies for waste reduction, recycling,
and HHW management. She brings
more than a decade of experience in
environmental analysis and decision-
making. She is experienced in both
quantitative and ,qualitative analysis and
has strong writing and communication
skills. At Cascadia and in her previous
work, she has written dozens of reports
and articles, accurately presenting
complex information in clear language
for policymakers and the public.
Before joining Cascadia, Christy led
projects at ECO Northwest, an
environmental economics consulting
firm, and served as an environmental
policy analyst in the Clinton
Administration's White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, where
her work included extensive
involvement in legislation and executive
orders on the proper use of risk .
information in agency decision making.
She previously worked for the Carnegie
Commission on Science, Technology,
and Government, where she co-
authored the report of a blue-ribbon
task force on risk-based priority setting
for federal agencies, Risk and the
Environment: Improving Regulatory
Decision Making (1993). She earned
her bachelor's degree from Stanford
University and her M. S. from the
University of Michigan's School of
Natural Resources and Environment.
Education
University of Michigan, Master of
Science
Stanford University, Bachelor of Arts
Christy Shelton
Senior Associate
Project Highlights
Household Hazardous Waste Priority Assessment, Oregon
DEQ, 2006
Managing development of ranking tools to help DEQ address the
highest-risk HHW situations, in terms of substances, geographic areas,
and at-risk populations. Integrating results to help set priorities for
HHW management.
Household Hazardous Waste Plan, Oregon DEQ, 2004-2005
Guided effort to update Oregon's HHW Plan. Developed and led online
survey of stakeholders. Evaluated current Plan and HHW program,
identified and assessed future options. Incorporated input and drafted
final Plan.
Lead Hazards in Housing, WA Community, Trade & Econ.
Devo, 2005
Analyzed the relative risk of lead exposure to children in Washington's
housing stock. Mapped neighborhoods throughout Washington with a
high presence of risk factors for child le"ad poisoning in housing.
Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Study, Ecology, 2006-07
Analyzed data on fluorescent lamp generation, recycling, and estimated
mercury content. Conducted stakeholder research on barriers and
benefits, and identified strategies for mercury reduction and increased
recycling.
Comparison of HHW Programs, Portland Metro, 2005
Designed survey instrument and guided fielding of in-depth survey of
30+ HHW programs nationwide to obtain detailed program information.
Evaluated programs and compared costs and services provided with
Metro.
Beyond Waste Management Plan, WA Department of
Ecology, 2002-03
Helped update Washington's solid and hazardous waste management
plans to achieve vision for moving "Beyond Waste." Characterized
existing data, identified gaps, and made recommendations for tracking
material and waste flows. Analyzed trends and evaluated waste
reduction strategies.
Evaluation of Waste Prevention & Recycling, King County,
2000-2002
Managed annual phone survey of 600 residents on attitudes and
behavior regarding waste reduction and recycling. Managed phone
survey of 300 mulching lawn mower buyers from Grasscycling events to
assess satisfaction levels and behaviors. Led creation of evaluation
report on multiple programs.
Household Hazardous Wastemobile Evaluation, King
County, 2000-03
Evaluated HHW education and collection services provided to
Wastemobile users. Also evaluated visitor use of Wastemobile,
including distances traveled (GIS) and effectiveness of outreach
strategies, including direct mail.
CascadiaConsultingGroup, Inc. i 1109 First Avenue, Ste. 400 i (206)343-9759 ' www.cascadiaconsulting.com
5~
fC1sCADIA
CONSUl.TING GROUP
Charlie Scott is a principal and co-
founder of Cascadia, brings more than
25 years of experience in resource
management consulting to this project,
including the management of major
solid waste research, planning, and
policy development efforts.
Charlie has participated in shaping
recycling and waste management policy
throughout the' Northwest, California,
and Hawaii over the past twelve years,
including recent waste reduction and
recycling plans for SanJuan and
Whatcom Counties and the state of
Hawaii. He has managed more than 50
major waste composition studies,
including projects for the California
Integrated Waste Management Board,
the City of Seattle, King County, the
City and County of Los Angeles, LAX,
the City of San Diego, the City of
Phoenix, the City and County of
Honolulu and statewide studies for
Washington, California, Oregon, and
Wisconsin. His experience also
includes managing several operational
projects 'such as Seattle's Back Yard
Composting program and pilot food
waste collections.
Charlie is past President of the
Washington State Recycling
Association (WSRA), which represents
Washington's recyclers and haulers,
and he served on the
WSRA/Washington Department of
Ecology committee to review and
improve the State's methodology for
establishing recycling rates.
Education
Master of Public Administration,
Graduate School of Public
Affairs, University of
Washington
Bachelor of Arts, Economics, Denison
University
Charlie Scott
Principal
Project Highlights
Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan, City of Los Angeles,
2007
Served on a team charged with developing a Solid Waste Integrated
Resources Plan (SWIRP) for the City of Los Angeles. Led the work of
identifying existing and planned public and private infrastructure and
services; summarizing the City's current waste management system
and solid waste resources facilities; conducting surveys of public and
private services to determine disposal rates, tipping fees, contractual
arrangements, and existing and planned institutional structures;
identifying opportunities for expanding public facilities to enhance
overall services and efficiencies; identifying alternative waste diversion
methods and opportunities for expansion; and developing generation,
disposal, and diversion projections for a 20-year planning period.
Zero Waste Plan, City of Palo Alto, California, 2005
Examined existing waste streams in Palo Alto and identified
opportunities for additional waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and
composting. Managed research that included hand-sorting, visual
characterization, and computer-based modeling. Analyzed results to
produce detailed waste composition and quantity information and
planning recommendations for residuals and four waste sectors.
Los Angeles County Residential Sector Program
Effectiveness Study, Los Angeles County, 2000-2001
Managed this broad assessment of the effectiveness of the County's
residential sector waste reduction and recycling programs. His
responsibilities included overseeing the information gathering and data
collection. The final report documents diversion rates from the'
residential sector and evaluates programs targeting both single-family
and multi-family households and makes recommendations for future
program enhancements.
Statewide Characterization of Targeted Waste Streams,
California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2004-2006
Served as Principal-in-Charge for this four-part study to quantify and
characterize certain waste streams that are believed to contain
relatively large amounts of recoverable material, including: waste from
specific industry types, including food stores, retail stores, and
distribution centers; waste from MRFs; construction and demolition
waste; and self hauled waste.
Statewide Waste Characterization Study, California
Integrated Waste Management Board, 2003-04
Served as Principal-in-Charge for this statewide study to characterize
California's disposed waste. Single-family and commercial garbage
collection routes were obtained, as well as from randomly chosen self
hauledvehicles. Waste sampling and characterization took place at 22
landfills and transfer stations distributed among five regions of the state
and across four seasons. Multifamily waste at selected apartment
building, condominiums, and housing projects were sampled.
Statewide Disposal Characterization Study, California
. Integrated Waste Management Board, 1999
Directed the design of this two-season study to determine the amounts
CSl..\
Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. ; 1109 First Avenue, Ste. 400 ! (206}343-9759 1 www.cascadiaconsulting.com
ROBERT HILTON, CMC, HF&H PRESIDENT
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Over 30 years of public management experience in county and city
government and special districts, the past 20 years as a consultant. Mr.
Hilton has been responsible for: cost of service studies; utility rate analysis;
finan~ial feasibility studies; policy studies; organizational/ management
studies; privatization studies; franchise bid processes and contract
negotiation; rate process development; financial consulting and litigation
consulting. He has provided expert solid waste advice to more than 150
: agencies.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
HF&H Consultants, LLC: President, August 1989 to present
Price Waterhouse: Senior Manager/Manager, 1983 to 1985
City of San Francisco: Solid Waste Program Manager, 1982 to 1983
City of San Francisco: Clean Water Program, Assistant Executive Director, 1981 to 1982
County of Santa ,Clara: Director ,of the Office of Management and Budget; Budget Director;
Management Analyst, 1973 to 1981
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Institute of Management Consultants, Northern California Chapter
Solid Waste Association of North America
ARTICLES AND SPEECHES
"Creating Effective Franchises and Contacts," panelist, California Resource Recovery
Association Conference, 2004 '
"Single Stream Recycling Challenges and Implementation Issues," panelist, Alameda County
Waste Management Authority and Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority
Technical Advisory Committee Workshop, 2003
"Public Ownership of Solid Waste Facilities," Solid Waste Asso<?iation of North America,
Western Regional Symposium, 2002
"Choosing a Method for Regulating Refuse Collection," World Waste, January 1991
"Regulating Refuse Collection: A Utility Approach," World Waste, October 1990
"Fixed Asset Valuation," presented at Fixed Asset Valuation Seminar for Local Governments by
Price Waterhouse, 1988
"Management Audits", presented to the League of California Cities, 1985
"Performance Auditing," presented to the County Engineers Association of California, March
1985
EDUCATION & PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
M.A., Political Science, California State University, San Jose
B.A., Political Science, Califomia State University, San Jose
Certified Management Consultant (CMC Professional Certification)
HF&H Consultants, LLC
ss
PETER DEIBLER, HF&H SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Mr. Deibler has 25 years of experience in the waste management field,
including a wide range of project direction and management responsibilities.
He has a background in resource economics, and regularly manages
financial and management projects including strategic planning for high
diversion, service procurements, negotiations, performance review and
contract compliance, rate analysis and reviews, budget projections and
planning, and cost of service. He has managed or directed projects involving
extensive public process, including workshops, study sessions, and other
presentations and frequently facilitates decision making by client senior
staff, city council, state and local task forces, and special district and joint
power agency boards. Mr. Deibler has particular expertise in the legal, policy, and financial
issues related to waste management program and facility procurements, and frequently drafts
and negotiates service contracts.
He has recently managed several projects in Marin County including a franchise fee and
diversion reporting review for Fairfax, a rate review and contactor procurement for San
Anselmo and, sole source contract negotiations and several follow-up rate reviews for Sausalito.
SAMPLE ARTICLES & PRESENTATIONS
"Contracting for Service: Using, a Peer Review Panel to Enhance Service A'greementsl1 Paper
presented at SW ANA 37 Annual International Solid Waste Exposition, Reno, October 1999
l10bjective Measurement of a Household Hazardous Waste Program's Performance and Cost
Effectivenessl1 Paper presented at the Hazardous Materials Management Conference, Kansas
City, September 1998
l1What's It Really Costing? - Tools for Making Refuse, Recycling, and Yard Waste Collection and
Disposal Cost-Effective" Paper presented at the SW ANA Western Regional Symposium, Lake
Tahoe, May 1996
l1Contracting for Recycling Services" Paper presented at the California Resource Recovery
Association Workshop: Beyond Flow Control, Lake Tahoe, March 1995
"Trends, in Green Waste Compo sting in Californial1 Paper presented at the SWANA Western
Regional Symposium, Lake Tahoe, May 1994
l1Flow Control and Policy Issues" Paper presented at the Pacific Recycler's Expo, Trade Show, and
Conference, San Jose, April 1993
l1Effective Performance and Rate Reviews" Public Works Magazine, May 1993
EDUCATION
Master of Arts Degree in Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts Degree in Economics, Phi Beta Kappa, Beloit College
Sb
HF&H Consultants, LLC
TRACY SWANBORN, P.E., HF&H DIREC.TOR OF RECYCLING & SOLID_
WASTE CONTRACT SERVICES
RANGE OF EXPERIENCE
Tracy Swanborn, a Senior Manager with HF&H, has 18 years of experience
in civil and solid waste engineering. Her expertise is in collection, disposal,
,transfer station, and materials recovery facility procurement, contract
development, and negotiations. She has managed over 11 collection,
transfer, and disposal service procurements including competitive
procurements for Petaluma, Alameda, Livermore, Union City, Fremont,
Windsor, Citrus Heights, Salinas, Colusa, Chula Vista, and several other
California municipalities. Her procurement experience includes planning
future programs and services, RFP preparation, proposal evaluation,
franchise agreement preparation, contractor selection and negotiations.
Through her procurement experience she has also reviewed and revised municipal code
language and developed a non-exclusive franchise agreement for collection of construction and
demolition debris and commercial recyclable materials.
Ms. Swanborn recently completed a draft of a best practices guide for diversion program
language for franchise agreements, which involved research of various approaches to
regulating construction and demolition debris diversion activities. She has assisted the Cities of
Newark and Union City with implementation of commercial and multi-family recycling
services.
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY
, HF&H Consultants, LLC: October 2000 to Present
Brown, Vence & Associates: January 1990 to September 2000
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Solid Waste Association of North America (SW ANA)
ARTICLES AND SPEECHES
"Best Practices for Re~lating Haulers through Permit and Non-Exclusive Franchise Systems",
SW ANA Western Regional Symposium, 2007
"Multi-Family Recycling: Effectively Implementing and Monitoring Recyclables Collection,"
SW ANA Western Regional Symposium, 2005
"Contract Enforcement: Tools for Managing Franchise Agreements Efficiently and Effectively,"
SWANA Western Regional Symposium, 2004
"Procurements: Public Entities Competing with Private Companies," SW ANA, t 999
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
B. S., Civil Engineering, Bucknell University, Pennsylvania
HF&H Consultants, LLC
57
TOWN-GREEN ri;1
~~I
ENDURING URBAN DESIGN & TOWN PLANNING. CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE PLANS
Steve Coyle, AlA, LEED AP, CNU
Principal-In-Charge, Town Planning
Curriculum Vitae
Registration
Licensed Architect in Oregon, No.
3346; California license pending
Professional Memberships
National Council of Architectural"Regis-
tration Board, Member
American Institute of Architects,
Member.
Congress of New Urbanism, Member
Professional Endeavors
HDRjTown Planning, Principal
LeA Town Planning & Architecture,
Prindpal
The National ~harrette Institute,
Co-Founder and Board Member
Honors and Awards
Grand Award - Best in the West - Gold
Nugget Awards - Fairview Village
Governor's Livability Award 1998 -
Fairview Village, Oregon
Governor's Livability Award 1999 - Vil-
lage Weistoria, Oregon
APA Oregon - Special AChievement in
Planning, Smart Development Code
Handbook
The Builders Award - 1000 Friends of
Oregon - Fairview Village
APA National Award 2001 for the Port-
land Hollywood-Sandy Plan
CELSOC 2006 Excellence in Engineer-
ing Merit Award for Capital Village,
the Preserve at Sunridge, and Sun
Creek Charrettes
S CZ Statement of Qualifications
Stephen Coyle, AlA, CNU has over 30 years of experience as an architect,' urban de-
signer, and public facilitator in a wide range of public and private projects around the
nation. His specialty is managing and planning new and redeveloping transit-oriented
public and private developments. Steve has worked at multiple scales and levels
- from single buildings to regions, from new transit and waterfront facilities to rede-
veloped transit-oriented villages. He has synthesized his experiences in both design
and development into an approach that maximizes design by fully integrating archi-
tecture, circulation, codes, engineering, finance, and the project approval process.
He is a national leader in the Charrette process that is often usedto facilitate this
management approach to a project. Steve is co-founder of the National Charrette In-
stitute (NCI), a non-profit organization that trains pro~essionals in the art and practice
of facilitating Charrettes - a collaborative process that empowers people with diverse
interests regarding a project to work together and support the results, and co~author
of the "Charrette Handbook," published in 2006 by the APA.
Relevant Experience
Abbott Town Center, Anchorage, Alaska
Steve's team led a four-day Charrette in Anchorage, Alaska, working with area resi-
dents and city officials to generate concepts for revitalizing the Abbott neighborhood
with a Town Center concept plan. The Abbott neighborhood, southeast of downtown
Anchorage, occupies a transition area between ~xtensive auto-oriented retail areas
and vacant, industrially zoned parcels adjacent to the Seward Highway and older sin-
gle-family neighborhoods interspersed with large schools, churches, and parks. The
Abbott Town Center plan included proposed zoning changes, form-based codes and
design standards for the entire project area. The Abbott Town Center plan responded
to several key forces: high population growth, new job creation, increased traffic,
diminishing natural open space, and the need for locally serving businesses and
public services. New commercial developments in the area - grocery stores, services,
, offices and recreational fac.i1ities - offered opportunities to connect to better mix of
transportation connections in a walkable setting with well-designed public spaces,
and a diverse mix of housing types.
Florence Downtown Plan, Florence, Oregon
In 1998, Steve's team designed the Florence Downtown Plan, a catalyst for posi-
tive change in this diverse coastal Oregon community. The Downtown Plan restores
the connection severed by Highway 101 in the late 1930s between the historic Old
town district on the Siuslaw River, and the rest of the town. Realigned cross-streets,
improved pedestrian crossings, and reconnections in the local street network help
to knit the city fabric tpgether. Mixed-use design guidelines for Highway 101 through
downtown help transform this portion into a pedestrian-friendly Main Street, with a
new central public green beside the highway. The plan preserved the historic charac-
ter of Old town, upgraded access from Highway 101, and restored building facades
along the historic Main Street. Steve assisted the city and a private developer on a
new mixed-use storefront design in the Main Street area.
Mercer Island Town Center and Station, Mercer Island, Washington
The City of Mercer Island hired Steve's firm to design a 10 acre transit oriented Town
Center Redevelopment that included a new light rail station that terminated at the
Relevant Experience
(continued)
Statement of Qualifications
TOWN-GREEN 1:;1
~0~1
ENDURING URBAN DESIGN & TOWN PLANNING' CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE PLANS
Plaza Amistad, Santa Paula, California
The City of Mercer Island hired Steve's firm to design a 10 acre transit oriented Town
Center Redevelopment that included a new light rail station that terminated at the
newly designed main street. In a six day design Charrette, Steve's team successfully
developed the site master plan, urban regulations as a form-based code, and the
transportation/inter-modal, and parking plan.
North City Subarea Plan, City of Shoreline, Washington
Steve Coyle's team created a conceptual plan and architectural designs for a number
of demonstration sites in collaboration with property owner in North City Subarea, the
commercial core of Shoreline's North City. The Subarea is surrounded by established
residential neighborhoods, has great view opportunities of the Olympic Mountains
and sufficient traffic count to support a healthy retail environment. However, the
existing dev~lopment pattern is indistinguishable from other suburban, auto-oriented
commercial strips dominated by parking lots and substandard structures, and uninvit-
ing to pedestrians. The team held a 4-day public Charrette to develop a vision and
identify specific measures to improve the physical and economic environment of the
North City Subarea. The Charrette resulted in 5 and 15-year visions, proposed zoning
and development code changes to achieve the vision, and transportation recommen-
dations. City Council adopted the North City Subarea Plan in 2001.
S1. Johns/Lombard Plan, City of Portland, Oregon
Steve's team worked with the City of Portland to develop the St. Johns/Lombard Plan,
a planning effort designed to articulate the community's vision for the area over the
next twenty years: The planning effort focused on issues such as land use, transpor-
tation, housing, and commercial economic vitality. The team created an Urban De-
velopment Concept, a big-picture vision for future land use, transportation, and open
space within the area that also identifies places of special interest for the community.
The team then developed various land-use alternatives for the different parts of the
project area and evaluated each alternative based on its economic feasibility, compli-
ance with the Development Concept's directives, and the extent to which it achieves
the project goals. The project culminated in a recommended plan that was adopted
by the Portland City Council in May 2004.
New Affordable Neighborhood, Teton County, Wyoming
Steve led an intense public Charrette to design two new 'Affordable Neighborhoods'
to address the serious lack of affordable housing in Teton County. The project
adhered to the principles of Smart Growth and advocated a sustainable develop-
ment model for the Jackson area to enable local workers to live close to their jobs.
The project employed a unique financing strategy that minimized public funding
while maximizing market-driven subsidies to create a substantial quantity of afford-
able housing, but in the form of complete, walkable, and diverse neighborhoods.
The weeklong Charrette generated a plan for two connected neighborhoods. Of the
potential 1100 dwelling units, almost 70% complied with the affordable or attainable
cost categories as defined by the local Teton County Housing Authority. The design
process aimed to achieve the community's policies for mixed-use villages byorganiz-
ing future development into complete neighborhoods while r~flecting the history,
values and character of the County. The New Affordable Neighborhood comprised a
responsible model for affordable housing that leveraged private investment from a
minimal amount of public funds.
5'1
Relevant Experience
(continued)
60
Statement of Qualifications
TOWN-GREEN m=1
~0~ I
ENDURING URBAN DESIGN & TOWN PLANNING. CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE PLANS
density housing (about 54 units per acre) by substituting smaller scale housing for
big apartments. Exchanging privatized space for the public realm, the surrounding
area includes several nearby parks, retail shopping, numerous Tri Met bus stops,
and a MAX Light Rail Station two blocks away. Ash Court includes a mix of flats,
town houses and accessory units, offering tenants' from a range of incomes, ages,
and family types an opportunity to live affordably and efficiently. The plan included
the building designs in a traditional craftsman style typical of the historic Hazelwood
Neighborhood.
Home Depot, Portland, Oregon
The design represented the first mixed-use urban Home Depot in the country, on
a four acre site is in the Hollywood District of Portland. The 104,000 sq. f1. Home
Depot store design was screened by a traditional streetscape of ground floor retail
stores, including a garden center, with offices on the second floor, and 26 apartments
on the third and fourth floors. ,The design included two floors of roof-mounted struc-
tured ,parking.
Mill Pond, Astoria, Oregon
On the site of the first 'Brownfield' neighborhood redevelopment in Oregon, Steve
designed Mill Pond Village, a mixeduse neighborhood surrounding a 3.7 acre po'nd,
is located between Marine Drive and the Columbia River. The award-winning plan con-
sists of a mix of housing in a "fishing village" style waterfront cottages, alley-accessed
single family homes and duplexes, live/work units, and apartments above retail.
Unique to the northwe~t coast, the plan includes cottages built out on piers, public
parks, and viewing areas around the pond that overlook the Columbia River, the As-
toria-Megler Bridge and the Astoria hills. Commercial uses buffer the residential core
from Marine Drive, creating an attractive, pedestrian oriented environment.
Deschutes River Bridge, Bend, Oregon
The participation of many stakeholders and citizens informed the design and helped
resolve many of the concerns and skepticism. Despite initially widespread opposition
to the project, the citizens of Bend approved the project in a referendum in Septem-
ber 2001, and the bridge was opened in October of 2003 to acclaim and awards.
Chico Downtown Plan, Chico, California
Steve's team created a new plan for Downtown Chico that preserved the historic city
fabric, addressed pedestrian, bike, and motor vehicle access and parking, a transit
center, and proposed redevelopment of the underutilized and architecturally blighted
downtown blocks into lively mixed use street walls with parking enclosed within the
blocks. The plan, developed in collaboration with Chico State University, includes an
implementation plan and policies.
Richard V. Anthony, Principal
Richard Anthony Associates
3891 Kendall Street, San Diego, CA 92109
(858) 272 2905 -- (858) 272 3709 (fax)
Ricanthony@aol.com -- richardanthonyassociates.com
Richard V. Anthony began his career in Public Administration in 1971 as a manager of the
California State University Long Beach Recycling Center. He received a MS in Public
Administration in 1974. Mr. Anthony has worked his entire career in environmental program
management positions. He is an internationally recognized and published expert in the area of
resource management using the Zero Waste Systems approach.
Current Projects include;
. Resource Assessment for Carroll County Maryland
. Zero Waste Plan, City of Los Angeles
. Austin Texas, Zero Waste Plan
. Central Vermont Zero Waste Plan
. San Luis Obispo IWMA, Principal Resource Management Consultant
. Vons/Safeway
Recent Projects include;
. San Diego County Public Works Consultant on Organic Resource Management
working with Farmers and planners to develop best practices for on the farm
composting and land application
. Palo Alto Zero Waste Plan
. Oakland Zero Waste Plan
. State of Delaware Resource Management Plan (DNREC)
. Suffolk Connect Study Consultant to determine the parameters for a Resource
Recovery Park in east England. '
. Member of the Board of Directors for the Zero Waste International Alliance
www.ZWIA.orq. Grassroots Recycling Network www.Qrrn.orq, California Resource
Recovery Association www.crra.com. and Keep California Beautiful.
. Chair of the Citizen Advisory Committee on Integrated Waste Management for the
County of San Diego.
Mr. Anthony helped San Bernardino County with Waste Reduction and Recycling from
July 2001-04, provided Imperial County assistance in preparing their recycling plans. (1999-
2000). He was CAO of the San' Diego Urban Corps a youth conservation group in 2000. He
assisted Del Norte County develop one of the first US zero waste plans in 1998 and the Del Mar
Fairgrounds reduce their sewage bill by composting food discards.
Mr. Anthony has nearly 20 years of experience working inside County Public Works
Agencies as Program Manager for the Fresno (79-87) and San Diego County Public Works
Department (87-98). He has implemented waste reduction and recycling programs prescribed
by the United States and the California Environmental Protection Agencies, the California
Integrated Waste Management Board and the Department of Conservation for private and
public clients recognized by State and National peer groups as best of the class.
6l
Neil SeIdman, Ph.D.
President
Neil SeIdman, Ph.D., co-founded the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in 1974 and is currently
ILSR's President. Aneconomic development planner and former manufacturer, Dr. SeIdman
specializes in approaches to municipal and commercial solid waste management that emphasize
environmental quality and create economic development opportunities for small businesses,
community organizations, and other targeted populations.
Dr. SeIdman has consulted with city and state governments, citizen groups, and private
industry across the nation. His work includes assistance with the formulation and
implementation of recycling, solid waste management, and economic development initiatives
for numerous municipalities; recruiting environmentally sound businesses for government
agencies and community organizations; managing government and foundation research
projects encompassing pollution prevention, economic development, recycling, and resource
efficiency considerations, and; arranging financial packages, preparing feasibility studies and
business plans, and conducting staff training and site assessments for environmentally sound
businesses. He is a building de~onstruction specialist.
Dr. SeIdman is currently coordinating ILSR's work with the Camden Housing Authority to
deconstruct select public housing units. He also serves on the planning committee for the Used
Building Materials'Recycling Coalition's annual conference. In DC, Dr. SeIdman serves on the
District of Columbia Environmental Planning Commission (at the request of DC Councilwoman
Carol Schwartz) and is actively working in the District to incre~se landfill diversion. He
continues to work with local deconstruction enterprises - Second Chance, Inc. (Baltimore) and
Deconstruction Services (Arlington) - to expand their business opportunities.
Dr. SeIdman has worked with national and international agencies such as the National Science
Foundation, the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the
World Bank, the National Center for Appropriate Technology, and the U.S. Office of
Technology Assessment. He has performed contract work for the cities of Philadelphia, P A; Los
Angeles, CA; Cleveland, OH; Newark, NJ; S1. Paul, MN; and Paterson, NJ. His consulting
clients include the city councils of New Haven, CT; Louisville, KY; Chattanooga, TN; Bell and
Duarte, CA; Austin, TX; Baltimore,MD; Washington, DC; and the counties of Camden, NJ;
Kauai, HI; King, W A; San Diego, CA; and Alachua, FL.
Dr. SeIdman has addressed more than 500 conferences, forums, and town meetings in over 25
states and more than 100 cities. He is the author of dozens of technical reports and hundreds of
articles on sustainable development.
SeIdman holds degrees from Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations and
the Institute of Sino-Soviet Studies at George Washington University, where he also served as
Associate Professorial Lecturer of Political Theory.
GI-
J. Michael Huls, REA
California Registered Environmental Assessor #01832
Home address: 3136 S. Denison Avenue, San Pedro, California 90731
Work mailing address: PO Box 4519, Covina, California 91723
E-mail: m.huls@hulsenv.com
Cell phone: 213-840-9279 Office Phone: 626-332-7514 Fax: 626-332-7504
Environmental Management and Media Executive
J. Michael Huls is current Chairman/CEO of Huls Environmental Media, Inc. (HEMI), an environmental
outreach solutions company established on Earth Day 2007. Mr. Huls directs the practices of the firm in
the environmental field, including, but not limited to, developing unified and comprehensive solutions
designed to address societal needs for zero waste, product stewardship, environmental management,
and education among the public and private sectors. Among his project duties includes the task of
establishing a statewide collection network for the free, local and convenient return of spent products
containing hazardous constituents, as well as promoting education and awareness of a variety of simple
but effective solutions to important environmental issues.
Mr. Huls is well known in California for his environmental consulting practice (Huls Environmental
Management) through which he has established award-winning environmental programs in several cities.
His work includes development of the base planning documents (SRREs) for over 60 California cities,
development of zero waste programs for industry and communities, and establishment of unified
integrated environmental programming that has been recognized by the US EPA, the State of California,
and Keep California Beautiful through funding, grants, and awards.
Mr. Huls is a creative and dynamic, and out of the box thinker, who is also a noted team builder, with
hands-on experience in the environmental industry and education since 1970, when he partiCipated in
the first Earth Day. He was a co-founding Board Member of the US National Recycling Coalition, and a
co-founder of the California Resource Recovery Association. He is a trainer and educator, and for the
, California Resource Recovery Association, he is currently instructing public and private sector personnel
to master zero waste concepts, principles and practices (101 C - Introduction to Resource Management
and Advanced Course - Moving Business to Clean Production).
Professional Experience 1970 - Present
Huls Environmental Media, Inc.
Co-founder, Chairman, and CEO
04/07 - Present
Covina, CA
. Co-created media brand Green Street Scene iMagazine, a convergent media, environmental
educational out reach solution for California municipalities and businesses.
. Developed co-branded environmental iMagazine for the cities of Fresno, EI Monte, Rancho
Cucamonga, and Walnut, and a co-branded special edition for the' County of San Bernardino
featuring a zero waste tool kit.
. Currently working on a special co-branded edition for Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works to be distributed to all 210,000 single and multifamily households in the unincorporated
areas of the County.
bS
Resource Integration Consultants, Ltd.
Manager, California Division of International Consultancy
1990 -1995
Los Angeles, CA
. Prepared 60 SRREs for California municipalities.
. Conducted feasibility study for MRF in Bell, California.
Harding Lawson Associates
Senior Environmental Associate
1984 -1988
Los Angeles, CA
. Led an R&D pr<;>ject to develop the US hazardous waste management facility permit system.
. Conducted over 300 industrial facility assessments for the purpose of cqmpliance with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
. Advised the Chemical Manufacturers' Association on environmental control technologies.
. Consulted to the National Science Foundation on recycling technologies.
. Performed state-of-the-art research for the US Congress on Glass and Plastic Recycling.
Secondary Resource Development Consultants
Co-founder and President
1979 -1984
Alexandria, VA
. Conducted world wide assessments of municipal recycling for the World Bank and United Nations
that markedly influenced grant and loan strategies world wide.
. Counseled the State of Nebraska on market development.
. Directed and supervised four season waste composition and quantity assessment for Atlantic
County NJ. '
. Directed feasibility analysis for nation's first materials recovery facility in Atlantic County, NJ.
SCS Engineers
Staff Engineer
06/76 - 1979
Long Beach, CA
. Research and development activities in the field of environmental management.
. Conducted waste sort in Oakland, California for State Solid Waste Management Board.
. Worked on gas extraction system for local landfill.
California State University, Dominguez Hills Recycling Program
Co-fou"nder and Manager of CSUDH Recycling Program
01/75 - 06/76
Long Beach, CA
. Established inaugural recycling program including paper recycling effort.
. Created education and outreach program.
~y
JEFFREY MORRIS
Economist
Sound Resource Management - Olympia
2217 60th Lane NW
Olympia, W A 98502
360-867-1033
Mobile: 360-319-2391
j eff.morris@zerowaste.com
www.zerowaste.com
Current research and consulting interests - Economic cost/benefit valuation of pollutant emissions, life cycle assessment
emissions impact categories (e.g., global warming, acidification, eutrophication, criteria air pollutants,
human toxicity and ecological toxicity), natural capital, and nonmarket services (e.g., litter control, graffiti control,
illegal dumping cleanup, watershed ecological management, and recycling) that often are bundled with traditional
market-based services such as water supply, wastewater management, and garbage collection. Particular expertise
and interest in accounting for externalities and nonmarket products & services in decision-making.
Clients include the US Department of Justice, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Clean
Washington Center, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Seattle Public Utilities, New York
City, San Francisco, Toronto, Halifax (Nova Scotia), Tacoma (W A), Bellevtie (W A), King County (W A) Department
of Natural Resources, San Luis Obispo County (CA) Integrated Waste Management Authority, Massachusetts Public
Interest Research Group, Rhode Island Clean Water Fund, Pollution Probe (Toronto), and New Jersey Environmental
Federation.
EmploymentHistory
1987 - Present Principal, Sound Resource Management Group, Inc., Olympia, W A
1985 - 2001 Chief Forecaster, PhotoWorks (previously Seattle FilmWorks), Seattle, WA
1978 - 1984 Self-employed, Advocacy Econometrics, Bellingham, W A
1975 - 1977 Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Colorado, Denver, CO
1971 - 1973 Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
1972 Project Director, US NIE grant on Educational Training and Careers ofPh.D.s
1969 - 1970 Research Analyst, Ford Foundation Program for Research in University Administration
1964 - 1966 Financial Analyst, Price Analysis and ProgramminglProduction Scheduling Departments,
Finance Staff, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI .
Pee r -Re v iewedA rticles
Measuring environmental value for natural lawn and garden care practices, with co-author Jennifer Bagby, International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (Online First July 2007, print publication forthcoming)
A hedonic model for evaluating the effect of illegal dumping on residential home prices, with co-author Gregory
M. Duncan, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (invited submission 2006)
Comparative LCAs for curbside recycling versus either landfilling or incineration with energy recovery, International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 10, No.4, July 2005, pp. 273-284
Recycling versus incineration: An energy conservation analysis, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 47, Issues 1-3
(Special Issue onEnergy-from-Waste), May 1996, pp. 277-293
Inside the Standard Industrial Classification codes: How many paper mills are there in Washington? with coauthor
Frank Ackerman, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, December 1993
Source separation vs. centralized processing: An avoided-cost optimization model provides some intriguing answers,
Journal of Resource Management and Technology, Vol. 19, No.1, March 1991,pp. 37-46
Some simple tests of the direct effect of education on preferences and nonmarket productivity, The Review of Economics
and Statistics, Vol. LVIII, No.1, February 1976, pp. 112-117
ReviewedStudies
The Washington State Consumer Environmental Index (CEI)""": A Summary of the Development of a Tool to Understand
and Support Consumer Choices That Have Preferable Environmental Outcomes, prepared for the Washington State
Department of Ecology, July 2007
Economic & Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System for Beverage Containers in the State of Washington, with coauthors
Rick Hlavka and Bill Smith, City of Tacoma Solid Waste Management, Tacoma, W A 2005
GS
S e I e c t e d Con fe r en c e Pre s en tat ion s
The environmental impacts of discards. Informational presentation to the Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario
(Canada). 2007
The perils of public health and ecosystems - can a Cyclops see 3D? Washington State Recycling Association Annual
Conference. 2007
The environmental economics of discards. Keynote address for the Recycling Council of Ontario Energy From Waste Forum.
2006
Life cycle analysis of yard, food and wood waste management options. Biocycle West Coast Conference. 2006
The economics of backyard composting revisited: Accounting for participant time, compost produced, and ecological benefits,
with Jennifer Bagby. 3rd Biennial Conference of the US Society for Ecological Economics. 2005
Disposal by whatever name still stinks of wasted resources. Keynote address for the Solid Waste Association of North America
Winter 2005 Technical Symposia. 2005
Zero waste economics - global benefits, local costs. International Dialog on Proper Discards Management. 2004
Preventing pollution and conserving resources by turning trash into jobs: Sustainable economic development for Washington.
Pacific Northwest Region Economic Conference. 2004
Collection fees for single-family discards: characteristics and impacts on waste generation and diversion
in King County, W A. Rural Community Assistance Program Conference. 2004
Energy conservation and pollution prevention/biodiversity enhancing benefits of curbside recycling versus landfill disposal or
waste-to-energy incineration disposal. International Life Cycle Analysis and LifeCycle Management Conference. 2003
What will it take to make diversion of recyclables and organics profitable? BioCycle West Coast Conference. 2003
Recycling & recycling markets: what will it take to make recycling profitable? Solid Waste Association of
North America Waste Reduction, Recycling and Collection Symposium. .2003
Zero waste economics: prices for garbage vs. recycling are telling the wrong story. Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection Professional Recyclers of Pennsylvania Certification Training. 2002
Making pilot projects sustainable. Recycling Association of Minnesota/Solid Waste Association of North America Annual
Conference. 2002
Zero waste economics: Think globally, pay locally. 6th World Congress on Integrated Resources Management, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2002
The future of recycling. Closing plenary session panel discussion for 20th National Recycling Coalition Congress, 2002
Three empirical studies on collection/diversion system effectiveness: Residential refuse, recyclables, & yard debris
collection; commercial refuse ,collection. 20th National Recycling Coalition Congress, 2002
Tracking standards for reporting diversion. California Resource Recovery Association Annual Conference, 2001
The waste prevention vs. recycling trade-off in variable rates. 19th National Recycling Coalition Congress, 2000
Comparative analysis of internet sites for trading recycled materials. 1 9th National Recycling Coalition Congress, 2000
Picking the best recycling program for your community. 18th National Recycling Coalition Congress, '1999
Economic & environmental benefits of recycling. 17th National Recycling Coalition Congress, 1998
The economics of recycling and zero waste perspective. California Resource Recovery Association Annual Conference, 1997
Mechanisms for hedging against recycled paper price fluctuations. Pulp and Paper Week's Annual International
Paper Recycling Conference, 1997
Energy conservation from recycling. Catalonian (Spain) Conference on Energy &W astes, '1997
Recycling market prices and recycling eco.nomics. Western States Legislative Conference, 1995
Economics of recycling in full perspective. 13th National Recycling Coalition Congress, 1994
Prices, prices, prices - Will the future bring the same old roller coaster ride? Solid Waste Association of North America
Northwest Regional Solid Waste Symposium, 1994
Economics of recycling and recycled materials. 12thNational Recycling Coalition Congress, 1993
Calculating economic markets for recyclables. New York State Legislative Committee on Solid Waste Management's
8th Annual Conference on Solid Waste Management and Materials Policy, 1992
Source separation vs. centralized processing. Journal of Resource Management and Technology's 6th International
Conference on Solid Waste Management and Secondary Materials, 1990
Integrated waste management program planning. 9th National Recycling Coalition Congress, 1990.
Source separation vs. centralized processing. EPA's 1st U.S. Conference on MSW Management, 1990. /
Markets today vs. the past decade and the need for a recyclables commodity exchange. Washington State Recycling
Association Annual Conference, 1989
bb
Daniel Knapp, Ph.D
A SHORT NOTE TO A LONG RESUME:
Since my career is intertwined
with the emerging science of zero waste and total recycling,
I have lately striven for scholarly completeness.
Thank you for your patience and interest.
DANIEL LEO KNAPP, recycling company executive, entrepreneur, applied social scientist and social
engineer. Born December 27, 1939. Married to Mary Lou Van Deventer; two daughters; five
grandchildren.
EDUCATION:- BA in Asian Studies with honors; also graduated Phi Beta Kappa, University of Oregon,
1963; MA in Interdisciplinary Studies, 1965; Ph.D. in Sociology, 1969.
WORK HISTORY: Field Experience Coordinator, regional VISTA Volunteer Training Center,
University of Oregon, 1965-66; Community Organizer, Lane County Youth Project, Eugene, Oregon,
1966-67; Research Associate, Office of Juvenile Delinquency, Washington D.C., 1967-69; Assistant
Professor, University of Oregon, 1969-71; Assistant Professor, Sangamon State University, 1971-76;
Director of Lane County Office of Appropriate T ec4no logy, 1977-78; President, Oregon Appropriate
Technology, 1978-79; Founder and Chief Executive, Urban Ore, Inc., 1980-2007.
PROFESSIONAL HONORS: first listed in Marquis Who's Who in Science and Engineering in 1992.
Several terms on board of directors of Northern California Recycling Association, two terms as Treasurer.
Urban Ore, Inc. has been chosen as Best in the San Francisco Bay Area by staff and readers of several
publications, including the East Bay Express, Bay Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle Magazine, The
Montclarion, and 7. In 2006, we were selected to a list of" 11 0 Best Things to Do in San Francisco" and
named "Best Place to Recycle" by SF Magazine.
MEMBERSHIPS: American Sociology Association; California Chamber of Commerce; Northern
California Recycling Association; California Resource Recovery Association; National Recycling
Coalition; Architects, Designers, and Planners for Social Responsibility.
SELECTED SPEAKING TOPICS AND TITLES:
1979: "The Function of Reuse Within the Recycling Industry; Materials Recovery and
Incineration are Competing Technologies," National Science Foundation Research Agenda for the
'80s, San Francisco and Washington, DC.
1981: "The Importance of Source Separation for Materials Recovery Businesses, " Workshop on
Solid Waste Management for Rural and Small Communities, Tempe, Arizona.
{,7
for Resorce Protection. Television interview at proposed dump site; afternoon workshop to about
25 leaders; evening presentation to over 100 citizens. Proposed dump site was withdrawn from
consideration by Island Waste Management Corporation September 20, ,1999. Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island.
2000: "Zero Waste." Annual Conference of the Washington State Recycling Association.
Sponsor: Seattle Public Utilities.
2000: "Steps to Developing Successful Resource Recoverty Centres and Ecoparks." Speaker at
three workshops: Second Annual Zero Waste Conference, Kaitaia, New Zealand. Sponsor: New
Zealand Zero Waste Trust. Spent the following week speaking on zero waste before various
councils and council staffs, and touring materials recovery center,s in Whangarei, Auckland,
Palmerston North, Masterton, Christchurch, Ashburton, Amberle, and Waiheki Island.
2001: "Envisioning Resource Recovery Parks: Twelve Strategic Imperatives," (with Mary Lou
Van Deventer). Keynote speech delivered to delegates attending the Waste and Recycle 2001
Conference in Perth, Western Australia. Perth has adopted a zero waste by 2020 goal and is
aggressively pursuing a development strategy emphasizing resource recovery parks. Sponsors
, ,were Western Australia Municipal Association, the Department of Industry and Technology, and
the Department of Environmental Protection.
2001: "From Waste to Resources: Alchemy for the New Millenium."
Environmental Master Class for senior managers, Water Corporation of Perth, Australia.
Following this, traveled to New Zealand and presented resource recovery ideas to Mayors, key
Council members, and staffin Auckland City, Whakatane, and Palmerston North.
2002. Travelled with six other USA recycling experts (Rick Anthony, Bill Sheehan, Bill Worrell,
P.E., Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Dr. Paul Connett, and Joan Edwards) to an international conference in
Geneva, Switzerland, ,where we presented papers on various topics related to Zero Waste and
organized a zero waste workshop attended by representatives from 19 countries. Then travelled to
Sussex University in England where we did an all-day workshop on Zero Waste for 200 activists
and government people from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. '
2002. With Gary Liss, provided two days' onsite consultations, workshops, and presentations to
senior Sarasota County, Florida, solid waste and recycling staff and local consultant Michelle
Harvey of Solid Resources regarding next steps for resource recovery at the County's new landfill
site.
2003. "Building Supply and Demand Markets into Zero - Waste ResourceDevelopment Parks."
Keynote speech delivered to the annual conference of the California Resource Recovery
Association. Summarized zero waste theory and resourc'e recovery park design principles and
practice; explained how to use service void analysis to choose the next incremental steps to take
while "growing into zero waste" within an already-functioning urban recovery system. This
speech was delivered July 21, 2003 in Ontario, California.
bt
"Staking a Claim to the Urban Ore," This article presented plans for a labor-intensive urban
transfer station organized on total recycling principles. Our subsequent transfer station work
derives from this early piece. Sierra magazine, June-July, 1982.
"Resource Recovery: What Recycling Can Do. "This technology review, commissioned by the
California State Office of Appropriate Technology, positioned recycling as a major competitor
with the waste industry for the entire discard supply. Materials World Publishing, 1982.
"Urban Plant Waste Composting," This article summarized operations at Urban Ore's innovative
Compost Farm, where tipping fees collected from haulers were the largest income source. We
believe that we invented the modem compost business model with this pioneering facility, which
at its peak turned about 14,000 tons per year of clean plant trimmings into compost. Biocycle:
Journal of Waste Recycling, November/December 1985.
"Implementing Reuse at Berkeley Exchange," Biocycle: Journal of Waste Recycling, February,
1992.
"Give Recycling a Chance" and "We Have to Decide Total Recycling is the Only Goal Worth
Working For," Waste Not: The Weekly Reporter for Rational Waste Management, Issues #204 and
-, 205, August, 1992.
~,
"Reuse Before Recycling, Recycling Before Garbage," This essay summarized design principles
for a phased transition to zero waste discard management facilities. Facts to Act On, Institute for
Local Self-Reliance, March 1993.
"Processing Discards Sequentially Using Serial MRFs," (with David Stern and Mary Lou Van
Deventer), MSW Management, March/April 1994.
"Reuse, Recycling, Refuse and the Local Economy," David Stern was lead author. This study
, compared six large public or privately-owned, resource recovery enterprises with wasting in
Berkeley, California, and found that the two sectors were nearly even injobs, annual income, and
throughput tonnage. Opportunities in Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, September 1994.
"Let's Hold Conservatives toa High Environmental Standard," Terrain: The Monthly Publication
of the Ecology Center of Berkeley, CA. January, 1995. Reprinted in Georgia and New Hampshire
Sierrans during 1995.
Generic Designs and Projected Performance for Two Sizes of Integrated Resource Recovery
Facilities, a Report to the West Virginia Solid Waste Management Board, with co-authors Mary
Lou Van Deventer, Mark Gorrell, and David Stem. This was a comprehensive training manual on
designing and building zero waste transfer stations. Urban Ore, Inc., January 1995.
"What's Perking Down Under? Key Recycling Initiatives in Australia and New Zealand." This
article summarized zero waste developments underway in various cities and councils. BioCycle:
Journal of Composting and Recycling, June, 1997.
foCj
1993. Study of employment and economic impacts of Berkeley's decentralized serial materials
recovery facility (serial MRF). Published report is "Reuse, Recycling, Refuse and the Local
Economy," David Stem lead author, shown above. Contact person: Bill Eyring, P.E., Center for
Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, Illinois, phone 773/278-4800.
1994. Construct a model of the physical and economic characteristics of Integrated Resource
Recovery Facilities for the State of West Virginia. Published report is Generic Designs and
Projected Performanc for Two Sizes of Integrated Resource Recovery Facilities. With large team
including architect Mark Gorrell and Mary Lou Van Deventer. Contact person: Dr. Robert
Di<?ner, P.E., Chair, Agricultural and Environmental Technology, Division of Resource
Management, PO Box 6108, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108, phone
304/293-4832.
1997. Site design and traffic plan for Integrated Resource Recovery Centre, Pooraka, Adelaide,
Australia. With architect Mark Gorrell. Contact person: John Nolan, Nolan-ITU Pty Ltd., PO
Box 393, East Kew, Victoria, Australia, 3102, phone 61-3-9859-3344.
1997. Site design, traffic plan, and customer interface for front-end reuse andrecycling retrofit of
an existing refuse transfer station, County of Kauai. With architect Mark Gorrell. Contact person:
William Bess, Architect, Architects Kauai, PO Box 753, Kilauea, Hawaii 96754, phone 808/828-
2880.
2000. Urban Ore Ecopark. Member of a working team including a general contractor, a seismic
engineer, two architects, and a project management specialist. Tasks included interim and final
site design and layout for comprehensive reuse facility; seismic retrofit design and construction for
two-story warehouse building formerly used as a pipe manufacturing facility;' design for
renovating building to create new spaces suitable for other businesses to co-locate; finding tenants
and working on subleases; assisting City staff to amend zoning rules to permit Materials Recovery
Enterprises to occupy lands zoned mixed-use/light industrial.
2007. Berkeley Zero Waste Transfer Station upgrade study. With Mary Lou Van Deventer
and architects Greg VanMechelen and Mark Gorrell. Building upon a consultant's study
completed two years previously that was then effectively tabled by Berkeley's Refuse and Public
Works Divisions, Urban Ore financed an internal design charrette to carry the community's design
work forward using the company's most experienced team members. This effort, which was peer-
reviewed as it went along, created a new set of drawings ,and architectural images. The work was
put into a PowerPoint document to display the study in graphic form showing 1) how the current
Berkeley recycling and refuse transfer station complex works as a practical matter; and 2) why the
current layout wastes space, limits recycling, and prevents the City from reaching its ambitious
goal of Zero Waste by 2020. The show then moves on to an exploration of a new, purpose-built
facility that generates its own power and treats its own greywater and surface runoff. The new
materials recovery building features a subdividable 85,000 square foot sawtooth structure with no
internal posts; natural lighting; a large photovoltaic system; and a five-part phasing plan that
allows demolition of existing structures and rebuilding on the same site while all current recycling
operators and materials recovery ,functions continue in business.
7D
Garv Liss
Gary Liss has over 32 years of experience in the solid waste and recycling field. Mr. Liss helps public
and private sector clients on strategic policy and program analyses; develops public and private Zero
Waste Plans; evaluates and develops Resource Recovery Parks; designs Incentive-based solid waste
and recycling RFPs, Contracts and Systems; evaluates garbage rates and services; and develops
proposals and joint ventures for innovative reuse; recycling and composting companies.
Mr. Liss helped write and edit the nation's first local government Zero Waste Plan for Del Norte County,
California. Mr. Liss co-authored the Zero Waste Action Plan for Nelson, British Columbia in Canada
and wrote Zero Waste Strategic Plans for Palo Alto and Oakland, California. He drafted the Zero
Waste Communities Strategy adopted by the Zero Waste Task Force of Santa Clara, San Mateo and San
Benito Counties. He also conducted a technical review for The Citizens Plan for Zero Waste in New
York City.
Mr. Liss wrote fact sheets for the GrassRoots Recycling Network on Zero Waste Communities and
Zero Waste Businesses and developed new criteria for evaluating the performance of businesses in
achieving Zero Waste. Mr. Liss conducted a Feasibility Study for a small scale Resource Recovery Park
in Del Norte County, California, and a small-scale Zero Waste Centre in Waveney, UK. Mr. Liss wrote
, a case study on a wide variety of Resource Recovery Parks in 2000 for the California Integrated Waste
Management Board and the website for the US EP A on Resource Recovery Parks.
Mr. Liss was Solid Waste Manager for the City of SanJ ose, CA and developed their recycling
programs into national models, currently diverting over 62% of the overall waste stream. Mr. Liss
worked to stimulate competition and harness the forces of the marketplace to achieve the City's policy
goals. He structured solid waste fees and taxes to provide clear price signals to the marketplace so that
generators, haulers, recyclers and landfill operators would all benefit economically by preventing waste
and recycling. Through a comprehensive Solid Waste Strategy, Mr. Liss saved San Jose more than $77
million over then~xt 30 years through competitive awards of a $200 million 30 year Disposal Contract
and a $200 million 7 year Collection Contract.
Mr. Liss also worked for the US Conference of Mayors to document the ties between economic
development and resource recovery and helped develop the Industrial Recycling Park concept pursued
by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the 1970s.
Mr. Liss has also been active professionally throughout his career. He taught "Economics of Solid
Waste and Recycling" at both Sa~ Jose State University and the University of California at Santa Cruz,
Extension Certificate Programs in Integrated Waste Management and has lectured extensively at other
universities and professional association meetings and conferences. He was Secretary to the California
State Senate Task Force on Waste Management in 1989 that led to the adoption of key state recycling
legislation. He assisted in the development of the CRRA's State Recycling Policy, CRRA's Recycling
Agenda for the 1990s, CRRA's Agenda for the New Millennium, and the National Recycling
Coalition's National Policy on Recycling. Mr. Liss was also a founder and past President of the
National Recycling Coalition. He was the Coordinator of the Zero Waste International Alliance
(www.zwia.org). and remains on the ZWIA Planning Group. He is on the E~ecutive Committee of the
CRRA Recyclers Global Warming Council, CRRA Global Recycling Council, CRRA Independent
71
SUSAN KINSELLA
4 Cielo Lane #IB Phone - 415/883-6264
Novato, CA 94949 E-mail: seek@susankinsella.com Fax - 509/756-6987
Internationally Recognized Leader in
Environmental Paper Sustainability Issues,
Recycling Policy and
Environmentally Preferable Procurement
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
Executive Director, CONSERV ATREE 1998-present
San Francisco, California
Nonprofit education and advocacy organization dedicated to converting paper markets to environmental papers
(e.g. recycled, tree free, chlorine free, sustainable forest fibers) in order to facilitate paper industry conversion to
environmentally and socially sustainable production systems. Nonprofit grew out of formerly for-profit company
that developed the markets for recycled paper in North America.
. Advises government, business and organizational purchasers on policies and specifications appropriate for their
environmental goals. Develops tools, strategies and technical assistance for policy executives and paper buyers,
including workshops and presentations.
· Publishes ground-breaking research on recycling and environmental paper issues. '
· Strategizes approaches for greatest leverage in changing paper industry to environmentally sustainable production
practices.
· Acts as bridge between environmental organizations and paper industry, provides technical expertise to
environmental campaigns, creates coalitions for unified approaches and success.
· Networks with paper industry, recycling, corporate, procurement, environmental and government officials on
environmental, recycling and paper issues.
Conservatree Programs, Partnerships and Consulting Projects
· Single Stream Recycling Best Practices Manual and Implementation Guide (January
2007), developed with support from all sectors of the recycling system - manufacturers, collectors, processors, and
governments~ Outlines new orientation for recycling programs based on Resource Management concepts in order to
better maintain and expand domestic andintemational recycled product manufacturing, optimize local
governments' recycling programs, and conserve natural resources. Articles published in industry journals in 2007-
2008. Best Practices workshop, keynote speeches presented at recycling conferences in 2006.
· Single Stream Recycling Roundtable (May 2005) brought together 175 recycling leaders from all parts of the
California recycling system to seek whole-system solutions to the problems increasingly undermining recycled
product manufacturing.
. Internet website (www.conservatree.org) includes the most comprehensive and indepth information on
environmentally preferable papers available in North America, continually updated, for both professional
purchasers and individual paper buyers. (200O-current)
. Take Charge project, initiating a viral public information campaign to empower individuals to convert their
spheres of influence to environmental papers, including workplaces, schools, spiritual centers, and daily life. (2006
- Current)
· Initiated the Environmental Paper Network (EPN) (2003-current), including the Environmental Paper
Summit (2002), an unprecedented collaboration of virtually all the U.S. and Canadian environmental paper
campaigns that is now expanding globally, with affiliated Networks in Europe and developing in Indonesia,
Australasia, and South America. Serves on the EPN Steering Committee.
· Listening Study, funded by U.S. EPA, to create dialogue among opposing sides on controversial environmental
paper issues and analyze ways to resolve them. Published breakthrough documents on questions regarding papers
with recycled, tree free and sustainable forest fiber contents. (2001-2004)
· Frequent collaborations with environmental groups, including:
71..
· Directed California statewide Buy Recycled Campaign, including recycled content plastic, glass, paper,
aluminum and steel products - produced consumer manuals identifying everyday recycled-content choices,
conducted press events, developed business and government recycled products procurement guide, produced
packaging waste reduction manual that included the first source reduction guide for purchasers, published database
of California recycled products, conducted training workshops for governments and businesses.
University Lecturer 1987-1988
SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY, San Francisco, California
Designed and taught speech communication classes.
Director, Communications and Research 1985--1990
CONSERV A TREE PAPER COMPANY, San Francisco, California
Presente.d policy issues in speeches to environmental groups, legislatures, conferences; advised goven;unent
officials on procurement, market development, legislation and implementation; researched and reported on recycled
paper issues and technical questions; wrote brochures, newsletters and articles; networked with nonprofits and
media. Key participant in national debates on recycled product contents, definitions and labeling.
CREDENTIALS
Board of Directors, National Recycling Coalition (1991-1993),
Executive Committee (1991-1992), NRC Member (1985-present)
Scientific Advisory Board, Scientific Certification Systems (1991-1993)
Advisory Board, Recycled Products Guide (1990-present)
Advisory Board, Recycled Paper News (1990-1994)
Member, Technical Assn. of the Pulp & Paper Industry (T APPI) (1990-present)
Member, California Resource Recovery Association (1 990-present)
Member, Northern California Recycling Association (1996-present)
Member, ASTM D06.40, Recycled Paper (1991-1993)
Co-Founder and Member, Paper Definitions Working Group (1991-1993)
EDUCATION
, B.S., Psychology and Sociology, Purdue University, 1972
M.A., Speech Communication Studies/Diffusion of Innovations, San Francisco State University, 1991
73
CURRICULUM VIr AE
Richard B. Flammer
1770 Evergreen Street, Suite 20
San Diego, CA 92106
(619) 758-0726
www.compostingconsultant.com
hiddenresources@sbcglobal.net
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
. Eighteen years of composting experience in seven u.s. states and Mexico.
. Design, permitting, management, evaluation, consultation, and/or remediation of approximately seventy large-scale
composting facilities for both private and public sector clients.
. Lecturer and educator on composting, organic resource management, resource conservation, sustainable landscaping
and farming, and toxic-free gardening.
. Design and implementation of university and public sector composting research projects.
. Design and construction of permanent home composting demonstration exhibits.
. Participation on committees for establishing composting regulations and ensuring sustainable regional recycling
strategies are achieved.
. Author of educational guides, articles for trade magazines, and workshop and certification program manuals and
curricula.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Owner, Hidden Resources, San Diego, California (l998-Present)
. Consultant for assessment of administrative, marketing, regulatory compliance, and technical process practices of
large-scale,yard trimmings compost facility in Woodbine, Maryland.
. Consultant and researcher for regional assessment of organics processing infrastructure in San Diego County,
California.
. Lead researcher on County of San Diego's organic resource management program, targeting development of
on-farm composting strategies, direct land application, and manure management programs.
. Organizer of regionalcomposting conference for County of San Diego, California.
. Consultant for large-scale composting facility in San Diego, California, handling permitting, regulatory compliance,
finished product marketing, and business development.
. Consultant for large-scale composting facility in Tijuana, Mexico, handling business development, regulatory
compliance, and finished product marketing.
. Consultant for large-scale composting facility in Ladue, Missouri, handling operational process and monitoring
protocol.' and odor control management.
. Concept development and design of series of educational signs promoting and teaching vermiculture, composting,
and fmished product use for Shipley Nature Center in Huntington Beach, California.
. Design and processing protocol development for small-scale composting site at Shipley Nature Center, Huntington
Beach, California.
. Public educator for series of composting/toxic-free gardening workshops for City of Chula Vista, California.
. Designed curriculum, authored manual, and taught master composter certification program for city of Chula Vista.
. Designed and supervised construction of the permanent exhibit, "Chula Vista Home Composting Discovery Tour
and Field Lab."
f l.-l
Public Educator Teaching Composting Principles
. Home composting workshop delivered to residents of La Mesa, California.
. Series of home composting workshops taught at the Home Depot, Chula Vista, California.
. Developed curriculum and taught a series of home composting workshops to residents of Stamford, Connecticut.
. Designed and constructed permanent home composting demonstration exhibit at Stamford Museum and Nature
Center, Stamford, Connecticut.
. Editorial consultant and personal appearance in video, "Turning your Spoils into Soil," produced by State of
Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection.
Regional Studies Planner and Consultant
. Inspected, evaluated and compiled a countywide profile of 26 municipal composting facilities in Monmouth County,
New Jersey. Made recommendations on potential for facility expansions, inter-municipal regional facilities, and role
of county in supporting local and regional efforts.
. Inspected and evaluated 14 existing and proposed municipal composting facilities and programs in Rockland
County, New York. Provided program and facility design recommendations to optimize regional composting
strategies.
. Inspected and evaluated 16 municipal composting programs in St. Louis County, Missouri. Made recommendations
to individual jurisdictions and St. Louis County Department of Health on facility improvement and regional strategy
improvement.
RESEARCH PROJECTS
. Working with Richard Anthony Associates and the San Diego County Farm Bureau, assessed regional on-farm
composting infrastructure for the County of San Diego. Purpose of study was to determine the viability of expanding
agricultural options for the utilization of discarded organic materials. Four existing and one proposed on-farm
composting projects were studied in detail. October 2005-April2006
. Working with Richard Anthony Associates and the San Diego County Farm Bureau, identified and brought together
regional stakeholders for a series of six workshops and a plenary conference to develop a draft on-farm composting
policy for pr.esentation to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. April-October 2005
. Growth trials for a private client developing a compost -based potting soil blend for tomato and cucumber
shadehouse growers in Baja Califronia, Mexico. April-August, 2005
. Project coordinator and technical advisor for fifteen:"month, commercial and institutional generated food organics
pilot project funded by the Illinois department of Energy and Natural Resources and conducted at the University of
, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. February 1994 - May 1995.
. Protocol development and implementation of State of Connecticut's first pilot, large-scale grass composting project,
conducted for the State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, at the City of Stamford,
Connecticut, Summer/Autumn 1990.
. Protocol development and pilot project management for co-composting and bioremediation of contaminated (high E.
coli) road sweepings, conducted for the State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, at the City of
Stamford, Connecticut, Spring 1990. .
PUBLICATIONS
Flammer, R., Williams, W., "San Diego County Targets Agriculture for Sustainable Resource Management," Biocycle,
Journal of Composting & Organics Recycling, March 2007
Flammer, R., "Composting Comes Back to the Big Apple," Biocyc1e, Journal of Composting & Organics Recycling,
September 2005
Flammer, R., "Large-Scale Composting Facility Thrives in St. Louis Suburbs," Biocycle, Journal of Composting & Organics
Recycling, June 2005
Flammer, R., "A Guide for Less Toxic Yard & Garden Care," San Diego Regional Household Hazardous Waste Partnership,
January 2005, San Diego County, California
Flammer, R., "The Fundamentals of Composting," Master Composter Certification Program, June 2004, San Diego,
California
75
Flammer, R., "Smart Choices, Great Returns... Sensible, Sustainable, Best Environmental Practices for Landscapers," Best
Environmental Practices: A Free Workshop for Landscape Professionals, November 10,2005, Water Conservation Garden,
Cuyamaca College, EI Cajon, California
Flammer, R., "What's So Important about Sustainable Discarded Organic Resource Management in San Diego County?"
Countywide Organic Resource Management Conference, November 3,2005, San Diego California
Flammer, R., "Less-Toxic Yard and Garden Care," June 9,2004, City of Carlsbad, Carlsbad
Flammer, R., "Backyard Composting," San Diego Zoo, May 22, 2004, San Diego, California
Flammer, R., "Composting Basics," Sea World of California, Green/Recycling Week, April 24, 1997, San Diego, California
Flammer, R., "Greenwaste, Regional Challenges/Regional Solutions: Recycling and Waste Management in San Diego and
California," San Diego-Tijuana Binational Planning and Coordination Committee, July 16, 1996, San Diego, California
Flammer, R., "Composting Technology Options," 20th Annual Conference, California Resource Recovery Association,
June 17, 1996, Newport Beach, California
Flammer, R. "Composting-Adding Foodwaste and Other Organics," Looking to the Future, Recycling '94,
14th Annual State of Illinois Conference and Exposition, Illinois Recycling Association, Illinois Department of Energy
and Natural Resources, July 27, 1994, St. Charles, Illinois
Flammer, R., "Composting Helps," Earth Day Celebration 1992, "Stamford Environmental Education Coalition,
April 25, 1992, Stamford, Connecticut
Flammer, R., "Basic Principles of Home Composting," Spring on the Farm, Stamford Museum and Nature Center,
May 19, 1991, Stamford, Connecticut
Flammer, R., "Potential Environmental Health Risks in Yard Waste Composting," 88th Annual Yankee Conference,
Connecticut Environmental Health Association, September 21, 1990, Mystic, Connecticut
MULTIMEDIA
. Editorial consultant and personal appearance in video, "Home Composting, Turning Your Spoils to Soil," produced
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Recycling Program; 1991
. Compost consultant and personal appearance in video, "How to Manage Manure:' Composting for Horse Owners,"
produced by The Country Television Network and the San Diego County Recycling and Watershed Protection
Departments, 2007
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, Comniunications, with concentration in Public Relations, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, April 1985
PAST AND PRESENT AFFILIATIONS
. San Diego County Farm Bureau
. Integrated Waste Management Citizens Advisory Committee, San Diego Association of Governments
. Compost Quality Standards Technical Advisory Committee, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
. California Resource Recovery Association
. Illinois Composting Council
. Illinois Recycling Association
7'
Linda Christopher
PO Box 282 Cotati CA 94931
Iinda@grrn.org 707-321-7883
Executive Director
GrassRoots Recycling Network, a national nonprofit that advocates for Zero Waste
communities, Zero Waste businesses, and Zero Waste campuses. Recent GRRN
research and advocacy campaigns include Garbage is not Renewable Energy, and
Compostable Organics out of Landfills.
Program Director
The Materials for the Future Foundation 1998-2004
Implemented recycling projects that linked sustainable development, economic
development, recycling market development, and job creation.
Education Director
Garbage Reincarnation, Inc., Santa Rosa 1989-1998
Managed the advocacy, education, and outreach programs including marketing
programs, influencing decision makers, and assisting communities in implementing
recycling programs.
Recycling Coordinator
Sonoma State University 1988-1989
Established SSU Recycling Program. Planned and developed program, obtained funding
for capitalization, staffing, and operations. Hired as first staff recycling coordinator in
January 1989. Developed, implemented, and marketed program. Managed operations.
Supervised three paid assistants and 50 part-time volunteers.
Education and Training
Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
Environmental Studies and Planning; Energy Management and Design
Cabrillo College, Aptos, California. Certificate Solar Energy Technology
Financial Management for Recycling Entrepreneurs - National Development Council
Leadership Santa Rosa - One-year program sponsored by Santa Rosa Chamber of
Commerce
Community Involvement
Member Sonoma County LocafTask Force 2001-present
Serve in an advisory capacity to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors regarding solid
waste and recycling issues.
Board Member/President Northern California Recycling Association 1996-2006
Supervised NCRA staffer, coordinated production of monthly newsletter, organized and
conducted annual board retreats, responded to legislation, and developed leadership and
initiative in other board members.
Comm issioner/Chai r
City of Cotati, Community & Environment Commission 1996-2006
Organize community events and the annual commission planning retreat, manage a
$10,000 annual budget, conduct meetings, develop leadership, and help develop
community and environmental programs such as Creek Habitat Restoration.
77
7'1,
A IT ACHMENT B
s ~ S E J,) G.I NEE. R S '" " " ^ ',.' ^ ' ^' ^ "
Response to
Request for Information
for
Zero Waste Strategic
Plan Development
P resented to:
Marin County JPA
c/o Marin County Department of Public Works
PO Box 41 86
San Rafael, CA 9491 3-41 86
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS
3843 Brickway Boulevard
Suite 208
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 546-9461
March 31, 2008
File No. 01492207
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
7q
r~f~h~, ~~.~~i~~()~-$. _."nd
5'l,!!a W~sti() ii'''
"ilt.:I~ltlIU.\1~:I"
Response to
Request for Information
for
Zero Waste Strategic
Plan Development
P resented to:
Marin County JPA
c/o Marin County Department of Public Works
PO Box 41 86
San Rafael, CA 94913-41 86
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS
3843 Brickway Boulevard
Suite 208
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
(707) 546-9461
March 31, 2008
File No. 01492207
~o
~l:Jrin, H~.t:n~~ql,l~ _~nd
St;'Hti 'Waste jri'.
..till":I ~r(1I~.JI:a
Table of Contents
Secti 0 n
Page
1 Lette r of I nt rod uct i on ..... .................... .... .............................. ........ ............ ............... ........... ........... ......... 1
2 Cu rrent Use rs and R efe rences ............................................................................................................. 2
3 Metho dol og y ....................... ............... ............... ..... ...... ........... .................... ......... ............ ........... ........... 3
4 I nteg rat ion with Cu rrent P rog ra m s .............................................................................................. ....... 4
5 Imp I em enta ti on ............... ....... ............ ........ ............. ........... ..... ..... ......... ............... ..... ............ ..... ......... .... 5
6 S t a ffi n 9 and Con su I t a ti on ................ ......... .................. ~..... ............... ........................ ................... .......... 6
7 Est i mate d Cost.. ....... ...... ............ ..... ........ ...... ............ .......... ................... ....... ................... .... ...... ............. 7
8 Com pi i a nce with Reg u I a tions .................................................................................................... ........... 8
9 Su p port Se rv ices ...... .......... ........... .................................. .... ........ .......... ......... .............. ..... ........... ...... .... 9
lOAd d ition a I Fea tu res ............................................................................................................................. 1 0
1 1 Ad d ition a I Com ments .......................................................................................................................... 1 1
1 2 Cost S a v i n 9 s.... ....... .......... ............. .............. ....................... .............. ............... ....... ......... ................. ..... 1 2
1 3 Cop ies of Other So I icitations ............................................................................................................. 1 3
List of Exhibits
No.
1 Use rs and R efe rences ................... ................... ................................. .......... ............... ............. ............. 2
2 Est i mat e d Costs.................................................................... .................................................................7
A - 1 Project Timel ine.......................~................................................................................... ...... Ap pend i x A
Appendices
A Timeline
~l
r.1:JRn Hi1.;ardot,;~.ilmd
50tid WllStof: H'A
.1~";j ,;>~~ '~I;c::l''''''
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
March 3 1, 2008
File No. 01492207
Mr. Michael Frost, Program Manager
Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste lPA
c/o Marin County Department of Public Works
PO Box 4186
San Rafael, CA 94913-4186
Subject: Request for Information (RFI) for Zero Waste Strategic Plan, Marin County, CA
Dear Mr. Frost:
In response to the subject RFI (dated January 24, 2008), SCS Engineers (SCS) is pleased to present our
qualifications, cost estimates, and supportive documents to help develop and implement Zero Waste in
Marin County. As requested in the RFI, we provide one electronic and three hard copies of our response.
SCS is one of the oldest and largest privately held environmental service firms in the US, and is a
recognized world leader in solid waste engineering. Founded in 1970, the firm employs over 550
professional and support staff located in 41 offices throughout the nation. SCS is independently owned
by its employees, all of whom are committed to providing objective, responsive, and superior services to
clients. Recently, for the fourth year in a row, SCS was named the top solid waste firm in the United
States (ENR, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007).
SCS offers comprehensive solid waste planning services to assist in achieving waste reduction goals. Our
planning practice includes waste generation studies; waste characterization studies; waste management
plans and reports; program design, implementation, and monitoring; grant writing; ordinance preparation
and implementation; business waste assessments and technical assistance; rate studies; collection service
and facility development procurements; privatization studies; and hauler audits.
SCS is an innovative force in new waste diversion programs. We designed one of the first e-waste
collection events in California, and studied the feasibility of a diaper recycling facility-the first in the
United States. Weare also leading the charge to sustainability through innovative programs, green
building design and specifications, construction and demolition debris recycling programs, and
procurement policies.
SCS has included Mr. David A. Langer on our team. Mr. Langer is President and founder of DAL
Dimensions, and has more than 15 years of practical experience in solid waste and recycling
management. He is very familiar with waste collection practices and public agencies in Northern
California, including Marin County.
Thank you for inviting us to submit this information about our firm. We share the County's commitment
to achieving zero waste goals in the near future.
Very truly yours,
Michelle P. Leonard
Vice President
SCS ENGINEERS
<61..
)(
"t
0
Q
CIJ
a::
"0
:l
s::: N
s:::
-<(
V) "t
a
W a
~
U "lJ
Z {)
0
W 'Xl
t:
~ ~ CIJ
W It) E
M CIJ
LL 0>
0
W s:::
0
~ ~ ~
0 2
00
0 0
Z ~
4: "lJ
CIJ
1;
V) '-
0>
CIJ
~ .:E
w 0
V) 'c
'-
:::> 4; 0
Ol :-t:
0 "0
.- t: U
0
Z ~ CIJ
2 -:E
W Q.. {} E
0
~ :E3 ~
~ :3:-u "lJ
~ .- CIJ
:::> >~ ::::: s:::
- -0 '0
U c -1.1) 1i
;:) ,!;: .
Ot-o 0
Uoco CIJ
c~'" '-
o - :l
_..!:o- 0>
C .<;: 0 l.L
N QJ Q) 1.1)
C:O~_ *
~-s
~t~rin Hi~:"':~7d.ou~ ..):,d
50lil~ V....aste jP,t\
-'t4-q~;ltll ~1::I::I:t1l
3 METHODOLOGY
The methodolC?gy for developing the County's Zero Waste Strategic Plan has been structured into three
phases; as described below:
Phase 1: Current Infrastructure and Volumes. SCS will analyze the waste and recyclable and organic
materials taken to MRFs, recycling centers, transfer stations, C&D facilities, organic processing centers,
reuse stores, landfills, and other diversion sources. We will review waste handling capacities (current and
future), materials processed, expansion capabilities, material processing operations, residuals in
recyclables, recyclables disposed, and processing locations for residential, commercial, and industrial
waste streams. Materials analyzed will include both single-stream and source-separated recyclables,
organic plant and food scrap, C&D materials, and electronic material recycling. Additional markets will
be researched for hard-to-recycle items, including film and rigid plastics. SCS will review reuse
opportunities, such as large-scale reuse stores, donation facilities, bulky item pick-ups, and drop-off
facilities. Hauler and processing contracts will also be reviewed to determine programs to capture
additional materials for diversion.
Phase 2: Overview and Integration. SCS will identify strategies for designing and implementing the
Zero Waste Strategic Plan. The Implementation Plan will include financial impacts and options,
behavioral changes (i.e., environmentally preferred purchasing, program participation, etc.), facility
expansion options, new technology options, contract adjustment options, and routing and travel impacts
for various commodity types. Existing contractors and facilities will be integral to developing future
infrastructures to achieve zero waste. Residents and business groups will also be involved in the process
of design and integration of the zero waste design. SCS plans to ensure that stakeholders provide input
into this process.
Phase 3: Plan Development. Based on findings from Phases 1 and 2, as well as from Tasks 1 through 7
(see Section 5), SCS will prepare and develop the Zero Waste Strategic Plan. The following list outlines
sections of the plan:
· Baseline volumes and extrapolation projections.
· Public process and roll-out.
· Facility expansion and new processing development.
· Permit requirements and environmental compliance.
· New technology analysis and recommendations.
· Financial impacts and options.
· Greening improvements.
· Phased goals to zero waste in 2025.
· MCJP A's responsibilities and roles.
3
~q
M,arin: Hil:T.:a7'cl'O~$ ~tld
SOiie: W~st(<: JPti,
1l14't11:a- ~~~I~-I-~ ,:I:~~"
4 INTEGRATION WITH CURRENT PROGRAMS
The SCS team approach will include extensive interaction with MCJPA staff to ensure that proposed
options are responsive to the needs and conditions of cities within the MCJP A. SCS will evaluate
policies and programs to improve or expand recycling, resource recovery, and waste reduction, with
emphasis on feasibility, cost effectiveness, and consistency with the County's goals. SCS will rely on
in-house data and our team's ongoing and recent work in analyzing municipal waste streams, assessing
markets, and identifying and analyzing program options for recycling and waste prevention. Staff
qualifications and project descriptions that highlight our experience in these areas are available upon
request. Key steps in the program analysis are as follows:
Identify Alternatives to Reduce Waste and Increase Recycling or Resource Recovery, Appropriate for
the MCJP A. SCS will develop a list of diversion options by considering materials that are currently
disposed, viable markets for materials not being diverted, generator needs and ability to change, current
recycling infrastructure, cost and pricing structure for solid waste and recycling services, and expansion
options for facilities or for siting new processing facilities. The team will rely on its expertise in
developing comprehensive waste reduction and reuse strategies to generate the list of options, and will
obtain input from service providers and other core stakeholders in the MCJP A. Examples of our work in
completing these activities include the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio Expo Center, where we
conducted a waste characterization study and identified the potential recyclables; and the Art Center
College of Design in Pasadena, CA, where we identified recyclables generated from all aspects of the
college, including studios, cafeteria, and administrative offices, and evaluated the potential for diversion
of these materials.
Screen Options to Develop a Short List of High-Potential Alternatives. The initial list of options will be
screened qualitatively, in coordination with MCJP A staff, to focus on alternatives that have the highest
potential for success. Criteria for determining success will include cost, impact, feasibility, permitting,
and implementation requirements. Examples of past projects involved in making this kind of
determination include the recent solid waste management plans completed in the State of Washington,
such as Benton, Spokane, and Mason Counties.
Analyze Remaining Alternatives to Estimate Impacts and Costs Over a 5- to 17-Year Planning Period.
The projected impacts of selected alternatives will be compared to baseline projections of waste
generation and disposal to determine how much material could be diverted over time. The impacts of
various programs will be evaluated to determine their ability to achieve MCJPA goals, and the estimated
total cost of reaching these goals. Estimates of overall program capital and operating costs will be
calculated along with revenues to estimate net program costs. The relative cost effectiveness of each
program will be established, and a "return on investment" will be calculated to inform the final decision
making process. SCS has conducted many projects involving cost analysis, including the SW ACO Expo
Center project, Spokane Solid Waste Management Plan, and Sonoma County Alternatives Analysis.
Select Final Group of Recommended Alternatives, Based on MCJPA Goals, Priorities, and Cost
Effectiveness. A final group of options will be selected based on the qualitative analyses described
above. All recommendations for implementation and integration with County programs will be
thoroughly reviewed with MCJP A staff. SCS has conducted various related projects, including the
Washington Solid Waste Plans.
The final product of this waste reduction, recycling, and resource recovery assessment will be a report
documenting existing conditions, needs and alternatives, and recommended high-potential opportunities
for reducing waste and increasing recovery or recycling. The report will clearly and concisely present
findings and recommendations in a manner designed to gain the support of key stakeholders.
4
gS
~t;Jrin: ~~:1";~r'4oL:tc oiJml;i
SoJid \l,tnste JP.A
1l!m-'l:'trB1 ~I~ I~' i~'~"
5 IMPLEMENTATION
The approach to implementing the above-described methodology is summarized below, and includes
estimated time frames for completing work. The timeline is presented graphically in Appendix A.
Task 1 - Baseline Analysis: This task will establish the baseline from which the Zero Waste Strategic
Plan will be developed. SCS will identifY existing collection contractors, facilities, and volumes related
to handling solid and hazardous waste materials and recycling. Existing volumes and diversion levels
will be determined using reporting from collection companies, disposal-based reporting information from
the County that was submitted to the CIWMB, and other data provided by MCJP A (6 weeks).
Task 2 - Identify and Classify Collection Systems: SCS will research and analyze existing solid waste,
recycling, and hazardous waste material generation. Information regarding types, quantities, diversion,
and residue levels of residential, commercial, and industrial volumes will be gathered. Each waste type
will be divided into categories such as organics, recyclables, household hazardous waste, C&D materials,
and mixed MSW (6 weeks).
Task 3 - Evaluate Existing Solid Waste and Recycling Facilities: Based on results from Tasks I and 2,
SCS will identify existing local and regional facilities, including public and private transfer stations,
MRFs/recyclables processing, composting, yard waste, C&D, biosolids, and landfills. Detailed
information will be gathered for each facility, including, but not limited to, existing volumes, permitted
and design capacities, existing usage, expansion plans, and ability for expansion. SCS will also determine
ifany other planned or proposed facilities exist in Marin County and surrounding areas (5 weeks).
Task 4 - Quantify and Extrapolate Baseline: SCS will prepare waste generation projections for the
project planning period, based on population and employment projections. Projections for population and
employment will be based on prior consensus, projections from the state, county, and cities, and other
pertinent sources. SCS will establish a method to measure the amount of solid waste generated on an
annual basis. These data will be used to provide goals for the long-range Zero Waste Plan (4 weeks).
Task 5 - Facility and Operation Expansion: SCS will determine expansion options and estimated costs
for expanded resource management programs to achieve the zero waste goal in 2025. Programs will
include collection, processing, and diversion enhancements for recycling, organic and food waste
materials, and C&D materials. Recommendations for procurement changes, ordinances, and other
program aspects will be determined and included in the Zero Waste Strategy Plan. SCS will also evaluate
and provide proven, sustainable alternative technology options for handling various streams to achieve
final diversion and to eliminate landfill use (3 weeks).
Task 6 - Involving Stakeholders: Input on the strategic plan from a diverse group of stakeholders is
critical to the success of achieving zero waste in the MCJP A. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to,
residents, business representatives, environmental groups, academia, recycling and waste service
providers, economic and community development groups and agencies, city officials, and public and
private purchasing departments. These stakeholders will be included in meetings and discussions to
provide direction for specific programs to incorporate in the Zero Waste Strategic Plan (11 weeks).
Task 7 - Develop Zero Waste Strategic Plan: Short-, intermediate, and long-term goals and objectives
will be developed to achieve zero waste and reduce GHG emissions. After analysis of data gathered from
Tasks 1 through 6, SCS will identify opportunities for infrastructure improvement, including business
opportunities, job creation, regulatory reform, permitting requirements, public process, siting, fee
structure, incentives, and contract revisions. Periodic goals will be established as part of the plan,
including a range of alternatives to reduce waste and increase recycling or resource recovery appropriate
for the MCJPA. Staffing requirements within the MCJPA, facility operations, and consulting support will
be incorporated in the plan (8 weeks).
5
~b
~~,JrSn H~:7:#rdC)V:) .Hld
SoH': \Ua"t~ J,~1l;
....~_;l~f[c111 ~I.:I:I'~.
6 STAFFING AND CONSULTATION
Additional staffing and consultation needs to implement the Zero Waste Strategic Plan will be analyzed
as part of the study. The level of additional staffing and consultation will depend on which programs are
selected from the plan. It is anticipated the MCJP A will hire a full-time individual to manage zero waste
programs outlined in the plan. The plan would be prepared so that the MCJP A could implement program
alternatives internally.
6
~7
1'1:16;; H~~llrdQut .,nd
SoM Waste JPA
.:J..1I~1~1I~1~:I'''~
7 ESTIMATED COST
Exhibit 2 shows estimated costs for the analysis of MCJP A's waste stream and current programs, and the
drafting of the Zero Waste Strategic Plan. These costs to implement the strategic plan will be included in
the final plan. These may include staffing, facility siting, training, maintenance, support services, fees,
and proposed methods for payment of program implementation.
Exhibit 2. Estimated Costs
$'57,610
$53,620
7
~~
~iJrin Hil'T~,,:iqU:; OJl1d
5o;.d 'Wast&!: J?/\
.'1~"J ~ r~ 1~I:I:j:*,"
8 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS
SCS is very familiar with local, state, and federal regulations related to solid waste planning, permitting
of solid waste and recycling facilities, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, landfills, and
environmental compliance. Our staff has extensive experience in these specialty areas.
As part of the review of MClP A programs, SCS will determine facility expansion operations, new facility
siting requirements, and potential new technologies. Each of these alternatives will include a review of
environmental compliance and regulatory requirements. Local, state, and federal laws and regulations
will be identified and discussed as part of the presentation of options in the Zero Waste Strategy Plan.
Costs for permitting will be estimated and included in the plan.
With focus by many jurisdictions on reduction of landfill volume, environmental regulations are
changing, and these changes will be identified during the review and included in the plan. Our
assumption is that future regulations will be developed that would support zero waste goals.
The plan will be flexible enough to accommodate adjustments and adaptations related to market
conditions, the MClP A's infrastructure, and public attitudes toward established zero waste goals.
Attaining zero waste goals will be realized by taking into consideration changes in perception related to
recycling, future state mandates for recycling, quantities of materials consumed, markets for reusable
products, etc. We believe that adaptability must be part of the plan for making technological
improvements to facilities and for the development of efficient reuse.
8
<tCf
~bnn ~~7,,~o1..l:;.nd
SQtid \~Jast.~_ jp,A
.....4_~~!ltn~II;(11:1j'1-1I1!lI
9 SUPPORT SERVICES
As stated above, SCS is a full-service environmental firm specializing in solid waste and hazardous waste
engineering. For the MCJPA, our public venue recycling, facilities planning and design, and
informational (public outreach/educational) services are considered most relevant:
Public Venue Recycling Programs. SCS specializes in the design of site-specific diversion programs for
public venues, including convention centers, arenas, fairgrounds, stadiums, theme parks, and zoos. Due
to the nature of large public gatherings held at these facilities, a tremendous amount of waste is generated
annually. Our expertise in developing and implementing diversion programs not only has significant
environmental value, but also saves money in waste hauling services while generating revenue. Our
Public Venue Planning Practice provides the following: design and implementation of diversion
programs; waste characterization and generation studies; program monitoring and evaluation; grant
writing and administration; promotional material and brochure design; equipment recommendation; and
program recognition through awards and media articles.
Facilities Planning and Design. Solid waste transfer stations and material recovery facilities are solving
the problems that arise from local landfill closure and limited landfill airspace. Efficiency and dollars are
lost when packer-truck drivers spend more time on the road to the landfill than they do on their routes. In
addition, recyclables that can be economically separated from the waste stream rapidly consume landfill
airspace. SCS's Facilities Engineering Group provides planning, design, and construction management
needed to develop cost-effective facilities for handling the transfer of refuse from commercial trucks and
self-haulers to long-haul transfer vehicles. We're helping communities remove recyclable materials from
the waste stream. Our Planning and Facilities Practice offers the following: siting concept planning and
design; feasibility studies and economic analyses; site planning and development; on-site traffic
circulation; architectural and engineering design; environmental analysis and permitting; construction
quality assurance or full construction management; and post-construction services and client
representation.
Public Outreach and Education. SCS can help firms find creative ways to implement and publicize its
recycling programs. We work hand in hand with municipalities and private industry to create and execute
public awareness programs using a variety of methods to "get the word out." SCS has developed a wide
variety of public outreach materials, including recycling guides, informational brochures, promotional and
event flyers, street banners, truck signs, posters, bill inserts, calendar magnets, and doorhangers. SCS has
also written press articles discussing the benefits of reducing yard waste, composting and grass recycling,
the use of native plants in landscaping, and informational pamphlets regarding construction and
demolition waste for a number of municipal clients. We can help coordinate recycling events including
obtaining event sponsors and volunteers, recycling vendor selection, site evaluation and selection, site
logistics for event day, participant survey design, public outreach and media contact, and post-event
reports. We also understand material markets to help in determining options and their financial impacts.
Other Services. SCS professionals include environmental, civil, mechanical, electrical, and chemical
engineers; chemists, soil scientists, biologists, and environmental scientists; geologists, hydro-geologists,
and geotechnical engineers; Certified Asbestos Consultants; permitting and regulatory specialists; graphic
artists and designers; and database/GIS specialists; and specialists in other technical disciplines. Many of
our professionals have interdisciplinary backgrounds, as well as multidisciplinary training and experience.
We offer Phase I services, Phase II investigations, groundwater Investigations, remedial design and
cleanup, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS), design and construction engineering,
construction and operations, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure, pennitting, and
compliance, corrective actions, expert testimony, and many other environmental services.
9
t{O
MZlcin: H~:l""lr4~n~~ .ilmd
5l:?!id Waste J?i\
8-'::4.:1 ~t?1l~i :I~:"'''
1 0 ADDITIONAL FEATURES
SCS offers a comprehensive group of solid waste planners, engineers, and system operators that
distinguishes our approach to program development from that of other firms. SCS can access this group
of specialists and expertise internally, in response to complex demands of a given project. In considering
the needs of the MCJPA, SCS is working with our subconsultant, DAL Dimensions, to further enhance
our response to the County's RFl. DAL is a consulting firm with considerable experience in program
design and implementation, a strong background in solid waste management and diversion program
development, recyclable materials marketing experience, and facility development and permitting.
1 0
C[l
~tnn:~:: H,'!:l~i7'4Q~-~ ",p1d
SQiiti 'Wilste 1':>,\
."I~~i ~1.t2II.'!I::II::'I''''''lIII
11 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
SCS's clients are served by over 260 staff
based in 8 offices located throughout
California, and over 550 staff nationwide.
SCS is thoroughly familiar with solid
waste management issues and with
regional landfill operations. Named the top
solid waste consulting firm in the nation by
McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record
(ENR) for 4 years in a row, SCS's solid
waste experience is unsurpassed in the
industry .
firms in Solid WtHste {in $ mil.}
~ SC$ OI(;UI€~RS
76,8
M.ll
a4,8
31,S
36,;
:llillll
.....................................................-............
3 AECOM TECllllOLOllY CORP,
'.1'rKESKA~~'GiliiuPlllC:
s . (ia2t.!,>>ii:CCiii,
Uti)
SCS is a corporation independently owned
by its employees, all of whom are committed to providing objective, responsive, and superior services to
clients. We do not make decisions that affect our clients based on our stock value or exterior forces. We
are financially strong, have not been purchased by another firm, and our company and staff have
significant longevity. We offer not only technical expertise, but also the economic and regulatory
experience to help program managers to develop effective integrated waste management programs while
keeping an eye on the bottom line.
eeL
1 1
;--t:;Jrin- H(l:l~74(JlJ~ ~Hlcf
$oHd Was.t~np>\
"::I'I--,.:J "1~1"1 ~:I'~"
1 2 COST SAVINGS
SCS designed and implemented a comprehensive diversion program at the Los Angeles Convention
Center (LACC). Diversion programs included fiber, bottle, and can recycling, construction and
demolition diversion, carpet and carpet padding recycling and reuse, and weekly donations of unwanted
food and materials left over from the convention shows. Site-specific recycling programs were developed
for the administration offices, maintenance shops, catering group, and exhibition halls. During the first
year of program implementation, the LACC saved over $52,500 in hauling fees and generated more than
$8,500 in recycling revenues.
SCS also developed and implemented a comprehensive diversion program at the Los Angeles Zoo. Over
the first year of program implementation, the zoo diverted 45% of the waste stream, and over the second
year diverted over 62% of the waste stream. During that second year, the zoo disposed of 1,457 tons of
waste, and recycled and composted 2,333 tons of materials. This equated to a $60,000 cost savings and
revenue to the zoo.
1 2
Cf3
Cf4
~!or~!l Hal:a~dQw!~"'71d
So\,d \!{aste n~ll,
&'I,!;"'~"l~ I~U.ll;t'..."B
1 3 COPIES OF OTHER SOLICITATIONS
SCS has no solicitations from government agencies to offer the MCJP A at this time.
1 3
H;]n:n ~'h:rlai0:foLl~; -t'l,d
Sc'Hd \V~st't J~,\
.11l"1Sf~I~111.1'"
Appendix A
Timeline
C(s
I
I
I
I
II
III
III
IIII
III
i'I~~~1
11~111
~II I
II I
:11 'I
!~II 1,1
Ilfirl;"; 'il
II
I
I
I
I
~
>.. ...~ ~ c
~_'5 Q;'~ ~
lJ i 1 ~
u.-o 0 c Vt 0
i~ ~~~~
i~:f ~~l~
<( g w.... 0 c IJ')-=
f ~% i ~ I !
~ ~ ~ g !Log ~ ~
~Wg>O .E 0
N M~ ~ vi .,Q ,....:
~ ~ c- ~ ~
:? ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
qb
c
o
0:
ATTACHMENT C
Proposal for
Zero Waste Strategic Plan
Development
ReducE;)
RIUII
~Icycle
Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management Joint Powers Authority
March 31, 2008
n ~ Consulting Group, Inc.
KJ R"o",re,. Re,pect. Re'poo';bility
C(7
q~
#
Response Question
Page Number
1
Letter of Introduction ............................................ 1
2
Current users and References ............,................2
3
Methodology..... .'.. . . ... ...... . ..... ... .. . .. .......... .. . .. ........ 3
4 Integration with Current Programs ...,................... 4
5 Implementation. .... ..... ...... ...... ...... ......................... 5
6 Staffing and Consultation .............................,.......6
7 Estimated Cost.....,.....,................,..,.....................6
8 Compliance with Regulations ......,........................7
9 Support Services.....................,............................ 8
10 Additional Features .............................................. 9
11 Additional Comments .............,.,...........,...............9
12 Cost Savings ..........................'........................... 10
13 Copies of Other Solicitations (Optional) .............10
Attachment 1
City of Union City - Request for Proposals to Assist in
Preparation of a Strategic Plan for 750/0 Solid Waste Diversion
Attachment 2
City of San Jose - Request for Proposals to Assist with
Strategic Planning and Provide Consultation Services to
Develop, Implement, and Document an Integrated Waste
Management Zero Waste Plan for all Waste Generated in the
City
Submitted on March 28, 2008
Information for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
12.3
Page i
cr~
I nformation for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page ii
too
This page intentionally left blank.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
1) Letter of Introduction
R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (R3) in conjunction with California
Waste Associates, Environmental Planning Associates and Action
Works (the R3 Project Team) are pleased to submit the
Requested Information to the Marin County Hazardous and Solid
Waste Management Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to assist it with
efforts to develop a Zero Waste Strategic Implementation Plan. A
brief overview of R3 follows.
R3 is a management consulting firm established in 2002
specifically to serve municipal agencies responsible for solid
waste management. Our three partners have more than 70 years
of solid waste management and consulting experience. R3 is on
the leading edge of Zero Waste Planning, Universal Waste, and,
Sharps Management Systems. We are currently assisting the City
of San Jose with a comprehensive Zero Waste Management Plan
and have more experience than any of our competitors assisting
jurisdictions with procuring collection systems that support "Zero
Waste". We recently assisted the City of Piedmont with procuring
services in support of its 75 percent diversion goal, the Town of
Windsor with procuring services to move the Town toward goal of
Zero Waste and we are currently assisting the City of Calabasas
with procuring services in support of its 75 percent "Zero Waste"
diversion goal. R3 will be the prime contractor for this
engagement with staff servicing in either primary or technical
support positions on all project tasks.
The R3 Project Team provides benefits and experience that no
other firm participating in this process can match!
.
R3 is the ONLY firm whose project team has successfully
integrated concepts of "Zero Waste" into franchise agreements
and has effectively transitioned many communities from a
"disposal" based collection system to a "diversion" based
collection system.
R3 is the ONLY firm whose project team has extensive
experience inside and outside of California. As a result, we
have experience in developing and implementing solid waste
programs in a variety of situations and environments.
R3 is the ONLY firm that will assign a firm Principal as the day-
to-day project manager.
R3 is the ONLY firm with a billing rate structure that allows the
Principals to participate in this project on a day-to-day basis.
This provides the JPA with the advantage of extensive
experience at an economical cost.
.
.
.
Additional information about the R3 Project Team is located on
Page 9.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
Information for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Contact Information:
R3 Consulting Group, Inc.
Richard Tagore-Erwin, Principal
4811 Chippendale Drive
Suite 708
Sacramento, CA 95841
Phone: 916 576-0306
Fax: 916 331-9600
Email: rterwin@r3cgLcom
R3
Page 1
\01
I nformation for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page 2
lO1..
2) Current Users and References
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CA
Strategic Planning to Develop, Implement, and Document an
Integrated Waste Management Zero Waste Plan
Contact:
Ms. Jo Zientek, Deputy Director
City of San Jose
Environmental Services
200 East Santa Clara Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 535-8557
Project Description:
R3 was recently retained by the City to assist in the development
of a comprehensive Zero Waste Plan. R3's assistance will focus
on analyzing programs that the City can consider to reach its Zero
Waste goal. The analysis will include estimated diversion tonnage,
and program costs, the impact on energy recovery, jobs,
infrastructure, and the time frame for implementation.
Staff Assignments:
Richard Tagore-Erwin, Project Manger
Ric Hutchinson, Project Analyst
Susan Collins, Project Analyst
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA
Strategic Program Planning to Increase Diversion Rate To
700/0, Other Projects to Support 700/0 Strategy
Contact:
Ms. Karen Coca, Manager of Commercial Recycling
Programs and Market Development
422 S. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013
(213) 485-3698
Other City contact for 70% plan:
Ms. Lupe Vela, Senior Manager, (213) 485-2997
Project Description I Results:
Researched amounts that could potentially be diverted
from the waste stream from various diversion programs in
order to prepare a strategic plan to increase the City's
diversion rate from 50% in 2000 to 70% in 2020.
Subsequent projects provided more detailed research on
individual programs, in order to do more thorough program
planning.
Staff Assignments:
Susan Collins, Project Manager
Submitted on March 28, 2008
3) Methodology
Based on our experience on similar projects, our methodology is
to provide the jPA with a practical strategic plan that can be
implemented. In doing so, we will use sound waste composition
data and information on the experiences of other jurisdictions to
select program options that will actually result in 80 percent
diversion by 2012 for the JPA. We have experience with both the
selection process for new programs, and with the implementation
and monitoring phases. We can provide a realistic perspective on
how challenging it can be to increase a jurisdiction's diversion rate
above 50 percent.
Our experience also includes writing and negotiating for dozens of
solid waste and recycling collection contracts for jurisdictions
throughout the State of California. We are aware of the costs of
various contract provisions, as well as the difficulties that haulers
may face while attempting to implement new and innovative
programs. We understand that program implementation delays
are common, and we will use this knowledge to assist the JPA
with selecting programs and the most appropriate sequencing of
program implementation.
One of the key components of our methodology and approach to
this engagement for Zero Waste Planning is to define what "Zero
Waste" means to the jPA so that the plan is structured
accordingly. At its most detailed level, Zero Waste can be defined
as:
· Zero Waste of Energy,
Materials and Human
Resources;
· Zero Solid Waste;
· Zero Hazardous Waste;
· Zero Emissions to Air,
Water or Soil;
.
Zero Waste in Production
Activities;
Zero Waste in Product
Life Cycle; and
Zero Toxics.
.
.
Depending on the JPA's focus for this engagement our approach
and the plan that is developed will provide for each of the above
items. We have established the R3 Project Team to provide us
with the capabilities to add ress each of these items at whatever
level the jPA deems appropriate. Our approach will also provide
for coordination with the County's current Sustainability and
Climate Action Planning in support of the above Zero Waste
components.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
I nformation for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development'
Q3
Page 3
to .)
I nformation for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page 4
l1
4) Integration with Current Programs
Our approach is designed to build upon and maXimize the
effectiveness of existing programs while developing specific
Action Plan components to address the needs and potential of
each:
· Waste Stream (residential; commercial, roll-off); and
· Waste Type (e.g., C&D, E-waste, U-waste).
With consideration of the following types of options:
· Operational/Programmatic;
· Regulatory;
· Contractual; and
· Financial
One of the first steps, when considering the integration of the Zero
Waste Plan (Plan) with existing programs, is to determine the
effectiveness of existing programs and the potential for additional
diversion. We typically use Internal Diagnostic Benchmarking as
a means for evaluating performance and additional potential. A
key aspect of our planning efforts is to provide a mechanism for
Internal Diagnostic Benchmarking of key Plan components so that
progress can be measured, potentially projected, steps taken to
realize that potential and review undertaken to evaluate the
effectiveness of th9se steps.
With respect to examples of successful integrations, we believe
the extensive hands-on experience of our staff working with
jurisdictions to improve existing programs and implementing new
programs through competitive Zero Waste and other high
diversion focus procurements is unmatched in the Industry.
Specific recent successful examples include:
· City of Piedmont;
· Town of Windsor; and
· City of Calabasas (current project).
We would be happy to provide additional information upon
request.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
5) Implementation
We offer the following six (6) general tasks as an example of the
general tasks necessary to develop and implement an effective
Zero Waste Plan:
Task 1 Develop Stakeholder Participatory Decision-Making
Process;
Task 2 Determine and Evaluate Needs;
Task 3 Identify Options to Address Needs;
Task 4 Develop G~iding Principles, Screen Options and Identify
Final Options;
Task 5 Assist with Preparation of the IWM Zero Waste Plan
Document; that includes an Action Plan / Implementation
Plan with specific roles, responsibilities and schedules;
and
Task 6 Assist with contract negotiations with haulers and facility
operators to increase recycling, green waste and food
waste compost, and public education efforts. Work with
retailer associations, local special districts, City Councils
and Board of Supervisors to develop and adopt extended
producer responsibility ordinances, buy recycled
strategies and climate change plans and programs.
Time Line
We will develop a timeline as part of the Zero Waste Plan to
support the JPA's efforts to meet its diversion goals. The timeline
will include step by step instruction for execution of each selected
program, with realistic goals for plan approval that will incorporate
the public process and compliance with Local, State, and Federal
Regulations.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
Information for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page 5
t OS
Information for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page 6
6b
6) Staffing and Consultation
Additional JPA staffing needs will depend upon the specifics of the
Zero Waste Plan that has yet to be developed. What is important
when considering potential staffing needs is to determine the best
means for providing any necessary staffing. It may make sense for
certain staffing needs to be taken on by the franchised hauler(s)
rather than the JPA or visa versa. What is critical is that
regardless of the mechanism for providing the required staffing,
that staff have the necessary authority, responsibility and
accountability to effectively implement the Zero Waste Plan.
7) Estimated Cost
The cost for this engagement can vary considerably depending on
the specific needs of the JPA and the responsibilities assigned to
the Consultant. While the details necessary to provide an accurate
budget have yet to be determined, as a reference point the City of
San Jose budgeted approximately $650,000 for their current Zero
Waste Planning Effort that R3 is assisting with. However, Zero
Waste Plans can be produced for significantly less. For example,
Union City budgeted approximately $60,000 for a scaled down
Zero Waste Plan.
Regardless of the extent to which the JPA chooses to support the
development of its Plan none of our competitors can match the
Experience, the Level of Documented Success and the Local
Knowledge that our Project Team brings to this engagement, all of
which are critical to its success. That coupled with our billing rates,
which are well below that of our competitors, allows us to spend
more quality time developing a plan that will produce action and
results, drawing a clear and unmistakable distinction between the
R3 Project Team and our competitors.
One aspect of the R3 team that we believe sets us apart from
most, if not all, of our competitors is the value the JPA receives
from our billing rates, which are among the lowest in the industry
for the level of experience provided. R3's Principal billing rate
($155 per hour) is approximately half that of some or our larger
competitors (HDR 2008 Rate Schedule; PrincipalNice President
$260-$280 per hour). We also bill expenses at cost, unlike many
of our competitors which mark up their expenses.
We are able to keep our billing rates low because we are a small
focused consulting firm without the overhead associated with our
larger competitors, and with the specific goal of providing our
clients with the "Best Value and Best Quality of Service" available
in the industry.
The experience of our Principals is also specific to that required
for this engagement so not only do you get a lower billing rate, but
you get the specific experience.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
8) Compliance with Regulations
Until the specific systems, siting processes, fees and service
changes are identified it is not possible to address specific issues
related to compliance with regulations. With that said, we have
experience assisting jurisdiction with contracting for a wide range
of Zero Waste services. Those contracts have undergone legal
review by both the contracting jurisdictions and the service
provider. Additionally, the R3 Project Team is intimately familiar
with regulatory issues specific to the County and its existing
facilities. As part of the Plan that is developed we will clearly
identify any siting or regulatory issues that must be addressed to
effectively implement the components of the Plan.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
Information for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page 7
[07
I nformation for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page 8
)<t
9) Support Services
Procurement Services - R3 provides a range of procurement
assistance services for our municipal clients, ranging from
assisting jurisdictions with "sole-source" negotiations with an
existing service provider to managing all aspects of a competitive
procurement process for refuse collection, recycling, processing
and disposal services. We typically provide "full-service"
procurement assistance, meaning that we work closely with our
client staff on all aspects of a competitive procurement project.
R3 first works with staff and community members to develop the
scope and design of programs, facilities and services. Once this
is complete, R3 prepares the Request for Proposals package,
drafts the franchise agreement or operating contract, conducts
pre-proposal meetings with potential contractors and written
responses to questions, assists the evaluation team with proposal
evaluations, and prepares staff reports and presentations to
support the committee recommendations. Finally, we typically
prepare and conduct workshops and community forums to solicit
direct input on program design from residents, business groups,
and elected officials.
Solid Waste Planning - R3 staff have designed and implemented
numerous solid waste collection, recycling, composting and
disposal programs and facilities for cities, counties and regional
authorities in California and throughout the United States. Our
broad experience has allowed R3 to address a variety of issues
that typically confront our municipal clients during the
implementation of programs and facilities, including regulatory
compliance, community outreach and public education, land-use
planning and permitting, inter-jurisdictional coordination, AS 939
planning requirements and diversion mandates, labor issues and
customer service and billing functions.
Operations and Performance Reviews - R3 staff has extensive
experience both operating and evaluating solid waste
management systems, and we use that experience to assist our
clients with the review and analysis of both municipally operated
and franchised solid waste operations. We understand the
challenges associated with operating municipal systems, as well
as administering franchised solid waste services.
Financial and Rate Analysis - R3 staff members have broad
experience in performing financial and rate structure analysis
projects for municipalities, public utilities and regional authorities.
We provide our clients with the financial information and
comparative analysis required to make sound, informed decisions.
Our understanding of the fundamental chaHenge of local
governments to balance complex services and .programs with the
realities of budget constraints allows us to provide effective and
meaningful financial consulting services to our clients.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
10) Additional Features
R3 Project Team
Additional overview of the R3 Project Team Members follows.
California Waste Associates
Jim Greco, Principal of California Waste Associates, is an
engineer with more than 33 years of experience in the solid waste
management field. Mr. Greco has been involved in numerous
projects for municipal clients that have included the development
of comprehensive diversion programs. Mr. Greco is very familiar
with the local conditions in Marin County and conducted two
significant engagements for the JPA in the late 1990's; a
comprehensive solid waste management program review
regarding meeting and exceeding the CIWMB's 50 percent
diversion requirement and a waste characterization study. Mr.
Greco is expected to serve in both primary and technical
support positions for various engagement tasks as
appropriate.
Environmental Planning Consultants
Richard Gertman, Principal - of Environmental Planning
Consultants, has extensive experience both analyzing and
procuring systems to achieve diversion rates beyond 50 percent.
Mr. Gertman co-authored "Single Stream Recycling Best Practices
Manual and Guide" and assisted the Town of Portola Valley with
procuring a solid waste management system that increased
diversion rate from 30 percent to more than 75 percent. Mr.
Gertman is expected to serve in both primary and technical
support positions for various engagement tasks as
appropriate.
Action Works
Abigail AQrash Walton, Principal of Action Works, is on faculty at
Antioch University New England's (ANE) Department of
Environmental Studies. She chairs ANE's Sustainability and
Social Justice Committee, which recently completed the schools
first ever Social Justice Audit which inventoried greenhouse gas
emissions, setting a target of 2020 for ANE to achieve carbon
neutrality. She is currently working with ANE senior management
and others to implement the audit Action Plan. Ms. Abrash
Walton will serve in a primary / advisory role related to the
Zero Waste Plan sustainability components.
11) Additional Comments
Not Applicable.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
I nformation for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page 9
\ ocr
Information for
Zero Waste
Strategic Plan
Development
Q3
Page 10
~o
12) Cost Savings
Generally Cost savings resulting from implementations plans and
policies can be calculated from reducing short and long term
operating costs. For example, in our "Zero Waste" procurement
projects, the cost savings is directly related to the increased
revenue associated with increasing recycling. Other cost savings
relate to lower costs associated with increasing green waste and
food waste composting due to lower processing tip fees for these
materials in comparison to landfill disposal.
13) Copies of Other Solicitations (Optional)
Attachment 1
Request for Proposals to Assist in Preparation of a Strategic
Plan for 750/0 Solid Waste Diversion
Roberto Munoz
City of Union City
Solid Waste and Recycling Coordinator
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Attachment 2
Request for Proposals to Assist with Strategic Planning and
Provide Consultation Services to Develop, Implement, and
Document an Integrated Waste Management Zero Waste Plan
for all Waste Generated in the City
Heidi Melander
City of San Jose
Environmental Services
200 East Santa Clara Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Solid Waste Planning - R3 staff have designed and implemented
numerous solid waste collection, recycling, composting and
disposal programs and facilities for cities, counties and regional
authorities in California and throughout the United States. Our
broad experience has allowed R3 to address a variety of issues
that typically confront our municipal clients during the
implementation of programs. and facilities, including regulatory
compliance, community outreach and public education, land-use
planning and permitting, inter-jurisdictional coordination, AS 939
planning requirements and diversion mandates, labor issues and
customer service and billing functions.
Submitted on March 28, 2008
Attachment 1
City of Union City - Request for Proposals to Assist in Preparation of
a Strategic Plan for 750/0 Solid Waste Diversion
\ I I
~ \ L
c:
-1 ' "
I,~
-I FO\:--'
34009 AI.VARADO-NILES ROAD
UNION CITY, CALIFORNIA 94:'ll\7
(5 1fl) 471-32-12
-~I\
.......
.j
Solicitation to Assist in Preparation of a
Strategic Plan for 750/0 Solid Waste Diversion
Dear Consultant,
The City of Union City, CA is soliciting qualifications and proposals trom Interested parties io oe
considered for selection as consultant to assist in the preparation of a Strategic Plan for achieving
a 75% waste diversion goal by the year 2010.
Background:
On May 22,2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 3367-07 establishing a goal of 75%
reduction of waste going to landfills by 2010 for Union City. This was in accordance with
Measure D, approved by voters in Alameda County in 1990, which established a 75% or higher
diversion goal for all Alameda County agencies by the year 2010. VVhile the City anticipates that
existing and newly-implemented programs will increase diversion, moving from the current 62%
diversion level to 75% diversion level will be a challenge.
Anticipated Consultant Service Components:
The scope of work associated with this project includes:
G
Preparation of a strategic plan to increase diversion through enhanced recycling
(especially commercial general/organics, multi-family general, and SFR org<:inics), and
attendance at various meetings
o
Preparation of specific action plans for each segment, and estimated resource
requirements; estimated "payoff' for each plan segment also required (i.e., how much
div8i;SIOil tc be ochiEr",'ed fro:n 88Ch segment)
e
Attendance at two Council meetings (one to present draft plan and a possible 2nd follow-
Up meeting if needed), plus up to three City staff meetings (kickoff, draft plan, final draft
plan)
9
Detailed cost quote on "Not to Exceed" basis
Schedule
Duration of project is 90 days from Notice to Proceed. The City will provide all data it has to
consultant.
(more)
\ t :,
Page 2 of 2
Qualifications
Interested firms should submit a proposal describing your qualifications (or the qualifications of
the team of consultants). Example of previous similar plan is required, as is a list of references
from other Bay Area (or NorCal) cities.
To Apply
Interested parties should submit
above requirements to:
proposal addressing the
Roberto Munoz
City of Union City
34009 Alvarado~Ni!es Road
Union City, CA 94587
If there are questions, please call me at (510) 675-5466 or submit written questions and'
comments bye-mail tothefollowingaddress:robertom@ci.union-city.ca.us
We look forward to receiving your firm's qualifications and proposal.
Sincerely,
~2~~~~:=~ ( __
A (~~.~~.~_._._.u.
<......L-_~~....- ~--......
Roberto Munoz
SoUd Waste and Recycling Coordinator
cc: Tony Acosta I Deputy City Manager
it{
Attachment 2
City of San Jose - Request for Proposals to Assist with Strategic Planning
and Provide Consultation Services to Develop, Implement, and Document
an Integrated Waste Management Zero Waste Plan for all Waste Generated
in the City
Il S
Cfn Of A
SAN JOSE
C1\l'IT'\L OF SILICON V'\LLEY
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
RFQ# 070804 ESD
CONSULT ANT SERVICES FOR INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT (IWM) ZERO WASTE PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The City of San Jose Environmental Services Department seeks a consultant/firm to assist with
strategic planning and provide consultation services to develop, implement, and document an
IWM Zero Waste Plan for all waste generated in the City. The IWM Zero Waste Plan will
establish policy as it relates to the City's waste management program through the year 2030.
The City's objectives are to provide resource conservation, waste reduction, pollution prevention
and a healthy economy. The Zero Waste Plan development process will address the following
key components for achieving Zero Waste: strengthening recycling programs, identifying
infrastructure requirements for reuse, recycling and composting; and establishing effective waste
prevention programs, incentives and fee structures.
Timeline:
RFQ RELEASE DATE October 17, 2007
CONTACT NAME Heidi Melander
ADDRESS City of San Jose - Environmental Services
200 East Santa Clara St., lOth Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 975-2544
TELEPHONE # (408) 292-6211
FAX # h eidi. me lander@sanjoseca.gov
E""MAIL ADDRESS
Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference October 26, 2007, 10 AM - 12PM
DEADLINE FOR QUESTIONS October 31, 200:7, 11:59 PM
RFQ DUE DATE N ovem ber 13, 2007
TIME lOAM
LOCATION At the address listed above
See Exhibit I for more detailed RFQ process timeline.
CSJ/ESD
Page 1 of 39
t \ 7
RFQ# 070804
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION........................... ...... ..... ....... ............ ...... .... ..................... ......... ....... .......... 3
2. B A C K G ROUND .................................................................................................................... 3
3. SCOPE OF WORK.. .... ..... ........ ...... ...... .... .......... ........................ ..... ... ........... ..... .... ..... ...... ..... 5
4. DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 5
5. TERM OF AGREEMENT. ........ ........ ..... ... ............. .......... ..... .... ........... .... ... .......... ... ......... ..... 5
6. COMPENSATION AND WORK HOURS............................................................................ 5
7 . SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. ............. 6
8. SELECTION PROCESS .......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ..... ... ...... ..... ..... ......... ....... ............... ...... 8
9. PROCESS INTEGRITY GUIDELINES ........................................ .......... ....... ...... .... ...... ....... 9
10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST ........................................................ ......................... ................... 9
11. GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 9
12. PUBLIC NATURE OF PROPOSAL MATERIAL .............................................................. 10
13. OBJECTIONS AND PROTESTS ........................................................................................ 11
EXHIBITS
I. RFQ PROCESS TIMELINE ..... ............... ...... ... ...... ........ ........... .... ..... ....... ........ ....... .... .... ..12
II. SCOPE OF WORK ....... ....... ........... ....... ........ ....... ..... ............. ............. ..... ....... ........... ... ....13
III. SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..................................................16
IV. REFERENCE MATERIAL.. ......... ................ ........ ......... .......... .......... ..... .............. ...... ..... .20
ATTACHMENTS
A: Proposal Certification
B: Consultant Firm Information
C: Request for Local and Small Business Preference
D: City Agreement Standard Terms and Conditions; Exhibit E Insurance Requirements
E: Previous Client Reference Worksheet
F: Confl ict of Interest Form
G: Acknowledgement Form
CSJ/ESD
Page 2 of 39
RFQ# 070804
1. INTRODUCTION
The City's Environmental Services Department (ESD) is seeking a qualified consultant to
assist the City with strategic planning and provide consultation services to develop,
implement, and document an IWM Zero Waste Plan for all waste generated in the City. The
IWM Zero Waste Plan will establish policy as it relates to the City's waste management
program through the year 2030.
The City's objectives are to promote resource conservation, waste reduction, and pollution
prevention and to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhous gases (GHG) from
within the City or that result from consumption of resources produced elsewhere. The Zero
Waste Plan development process will address the following key components for achieving
Zero Waste:
· Strengthening recycling programs
· IdentifYing infrastructure requirements for reuse,
recycling and composting, and
· Establishing effective waste prevention programs.
2. BACKGROUND
The City of San Jose's goal is to remain in the forefront of environmental stewardship. The
Mayor's Green Vision for San Jose is intended to reduce the City's carbon footprint by more
than half. Among the ten goals outlined in the Green Vision, San Jose plans to Achieve Zero
Waste by 2022. This will be accomplished by reducing waste generation, increasing
recycling, reusing products, and adopting cutting-edge technologies that transform waste into
usable energy. Through partnerships with innovative companies, San Jose plans to convert
solid waste and biosolids into biodiesel, methanol, biogas, and electricity that power
municipal operations to help support its goal of 100% renewable energy by 2022.
San Jose's policy requirements and infrastructure challenges have created the need for an
Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Zero Waste Plan with a planning horizon to 2030.
In 1989, with the passage of AB 939, all California cities were required to divert 50 percent
of waste from landfills by January 1, 2000. San Jose surpassed the required 50 percent waste
diversion requirement by 14 percent; however, the year 2000 marked the City's highest
recycling rate of 64 percent. Currently, the State estimates San Jose's diversion rate at 61
percent. Nevertheless, San Jose has set aggressive waste diversion goals for the future as it
stilllandfilled over 700,000 tons of material in 2005.
The City Council adopted the Urban Environmental Accords (Accords) in November 2005,
which address a comprehensive range of sustainability factors, including energy, waste
reduction, urban design, urban nature, transportation, environmental health and water
resources. Adoption of the Accords encouraged the City to pursue an increased waste
diversion goal from the State-mandated goal of 50 percent to Zero Waste. The Green Vision
goal of zero waste to landfills by 2022 is well ahead of the Accords deadline of zero waste by
2040.
It is estimated that the City will have adequate landfill capacity until 2023 at current waste
generation levels, while all Santa Clara County landfills are predicted to close by 2034. The
CSJ/ESD
Page 3 of 39
t , ct
RFQ# 070804
Santa Clara County IntefZrated Waste Management Plan, approved by the County Board of
Supervisors and all 15 Cities in the County in 1995, suggested that capacity would be
available through 2022 based on the assumed successful implementation of all 16
jurisdictions' Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. Despite the success of San Jose's
diversion programs, landfill capacity remaining in San Jose and Santa Clara County is now
insufficient to meet the City's and County's goals. Implementation of the 75 percent
diversion and Zero Waste goals could extend the life of the existing sites beyond current
projections. Additional information on landfill capacity is included in the San Jose Disposal
Capacity report.
The City intends to work with CDM under an existing contract to review the three Candidate
Solid Waste Disposal Sites identified in the General Plan and to evaluate the remaining
capacity and plans of the five existing landfills. The results will inform both this planning
effort and the General Plan Update.
The Candidate Solid Waste Disposal Sites may be unusable due to nearby faults or for other
regulatory or engineering reasons-CDM's work may allow us to rule them out for technical
reasons. If they are determined to be potentially suitable, it is likely that they willremain in
the updated General Plan for future consideration.
The existing five landfills have gross and net disposal capacities based on their contours and
geology and also on the operators' business decisions and contractual arrangements,
including existing disposal agreements and land leases. CDM will provide better data to help
us determine what risks we have of running out of capacity during the planning period
(through 2030), and what to do about it. While increased diversion would prolong landfill life
expectancy, it would also require more solid waste processing infrastructure capacity. A
report on the infrastructure requirements needed to increase diversion was completed in
September 2007 and is included in Resource Management Infrastructure Requirements
Assessment report.
The City will need to evaluate impacts to revenue reduction as a result of increased diversion,
and thus will need to consider fee restructuring options in the IWM Zero Waste Plan to take
. advantage of emerging revenue opportunities.
In 2005, the General Plan was amended to include the following Level of Service Policy:
20. For solid waste management, the City should seek to exceed 50 percent
diversion of waste from disposal, maintain 20 years of landfill capacity,
and provide for storage and collection of recyclables from every location
where solid waste is generated.
The City of San Jose is in the initial stages of the General Plan 2040 Update. The Envision
San Jose 2040, General Plan Update Work ProfZram describes the major strategies and
guiding principles that will represent the appropriate framework for the future growth of the
City. The Sustainability Guiding Principle acknowledges and incorporates the City's ongoing
efforts to implement the Urban Environmental Accords. The IWM Zero Waste Plan will
inform the General Plan update process on the City's zero waste goals.
Another component of the IWM Zero Waste Plan is an evaluation of any opportunities to
further develop San Jose's waste management infrastructure as part of the San Jose-Santa
Clara Wastewater Treatment Plant land and operations, such as: use of WPC buffer lands for
CSJIESD
Page 4 of 3,9
IO
RFQ# 070804
infrastructure, biosolids management and beneficial reuse, and lor the use of plant equipment
like digesters for processing of food waste. The City is in the process of selecting a
contractor for its WPC Master Plan.
Additional significant Integrated Waste Management documents, including a description of
current programs, are located in the AUf!ust 2006 Study Session Af!enda, accessible on the
City website at www.sanioseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/0811 06/0811 06ssa.pdf.
Reports referenced in this document and their locations are listed in Exhibit IV.
3. SCOPE OF WORK
The selected consultant shall provide the services as outlined below and as specified in detail
in this Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
The IWM Zero Waste Plan envisioned by the City has six distinct but interdependent tasks:
Task I. Assist with Project Management
Task II. Assist City Staff in Developing a Stakeholder Participatory Decision-Making
Process
Task III. Determine and Evaluate Needs
Task IV. Identify Options to Address Needs
Task V. Develop Guiding Principles, Screen Options and Identify Final Options
Task VI. Assist with Preparation of the IWM Zero Waste Plan Document
Exhibit I lists the RFQ timeline, Exhibit II provides more detail on the scope of work, and
Exhibit III provides background information.
4. DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS
The successful RFQ submittal shall demonstrate that the consultant/firm has the appropriate
professional and technical background as well as access to adequate resources to fulfill the
stated scope of services.
Desirable experience, knowledge and skills may include, but not be limited to the following:
. Integrated waste management planning
. Integrated waste facilities planning
. Financial rate modeling and strategic financial planning
. Demonstrated knowledge of solid waste management developments in technologies.
5. TERM OF AGREEMENT
Assuming a contract start date of December 17, 2007, it is anticipated that the term of this
agreement will be effective through December 31,2009.
6. COMPENSATION AND WORK HOURS
The budget for the project is $250,000. The City encourages joint ventures and may award
multiple contracts for different elements of the project. The approach for payment for
CSJIESD
Page 50f39
t7..l
RFQ# 070804
services will be defined during the contract negotiations, and specific tasks and deliverables
will be identified and assigned a budget at that time.
Consultant work hours shall be established prior to the commencement of any services.
7. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
All infonnation contained in the submittal should be concise and responsive to the content of
this request. Respondents are to:
. Submit one (1) original and five (5) copies of the proposal and clearly label the
outside of the box, package or envelope with "RFQ# 070804 ESD, IWM Zero
Waste Plan". The original signature version is to be clearly identified as "Original"
and copies are to be clearly identified as such.
. Include one (1) electronic copy of the proposal on a CD.or DVD in PDP format.
. Copies shall be double-sided on 8-1/2" x 11" recycled paper.
. All pages shall be sequentially numbered and a table of contents shall be provided.
. Do not use hard cover loose-leaf binders for proposals.
7.1 PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Required documents include the following:
7.1.1 COVER LETTER
Cover letter describing your firm, its history, number of years in business, general
qualifications and ability to perfonn the scope of services shall not exceed 2
pages. The letter should be signed by the individual authorized to contractually
bind the finn. Resumes for the proposed team and sub-consultants, if any, should
be provided as an appendix.
7.1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A summary highlighting the Proposer's expertise, qualifications and its
understanding of the services is required.
7.1.3 PROJECT APPROACH
Describe the finn's approach to developing the Zero Waste Plan. Specify the
resource expectations and how work would be allocated between City staff and
the consultant's firm to complete this project within the specified budget and
timeline.
7.1.4 PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART AND DESCRIPTION
List key personnel who will be working on the project and relevant education,
training and experience.
CSJ/ESD
Page 60f39
27-.
RFQ# 070804
7.1.5 PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Provide a brief description of projects for which the consultant has provided
similar service such as developing and implementing an integrated planning
document for the solid waste management industry during the past 5 years.
Experience working on a similar project for a municipality with a population of
500,000 or more is preferred, but not required. Include the following information:
1. Project description and location
2. Description of services provided
3. Total value of services provided
4. Budget performance
5. Schedule performance
6. Key personnel involved
Attachment E referred to in Section 7.2.5 additionally requires three of these
projects be listed on the Previous Client Reference Worksheet.
7.1.5 PROJECT SAMPLE
A single set of documents of past and prior projects may be submitted in any
convenient format, such as Word documents, printed brochures, photographs,
design drawings or electronic models (Excel or Access compatible) submitted via
CD.
7.1.6 RATE SCHEDULE
Submit one (1) copy of a detailed rate schedule in a sealed envelope clearly
marked "RFQ# 070804 ESD, IWM Zero Waste Plan Rate Proposal". Include
hourly rates for all staff members who would be involved in the performance of
the tasks outlined in the Scope of Work, along with expected expenses, sub-
consultant costs and markups and other pertinent costs.
The sections below outline standard forms to be included in the submittal.
7.2 ATTACHMENTS
The attachments below are available in Microsoft Word 2003 format upon request.
Attachment B is optional. One original copy of all other attachments is required.
7.2.1 Attachment A: Proposal Certification
7.2.2 Attachment B: Consultant Firm Information
7.2.3 Attachment C: Request for Contracting Preference for Local and Small
Businesses
7.2.3.1 Submit this form with your proposal only if you wish to be considered
for this preference. It may not be submitted late.
CSJ/ESD
Page 7 of 39
t "L. "3
RFQ# 070804
7.2.4 Attachment D: City's Terms and Conditions; Exhibit E, Insurance
Provisions
7.2.4.1 Selected consultant will be required to enter into an agreement with
the City containing the terms and conditions and insurance provisions
set forth in Attachment D with Exhibit E. If you have any exceptions
to the standard terms and conditions you must note them in your
submittal. If there are no exceptions, submit the first page of each
Attachment stating "No Exceptions".
7.2.5 Attachment E: Previous Client Reference Worksheet
Three (3) references are required from the proposer. The three references must
meet the following criteria:
. Information to meet the reference requirements is to be provided using
Attachment E, Previous Client Reference Form. The form may be copied
as required.
. At least one reference must be from a government entity (city, county,
state, federal or political sub-division of a public agency).
The City also reserves the right to rely on information from sources other than
the information provided by the respondents.
7.2.6 Attachment F: Conflict of Interest Form
8. SELECTION PROCESS
8.1 SELECTION PROCESS
City staffwill evaluate proposal submissions according to the criteria listed in the
table below.
Pro osal Res onsiveness
Solid waste management planning experience
Solid waste facilities planning
Financial rate modeling/Strategic financial planning 90%
Project approach
Customer Satisfaction/Firm Reputation
Fee Structure/Cost/Cost realism
Local Business Ente rise 50/0
Small Business Enter rise 5%
A qualified Local Business Enterprise (LBE) will be given 50/0 and a qualified Small
Business Enterprise (SBE) will be given an additional 5% of the total points in the
scoring. To qualify as a SBE, you must qualify as a LBE. See Attachment C for
additional information.
CSJ/ESD
Page 8 of 39
..L{
RFQ# 070804
9. PROCESS INTEGRITY GUIDELINES
9.1 In accordance with Procurement and Contract Process Integrity and Conflict of Interest
Council policy adopted on 2/07/07, proposers may be disqualified from the procurement
without further consideration for any of the following:
9.1.1 Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, among Proposers in regard to the
amount, terms, or conditions of this proposal.
9.1.2 Failure to direct all questions/inquiries through the contact listed in this document.
9.1.3 Offering gifts or souvenirs, even of minimal value, to City officers or employees.
9.1.4 Any attempt to improperly influence any member of the selection staff.
9.1.5 Existence of any lawsuit, unresolved contractual claim or dispute between
Proposer and the City.
9.1.6 Evidence of submitting incorrect information in the response to a solicitation or
misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts during the evaluation
process.
10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
10.1 In order to avoid a conflict of interest or the perception of a conflict of interest,
proposer(s) selected to provide services under this RFQ will be subject to the
following requirements:
10.1.1 The proposer(s) selected under this RFQ will be precluded from
submitting proposals or bids as a prime contractor or subcontractor for any
future procurement with the City if the specifications for such
procurements were developed or influenced by the work performed under
the agreement(s) resulting from this RFQ.
10.1.2 Proposer(s) may not have any interest in any potential proposer for future
City procurements that may result from the work performed under the
agreement resulting from this RFQ.
10.1.3 In order to determine whether such interest may exist, all proposers must
complete Attachment E: Conflict of Interest Form.
11. GENERAL INFORMATION
11.1 Responses will be evaluated as outlined in Section 8.
11.2 Final award shall be contingent upon selected firm (Consultant) negotiating
Terms and Conditions in substantial conformity to the terms listed in
Attachment D of this RFQ.
11.3 City reserves the right to accept an offer in full, or in part, or to reject all offers.
11.4 You must respond to this RFQ by the due date and time as stated on the cover
sheet of this document in order for your submittal to be considered. Submittals
CSJ/ESD Page 9 of 39
\2S
RFQ# 070804
must be addressed to the attention of the contact listed on the cover sheet of this
document, clearly labeled RFQ# 070804 ESD, IWM Zero Waste Plan.
11.5 The successful proposer will be required to demonstrate evidence of insurance in
accordance with the insurance provisions listed in Attachment D, Exhibit E.
11.6 All questions/inquiries must be made through the contact listed on the cover sheet
of this document, via e-mail. Contact with representative(s) other than the name
listed in this RFQ is grounds for disqualification. The City will provide a written
response to all questions in the form of an Addendum.
11.7 All costs associated with responding to this request are to be borne by the
respondent.
11.8 It is the City's policy that the selected firm shall not discriminate, in any way,
against any person on the basis of race, sex, color, age, religion, sexual
orientation, actual or perceived gender identity, disability, ethnicity, or national
origin in connection with or related to the performance of City of San Jose
contracts.
12. PUBLIC NATURE OF PROPOSAL MATERIAL
12.1 All correspondence with the City including responses to this RFQ will become the
exclusive property of the City and will become public records under the
California Public Records Act (Cal. Government Code section 6250 seq.). All
documents that you send to the City will be subject to disclosure if requested by a
member of the public. There are a very limited number of narrow exceptions to
this disclosure requirement.
12.2 Therefore, any proposal which contains language purporting to render all or
significant portions of their proposal "Confidential", "Trade Secret" or
"Proprietary", or fails.to provide the exemption information required as described
below will automatically be considered a public record in its entirety and shall be
disclosed to the requesting party without further consideration or notice.
12.3 Do not mark your entire proposal as "confidential".
12.4 The City will not disclose any part of any proposal before it announces a
recommendation for award, on the grounds that there is a substantial public
interest in not disclosing proposals during the evaluation process. After the
announcement of a recommended award, all proposals received in response to this
RFQ will be subject to public disclosure.
12.5 If you believe that there are portiones) of your proposal which are exempt from
disclosure under the Public Records Act, you must mark it as such and state the
specific provision in the Public Records Act which provides the exemption as
well as the factual basis for claiming the exemption. For example, if you submit
trade secret information, you must plainly mark the information as "Trade Secret"
and refer to the appropriate section of the Public Records Act which provides the
exemption as well as the factual 'basis for claiming the exemption.
CSJ/ESD Page 10 of 39
Lb
RFQ# 070804
12.6 Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential
trade secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City of San Jose
may not be in a position to establish that the information that a Proposer submits
is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked "Confidential",
"Trade Secret" or "Proprietary", the City will provide Proposers who submitted
the infonnation with reasonable notice to seek protection from disclosure by a
court of competent jurisdiction.
13. OBJECTIONS AND PROTESTS
13.1 OBJECTIONS
13.1.1 Any objections to the structure, content or distribution of this RFQ must
be submitted in writing to the Department Director listed below.
Objections must be as specific as possible, and identify the RFQ section
number and title, as well as a description and rationale for the objection.
13.2 PROTESTS
13.2.1 If an unsuccessful Proposer wants to dispute the award recommendation,
the Protest must be submitted in writing to the Department Director no
later than ten (10) calendar days after the announcement of the successful
Proposer, detailing the grounds, factual basis and providing all supporting
information. Protest will not be considered for disputes of proposal
requirements and specifications, which must be addressed in accordance
with the above Section. Failure to submit a timely written Protest to the
contact listed below will bar consideration of the Protest.
13.2.2 The address for submitting objections or protestis:
Attention: John Stufflebean
City of San Jose
Environmental Services Dept.
200 East Santa Clara St., 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
CSJ/ESD Page 11 of 39
( 2-7
RFQ-070804 ESD
Exhibit I
Exhibit I: RFQ PROCESS TIME LINE
DATE KEY TASK
10/16/07 RFQ# 070804 ESD released
10/26/07 Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference
lOAM - 12 PM San Jose City Hall Tower, 5th floor, Room T-550
The purpose of this conference is to present an overview of the project
and answer questions. Questions are encouraged ahead of time by
email or may be brought to the conference. Email questions to Heidi
Melander preferably by Tuesday, October 23 at 3 pm.
ALL POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS ARE REQUIRED TO
A TTEND THIS MEETING. Failure of respondents to attend the
meeting will result in rejection of their submittal without further
consideration.
City staff reserves the right to not answer questions that are not
applicable or inappropriate. At its direction, staff may defer certain
questions and respond in writing.
10/31/07 Deadline for submitting inquiries and/or clarifications to contact
11 :59 PM named below.
11/6/07 Deadline for City to respond to inquiries and/or clarifications in
writing and posted on the ESD website via an addendum.
11/13/07 RFQ RESPONSE DUE DATE:
10:00 AM The submittal shall be addressed to:
Heidi Melander
City of San Jose
Environmental Serv"ices Dept.
200 E. Santa Clara St., 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Attn: RFQ# 070804 ESD, IWM Zero Waste Plan
11/19/07 Short-listing and Interview Notifications
11/27 -11/29 Tentative Interview Date(s) (if needed)
11/30/07 Consultant Selection Notification
CSJ/ESD
Page 12 of39
11...'6
RFQ-070804 ESD
Exhibit II
Exhibit II: SCOPE OF WORK
The tasks listed in this Scope of Work are described below. Additional background information
can be found in Exhibit III.
Task I.
Assist with Project Management
Manage the IWM Zero Waste Plan process to include:
1. Working with City to develop a master plan work plan.
2. Providing and/or coordinating quality assurance and/or quality control during the work
plan development.
3. Assist the City to monitor progress toward the work plan development.
Task II. Assist City Staff in Developing a Stakeholder Participatory Decision-Making
Process
The community participation element of the IWM Zero Waste Plan will be carried out by
City staff with support from the selected consultant. It is anticipated that community input
will be given in conjunction with the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
Master Plan stakeholder meetings.
1. Assist City staff in developing a participatory decision-making process for the
community and various stakeholders, including defining the participants, the number of
necessary workshops, and the location, schedule and content of the workshops.
Task III. Assist the City to Determine and Evaluate Needs
Consultant will review and address the findings contained in the Resource Management
Infrastructure Requirements Assessment. This report will serve as a starting point for the
IWM Zero Waste Plan needs assessment. A waste characterization study is expected to be
conducted in 2008 by a separate consultant in order to provide additional data for this
evaluation. A separate landfill capacity study is also expected to be completed in 2008.
Deliverable
. Needs Assessment Findings/Report
Task IV. Assist the City to Identify Options to Address Needs
(see section on Background Information for additional detail for each category)
1. Waste Prevention Goals
Identify options to address the City's waste prevention goals identified in the Zero Waste
Goals memo, including strengthening recycling programs, identifying infrastructure
requirements for reuse, recycling and composting and establishing effective waste
prevention programs. Consultant shall provide data to show how results of the zero
waste planning recommendations will affect greenhouse gas emission reductions.
CSJ/ESD
Page 13 of39
l L ~
RFQ# 070804
Additional approaches to consider are zero waste at events, strategies to increase the
current Multi-Family Dwelling (MFD) diversion rate, and exploring the possibility of
integrating buffer land and treatment processes for recycling residential, commercial, and
civic organic waste with digesters at the Water Pollution Control Plant, currently
undergoing its own Master Plan effort.
2. Commercial Program
Assist in identifying opportunities for increased waste diversion, resource conservation
and pollution prevention in the commercial redesign process.
3. Residential and Multi-Family Dwelling Programs
Assist in identifying opportunities for increased waste diversion, resource conservation
and pollution prevention in the residential and multi-family sectors.
4. Land Use
Evaluate current resources and existing infrastructure to reduce future land use impacts.
Assess whether the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant may provide
opportunities to resolve some of the complex solid waste issues before the City through
its long term facilities and operation master plan, now underway. Opportunities include,
but are not limited to, food waste digestion, co-composting yard trimmings with
biosolids, or energy production with wood waste and biosolids.
Consider the regional implications of any planning effort, especially solid waste
management infrastructure, as it relates to overall land uses whether at the Plant, Alviso,
other parts of the City, or the region.
Assess the feasibility of establishing a technologically advanced processing facility at the
Nine Par Landfill Site. Approximately 40 acres of usable land is within an approximate
96-acre property owned by the Plant. A recent study helped identify redevelopment
opportunities and constraints on the former landfill site and evaluated a range of
commonly employed strategies for redevelopment.
4. CDDn Program
Assist in identifying opportunities for increased waste diversion through the CDnD
program.
5. Fee Restructuring Alternatives and Financial Strategy
Prepare an analysis for the Zero Waste Plan of alternative financing and revenue
generating mechanisms to offset revenue reductions resulting from increased diversion,
including opportunities for new revenue sources within the City's integrated waste
management system. Alternatives addressed must include both fees and taxes on waste
disposal and handling, as authorized in the California Public Resources Code (e.g.,
Sections 41901, 41903, and 43213) and in the City Charter and Municipal Code (e.g.,
franchise fees, the Disposal Facility Tax, and other business taxes). The analysis shall
also address revenue risks and constraints, such as those imposed by Proposition 218
(Article XIII C and D of the California Constitution).
CSJ/ESD
Page 140f39
'So
RFQ# 070804
6. Alternative Technologies
. Provide an overview and survey of applicable alternative solid waste processing
technologies that will increase landfill diversion in an environmentally sound
manner, while emphasizing options that are economical, energy efficient,
acceptable to stakeholders, and allow for highest and best use of materials.
Discuss job opportunity implications of each alternative.
. Assist the City by strategizing and assessing which technologies are reasonable
for San Jose. Consultant may help provide data to the Plant Master Plan process
and participate in related stakeholder discussions as appropriate. Consultant will
assist City staff to calculate the approximate amount of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with each of the alternatives based on transportation and tonnage
estimates and to quantify the energy production implications of the technologies.
Task V. Develop Guiding Principles, Screen Options and Identify Final Options
Develop with City staff, stakeholders and others guiding principles to achieve the Zero Waste
Plan's goals and objectives. Provide a summary of issues, options, opportunities and
constraints. Identify final options.
Deliverables
. Zero Waste Plan Guiding Principles
. Summary of issues, options, opportunities and constraints.
. Discuss final options.
Task VI. Assist with Preparation of the IWM Zero Waste Plan Document
Establish the IWM Zero Waste Plan document format and contents using Microsoft Word.
Use tables and figures to enhance pertinent information and provide a format suitable for the
City to reproduce all documents. All deliverables must be available in electronic and hard
copy format.
Deliverables
. Zero Waste Plan document format, contents, tables and figures in electroniclhard copy
format.
Please note:
. Environmental Impact Analvsis
The consultant hired to develop the IWM Zero Waste Plan will not be responsible for
completing CEQA analysis.
CSJ/ESD
Page 15 of39
l-:>l
RFQ# 070804
Exhibit III
Exhibit III: SUPPLEMENTAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Listed below is additional background information for Task IV: Assist the City to Identify
Options to Address Needs. (See page 14.)
· Waste Prevention Goals
It is important to emphasize that the IWM Zero Waste Plan will inform the General Plan
update process on land use issues that pertain to the City meeting its waste management
requirements and objectives. It is assumed that the selected consultant(s) will review the most
appropriate and relevant strategies in other jurisdictions' Zero Waste plans, and use these to
inform San Jose's Zero Waste planning effort. These source documents include plans from
the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the Alameda County Solid Waste
Management Authority, Oakland, Palo Alto, and Los Angeles. Cities outside of California
with Zero Waste Master Plans include New York, Seattle and Chicago.
· Commercial Pro2ram
The City's commercial solid waste recyclables collection system is a non-exclusive system
whereby hauling companies may apply for a Commercial Solid Waste and Recyclables
Collection Franchise to provide collection services to San Jose business customers.
Alternative fuel vehicles and other efficiencies should be considered along with franchise
terms, routing and incentives.
Prior to 1995, the City of San Jose had an exclusive system for the collection of recyclables
and rubbish (solid waste that does not contain putrescibles) from businesses, institutions and
other non-residential properties. In 1995, the City began to allow open competition for the
collection of commercial garbage (solid waste that contains putrescibles). Implementation of
system improvements has been an ongoing process since then. The City currently has
approximately twenty-five (25) franchised commercial haulers; two of the franchises, Allied
Waste and Stevens Creek Disposal, have about 80 percent of front load bin service. A
significant system evaluation is now underway .
During March 2006, the Council approved a consultant contract with HF &H Consultants,
LLC to evaluate and propose redesign options for the City's commercial solid waste
collection system. Phase I of the Commercial Redesign, scheduled for the period of July
2006 to 2009, includes minor improvements to the system and limited enforcement tools.
Implementation of Phase II may begin July 2010 with increased impact.
The City and HF&H are developing various options to redesign the commercial solid waste
collection system. HF&H will prepare a "White Paper" addressing how the City's
commercial franchise system will work and include evaluation of options such as, but not
limited to:
1. Establishment of one exclusive downtown service district with enhanced franchise
controls of the remaining non-exclusive commercial area.
2. Multiple exclusive commercial service districts (in addition to the downtown district).
3. One City-wide exclusive commercial franchise. HF&H will assist the City in
identifying a range of options, evaluating the merits and concerns of each strategy.
CSJ/ESD
Page 16 of39
5'2.-
RFQ# 070804
This white paper is scheduled to be presented to the City Council Transportation and
Environment Committee on December 3,2007. HF&H will continue to support
implementation of the selected redesign option and this effort will be incorporated into the
IWM Zero Waste Plan.
· Residential and Multi-Familv Dwelling Programs
San Jose's IWM Residential program is the largest privatized system in the US. Through an
ongoing commitment to diversion of recyclable materials from the waste stream, and of
highest and best use of resources, San Jose residents can now recycle up to 80 percent of
their solid waste in the comprehensive Recycle Plus curbside Recycling and Solid Waste
Collection program. Three contractors provide weekly service to 202,000 single-family
dwellings (SFD) and as-scheduled service to 93,000 multi-family dwellings (MFD) in3,200
complexes. On a weekly basis, there are 91 garbage and recycling routes and 21 yard
trimmings routes completed. There are also 5 Street sweeping routes per day to complete a
city-wide sweeping cycle once per month. The City implemented a single-stream recyclables
program in 2002. More information about the residential services can be found at
http://www.sjrecycles.org .
In Fiscal Year 2004-05, the residential system collected and processed approximately
510,600 tons of Garbage, Recyclables, and Yard Trimmings. The largest portion of the waste
stream is garbage, followed by yard trimmings and recyclables. The MFD compostable
program collects garbage from MFDs and sorts it for further reclamation of recyclables and
compostables.
FY 2004-05 yard trimmings collected
29%
FY 2004-05 recyclables collected
24%
FY 2004-05 MFD compostables collected
401<
Totals
.100%
Currently GreenTeam of San Jose (Waste Connections) collects garbage and recyclables
from 46,000 single-family households in west San Jose and from multi-family dwellings
Citywide. GreenTeam's current agreements with the City for expire in July 2013 ifall
contract extensions are exercised. Green Waste Recovery collects and processes yard
CSJ/ESD
Page 17 of39
l~~
RFQ# 070804
trimmings from single and multi-family dwellings Citywide. Green Waste's CUlTent
agreements with the City expire in July 2013 if all contract extensions are exercised. Garden
City Sanitation collects garbage from 156,000 single-family households in Collection
Districts A and C; current agreement with the City expires in July 2013 with an optional two
year extension to 2015. California Waste Solutions collects and processes recyclables from
all single-family households in Collection Districts A and C; current agreement with the City
expires in July 2013 with an optional two year extension to 2015. The City provides and pays
for disposal at Newby Island Landfill for residential garbage collected by Garden City and
GreenTeam under a separate agreement with International Disposal Corporation (Allied
Waste); this agreement expires in 2020.
Because San Jose implemented curbside recycling in 1993, the program is mature, with
residents who a~e committed to participating in source separation at the curb. Data from the
City's biennial resident survey shows that 70% of San Jose residents feel that they are
recycling 750/0 or more of all materials that can be recycled. They also express an interest in
getting more information about what is recyclable, and feel that recycling is an important
priority. Ongoing and direct education to the residents about how to participate in the
program has been critical to creating re~idential diversion of 52% and overall satisfaction
rates with Recycle Plus services of 90%. The biennial resident survey provides feedback on
the program status, as well as guiding the need for future education or program changes.
Education pieces are distributed through the Recycle Plus garbage bill, direct mail, events,
and information centers throughout the City. The Guide to Garbage and Recycling is a
comprehensive piece that was distributed to every SFD during the transition to new
contractors in July 2002.
MFD Compostable Program
During the first year of the new Recycle Plus Program, increasing diversion at multi-family
dwellings (MFDs) proved more difficult than anticipated. However, multi-family diversion
has increased significantly since then due to the implementation of the MFD compostable
program, approved by Council on a pilot basis in September 2003 and permanently in
December 2004. Since the new Recycle Plus contracts began in July 2002, diversion at
multi-family properties has increased over 240%, from 10.5% to 36%. Half of the multi-
family diversion is from traditional recycling, while the remaining diversion is generated
from the recycling and composting of multi-family garbage under the MFD compostable
program. The compostable program has proven to be a unique solution enabling the City to
achieve a high diversion rate at multi-family complexes. The City is currently evaluating
implementing a pilot to process more MFD waste through a solid waste processing facility.
CSJ/ESD
Page 18 of39
?t{
RFQ# 070804
. Land Use
Identifying suitable solid waste facilities is a significant challenge for any community. The
CEQA process will address impacts to neighborhoods and the community including Alviso
and the Southern-most top of the San Francisco Bay where a number of solid waste facilities
are located.
The work of the IWM Zero Waste Plan must be closely coordinated with the Plant Master
Plan to identify solutions that can provide multiple benefits to the City's solid waste handling
and the Plant's future operations and land use. However, it is important to note that the Plant
is operated by the City's Environmental Services Department on behalf of the City of Santa
Clara, a co-owner of the Plant, and the Plant's tributary agencies, which include the City of
Milpitas, West Valley Sanitation District, Cupertino Sanitary District, County Sanitation
District 2-3, Burbank Sanitary District, and Sunol Sanitary District. All decisions concerning
the future of the Plant and the Plant lands must be approved by representatives of these
organizations as represented by the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC) and the
City of San Jose Council.
. cnDn Pro2:ram
The City of San Jose's Construction and Demolition Diversion Deposit (CDDD) program
was conceived in 1998 as a means to divert construction and demolition (C&D) materials
from the landfills in San Jose through economic incentives. C&D materials were determined
to make up more than 30% of the waste disposed in San Jose landfills, with self-haul
contractors as major source. In June 2000, the City Council approved staffs recommendation
to develop an incentive-based deposit system that requires an assessment of a deposit for
contractors before issuance of a building permit.
The key components of the CDDD program that drive diversion are the Deposit/Transaction
System and the Certified Facilities, enhanced by C&D Infrastructure Grants. The program
began assessing deposits July 1, 2001. To receive a refund, the contractor must either reuse
the material or deliver it to a City-certified recovery facility.
The certified facilities are the heart of the C&D diversion system. There are two types of
certification:
Full Certification
. Accepts mixed C&D loads
. Subject to qualitative and quantitative
analysis
. 50% or better diversion required
. Phase out of ADC (see below)
Administrative Certification
. Accepts inert loads
. Subject to qualitative analysis only
. 900/0 or better diversion required
. Phase out of ADC (see below)
Using City-developed methodology, facilities may become City-certified after demonstrating
through a City audit that the above conditions can be met. Facilities are not required to
participate in the CDDD program. However, a facility's incentive to be certified is
competition; C&D material generators take their loads to certified facilities for receipts
(documentation), which are necessary for their refunds. The City has certified 21 facilities.
An important distinguishing characteristic of the program is the emphasis on highest and best
use and the phasing out of Alternate Daily Cover (ADC). The phase out of ADC began in
CSJ/ESD
Page 19 of39
I~S
RFQ# 070804
200 I and, as of July I, 2004, use of ADC is not counted toward a certified facility's diversion
rating. The acceptable percentage of ADC was adjusted incrementally to give the facilities
time and opportunities to find alternatives for ADC use. C&D ADC use has declined
significantly since the start of the CDDD Program.
· Fee Restructuring Alternatives and Financial Strategy
Although future City revenues related to disposal (the Disposal Facility Tax, Solid Waste
Enforcement Fee, and Countywide Integrated Waste Management Fee) are tied to the
remaining capacity in tons, increased diversion rates will result in these revenues declining
on an annual basis, but spread collection out over additional years. If the recommended
diversion targets are achieved, annual receipts will begin to decline by 2013, with a
significant decline by 2022.
Recent reports from other California local governments on fee issues and opportunities are
available. For example, Alameda County Waste management Authority (Stopwaste.org) is
expected to release a report, 5 Year Program Assessment of Regional Solid Waste Programs,
in December 2007. It will include an analysis of alternative funding mechanisms and options
available or currently implemented regionally in the Bay Area. In addition, the City is
participating in a joint grant project with Alameda County Waste Management Authority, the
City of Palo Alto, and the Grassroots Recycling Network to report on local government
disposal fee and revenue issues and opportunities. The project will evaluate alternatives to
city and county reliance on landfill fees and identifY restructuring strategies to mitigate
declining revenues as landfilled waste decreases.
The Development and Analysis of San Jose Commercial Tonnage Flows and Fees
(CFF)/Franchise Model System report analyzed the City's current financial model for
collection, processing, and landfilling of solid waste. This report incorporates material and
revenue flows to be used in evaluating alternate financial structures.
· Alternative Technologies
The alternative technologies assessed may include, but not be limited to, digestion of food
waste, fats, oils and grease (already being addressed by the Plant); wood waste gasification;
recovery of restaurant waste for alternative fuels; other emerging technologies. Any
possible use of technologies based upon using Plant lands will require collaboration with the
Plant.
Relevant technology and land-use reports already in existence or undelWay by the City
include:
· City Council Policy on Use of San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant Lands
(October 2000)
· Plant Lands, Opportunities and Constraints Assessments (January 2007)
· Land Use Study for Nine Par Landfill Site (March 2007)
· San Jose General Plan 2020
· Biomass-to-Energy Technology Evaluation (in development 2007)
· Master Plan for Water Pollution Control Plant operations including needs and technology
assessment for beneficial processing of biosolids and other locally generated biomass
material and appropriate land-use of Plant bufferlands. (underway in FY 2008-2011)
CSJ/ESD
Page 20 of 39
~h
RFQ# 070804
By the end of 2008, as part of its Master Plan process, the Plant intends to identify and
develop project alternatives which may include methods to reuse or remediate the old
biosolids lagoons and alternatives to optimize biosolids treatment processes and operations,
including use of alternative technologies where changes will result in higher energy
efficiency, higher reliability, lower residual volume and/or lower odor impact. One survey in
the City's recent Biomass-to-Energy draft report shows that available biomass streams in San
Jose total 183,000 dry tons per year of which 48 percent is construction and demolition
(C&D) wood debris, 36 percent is yard debris, 13 percent is biosolids, 3 percent is
fats/oils/grease and less than 0.1 percent is mixed plastics that are not readily recyclable.
Los Angeles has conducted research on municipal solid waste technologies. The report is
available at
http://www.lacitv.org/san/solid resources/strategic programs/alternative tech/PDF/final rep
ort.pdf.
CSJ/ESD
Page 21 of39
l37
RFQ# 070804
Exhibit IV
EXHIBIT IV: REFERENCE MATERIAL
Listed below are the reports cited in this RFQ and their location. Some of these documents are
electronically linked in this RFQ. Others are available with the RFQ on the City's BidLine
webpage.
1. City of San Jose General Plan 2040 Update
· Envision San Jose 2040, General Plan 2040 Update Work Program
http://www.sanioseca.gov/clerk/ AgendaJ062607/062607 04.03.pdf
2. IWM's Current Program Description
· August 2006 Study Session Agenda
www.sanioseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/0811 06/0811 06ssa.pdf
3. Financial Model- City of San Jose
· Development and Analysis of San Jose Commercial Tonnage Flows and
Fees(CFF)/Franchise Model System
This incorporates material and revenue flows to be used in evaluating alternate financial
structures.
4. Landfill Capacity
· Santa Clara Countv Intef!rated Waste Manaf!ement Plan
· San Jose Disposal Capacity; located as Attachment B of Zero Waste Goals
5. Fee Opportunities
· 5 Year Program Assessment of Regional Solid Waste Programs; estimated to be available
December 2007 from Alameda County Waste Management Authority; includes analysis
of fee opportunities; http://www.Stopwaste.org
6. Alternative Technologies
· City of Los Angeles report on municipal solid waste technologies.
http://www.lacitv.org/san/solid resources/strategic programs/alternative tech/PDF/final
report.pdf
7. City of San Jose Zero Waste Goals
· Zero Waste Goals, City of San Jose Memorandum to the Transportation and
Environment Committee; September 2007
http://www.sanioseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/TE/lOOl 07/TE 100107 02.pdf
· Attachment A: Resource Management Infrastructure Requirements Assessment
Completed in 2007, this describes the eight main types of facilities that need to be
considered for the City to achieve its Zero Waste Goals. These include reuse centers,
collection company corporation yards, compost facilities, materials recovery facilities,
construction and demolition processing facilities, hard to recycle materials facilities,
transfer stations and residual facilities or landfills.
· Attachment B: San Jose Disposal Capacity
CSJ/ESD
Page 22 of 39
~~
RFQ# 070804
8. San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
. Water Pollution Control Master Plan Request for Proposal
http://www .san loseca. gov /esd/p lantmasterp lan/
. San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control PlantlPond A18 Master Planning Plant
Lands Opportunities and Constraints Assessment (January 2007)
http://www .san loseca.gov /esd/pub res.asp
. City Council Policy on Use of San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
Lands (October 2000)
. Nine Par Field Investigation and Site Development Feasibility Summary Report.
Identifies redevelopment opportunities and constraints that may affect a project due to the
landfill presence. Also evaluates a range of commonly employed mitigation strategies
that would allow redevelopment.
CSJIESD
Page 23 of 39
, 31
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment A
PROPOSAL CERTIFICATION
FIRM NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE #
FAX #
CONT ACT NAME AND
TITLE
PROPOSER REPRESENTATIONS
1. Proposer did not, in any way, collude, conspire or agree, directly or indirectly, with any
person, firm, corporation or other Proposer in regard to the amount, terms, or conditions of
this proposal.
2. Proposer additionally certifies that neither proposer not its principals are presently disbarred,
suspended, proposed for disbarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from
participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency, any California State
agency, or any local governmental agency.
3. Proposer acknowledges that all requests for deviations, exceptions, and approved equals are
enclosed herein and that only those deviations, exceptions and approved equals included in
the RFQ document or permitted by formal addenda are accepted by the City.
4. Proposer did not receive unauthorized information from any City staff member of City
Consultant during the Proposal period except as provided for in the Request for Proposals
package, formal addenda issued by the City, or the pre-proposal conference.
5. Proposer hereby certifies that the information contained in the proposal and all
accompanying documentation is true and correct.
6. Please check the appropriate box below:
D If the proposal is submitted by an individual, it shall be signed by him or her, and if he or
she is doing business under a fictitious name, the proposal shall so state.
D If the proposal is submitted by a partnership, the full names and addresses of all members
and the address of the partnership shall be stated and the proposal shall be signed for all
members by one or more members thereof.
D If the proposal is submitted by a corporation, it shall be signed in the corporate name by
an authorized officer of officers.
D If the proposal is submitted by a limited liability company, it shall be signed in the
corporate name by an authorized officer or officers.
D If the proposal is signed by a loint venture, the full names and addresses of all members
of the joint venture shall be stated and it shall be signed by each individual.
1/2
40
RFQ# 070804 ESD Attachment A
By signing below, the submission of a proposal with all accompanying documents shall be
deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they have investigated all aspects
of the RFQ, that they are aware of the applicable facts pertaining to the RFQ process, its
procedures and requirements, and that they have read and understand the RFQ.
2/2
ft..-It
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment B
All information requested in the Questionnaire shall be furnished by the Proposer, and shall be
submitted with the Proposal. Statement shall be complete and accurate and in the form requested.
Omission, inaccuracy or misstatement may be cause for the rejection of the proposal.
Legal Name of Firm
Name of Parent Company (If Applicable)
Where was the Firm Established and the Date
Authorized to do Business in CA? List Date.
Type of Organization
D Corporation
D General Partnership
DLLC
DLLP
D Sole Proprietorship
D Other (Explain)
Have you ever had a bond or surety denied, canceled or forfeited?
If yes, also state name of bonding company, date, amount of bond and
reason for such cancellation or forfeiture in an attached statement.
2. Hav~ you ever declared bankruptcy or been declared bankrupt?
If yes, also state date, court jurisdiction, docket number, amount of
liabilities and amount of assets.
3. Has your com any. ever had any agreements cancelled?
4. Has your company ever been sued by any organization for issues
ertaining to fee ament, erformance or other related issues?
5. Are you currently engaged in merger or acquisition negotiations, or do
you anticipated entering into merger or acquisition negotiations within
the time period of this Request for Proposal?
If yes, lease rovide details and attach copy of such agreement(s).
6. Are you now engaged in any litigation which does now or could affect
your ability to ay fees or erform under this Agreement?
DYES
DNO
DYES
DYES
DYES
DNO
DNO
DNO
DYES
DNO
Authorized Representative Signature:
Authorized Representative Name:
Authorized Representative Title:
Date:
l1.
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment C
City of San Jose
Request for Contracting Preference for Local and Small Businesses
Chapter 4.06 of the San Jose Municipal Code provides for a preference for Local and Small Businesses in the
procurement of contracts for supplies, materials and equipment and for general and professional consulting services.
The amount of the preference depends on whether the vendor qualifies as a Local Business Enterprise* or Small
Business Enterprise** and whether price has been chosen as the determinative factor in the selection of the vendor.
In order to be a Local Business Enterprise (LBE) you must have a current San Jose Business Tax Certificate Number
and have an office in Santa Clara County with at least one employee. If you qualify as an LBE, you can also qualify
as a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) if the total number of employees (regardless of where they are located) of
your firm is 35 or fewer.
There are two ways in which the preference can be applied. In procurements where price is the determinative factor
(i. e. there are not a variety of other factors being considered in the selection process) the preference is in the form
of a credit applied to the dollar value of the bid or quote. For example, a non-local vendor submits a quote of $204
per item. The LBE receives a 2.5% credit on the quote, which equals approximately $5 and thus the LBE will win
the award because the quote is evaluated as if it had been submitted as $199.
The followin~ determinations have been made with resnect to this Drocurement: (for official use onlv)
Type of Procurement 0 Bid I 0 Request for Quote I [2J Request for Proposal
Type of Preference 0 Price is Determinative [2J Price is Not Determinative
Amount of Preference LBE preference = 2.50/0 of Cost LBE preference = 50/0 of Points
SBE preference = 2.50/0 of Cost SBE preference = SOlo of Points
In order to be considered for any preference you must fill out the following statement(s) under penalty of perjury.
Business Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
Type of Business 0 Corporation 0 LLC 0 LLP
0 General Partnership 0 Sole Proprietorship 0 Other (explain)
*LOCAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (LBE) PREFERENCE
In order to qualify as an LBE you must provide the following information:
Current San Jose Business Tax Certificate Number
Address of Principal Business Office or Regional, Branch or Satellite Office
with at least one employee located in Santa Clara County
**SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PREFERENCE
In order to qualify as an SBE you must qualify as an LBE and have 35 or fewer employees. The number is for your
entire business - NOT just local employees, or employees working in the office address given above.
Please state the number of employees that your Business has: II
Based upon the forgoing information I am requesting that the Business named above be given the following
preferences (please check): 0 Local Business Enterprise 0 Small Business Enterprise
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information supplied by me in this form is true and correct.
Executed at: ' California
Date:
Signature:
Print name:
\\.{~
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment D
CITY OF SAN JOSE
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(Referred exhibits not attached will be added to final agreement)
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.
CONSULTANT shall perform those services specified in detail in EXHIBIT B, entitled
"SCOPE OF SERVICES", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT.
The term of this AGREEMENT shall be from to
to the provisions of SECTION 11 of this AGREEMENT.
, inclusive, subject
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE.
The services of CONSULTANT are to be completed according to the schedule set out in
EXHIBIT C, entitled "SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE", which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein. Time is of the essence in this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 4. COMPENSATION.
The. compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT, including both payment for
professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Dollars ($_
). The rate and schedule of payment is set out in EXHIDIT 0, entitled
"COMPENSATION," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
SECTION 5. METHOD OF PAYMENT
Each month, CONSULTANT shall furnish to the CITY a statement of the work
performed for compensation during the proceeding month. Such statement shall also
include a detailed record of the month's actual reimbursable expenditures.
SECTION 6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
It is understood and agreed that CONSULTANT, in the performance of the work and
services agreed to be performed by CONSULTANT, shall act as and be an independent
contractor not an agent or employee of CITY; and as an independent contractor;
CONSULTANT shall obtain no right to retirement benefits or other benefits which
accrue to CITY's employees, and CONSULTANT hereby expressly waives any claim it
may have to any such rights.
SECTION 7. ASSIGNABiliTY.
The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material
considerations for this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any
interest in this AGREEMENT nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT's
obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of CITY, and any attempt by
CONSULTANT to so assign this AGREEMENT or any rights, duties or obligations
arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.
1/8
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment D
SECTION 8. INDEMNIFICATION.
CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, employees
and agents against any claim, loss or liability arising out of or resulting in any way from
work performed under this AGREEMENT due to the willful or negligent acts (active or
passive) or omissions by CONSULTANT's officers, employees or agents. The
acceptance of said services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a wavier of such
right of indemnification.
SECTION 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
CONSULTANT agrees to have and maintain the polices set forth in EXHIBIT E, entitled
"INSURANCE," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. All polices,
endorsements, certificates and/or binders shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Finance or the Director's authorized designee ("Risk Manager") of the City of San Jose
as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment of wavier if so
approved in writing by the Risk Manager. CONSULTANT agrees to provide CITY with a
copy of said polices, certificates and/or endorsements before work commences under
this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 1 o. NONDISCRIMINATION.
CONSULTANT shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of
race, sex, color, age, religion, sexual orientation, actual or perceived gender identity,
disability ethnicity, or national origin, in connection with or related to the performance of
this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 11. TERMINATION.
A. CITY shall have the right to terminate this AGREEMENT, without cause, by giving
not less than seven (7) days' written notice of termination.
B. If CONSULTANT fails to perform any of its material obligations under this
AGREEMENT, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, CITY may terminate
this AGREEMENT immediately upon written notice.
C. CITY's
CITY.
is empowered to terminate this AGREEMENT on behalf of
D. In the event of termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY copies of all reports,
documents, and other work performed by CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT,
and upon receipt thereof, CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for services performed and
reimbursable expenses incurred to the date of termination.
SECTION 12. GOVERNING LAW.
CITY and CONSULTANT agree that the law governing this AGREEMENT shall be that
of the federal, state and local governments.
SECTION 13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS.
CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations
of the federal, state and local governments.
2/8
tLt <j
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment D
SECTION 14. . CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
All data, documents, discussions or other information developed or received by or for
CONSULTANT in performance of this AGREEMENT are confidential and not to be
disclosed to any person except as authorized by CITY, or as required by law.
SECTION 15. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS.
All reports, documents or other materials developed or discovered by CONSULTANT or
any other person engaged directly or indirectly by CONSULTANT to perform the
services required hereunder shall be and remain the property of CITY without restriction
or limitation upon their use.
SECTION 16. WAVIER.
CONSULTANT agrees that wavier by CITY of any breach or violation or any term or
condition of this AGREEMENT shall not be deemed to be a wavier of any other term or
condition contained herein or a wavier of any subsequent breach or violation of the
same or any other term or condition. The acceptance by CITY of the performance of
any work or services by CONSULTANT shall not be deemed to be a wavier or any term
or condition of this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 17 . CONSULTANT'S BOOKS AND RECORDS.
A. CONSULTANT shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices,
vouchers, cancelled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating
to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to CITY for a
minimum period of three (3) years, of for any longer period required by law, from the
date of final payment to CONSULTANT pursuant to this AGREEMENT.
B. CONSULTANT shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrates
performance under this AGREEMENT for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for
any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this
AGREEMENT.
C. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this AGREEMENT
shall be made available for inspection or audit at no cost to CITY, at any time during
regular business hours, upon written request by the City Attorney, City auditor, City
Manager, or a designated representative of any of these officers. Copies of such
documents shall be provided to CITY for inspection at City Hall when it is practical to
do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records shall be
available at CONSULTANT's address indicated for receipt of notices in this
AGREEMENT.
D. Where CITY has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or
discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of CONSULTANT's
business, CITY may, by written request by any of the above-named officers, require
that custody of the records be given to CITY and that the records and documents be
maintained in City Hall. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to
any party authorized by CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT's representative, or
CONSULTANT's successor-in-interest.
3/8
6
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment 0
SECTION 18. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
CONSULTANT shall avoid all conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in
performance of this AGREEMENT.
[Certain consultant may have to comply with the following provisions as well]
CONSULTANT shall file an ASSUMING Office Disclosure Statement of Economic
Interests (Form 700) as specified in EXHIBIT F, entitled "DISCLOSURE
STATEMENT", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Such statement
shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date if this AGREEEMENT and annually
thereafter by the first of April. Upon termination of this AGREEMENT,
CONSULTANT shall file a Leaving Office Disclosure Statement of Economic
Interest (Form 700).
SECTION 19. GIFTS.
A. CONSULTANT is familiar with CITY's prohibition against the acceptance of any gift
by a CITY office or designated employee, which prohibition is found in Ichapter
12.08 of the San Jose Municipal code.
B. CONSULTANT agrees not to offer any CITY officer or designated employee any gift
prohibited by said chapter.
C. The offer or giving of any gift prohibited by chapter 12.08 shall constitute a material
breach of this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT. In addition to any other remedies
CITY may have in law or equity, CITY may terminate this AGREEMENT for such
breach as provided in SECTION 11 of this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 20. DISQUALIFICATION OF FORMER EMPLOYEES.
CONSULTANT is familiar with the provisions relating to the disqualification of former
officers and employees of CITY in matters which are connected with former duties or
official responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 12.10 of the San Jose Municipal Code
("Revolving Door Ordinance"). CONSULTANT shall not utilize either directly or indirectly
any officer, employee, or agent of CONSULTANT to perform services under this
AGREEMENT, if in the performance of such services, the officer, employee, or agent
would be in violation of the Revolving Door Ordinance.
SECTION 21. SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
Special provisions! if any, to this AGREEMENT are specified in EXHIBIT F (or G, if
applicable), entitled, "SPECIAL PROVISIONS", which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
4/8
ll{ 7
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment D
SECTION 22. NOTICES.
All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this
AGREEMENT shall be in writing and shall be personally served or mailed, postage
prepaid and return receipt requested, addressed to the respective parties as follows:
To CITY:
To CONSULTANT:
Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered if, if mailed, three (3)
days after deposit in the mail.
SECTION 23. VENUE.
In the event that suit shall be bought by either party to this contract, the parties agree
that venue shall be exclusively vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara,
or if federal jurisdiction is appropriate, exclusively in the United states District Court, '
northern District of California, San Jose, California.
SECTION 24. PRIOR AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS.
This AGREEMENT, including all Exhibits attached hereto, represents the entire
understanding of the parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or
written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters
covered hereunder. This AGREEMENT may be modified only by a written amendment
duly executed by the parties to this AGREEMENT.
5/8
l-tt6
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment 0
EXHIBIT E
INSURANCE
CONSULTANT, at CONSULTANT'S sole cost and expense, shall procure and maintain
for the duration of this AGREEMENT insurance against claims for injuries to persons or
damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with, the performance of
the services hereunder by CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
1. The coverage described in Insurance Services Office Commercial General
Liability coverage ("occurrence") Form Number CG 0001 including products
and completed operations; and
2. The coverage described in Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 001
covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 "any auto", or Code 2 "owned autos"
and Endorsements CA 0025. Coverage shall also include Code 8 "hired
autos" and code 9 "non-owned autos"; and
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the California Labor Code
and EmplC?yers Liability insurance.
4. Professional Liability Errors & Omissions.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance
CONSULTANT shall maintain limits no less than:
1. Commercial General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial Liability Insurance or
other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this projecUlocation of the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; and
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage; and
3. Worker's Compensation and Employers' Liability: Workers' Compensation
limits as required by the California Labor and Employers Liability limits of
$1,000,000 per accident; and
4. Professional Liability Errors & Omissions $1,000,000 Aggregate Limit.
C. Deductible and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by
CITY's Risk Manager. At the option of CITY, either; the insurer shall reduce or
eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects CITY, its officer,
employees, agents and contractors; or CONSULTANT shall procure a bond
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations. Claim administrations
and defense expenses in an amount specified by the CITY's Risk Manager.
6/8
lY1
RFQ# 070804 ESD
D. Other Insurance Provisions
The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages
a. The City of San Jose, its officers, employees, agents and contractors are
to be covered as additional insureds as respects: Liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of, CONSULTANT; products and
completed operations of CONSULTANT; premises owned, leased or used
by CONSULTANT; and automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by
CONSULTANT. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the
scope or protection afforded to CITY, its officers, employees, agents and
contractors.
Attachment D
b. CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as
respects CITY, its officers, employees, agents and contractors. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY, its officers, employees,
agents or contractors shall be excess of CONSULTANT's insurance and
shall not contribute with it.
c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies by
CONSULTANT shall not affect coverage provided CITY, its officers,
employees, agents or contractors.
d. Coverage shall state that CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply
separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is bought,
except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
2. All Coverages
Each insurance policy required by this AGREEMENT shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in
limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice has been given to CITY.
E. Acceptabilitv of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers acceptable to CITY's Risk Manager.
F. Verification of Coveraae
CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with certificates of insurance and with original
endorsements affecting coverage required by this AGREEMENT. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage in its behalf.
Proof of insurance shall be mailed to the following address or any subsequent
addressed as may be directed in writing by the Risk Manager:
CITY OF SAN JOSE - Human Resources
Risk Management
200 East Santa Clara St., 3rd Floor Wing
San Jose, California 95113-1905
Attn: Andrea Orinion
7/8
ID
Attachment D
RFQ# 070804 ESD
G. Subconsultants
CONSULTANT shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or
shall obtain separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor.
8/8
lS I
RFQ# 070804 ESD
Attachment E
Provide reference information for the services you are proposing in a manner and environment
similar in size and scope to the requirements of this proposal. Copy this form as appropriate.
Name of Customer
Customer Address
Customer Contact Name(s),
Title and Phone number(s)
Term of the Agreement
Annual Dollar Value of Contract
Start Date (mm/dd/yy)
End Date (mm/dd/yy)
Type of Contract
iiFirm fixed price
Time and Material
DNot to exceed
DCost plus fixed fee
DOther (Please explain)
Brief description of work performed for this client (use additional sheets if necessary):
;'2-
To be completed by consultants making proposals.
NAME:
DATE:
PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: RFQ# 070804 ESD, IWM Zero Waste Plan
In order for the City to assess whether the personnel proposed to be assigned by the successful
Proposer to work on the Proposed Assignment have a conflict of interest, this form must be
completed by each person that the Proposer intends to assign.
QUESTIONS YES (Provide details.) NO
l. Do you have any official, professional, 0
financial of personal relationships with any
person or firm that might affect your
judgment or your ability to provide services
to the City that are fair and impartial?
2. Stock and Investments 0
a. Do you own any stock in any company
likely to be' affected by or involved in
the Proposed Assignment?
b. Does you spouse or a dependent own
any stock in a company likely to be
affected by or involved in the Proposed
Assignment?
c. Do you hold any investments in any
entity (e.g. Partnership, limited liability
company, or a trust) likely to be affected
by or involved in the, Proposed
Assignment?
d. Does your spouse or a dependent hold
any investments in any entity (e.g.
Partnership, limited liability company,
or a trust) likely to be affected by or
involved in the Proposed Assignment?
If the answer is YES to any of the above
questions, please provide the name of the
company and the amount of stock or
investment.
lS~
QUESTIONS YES (Provide details.) NO
3. Employment & Consulting D
a. Is your spouse or a dependent
employed/retained by anyone likely to
be affected by or involved in the
Proposed Assignment?
b. Has your spouse or dependent been
previously employed/retained by anyone
likely to be affected by or involved in
the Proposed Assignment?
c. Have you been employed/retained by
anyone likely to be affected by or
involved in the Proposed Assignment?
If the answer is YES to any of the above
questions, please provide the name of the
employer, nature of services provided and the
dates employed or retained.
4. Payments or Gifts D
a. Within the past 12 months, have you
received any payments or gifts from
anyone likely to be affected by or
involved in the Proposed Assignment?
b. Within the past 12 months, has your
spouse or a dependent received any
payments or gifts from anyone likely to
be affected by or involved in the
Proposed Assignment?
If the answer is YES, please provide the
amount the payment or value of the gift, the
name and position of the payer/donor and the
receipt date.
5. Real Estate D
a. Do you own real property that is likely
to be affected by or involved in the
Proposed Assignment?
b. Does your spouse or dependent own real
property that is likely to be affected by
or involved in the Proposed
Assignment?
If the answer is YES, please provide the
location of this property.
s,'1
QUESTIONS YES (Provide details.) NO
6. Positions
a. Do you currently hold a position (e.g.
member of a board of directors) of any
entity (e.g. a company, partnership,
association, nonprofit) that is likely to
be affected by or involved in the
Proposed Assignment?
b. Do you currently hold a position (e.g.
member of a board of directors) of any
entity (e.g. a company, partnership,
association, nonprofit) that is likely to
be affected by or involved in the
Proposed Assignment?
If the answer is YES, please provide the name
of the entity and the title of the position held.
D
If during the course of the evaluation, any personal, external, or organizational impairments
occur that may affect your ability to do the work and report findings impartially, notify the
Program Manager immediately.
Signature:
Print
Name:
DA TE:
\ -S<S
)b
5
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Belvedere:
George Rodericks
Corte Madera:
David Bracken
County of Marin:
Matthew Hymel
Fairfax:
Michael Rock
Larkspur:
Jean Bonander
Mill Valley:
Anne Montgomery
Novato:
Daniel Keen
Ross:
Gary Broad
San Anselmo:
Debbie Stutsman
San Rafael:
Ken Nordhoff
Sausalito:
Adam Politzer
Tiburon:
Margaret Curran
Date:
To:
Re:
The Amendment to Redwood Landfill's Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR), released in March, includes a reassessment of Redwood
Landfill's current permitted minimum site life estimate to by 2016. The
previous estimate of minimum site life was 2024. The shorter minimum
life expectancy of the landfill means that Marin now has less than the
required 15 years of permitted landfill capacity.
The disposal capacity estimate of less than 15 years triggers Marin's
Siting Element requirement contained in the Integrated Waste
Management Plan to initiate a process to develop a strategy to manage
Marin's waste in the future. The first step in this process is to develop
goals and policy with our Local Task Force. The siting process
continues with analysis of potential new landfill sites, the expansion of
existing sites, and strategies to export waste outside of Marin.
However, proposed in Redwood's FEIR is a mitigated alternative project
that will satisfy this 15 year capacity requirement. If certified, it is
anticipated the mitigated alternative project could be permitted by the
end of this year. The Marin County Planning Commission is expected to
come to a decision on recommending certification of the FEIR at their
May meeting.
In addition to meeting Marin's disposal capacity needs, Redwood's
proposed mitigated alternative proposes implementing programs to
advance reduction of waste, recycling, reuse, and composting in Marin.
Jessica Jones, the District Manager of Redwood Landfill has asked to
speak with the Committee regarding Redwood's proposed mitigated
alternative project and its potential to further the goals of the JPA to
reduce Marin's waste.
It is the Committees option to make any recommendation, direct staff, or
take action regarding this information.
F:\Waste\JPA\JPA Agenda ltems\ExCom 080423\Redwood Landfill Capacity. doc
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
\S 7
;<l
6
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
Belvedere:
George Rodericks
Corte Madera:
David Bracken
County of Marin:
Matthew Hymel
Fairfax:
Michael Rock
Larkspur:
Jean Bonander
Mill Valley:
Anne Montgomery
Novato:
Daniel Keen
Ross:
Gary Broad
San Anselmo:
Debbie Stutsman
San Rafael:
Ken Nordhoff
Sausalito:
Adam Politzer
Tiburon:
Margaret Curran
Date: April 23, 2008
To: Executive Committee
From: Michael Frost
Re: 2007 Financial Statements and Auditors Report
Attached for your Committee's review are the JPA's Financial Statement
and Auditor's Report for the year ending June 30, 2007. Also attached is
a letter from John Maher's CPA management firm for year ending
June 30,2007.
Mr. Maher notes that the City of San Rafael Fire Department invoices for
household hazardous waste collection from October 2006 through June
2007 were submitted significantly after year end and required an
adjustment of records for year end. This delay occurs annually and is
due to time lag between receipt of invoice from vendor to Marin Sanitary
Service to City of San Rafael Fire to County of Marin. To accommodate
this delay, JPA staff in counsel with Mr. Maher, encumbers remaining
appropriations in the household hazardous waste budget at close of
year. However, a recent change in accounting standards require this
delay to be reported as a material weakness. Staff will continue to work
with Marin Sanitary Service and San Rafael Fire to ensure invoices are
submitted more promptly. No other financial highlights are noted in Mr.
Maher's audit and management letter.
It is requested you recommend the full JPA Board accept the attached
financial statements and auditor's report for the year ending June 30, 2007
at their May meeting.
Attachments
F:\Waste\JPA\memos\042308 Ex Comm Finacial Statements.doc
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-6647 - FAX 415/446-7373
\S1
~O
1101 FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 200. SAN RAFAEL. CA 94901
<:u
:.2
~
~
~
-
~
'g January 2, 2008
~
ti::
Board of Directors
Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management Joint Powers Authority
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Marin County
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority (Authority) as of and for
the year ended June 30, 2007, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States of America, we considered the Authority's internal control over financial
reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing
our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of the Authority's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority's internal control.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might
be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. However, as discussed below, we
identified a deficiency in internal control that we consider to be a material weakness.
A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to
prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control
deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity's
ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principals such that there is more than a remote
likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than
inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control.
A material weakness is a significant deficiency or combination of significant deficiencies
that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial
statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. Recently
issued auditing standards require us to communicate such matters in writing even though
such matters have been communicated previously. We believe that the following
deficiency constitutes a material weakness.
. Condition: Generally accepted accounting principles require that
expenditures/ expenses be recorded as incurred (accrual basis) rather than when paid.
We noted that the Authority received invoices for services provided by the City of San
TEL 415.459.1249
FAX 415-459.5406
WEB www.mahercptl.com
~
I 6 (
Board of Directors
January 2, 2008
Page 2 of2
Rafael Fire Department for collection of household hazardous waste for October 2006
through June 2007 significantly after year end. Those invoices were posted in the
subsequent fiscal year and required an adjustment of $827,000 to the records for the
year ended June 30, 2007.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Authority record estimates of the cost of
services for periods for which invoices are not available in order to comply with
accounting standards and to provide meaningful, internally-prepared interim financial
statements for management and the Board.
Management Response: Management agrees that the annual audited financial
statements should include all expenditures/expenses for the year reported. However,
since the Executive Committee (the users of interim financial statements) have access
to reasonable estimates of accrued expenses prior to the issuance of the audited
financial statements, it is managements assessment that the effort required to formally
record estimates of accrued expenditures prior to the issuance of the audited annual
financial statements outweighs the benefits of so doing. Accordingly, management
intends to not implement the recommendation.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of
Directors, management, and others within the organization and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
'Pl~ ~~~7
~L
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND AUDITORS' REpORT
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
--'
/
TEL 415.459.1249
FAX 415.459.5406
WEB www.mahercpa.com
l b'1
l{
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IND EPEND ENT A UD ITO RS' REPORT ............................................................................ 1
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ........................................................ 2
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS ....... ... ....... .... ........ ............ ... ...... .... ......... ...... .......... ..... ...5
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES.......................................................................................6
BALANCE SHEET..... ..' ...................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND
BALANCES.................................................................................................................... ..8
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS..............................................................9
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE
COUNTYWIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ....................................... 15
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM (NNO) ................................. 16
l6 s
h
MAHER ACCOUNTANCY
-'. -;.'-.;, \":'
IIOIFIFTHAVENUE.'StJI'fES2()()'~AN RAFAEL,CA 94901
'"
~
:.:s
--l::>
~
J:
~
~
.~
~
':S
~
Lt:
INDEPENDENT A tJDI1'oRs',REBt;))it>...
~ ~i. c',__.;.~., c ,: j,>~i7 ;.1;^t;".~ '-',' -.-
To the Board of Directors
Marin County Hazardous. & Solid Waste
Management Authority
. ~ ".!< 'f':':"
-C", _.-, ~." . ",'~ ;." '.:;
;:'-_'.--~-::.>-.:\}<;-,~-::',:f\'-~:'- - _::_;_~,,:<>.';),_.:: - .'\.,:; ..c, '-'~ ''- ::.-
We have audited the accompanying .basic .finandalstatel1lent~~9~~~~;-?~~f~!lf:~'.." ...................Hazardous &
Solid Waste Management Authority as. of and.for'theye~r:y~~~cI,~I+~~~-BPf,~q..Z~i~slisted in the
table. of contents. These .financial statements are the respo.nsibilj1'oY;(~~;~~~6~~11~g7ment of the
Authority. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these QasiftiIiMPi~lstat~lTI~ntsbased on
our audit. ... . . ' .'.. ....... ..... ,'/- ,
We conducted the audit in accordance with auditing sta~dardsgener~ily;;.~s~~~ted:il1the United
States of America and the California State Controller's Minimllm AutJ~t1J;~~4~rf111e,ntslorS~lifornia
Special Districts. Those standards require that we plan and perfonnthe' audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the basic financial statements are free of~aterialwisstatelTIent.An. audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the a~?~nt~a~~ disclosures.. in the
financial statements. An audit also includes assessing theaccountillgprinciples used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the Qverallfinancial statement
presentation. We believe our audit provides a reasonable basisfor our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of the Marin County Hazardous & Solid Waste ManagelTIentAuthority . as of
June 30, 2007, and the results of its operations for the year then ~nded, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of Amerioa. as well.. as accounting
systems prescribed by the State Controller's Office and state regulationsgovemingspecial districts.
The management's discussion and analysis on pages 2 through 4 and required supplemental
information on pages 15 and 16 are not a required part of the basic financial statements, but are
supplementary information required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America. We applied limited procedures, consisting principally of inquiries of
management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the supplementary
information. We did not audit the information and express no opinion on it.
~~~ Clooo~~7
January 2, 2008
TEL 415.459.1249
FAX 415.459.5406
WEB www.mahercpa.com
~
1
l6 7
Marin County Hazardous & Solid Waste
Management Authority
P.o. Box 4186
San Rafael, CA 94913
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The Management's Discussion and Analysis provides an overview of the Marin County
Hazardous & Solid Waste Management Authority (Authority) financial activities for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2007. Please read it along with the Authority's financial statements, which
begin on page 5.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
The Authority's net assets are $778,014, an increase of $156,180 over the prior year. Total
revenues increased by $22,372 and total expenses increased by $6,204.
Budgetary comparison schedules are found starting on page 15. Those schedules indicate we
had a favorable variance of$19,415 in Countywide Waste Management and a favorable variance
of $227,509 in Household Hazardous Waste Management when comparing actual activity with
budgeted.
USING THIS ANNUAL REPORT
This annual report consists of financial statements for the Authority as a whole. The statement
of net assets and the statement of activities provide information about the activities of the
Authority as a whole and presents a long-term view of the Authority's finances. The fund
financial statements present a short-term view of the Authority's activities (they include only
current assets expected to be collected in the very near future and liabilities expected to be paid
in the very near future). Presently, the Authority does not have any differences between the
basic financial statements (statement of net assets and statement of activities) and the fund
financial statements (balance sheet and statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund
balance).
THE AUTHORITY AS A WHOLE
One. important question asked about the Authority's finances is, "Is the Authority better or worse
off as a result of the year's activities?" The information in the government-wide financial
statements helps answer this question. These statements include all assets and liabilities using
the accrual basis of accounting,- which is similar to the basis of accounting used by most private-
sector companies.
The change in net assets (the difference between total assets and total liabilities) over time is one
indicator of whether the Authority's financial health is improving or deteriorating. However,
one must consider other nonfinancial factors in making an assessment of the Authority's health,
such as changes in the economy and changes in the Authority's boundaries, etc. to assess the
overall health of the Authority.
2
lb~
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Changes in the Authority's net assets were as follows:
Increase
2007 2006 (decrease)
Total assets $ 1,615,251 $ 1,161,779 $ 453,472
Total liabilities 837,237 539,945 297,292
Net assets:
Designated 694,545 540,998 153,547
Undesignated 83,469 80,836 2,633
Total net assets $ 778,014 $ 621,834 $ 156,180
The Authority's total assets grew as a result of fees charged related to the household waste
program (NNO) that were in excess of related costs. Total liabilities (accrued contractor fees
related to the Household Hazardous Waste Program) represent unbilled charges based on the
volume of waste processed during January through June.
Changes in the Authority's revenues were as follows:
In crease
2007 2006 (decrease)
General revenues:
Investment earnings $ 9,836 $ 5,730 $ 4,106
Program revenues:
Solid waste management fees 1,534,690 1,535,750 (1,060)
Grant revenue 1,492 9,659 (8,167)
Investment earnings 47,608 20,115 27,493
Total program revenue 1,583,790 1,565,524 18,266
Total revenues $ 1,593,626 $ 1,571,254 $ 22,372
Investment earnings increased due to an increase in interest rates experienced in the general
economy.
Changes in the Authority's expenses and net assets were as follows:
Increase
2007 2006 (decrease)
Contract staff and support $ 249,681 $ 242,406 $ 7,275
Services and supplies 1,187,765 1,188,836 (1,071)
Total expenses 1,437,446 1,431,242 6,204
Less program revenues 1,583,790 1,565,524 18,266
Net revenue (expenses) 146,344 134,282 12,062
General revenues 9,836 5,730 4,106
Change in net assets $ 156,180 $ 140,012 $ 16,168
3
l6 C,
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
Personnel costs increased due to normal wage inflation.
FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The fund financial statements provide detailed information about the Authority's funds - the
general fund and special revenue fund.
The fund financial statements provide a short-term view of the Authority's operations. They are
reported using an accounting basis called modified accrual which measures amounts using only
cash and other short-term assets and liabilities (receivables and payables) that will soon be
converted to cash or will soon be paid with cash.
Total governmental fund balance increased by $156,180, as shown on page 8.
CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION
The Authority does not own any capital assets, nor does it have any debt. The Authority shares
office space with other county government departments. It does not incur debt, because it has no
need to finance capital or to use financing for any other purpose.
THE FUTURE OF THE AUTHORITY
The public's participation in solid and hazardous waste reduction efforts has grown substantially
over the last many years. While the demand for household hazardous waste services has
continued to stabilize, the expanding definition of what is hazardous could lead to additional
growth in demand for future services. Further, the growing pursuit of "zero waste" is expected to
increase the need for the Authorities services.
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
This financial report is designed to provide our citizens, taxpayers and creditors with a general
overview of the Authority's finances and to demonstrate the Authority's accountability for the
funds under its stewardship.
Please address any questions about this report or requests for additional financial information to
the address on our letterhead.
4
'0
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS
AS OF JUNE 30, 2007
ASSETS
Cash
Receivables:
Grants
Total assets
LIABILITIES
Accrued expenses
NET ASSETS
Restricted for household hazardous
waste dis posal
U nres tricted
Total net assets
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
$ 1,613,759
1,492
1,615,251
837,237
694,545
83,469
$ 778,014
5
l 7l
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
EXPENDITURES:
Contract staff and support
Services and supplies
Total expendittu:es/ expenses
Countywide Waste Hazardous
Management Waste (Special
(General Fund) Revenue Fund) T ota I
$ 242,191 $ 7,490 $ 249,681
69,586 1,118,179 1,187,765
311,777 1,125,669 1,437,446
303,082 1,231,608 1,534,690
1,492 1,492
47,608 47,608
304,574 1,279,216 1,583,790
$ (7,203) $ 153,547 146,344
9,836
156,180
621,834
$ 778,014
PROGRAM REVENUES:
Waste management fees
Operating grant - State of California
Investment earnings
Total program revenue
Net program revenue (expense)
GENERAL REVENUES:
Investment earnings
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over expenses
NET ASSETS:
Net Assets at June 30, 2006
Net Assets at June 30, 2007
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
6
'2
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
BALANCE SHEET
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
Countywide Household
Waste Hazardous Waste
Management (Special Revenue
(General Fund) Fund) Total
ASSETS
Cash $ 49,863 $ 1,563,896 $ 1,613,759
Receivables:
Grants 1,492 1,492
Due from other funds 42,103 42,103
Total assets $ 93,458 $ 1,563,896 $ 1,657,354
LIABILITIES
Accrued expenses $ 9,989 $ 827,248 $ 837,237
Due to other funds 42,103 42,103
Total liabilities 9,989 869,351 879,340
FUND BALANCES
Fund balances:
Designated for household hazardous
waste disposal 694,545 694,545
Undesignated 83,469 83,469
Total fund balance 83,469 694,545 778,014
T otalliabilities and fund balances $ 93,458 $ 1,563,896 $ 1,657,354
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
7
l7~
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
Countywide Waste Hazardous
Management Waste (Special
(General Fund) Revenue Fund) Total
REVENUES:
Solid waste management fees $ 303,082 $ 1,231,608 $ 1,534,690
Operating grant - State of California 1,492 1,492
Investment earnings 9,836 47,608 57,444
Total revenues 314,410 1,279,216 1,593,626
EXPENDITURES:
Contract staff and support 242,191 7,490 249,681
Services and supplies:
Rent 15,147 15,147
Training 410 410
Office supplies 2,304 2,304
Business meals 26 26
Contract services 1 ,094 1,118,179 1,119,273
Legal 750 750
Accounting and audit fees 7,500 7,500
Marketing services 12,311 12,3 11
Miscellaneous services 7,604 7,604
Insurance 16,590 16,590
Indirect county fees 5,850 5,850
Total services and supplies 69,586 1,118,179 1,187,765
Total expenditures 311,777 1,125,669 1,437,446
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER EXPENDITURES 2,633 153,547 156,180
Fund balance at June 30, 2006 80,836 540,998 621,834
Fund balance at June 30, 2007 $ 83,469 $ 694,545 $ 778,014
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
8
1t..t
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
REPORTING ENTITY
The Marin County Hazardous & Solid Waste Management Authority was formed under a joint
powers agreement between the County of Marin and eleven cities and towns within Marin
County. The purpose of Authority is to administer and enforce hazardous waste and solid
waste management plans, as mandated by State Law.
The governing board of the Authority consists of one appointed official from each of the
member agencies. The Authority has contracted with Marin County Department of Public
Works for administrative services and the City of San Rafael for Hazardous Waste
management services.
INTRODUCTION
The Authority's financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principals (GAAP). The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is
responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its
pronouncements (Statements and Interpretations.). Governments are also required to follow
the pronouncements of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (F ASB) issued through
November 30, 1989 (when applicable) that do not conflict with or contradict GASB
pronouncements.
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
GOVERNMENT-WIDE STATEMENTS
The Authority's basic financial statements include both government-wide (reporting the
Authority as a whole) and fund financial statements (reporting the Authority's major funds).
In the government-wide Statement of Net Assets, the Authority's activities are reported on a
full accrual, economic resource basis, which recognizes all long-term assets and receivables
as well as long-term debt and obligations. The Authority's net assets are reported in two
parts: (1) invested in capital assets, net of related debt, and (2) unrestricted net assets. Since
the Authority does not own any capital assets and there is no debt, only unrestricted assets
are shown.
9
It S
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHOIDTY
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
GOVERNMENT-WIDE STATEMENTS (Continued)
The government-wide Statement of Activities reports both the gross and net cost of the
Authority's function. The function is supported by general government revenues. The
Statement of Activities reduces gross expenses by related program revenues.
The net costs (by function) are normally covered by general revenues.
The government-wide focus is more on the sustainability of the Authority as an entity and
the change in the Authority's net assets resulting from the current year's activities.
FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The financial transactions of the Authority are reported in individual funds in the fund
balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, reserves, fund equity, revenues and
expenditures.
The Authority uses the following fund type:
Governmental fund:
The focus of the governmental funds' measurement (in the fund statements) is upon
determination of financial position and changes in financial positions (sources, uses, and
balances of financial resources) rather than upon net income. The following is a description
of the governmental funds of the Authority:
General fund accounts for the Authority's general operations.
Special revenue fund accounts for hazardous waste disposal to households through a
contract with the City of San Rafael Fire Department and Novato Sanitary District.
BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
Basis of accounting refers to the point at which revenues or expenditures/expenses are
recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. It relates to the timing
of the measurement made regardless of the measurement focus applied.
10
&
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
ACCRUAL:
The governmental activities in the governmental-wide financial statements are presented on
the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are
recognized when incurred.
MODIFIED ACCRUAL:
The government fund financial statements are presented on the modified accrual basis of
accounting. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recorded when
susceptible to accrual; i.e., both measurable and available. "Available" means collectible
within the current period or within 60 days after year-end. Expenditures are generally
recognized when the related liability is incurred. The exception to this general rule is that
principal and interest on general obligation long-term debt, if any, is recognized when due.
There were no differences between the two bases of accounting for the year ended June 30,
2007.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT AMOUNTS
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS:
The Authority has defined cash and cash equivalents to include cash on hand, demand
deposits, and short-term investments with fiscal agent (County of Marin).
Equipment and infrastructure
It is the Authority's policy to record purchases of items of furniture and equipment costing
$1,000 or less as office supplies. Items in excess of $1,000 are classified as capital outlay or
capitalized. As of June 30, 2007, no equipment purchases have met the capitalization
criteria.
BUDGET
Both the original budget and the final budget (if changes were adopted) are included in these
financial statements as approved by the Board of Directors. The budgetary basis is the
modified accrual basis of accounting.
11
t 77
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
2. CASH
The Authority maintains all of its cash in the County of Marin pooled investment fund for
the purpose of increasing interest earnings through pooled investment activities. Interest
earned on the investment pool is allocated quarterly to the participating funds using the daily
cash balance of each fund. This pool, which is available for use by all funds, is displayed in
the financial statements as "Cash."
The County Pool includes both voluntary and involuntary participation from external
entities. The State of California statutes require certain special districts and other
governmental entities to maintain their cash surplus with the County Treasurer.
The County's investment pool is not registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an investment company. Investments made by the Treasurer are regulated
by the California Government Code and by the County's investment policy. The objectives
of the policy are in order of priority, safety, liquidity, yield, and public trust. The County
has established a' treasury oversight committee to monitor and review the management of
public funds maintained in the investment pool in accordance with Article 6 Section 27131
of the California Government Code. The oversight committee and the Board of Supervisors
review and approve the investment policy annually. The County Treasurer prepares and
submits a comprehensive investment report to the members of the oversight committee and
the investment pool participants every month. The report covers the types of investments in
the pool, maturity dates, par value, actual costs and fair value.
INTEREST RATE RISK
In accordance with its investment policy, the County manages its exposure to declines in
fair values by limiting the weighted average maturity of its investment pool to 540 days, or
1.5 years. At June 30, 2007, the County's investment pool had a weighted average maturity
of 238 days.
For purposes of computing weighted average maturity, the maturity date of variable rate
notes is the length of time until the next reset date rather than the stated maturity date.
CREDIT RISK
State law and the County's Investment Policy limits investments in commercial paper,
corporate bonds, and medium term notes to the rating of "A" or higher as provided by
Moody's Investors Service or Standard & Poor's Corporation. The County's Investment
Policy limits investments purchased by Financial Institution Investment Accounts, a type of
mutual fund, to United States Treasury and Agency obligations with a credit quality rating
of "AAA."
12
lS
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2007
2. CASH (continued)
CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK
The following is a summary of the concentration of credit risk by investment type as a
percentage of each pool's fair value at June 30, 2007.
Percent of
Portfolio
Investments in Investment Pool
U.S. Agency
U.S. Treasury
Local Agency Investment Fund
Money market funds
Certificates of deposits
Commercial paper
53010
22%
50/0
3%
10%
7%
1000/0
CUSTODIAL CREDIT RISK
For investments and deposits held with safekeeping agents, custodial credit risk is the risk
that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the County will not be able to recover the
value of its investments or deposits that are in the possession of an outside party. At year
end, the County's investment pool had no securities exposed to custodial credit risk.
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
The County Treasurer's Pool maintains an investment in the State of California Local
Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), managed by the State Treasurer. This fund is not
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment company, but is
required to invest according to California State Code. Participants in the pool include
voluntary and involuntary participants, such as special districts and school districts for
which there are legal provisions regarding their investments. The Local Investment Advisor
Board (Board) has oversight responsibility for LAIF. The Board consists of five members
as designated by State statue.
13
171
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
3. RISK MANAGEMENT
The Autho~ity is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and
destruction of assets; and errors and omissions. During the year, the Authority purchased
liability insurance with limits of $2,000,000 and a deductible of $1 ,000.
4. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The County of Marin is a member of the Authority. The County Public Works Department
provided staffing for the Authority for a fee of $242,191 for the year. Additionally, the
Authority paid the County of Marin $15,147 for rent and $5,850 for indirect overhead.
The Authority incurred expenditures of $1,118,1 79 under a contract with the City of San
Rafael (a member government) to operate its household waste program. As of June 30,
2007, accrued expenses to the City of San Rafael amounted to $827,248. The Authority has
budgeted $1,300,000 for these services for the 2007-08 fiscal year.
14
)
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE
COUNTYWIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL FUND (CWM)
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
Variance
Original Final Favorable
Budget Budget Actual (U nfavorable)
REVENUES:
Waste management fees $ 303,083 $ 303,083 $ 303,082 $ (1)
Operating grant - State of California 7,000 1,492 (5,508)
Investment earnings 1,664 1,664 9,836 8,172
Total revenues 304,747 311,747 314,410 2,663
EXPENDITURES:
Contract staff and support 242,191 242,191 242,191
Services and supplies:
Equipment repairs & maintenance 1,000 1,000 1 ,000
Document reproduction 2,000 2,000 2,000
Computer supplies 1,000 1,000 1,000
Outreach 20,000 20,000 12,3 11 7,689
Rent 15,147 15,147 15,147
Training 1,500 1,500 410 1,090
Office supplies 2,500 2,500 2,304 196
Business meals 26 (26)
Mileage and routine travel 600 600 600
Contract services 1,094 (1,094 )
Legal 4,000 4,000 750 3,250
Accounting and audit fees 7,500 7,500 7,500
Miscellaneous services 7,000 7,604 ( 604 )
Insurance 18,241 18,241 16,590 1,651
Indirect county fees 5,850 5,850 5,850
Total services and supplies 79,338 86,338 69,586 16,752
Total expenditures 321,529 328,529 311,777 16,752
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER EXPENDITURES $ (16,782) (16,782) 2,633 $ 19,415
Fund balance as of June 30,2006 80,836
Fund balance as of June 30,2007 $ 83,469
15
l2> (
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
BUDGET COMPARISON SCHEDULE
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM (NNO)
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
Original Variance
and Final Favorable
Budget Actual (U nfavo ra ble)
REVENUES:
Solid waste management fees $ 1,231,608 1,231,608 $
Investment earnings 9,052 47,608 38,556
Total revenues 1,240,660 1,279,216 38,556
EXPENDITURES:
Contract services and support 7,490 7,490
Contract services 1,307,132 1,118,179 188,953
Total expenditures 1,314,622 1,125,669 188,953
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER EXPENDITURES $ (73,962) 153,547 $ 227,509
Fund balance June 30,2006 540,998
Fund b~lance June 30,2007 $ 694,545
16
,L
7A
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
AB 939 Local Task Force Meeting
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Suite 200-A Conference Room
65 Mitchell Blvd., San Rafael
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tom Gaffney, Ross Valley Cities
Greg Christie, Bay Cities Refuse
Jon Elam, Tamalpais CSD
Patricia Garbarino, Marin Sanitary
Loretta Figueroa, Almonte Sanitary District
Kim Huff, Southern Marin Cities
MEMBERS ABSENT
Terry Cosgrove, San Rafael
Ramin Khany, Redwood Landfill
Matt McCarron, Novato
Tania Levy, Unincorporated Area
STAFF PRESENT
Michael Frost, JPA Staff
Alex Soulard, JPA Staff
Jeff Rawles, JPA Staff
OTHERS PRESENT
Tamara Hull, Sustainable San Rafael
Bruce Baum, Green Coalition
Marilyn McConnell, Public
David Haskell, Public
Judy Schriebman, Las Gallinas San Dist.
Fred Grange, Grange Debris Box
Jim Iavarone, Mill Valley Refuse
Dave Della Zappa, Mill Valley Refuse
1. Call to Order. The Local Task Force (L TF) meeting came to order at 9:00 AM.
2. Approval of JPA Local Task Force Meetinq Minutes from December 5.2007. Tom
Gaffney requested correction to minutes. Mis, Gaffney, Garbarino to approve the
December 5, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion approved unanimously.
3. Open Time for Public Comment. David Haskell stated that the JPA passed a Zero
Waste Resolution 14 months ago, and the public has seen no action taken on
developing an RFI or appointing new L TF Members.
4. Subcommittee Development. L TF members discussed that there would be three
subcommittees, Construction and Demolition, Progressive Can Rates, and Foodwaste
Composting. Task Force members discussed the need for the groups to prioritize
work needed to be done, signing up tasks and bringing a report back to the meetings.
An email would be sent out to members not present allowing them to pick a
subcommittee and develop an emaillist serve for all staff, members and public.
5. Proqressive Can Rates. Loretta Figueroa reported on Almonte District's rate structure
and on a Seattle rate structure study. The Task Force members discussed the report
and on how many bins are given for green waste, recycling and garbage and if
progressive can rates are truly the effective way to cut down waste.
Page 1 of 2
19
6. Construction and Demolition Materials. Staff reported on C & D materials and the
problem with enforcement ordinances within the County. Staff also reported on a C&D
guide being developed using CIWMB grant funds.
7. Foodwaste CompostinQ. Staff reported on gathering data from various sites and
companies and finding who would be able to accept Marin's foodwaste. Redwood
Landfill is looking to expand and Marin Sanitary Service is looking toward food waste
composting.
8. Adiourn. Next meeting is February 6 at 10:30am in 65 Mitchell Blvd.
F:\ Waste\JP A \L TF\MINUTES\08-01-02.doc
Page 2 of 2
l\
7B
DRAFT
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
AB 939 Local Task Force Meeting
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Suite 200-A Conference Room
65 Mitchell Blvd., San Rafael
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tom Gaffney, Ross Valley Cities
Terry Cosgrove, San Rafael
Jon Elam, Tamalpais CSD
Patricia Garbarino, Marin Sanitary
Loretta Figueroa, Almonte Sanitary District
Kim Huff, Southern Marin Cities
Tania Levy, Unincorporated Area
Ramin Khany, Redwood Landfill
Matt McCarron, Novato
STAFF PRESENT
Michael Frost, JPA Staff
Alex Soulard, JPA Staff
OTHERS PRESENT
Steve McCaffrey, Redwood Empire Disp.
Tamara Hull, Sustainable San Rafael
Judy Schriebman, Las Gallinas San Dist.
Ed Mainland, Sustainable Novato
Marilyn McConnell, Public
Dee Johnson, Novato Disposal
1. Call to Order. The Local Task Force (L TF) meeting came to order at 9:04 AM.
2. Approval of JPA Local Task Force Meetinq Minutes from January 2, 2008. MIs, Elam,
Figueroa to approve the January 2, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion approved
unanimously.
3. Open Time for Public Comment. Ed Mainland stated that the presentation from Debra
Kaufman was helpful, the L TF should have presentations from Kevin Miller and Robert
Haley, and that a JPA work to reform the franchise agreements to get to zero waste.
Members requested staff invite Kevin Miller of Napa to present at the next meeting.
Staff reported interviews are taking place March 5th and final appointment will be made
by the JPA. Staff also reported that the RFI will receive responses by end of the
month.
4. Waste Manaqement Infrastructure Description. Staff reported on the current waste
infrastructure in Marin listing the four private and one community haulers, nineteen
franchising agencies, recycling and buyback centers, household hazardous waste
facilities and three composting facilities within Marin County. Members requested staff
prepare a flowchart that would show the waste flow of Marin from franchise agencies
to haulers and disposal or recovery facilities used. Local Task Force Members
discussed possibilities to regulate non-franchised haulers.
Page 1 of 2
I~S
5. Subcommittee Reports.
o Construction and Demolition Materials The subcommittee reported they had
met twice and discussed that all cities should adopt identical C and D
ordinances and that the JPA could develop a streamline reporting form that
can be easily verified at the landfill to meet diversion requirements. Members
stated there was concern that there are not enough enforcement.
o Proqressive Can Rates Subcommittee members met one time and discussed
looking at who has developed variable rates, and how different rate structures
work. The Task force members discussed how proportional rates give a
subsidy to small cans, which can be balanced by fining small can users who
overfill their cans. The group discussed changing the frequency of pickups for
different can types.
o Foodwaste Compostinq The subcommittee reported on Marin Sanitary's pilot
foodwaste composing program, that there in not much room at permitted
composting facilities, there is a potential to work with the sanitary district to
digest these materials, and there would be a potential fieldtrips to Berkeley that
would be helpful. PG&E gave a grant to the City of San Rafael to work with the
Central Marin Sanitation Agency and Marin Sanitary to develop a program to
generate energy from foodwaste. They are looking into the use of modular
anaerobic digesters. Staff stated they are working with the Master Gardener's
and the Marin Art and Garden Center to consider developing a backyard
composting program.
6. Adiourn. Next meeting is April 2,2008 in 65 Mitchell Blvd.
F:\ WasteVP A\L TF\MINUTES\08-03-05.doc
Page 2 of 2
f6b
7C
DRAFT
MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
AB 939 Local Task Force Meeting
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Suite 200-A Conference Room
65 Mitchell Blvd., San Rafael
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tom Gaffney, Ross Valley Cities
David Haskell, Environmental
Jon Elam, Tamalpais CSD
Patricia Garbarino, Marin Sanitary
Loretta Figueroa, Almonte Sanitary District
Tamara Hull, Environmental
Tania Levy, Unincorporated Area
Ramin Khany, Redwood Landfill
MEMBERS ABSENT
Kim Huff, Southern Marin Cities
Matt McCarron, Novato
Terry Cosgrove, San Rafael
Trip Allen, Environmental
Greg Christie, Bay Cities (Alternate)
STAFF PRESENT
Michael Frost, JPA Staff
Alex Soulard, JPA Staff
OTHERS PRESENT
Bruce Baum, Green Coalition
Jim Iavarone, Mill Valley Refuse Service
Judy Schriebman, Las Gallinas San Dist.
Ellen Hopkins, Zero Waste CAC
Kevin Miller, City of Napa
Dee Johnson, Novato Disposal
Dave Della Zappa, Mill Valley Refuse
Steve McCaffrey, Redwood Empire Disp.
Joe Garbarino, Marin Sanitary Service
1. Call to Order. The Local Task Force (L TF) meeting came to order at 9:05 AM.
2. Envirnonmental Local Task Force Member Update. Staff announced that the JPA
Board approved three new environmental members to the Local Task Force. The
three additional members are Tamara Hull, David Haskell and Trip Allen. The Local
Task Force welcomed the new members.
3. Open Time for Public Comment. Bruce Baum stated that the Local Task Force
falsified a Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board by not include
the 2016 closure date of Redwood Landfill. He stated that the JPA is not above public
records act requests and that he received worthless information that was not
electronic.
Staff responded that the public records act request is being handled County Council
and is a legal process. Additionally, staff noted if subcommittee meetings will be
attended by enough members to constitute a quorum they should notify staff to
publically notice the meeting.
The Task Force requested that they take a collusion ethics course.
Page 1 of 2
\~ 7
4. Waste Manaqement Infrastructure Flowchart. Staff presented two flowcharts,
requested by the Task Force, which show the flow of disposal from franchising areas
to haulers then treatment facilities. Task Force members requested a few changes to
make the chart more clear and asked questions regarding operations of the haulers.
Patty Garbarino and Ramin Khany answered questions regarding their facilities.
5. Rate Structure Presentation bv Kevin Miller of the City of Napa. Staff introduced Kevin
Miller, the Materials Diversion Administrator for the City of Napa. Kevin described
Napa's process for contracting with a waste hauler and facility operator for the
Materials Diversion Facility (MDF). The City of Napa acquired ownership of their MDF
and developed a contracting process that allowed the city to operate the weigh
stations and collect all revenues. The city then paid the contractor a three percent
profit margin, shared the sales of recyclables, and could financially reward or penalize
based on amount of material processed, diversion performance, and innovation.
The Task Force asked questions on specific material recovery, types of pubic
education done by the contractor, and updates to the contract.
6. Adiourn. The Task Force agreed to have all additional agenda items moved to the
next meeting held on May 7,2008 in 65 Mitchell Blvd.
F:\ WasteVP A \L TF\MINUTES\08-03-05.doc
Page 2 of 2
\~g