SR-504-001
e
5,07/-00/
Santa Monica, California
e
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
C1 ty Staff
~"l '0-'Ll
"'S t~
t1ay 15,1979
II ~
'2. '919
Santa Monica Refuse Transfer Stat
Alternatives: Public versus Priv.
C----'-r_ -
'" '-' v.~ ~'0
3.tion
Introduction and Background
The City Counc1l on December 12, 1978, considered a report from staff regarding
5D'1 - I
a long-term refuse disposal plan. The report was the result of a year-long
study for a new landfill disposal site. This study was begun because of the
then lmminent closure of r1ission Canyon landfill.
Presently Santa Mon1ca operates a C1ty-owned transfer facility composed of an
open area where collection trucks dump the refuse. The refuse is then pushed
into a lower level compaction ram which compacts the refuse into heavy duty,
large capacity transfer trailers. This process enables three collection truck
loads to be compacted (transferred) into each transfer trailer which is then
hauled to the landfill by a heavy duty diesel tractor.
The report of December 12, 1978, included a recommendation to authorize staff
to negotiate with a private firm that would lease, rebuild, and operate the
existing refuse transfer station that is owned and operated by the City. The
Council deferred action until the appointment of a new City Manager. Under the
proposal, the contractor proposed to open the facility to other collectors In
surrounding communities and to charge a fee to the City and other local haulers
to dump refuse at the transfer station. In return, the City would have been
guaranteed long-term availability of a landf1ll disposal slte and a modern,
improved transfer facility, and a small share of the fee charged to others.
With the imminent closing of Palos Verdes landfill and the possibility of the
permanent closure of the Mission Canyon landfill site, the proposal for a lon~-
term contract appeared to offer substantial benefits to the Santa Monica solid
waste program. II B
MAY 2 2 1919
e
e
To: Mayor and City Council
-2-
May 15, 1979
For reasons to be discussed below~ staff now makes recommendations which are
considerably different than those made in December.
Fuel Cost - Energy Conservation
The City presently uses the ~~ission Canyon landfill facility which is owned and
operated by Los Angeles County. This site has the capacity to serve the more
than one million res1dents of the west side for an additional 20 years or more,
depending on the extent to which recycling is practiced and on the extent to
which packaging practices change.
Private operators may use this site or one WhlCh they own, depending on the con-
stantly changing economics of the waste disposal business. The proposal which
was submitted to the City by BKK Corp. (Ben Kezerian, et al) of Wilmington,
California, called for disposal at their site in West Covina, a 76-mile round
trip from the City transfer station. If the City maintains control of the refuse
disposal operation, the dumping site will be either Mission Canyon or the County
owned site 10 Puente Hills. The Mission Canyon landfill which is currently used
is a 22-mile round trip from the Santa r~nica transfer station. Puente Hills is
a 62-mile round trip. (See Exhiblt I).
As it appears that there will be a continuing fuel crises in the forseeable
future, prime consideration of fuel costs and fuel conservation must be
considered in all management decisions. Obviously, the fartner the distance
that the refuse must be hauled~ the hioher will be the total cost of hauling,
regardless of who the hauler is.
The impact of fuel cost and conservation is especially important in the event
that the Mission Canyon landfill remains available to Santa r10nica for
at 1east 10 more years. Officials at the Los Angeles County Sanitation
,oy _ ':'<;,r- _ V ~.;;>---""',"~r7 ~ -... -:..-
_~._~~~~~-~~_r> ..... 71-~~- - _.: _.--::'v:~~~-:~~~7~;r~:;~~~~~<
e
e
EXHIBIT I
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PUENTE HILLS
LANNILL
ROUND TRI P DISTANCES
SANTA MONICA: TO MISSION CANYON
TO PUENTE HILLS
TO BKK, INC. WEST COVINA
22 MI LES
62 MILES
76 MILES
e
e
To: Mayor and City Council
-3-
May 15. 1979
District~ operators of Hission Canyon, have stated that there is lIsignifi-
cant political supportll to continue a landfill operation in the Mission
Canyon area. If this support carries through to the approval of a condi-
tional use perMit for long term operation~ Santa ~onica stands to save
substantially in refuse disposal costs. The 22-mile round trip to Mission
Canyon, as opposed to the 76-mile round trip to BKK, could produce large
cost d1fferentials if fuel prices continue to escalate severely.
It should be noted that private operators do not always haul to the nearest
landfill site. The need of landfill operators to obtain solid waste to
"soak up" 1 iquid industrial wastes wf1uences the decision. In the present
case, BKK, which ;5 in need of additional SOlld waste at West Covina, could
opt to haul Santa Monica refuse to that location even though the Mission
Canyon or other nearer facility were available. This would result in higher
costs to Santa Monica citizens in accordance with the fuel pass-through
features of the proposal from BKK. Such practlce would also waste fuel and
contribute to increased air pollution.
Landfill Dump Fees
The BKK proposal offers no financial incentive unless Santa Monica is required
to use Puente Hills Landfill as an alternative to Mission Canyon. Also,
this incentive is somewhat offset because the dUMp fee at Puente Hills is
$.75 per ton less than at Mission Canyon. The additional hauling cost from
Santa Monica to Puente Hills is approximately $1.25 per ton. This means
that the net cost to the City would be $.50 per ton or approx1mately $32,000
per year. This $32,000 would be approxiMately a 6.5% increase in disposal
cost per ton and only a 2% increase in total collection and disposal costs.
e
e
To:
t1ayor and Ci ty Counc i 1
-4-
May 15, 1979
As mentioned above there is at least some probability that Mission Canyon
will remain available. If it is closed and if present conditions continue,
the BKK proposal would save the City onlY about 2% of the total refuse cost.
In return, BKK would control the transfer station.
Regional SOlld Waste Management
In December of 1977, Los Angeles County adopted a County Solid Waste ~anagement
Plan as required by State law. A provis1on of this plan sets up a County
Solid Waste Management Committee charged with the responsibility of oversee1nq
solid waste operations in the County. The purpose of the Plan and the
Committee is to ensure a coordinated effort on the part of private and public
operators to provide efficient and effective solid waste disposal for Los
Angeles County residents.
As yet~ the Committee has not significantly influenced on-going operations.
However, as the shortage of landfill capacity increases, it is felt that
this body will ultimately be more active in coordinating the dlSposltion of solid
waste. Since there are very few publicly owned and operated transfer stations,
lt may be in the best interests of all residents in this area to maintain
the public operations that do exist in order to counter balance the near
monopoly of refuse transfer facilities that the private firms presently enJoy.
e
e
To: Mayor and City Council
-5-
May 15, 1979
Utilization of Transfer Station Property
In previous discussions concerning the transfer station, Counci1members
have asked whether a transfer station constitutes the best use of the
Clty-owned property of approximately .8 acre where the facility is
located.
Staff recently calculated that the operation of the transfer station saves
the City $350,000 to $400,000 per year in refuse collection and disposal
costs. If the transfer station were not operating, each collection truck
would be required to drive to the landfill rather than dumping at the
transfer station. This additional drlving would generate increased costs
as follows:
1. Addit10nal fuel costs.
2. Collection time available would be cut 30% due to the increased
haul time. This would require a 30% increase in the work force
and vehicle fleet.
3. Additional equipment maintenance cost.
As a comparison, it is estimated by City staff that this .8 acre parcel
could be leased for approximately $50,000 to $100,000 per year for
industr1al use.
It is clear then that the transfer station provides a financial return to
the City much greater than would be available on the open market.
Recycling and Resource Recovery
Although at present not economically feasible, it should be mentioned
that the City could conduct recycling and resource recovery programs
1n an effort to conserve natural resources and reduce the solid
e
e
To: Mayor and City Council
-6-
nay 15, 1979
waste stream. It 1S very doubtful, however, whether a prlvate firm would engage
ln recycling programs unless there was a signlficant profit to be reallzed.
It should also be noted that even wlth lntense recycllng efforts, at least 50%
to 60% of the solid waste remains to be hauled to a landfill. It thus follows
that a transfer statlon will always be needed and will become increasingly more
important as landfill sites become more distant and as fuel costs escalate.
The Present Condltions of the Transfer Statlon
As was d15cussed in the previous report, the present transfer facility has
several deficiencies that need correction:
1. The present facility is working at nearly full capaclty. Although growth
of the refuse stream lS not expected to be large, some provislon must be
made for future growth. The present fac11ity will not handle much more volume.
2. The packlng mechanlsm of the transfer statlon is 20 years old. Although
it is still functlonlng, malntenance costs are increasing and packlng effl-
ciency has almost certainly decreased.
3. The dumping area of the transfer statlon is composed of asphalt. During
dumpln9 and loading operations, thlS asphalt becomes damaged to the pOlnt
that extensive repairs are required. Street Maintenance personnel estimate
these repalrs cost approximately $3,000 per year. A concrete slab would
eliminate the need for such repalrs.
4. The present transfer station is open air, enclosed only by a chain-link
fence. This situatlon creates an attraction for blrds, it lS aesthetlcally
disp1easlng to passersby, and can contribute to a litter problem to surround-
ing properties. especially lf the wind is blowlng briskly. The construction
of an enclosure would alleviate these problems.
5. Any transfer station improvement or expanslon should consider provislons for:
A. Possible resource recovery activity.
B. Possible capacity expansion so that the facillty could be opened to
other haulers if conditions warranted. (Possibly doubled.)
C. Possibility of new lnnovatlons 1n resource recovery and separation.
e
e
To: Mayor and City Council
-7-
t~y 15, 1979
6. During rainy weather, accumulated trash sitting in this
transfer station is In the open and absorbs a considerable
amount of water. This adds extra tonnage to the rubbish
which must be paid for at the landfill, as landfill charges
are on a per-ton basis.
7. Other minor problems with the transfer station that could be
solved with an improvement program:
A. Compaction pit becomes flooded during ralny weather,
requiring hand pumping.
B. At present. when refuse trailer disengages from packer,
a lot of trash is spilled, requiring manpower and a
loader to clean it up. This leads to wasted time.
C. The push wall which helps guide the refuse into the
compactor is too small to allow for the most efflcient
loading operation.
Even with the problems listed above, the Santa Monica transfer station is
being operated in an economical and efficient manner. A study published
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1976 supports
this statement. The study compared operating costs of 12 transfer stations
throughout the country. Of the 12 facilities surveyed, Santa Monica had
the third lowest 'cost per ton and was 38% lower in operating costs than
the average for the 12 facilities. (See Exhibit II).
Further evidence that the present facility is well managed is the fact
that rates charged in Santa Monica for refuse collection and disposal
(which completely cover operation costs), are among the lowest in the
County for the level of service provided (twice week1y collection).
--- ---~ - - ~
. ; e e
. ~i
In N ~ a;) :@
In 00 en ~
'<I' .-..
co:: I CIl
Vl
I ~! <ll
-I
o 0" C ,n l""} CO LO '-0 IIJII:!" U") r-.Nc:l C"O <\l <0 c:l ~
..---."'"""-1'-0 -1.0 . +q-"Ct c:") ........ c=) ~'d'~ <O~ CO
CO-NN-=1" ---Q' ~. M N
"'0 -.... .- IN M
Nr- ....- ......
~~ ~
"~ r : ~ 0
OON~Ol"C-'Q"aL..."':l ~N~ O'oco<:t"
o .~. 0<00 N~ ...... ..... C'> <=J N""~ M
; I ~l N ..., N
N t.O
II
C . !
1'0 I o,......aL.l".1~..nLO--~~ en<OCl ....coo Nv 010'1
~ I~' N U'" '" N '" N co Mon", "=' co <d" ~
N N - . ~ .
N N MILD
1J"l I ....oC"\CX)I"""'""r-"n-tnC'"")M ..........~ eM
I M ..0 en
--- 0>1 """" ...... N NL.."')~ _N oqo .;;0
'" ..... M -
N "J
:z I I
I
V> I )
~5 c:ll co' -=J'OlJ"'l-:..n-C'.Jt"o-.CO ~.....o 0'\.".0 C ......
I Ni.J..JII..OO~ ('oJ <Xl (:0 ..... 0"0 N ceO
l- N .., Lr> .., ...
U'. t9 ....., c;r
:>-
Vl >,
c:: U
.~ C
w l.e __
u... OOONLOC'I"')r-...-LOr- 0'd'0 ~""'O .......... "'0 (]J
~ VI oc::::.a M ....,,:0 c:l co V"" .........., C C"l
z f~ 1 1..Or-M ...., .... rOc(
c:( ...... N
c:: l
I- "'\::
t- QO
('oJ C"r-
...... or- +>
-
r.D u... OC'1-0('.,l..rI")..-_r-(\"I.c:r MO'>M ....,.......... <0'-<> -0 U
0 <.:> 0\..,.1.0 N "''''CO ....,<0...... C'> C'I "C (]J
I ...... N - <lJ-I-'
- VI M M S- O
......
I VI .J::. S-
a Vl Cl..
>.< u
W a onl ("t,.(U"""~;.,("o.........--o:.n"-q-- ~c:lO .,.-cOO ......"" .,.....
::a:: ...-r'""li....-r--..N '" ..... co '" <.:) N N'd' So.. 1'0
<: .- M <ll+>
...... N M '+- c
V}
u II) <ll
..... c E
I- rO C
VI I S- O
Ow:: O-N'--"'--"'-"""'" a ...,M..... c:<)"'".., N
0:: I ~I ..... ..... <0 NN 0"0 ~ co Ci'\.-_ ""'..... ~ S-
'-' ,.,...... N ~ N 0 ..- ..-= or-
I- -..... roo S- >
<J ! ,... ......c:;l >, 0 c
< ....
0:: 4-- UJ
cc c
;::l .:,(.
V C"ICOOM{'I,J-r--~rr') oo;;:rO\co e:; C"J N "'...... ~
co M C""J N en '<T on \0 c::; "I:::" \C M 0=
...., N ~ . 0 0
N ..,. f"J ..0 (]J
'=' "'t:l +>
'=' <; c II)
- '" II:;l 1'0
.Q ..... :r::::::
'" 000 f"")U')__(""")-.::r u:2 NO;:- ......0'<0 \ON
l- N NM.....r"J '" I""'" ::0-....... c::l....'" ...... Ln C t:n "'0
'" '" '" "'0 .,....
..... C\,l s:: ..-
.... or- .....
C
0 .j..) 0
.,.... II:;l (/)
.... E
r--.O~t..(')CLt')C".I~r-Ln MOJCO r-.l"."") ("oJ 0..., '" r- '+-
C~C """ .- .... NL..'1iO\ <:r ""- ....
M.......... ..... ..... ..... +-> 0
1,0) \L> III
~ W O"l
Q..I
'" .... c
CJ - - .... .j..) .,....
'" IV '" ..... '" - Vl r-
'" >, ~ "';i '- >- '" Or-
a <0 '0 '" >-
c ..... ...., .... .... U ..-
0 2:'" ...,~ ....1 ;;j '0 ;: <4-
~ ....... r.... r....c ,&,.,l' 0 0 0 "'0
-' <:.l '" 0"-' "" ""=' .:'31 ~ -0 :;:: c\.o
I ." g~ ~, 3i ....
- '- - c '" 0'" -01 c .... c.... 0 ltl .--
.J >-'0 ~.) -= -....... ~ >0 .... e-l 0 L r.... or.... r.... r....~0"\
"'~ c:.. ~ CJ........ '-- <:.l 0 "'.... ~I 0"".... 0<0 0 ~ r-
QCC 0;.," E~ <1J....> ~: ..-..."1 -.... oil ....
-, ....... - - - Q.~""'" ....~o .....- 0 ......- t'
.....1 .....~ '+- ...J:::::'I>-"':::~...;...J~ ....q ~o'-' ~ow ~O as Vl
"'l ':::"_0 ;;e-o.. <I1V'V>:::J ~~ "tJ ""I ~ "C C1 (]J /0 +>
~1 0 '-~- ='1 '-~.... ~I ....~ '" S-~ III
~'-'- c;__'t-......'I4-4- '" '" <::1 '" '" '" '-
'" '::I '- 1..00 00 ....... ~c~ ~; CJ':=...... ~c Q..I :::::I'r- ::l
<1J ~ ::J:..ilo..-~ 0; >00 ~;~I :>-00 >- 0 ". 01 C en
<:1 =>>- :>- ..:;: '- >- '- l- I __r- .... i- -- I- .- _1 --.... < r- ltl ::::l
.". ff,)..........-... ""'::!'-::3 'l.I C,l "'<:.> ......; ~, ....1'" --. -...... -, lL.. V) o::x:
'-j ~ v't I....~ <U C ;::~-e-.?-:? ~l "" ~ '- ",to. "'''"''+- ~I ",... .....
.sl c... - -,.,~ - - E - - - .... o' 0 ~iUi ........Q ........ ..",
~c'":)-~=_=:=:::; ::1 c ::'J ::'JC 00
<l-Ov")~Ci:z:::z= ....U~ ....., I-Uil-'! ~'-' -j(
3
e
e
To: Mayor and City Council
-8-
May 15, 1979
Transfer Station Improvement Alternatives
Alternative #1 -- Contract with a Private Firm
As discussed above, staff is withdrawing the recommendation to enter into
contract negotiations with a particular private refuse firm to rebuild and
operate the City transfer station. The option of contracting with a private
refuse firm still remains an alternative, however.
It is staff's opinion that this action would require a formal bidding
procedure as there are at least two organizations that own landfill sites
and which have expressed interest in this project. If this alternative is
lmplemented, it lS staff's recommendation that all bidders be prequal1fied
with regard to their record of compliance with air pollution standards and
other environmental regulations.
The major advantage of contracting with a private operator is that the
capital improvements will be financed by the operator and recovered from the
City through a user fee. ThlS arrangement would increase the operation cost
per ton to the City somewhat because the private operation would require
some level of profit on top of the operating and amortization costs. However,
this method would eliminate the need for capital financing by the City.
Alternative #2 -- City Financed Transfer Station Improvements
Staff has determined that a package of the most essential needed improvements
to the existing transfer station can be imp1ernented using City funds at a
cost of approximately $100,000. A more comprehensive improvement program
that will eliminate most of the deflciencies descrlbed above and provide an
attractive, enclosed facility would cost approxlmately $300,000. Funds
for either of the above are presently available. No increase in refuse rates
~
e
e
To: Mayor and City Council
-9-
May 15, 1979
would be needed, since capital lmprovements were anticipated when the present
rates were established.
Staff is prepared to discuss details of this alternative with Council during
the upcoming budget hearings.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Counell approve Alternatlve #2. This alternative will
provide needed transfer station improvements uSlng City funds. Selection of
this alternative will allow the City to maintain full control of the transfer
operation, make the needed improvements, and retain the choice of landfill
sltes. Staff believes it is of paramount importance to maintain this control
in light of the unsettled conditions of fuel costs and supplYt and the
unstable envlronment of regional solid waste manage~ent.
Prepared by:
Stan Scholl
Neil Miller