sr-120611-8bCity of City Council Report
Santa Monica°
City Council Meeting: December 6, 2011
Agenda Item: 8- d
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works
Subject: Resource Recovery Center Update
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and comment on staff's proposal to cancel the design and construction of
the Resource Recovery Center and self -haul facility at the City Yards.
2. Authorize the City Manager to cancel the agreement with J. R. Miller &
Associates for the design of the Resource Recovery Center (RRC).
3. Direct staff to develop a new material processing plan in conjunction with
Southern California Disposal (SCD) and Allan Company.
Executive Summary
Staff has been reviewing the current agreement for the design, construction, and
operations of the Resource Recovery Center due to the high cost of building the
facilities and its corresponding rate impacts, changing space needs at the City Yards
and the goal of developing and implementing a zero waste strategic plan. There is a
need for flexibility and creative partnerships to achieve cost effective waste diversion
activities. Staff proposes that the City no longer build a materials recovery facility at a
cost of $20M and a self -haul facility at a cost of $12M with substantial rate impact to
customers. As an alternate, staff recommends developing a new material processing
plan in partnership with SCD to achieve effective and efficient waste diversion.
Background
On June 28, 2005, Council authorized the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee consisting
of Council Members Ken Genser and Herb Katz to participate with staff in the
identification and analysis of a range of solid waste management options for Council's
consideration. On October 25, 2005, Council authorized a contract with Gershman,
1
Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) to assist staff with this effort. On March 14, 2006, GBB
presented the results of the evaluation of Solid Waste operations to Council. Key
findings of the evaluation include:
• Costs were higher than revenues
• Reserve funds were inadequate
• Single- family and commercial rates did not cover the costs of service
• Multi- family rates exceeded the costs of service
• Transfer and disposal costs exceeded revenue
At the March 14, 2006 study session, Council also considered various policy issues that
would set the framework for moving the study forward, such as the importance of
exceeding State - required diversion goals, maintaining control of the waste stream, and
how to best position solid waste operations for the long -term.
In 2007, the City issued two Requests for Proposals. (RFP) to provide solid waste
services, in which the City competed against private companies. The commercial
collections RFP provided for the City and private companies to bid on providing all or a
portion of commercial collection services, including roll off services. The transfer and
disposal RFP provided for the City and private companies to bid on providing all or
some services from recycling to transfer to disposal.
The commercial collection RFP articulated goals that would allow for efficient and cost
effective service, utilize competition to ensure that services are market driven, achieve
diversion goals and reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and emission of greenhouse
gases.
The transfer and disposal RFP articulated goals that would allow for maximum
diversion, equitable rates, efficient and cost - effective transfer services, utilize
competition to ensure transfer services are market driven and enter into long -term
contracts to achieve secure arrangements and predictable costs.
2
On October 30, 2007, Council directed staff to engage in formal discussions with private
firms to provide transfer and recycling services. On January 25, 2008, staff presented
an Information Item that provided an update on the development of a public /private
partnership and also outlined additional key City objectives, which included:
• A site plan that provided for future separation of the various functions should the
City not renew the contract after the fifteen year period or should contract
disputes arise.
• The City would retain a solid waste permit.
• There would be two solid waste permits (one for the City, one for SCD) that could
be reviewed and approved concurrently.
• A desire for the City to retain value of revenue from recyclables for the benefit of
rate payers.
• A full functioning Convenience Center (public drop off area).
• Minimize construction over the landfill area within the site for the new facilities.
• Keep City streets open to the maximum extent possible, while improving site
traffic flow.
• Assumed City ownership of assets on City property and City financing of
construction on City property.
• Maintain emergency access to Mountain View Mobile Home Park.
• Identification of a possible location for a biodiesel fueling facility that does not
impact transfer /recycling center traffic flows.
On May 22 2008, Council conceptually approved the partnership with SCD and Allan
Company. On November 25 2008, Council approved service agreements with SCD
and Allan Company, which are summarized below.
Allan Company Agreement: The public /private partnership with Allan Company
included processing of all recyclable materials collected curbside, the continuation of a
buy back center, and a 24 -hour drop off area for recyclable materials. Allan Company's
financial obligations to the City included:
• A $526,000 upfront payment upon signing the agreement.
• Revenue sharing of $30.00 per ton delivered.
• A host community fee of $4.50 per ton for all recyclables received at the
recycling center, including material brought to the facility by the City.
9
• And, 50% of any revenue received above $135 per ton.
The City, at its own expense, would build a new materials recovery facility enclosing the
existing recycling center, a new buyback center with scale house, offices and a new
drop off center accessible 24 -hours per day, seven days per week. This agreement is
not in effect until funding for the RRC facility is approved by Council.
Southern California Disposal Agreement: The City's agreement with SCD included
delivery of all City - collected waste, green materials, and food scraps to the existing SCD
transfer facility. SCD agreed to transfer all these materials to disposal and processing
sites as designated by the City. The City would pay SCD $22.28 per ton for the transfer
of City waste within a designated zone. This fee increases with miles traveled to
different disposal and processing sites. The City would continue to ,pay all disposal
costs at the end locations. The SCD transfer facility permits up to 1,056 tons per day of
waste. In addition, the agreement required SCD to operate a self -haul facility. The City
would utilize its existing 400 ton per day maximum permit as the parameters for this
operation. The self -haul facility would accept waste, construction and demolition debris,
and landscape materials. The self -haul facility would be designed and constructed by
the City, at its own expense, with a capacity of up to 400 tons per day maximum. SCD
would operate the self -haul facility, the scale house and scales, and receive payments
for operating this facility from the gate rate.
Discussion
The City proceeded with the planning process and designed the RRC during 2009 and
2010 at a cost of $803,540. Over this period of time the City conducted numerous
public meetings and Council certified a mitigated negative declaration. Upon completion
of the design of the RRC, the City contracted with a design /builder, at a cost of $65,000
to assist in estimating the cost of constructing these facilities. The cost of the complex
was estimated at $32M. This is due in part to the expense of constructing facilities on
an existing landfill. The City planned to incur the debt on the $32M construction cost of
M
a new Resource Recovery Center and service the debt through rates for solid waste
collection.
Staff evaluated the rate impacts of constructing a $32M facility. Rates could have
escalated by 42% in the first year alone. This would equate to a single family
household with one time per week collection paying an additional $17.14 per month for
waste collection services. Due to the size of this increase, staff undertook a re-
evaluation of the concept for a RRC in consideration of additional factors such as the
antiquated City Yards facilities that have outgrown their useful life and space. Other
City Services will need to be relocated and due to the EXPO light rail, a location is
needed for the Public Safety Storage Facility. Additionally, staff is in the process of
developing a Zero Waste Strategic Plan, which will need a flexible facility to
accommodate evolving disposal strategies and trends.
On June 23, 2009, Council directed staff to develop a Zero Waste Strategic Plan. The
creation of the Plan would allow the City to strengthen its current waste diversion
operations while addressing significant challenges and utilizing emerging technologies.
The City established the Zero Waste Planning Committee to effectively design and
implement a zero waste program. This Committee was comprised of the RRR Division,
the OSE Division, and the City's private partners, Southern California Disposal and
Allan Company. Numerous meetings were held between September 2009 and August
2010 to establish methodologies to develop a Zero Waste Strategic Plan. Several
processes and programs were discussed and implemented including a pilot residential
green food waste program, expansion of the commercial food waste program, audits of
landfills to determine diversion rates and using a consultant to assist in the development
of a complete Zero Waste Strategic Plan through 203Q. As staff continues to develop
programs to increase waste diversion and commodity collection, there is a need for
flexibility and creative partnerships to achieve cost and program effective waste
diversion activities.
5
Staff met with Allan Company and SCD to discuss the need to re- evaluate space use at
the City Yards due to functional needs for Public Works operations, the addition of
offsite service consolidation, and the need to provide for public safety storage. In
addition, we need to provide opportunities for new waste diversion programs at rates
much lower than originally determined. Staff is seeking Council's comment on
proposed direction and revised concepts to move forward with the following new
concepts for the Allan Company and SCD agreements.
Allan Company New Concept: The City would not build a materials recovery facility
on city owned land at an estimated cost of $20M.. Allan Company's existing agreement
is not in effect until Council approves the funding. The new concept would require Allan
Company to vacate the land that it leases from the City to process recyclable materials
locally. The City would continue to collect materials curbside, however the City would
deliver recyclable materials to SCD, which in turn, would transfer and haul to another
Allan Company facility outside of the City. Allan Company would continue to pay the
City a per ton fee for these materials, however the City would no longer receive a host
community fee. Residents and businesses in Santa Monica would still be able to
recycle materials to several locations within a five mile proximity to Santa Monica,
including a buy back facility located at the Albertson's on Lincoln Boulevard. A map and
list of locations is provided in Attachments 1 and 2. The City would continue to operate
the full functioning Convenience Center (public drop —off). The City would need to
reimburse $526,000 to Allan Company as provided to the City upon signing the
agreement, which is available in the FY11/12 RRR budget.
Southern California Disposal New Concept: The City would no longer build a self -
haul facility estimated at $12M. The new concept for the SCD agreement does not alter
the current acceptance of the City curbside collection of waste, green and food scraps,
and construction and demolition materials at their existing 1,056 ton per day facility.
The City is currently using SCD for the transfer and hauling of its waste, green and food
scraps, and construction and demolition materials in accordance with the 2008
R
agreement. The City would expand the existing agreement and look to partner with
SCD to develop and implement procedures for transferring and hauling materials as
designated in the City's Zero Waste Strategic Plan including the recyclable materials to
be transferred and hauled to Allan Company.
To take on this additional volume, SCD would need more land in order to provide
transfer services for additional commodities, which will include curbside recycling
materials, textiles, additional food scraps, and a Convenience Center (public drop -off).
SCD would need to separate commodities during the tipping and transfer phase to
minimize contamination. The City and SCD are discussing the possibility of using a
portion of property formerly leased to Hansen Aggregates on Frank Street for the
transfer process of additional commodities. The City would remain the owner of the
property and would partner with SCD on the joint development of a facility with the
flexibility to process the commodities for markets. As part of these discussions, staff is
looking at providing for enclosures of these operations to address noise and visual
impacts.
The City is taking a new approach to the partnership with SCD. The concept calls for
utilizing the existing SCD facility and their adjacent property along with City -owned land
for the development of a facility with the room and flexibility to process the additional
stream of materials identified in the proposed Zero Waste Plan. Staff proposes to
continue discussions with SCD on the development of a facility that best fits into limited
amount of the City Yards space for processing of existing and new commodities as
determined in the Zero Waste Plan. In addition, the concept would amend the original
agreement with Allan Company for the processing of all recyclable materials collected at
the curb. This amendment would include a negotiation of costs for the processing of the
City's recyclable materials at another Allan Company facility. Staff will analyze rate
structures throughout this process and present to Council new plans for waste diversion
techniques in Fiscal Year 12/13.
7
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
In choosing the option to not construct a $32 million facility and instead continue
operations with private partners, rate impacts will be less than previously anticipated.
Overall financial impacts are unknown at this time pending further refinement of these
concepts and development of costs. However, when the City cancels its agreement
with Allan Company, the City would need to reimburse Allan Company $526,000,
reimburse SCD for hauling the City's recyclable materials to the Allan Company facility,
and reimburse the General Fund for the Hanson lot lease space from the Resource
Recovery & Recycling Fund. It is anticipated that formal actions on these items would
be brought before the City Council for consideration in 2012.
Prepared by: Kim Braun, Resource Recovery & Recycling Manager
Approved:
Martin Pastucha
Director of Public Works
Forwarded to Council:
Rod Gould
City Manager
Attachments: 1 - List of Recycling /Redemption Centers
2 - Map of Recycling /Redemption Centers
E.
Attachment 1
Recycling Centers in the West Los Angeles Area (Distance from Zip Code 90404)
Recycling Location Name
Address
City
State
Telephone
Distance
Allan Co
2411 Delaware Avenue
Santa Monica
California
(626) 962 -4047
0.44 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
2627 Lincoln Blvd
Santa Monica
California
(951) 520 -1700
1.46 miles
NexCycle
11674 Santa Monica Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(909) 796 -2210
1.57 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
11361 National Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(951) 520 -1700
2.4 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
13401 Washington Blvd
Marina Del Rey
California
(951) 520 -1700
3.01 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
9860 National Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(951) 520 -1700
4.24 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
10772 Jefferson Blvd
Culver City
California
(951) 520 -1700
4.96 miles
Bestwoy Recycling Cc Inc
6001 JEFFERSON BLVD
CULVER CITY
California
(323) 588 -8157
5.16 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
5750 Mesmer Ave
Culver City
California
(951) 520 -1700
5.31 miles
Stimson Recycling Center
6040 Venice Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(323) 525 -1687
5.72 miles
Jefferson Recycling Center Inc
5717 W Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles
California
5.87 miles
SoCal 26
8969 Santa Monica Blvd
West Hollywood
California
(323) 662 -2904
6.38 miles
NexCycle
1430 S Fairfax Ave
Los Angeles
California
(909) 796 -2210
6.43 miles
Green City Recycling
5469 W Adams Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(626) 641 -0746
6.48 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
8824 S Sepulveda Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(951) 520 -1700
6.7 miles
Ponce Recycling Inc
5212 W Adams Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(323) 533 -4862
6.82 miles
Baldwin Hills Recycling Center
5080 Rodeo Rd
Los Angeles
California
(310) 978 -9900
6.89 miles
Roberts Recycling Center
5744 W Manchester Ave
Los Angeles
California
7.11 miles
West Los Angeles Recycling
4422 W Jefferson Blvd
Los Angeles
California
7.46 miles
A Z Recycling Center
4922 W Pico Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(323) 931 -7413
7.65 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
950 N La Brea Ave
Inglewood
California
(951) 520 -1700
7.67 miles
Truley Recyclable
433 W FLORENCE AVE
INGLEWOOD
California
(310) 261 -9330
7.69 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
260 S La Brea Ave
Los Angeles
California
(951) 520 -1700
8.07 miles
Socal 4
7564 Santa Monica Blvd
West Hollywood
California
(323) 662 -2904
8.12 miles
G King Recycling Center
3561 W Slauson Ave
Los Angeles
California
(818) 281 -0370
8.44 miles
E M Recycling Co
4040 W Washington Blvd
Los Angeles
California
(310) 978 -9900
8.46 miles
Ponce Recycling
209 W ARBOR VITAE ST
INGLEWOOD
California
(323) 533 -4862
8.47 miles
NexCycle
14845 Ventura Blvd
Sherman Oaks
California
(909) 796 -2210
8.67 miles
TOMRA Pacific Inc
14049 Ventura Blvd
Sherman Oaks
California
(951) 520 -1700
8.68 miles
Market Recycling Inc
1035 S La Brea Ave
Inglewood
California
(562) 602 -0622
8.81 miles
Garcia Recycling
3300 W Florence #B
Los Angeles
California
(323) 752 -2437
9.12 miles
SoCal #34
6655 SANTA MONICA BLVD
LOS ANGELES
California
(323) 662 -2904
9.13 miles
Attachment 1
Comarena Recycling #3
2501 W Slauson Ave
Los Angeles
California
(310) 641 -0829
9.23 miles
NexCycle
4033 Laurel Canyon Blvd
Studio City
California
(909) 796 -2210
9.24 miles
Yes We Cans
3110 W Florence Ave
Los Angeles
California
(323) 212 -1653
9.25 miles
Al Electronics Recycling Team
2710 W FLORENCE
LOS ANGELES
California
(323) 481 -0287
9.45 miles
Western Recycling
3104 S Western Ave
Los Angeles
California
(323) 732 -4017
9.53 miles
W W Recycling
3870 S Western Ave
Los Angeles
California
(818) 355 -0680
9.57 miles
Eco -Zone Recycling
1804 WILCOX AVE
HOLLYWOOD
California
(818) 612 -8930
9.79 miles
SoCal Recycling #29
1800 W SLAUSON AVE
LOS ANGELES
California
(323) 662 -2904
9.87 miles
Basic Fibres Inc
6019 S Manhattan PI
Los Angeles
California
(323) 753 -3491
9.91 miles
Basic Fibres Inc
6116 S Manhattan PI
Los Angeles
California
(323) 753 -3491
9.95 miles
ero
l�
Attachment 2
Map of Recycling Redemption Centers
WMIe Palo. ^`
n
Lna AMlNea l
"•:v 9fil(NlPalk
apen5yare/
Ho3kvroW `',
F�man d .
A.A
-;.
Rnakm oenyen Pmh
Cnny9e PUk� b ynye
Me
Pak
170
�-
.av eNAV
Lm
veyuowima NmxrviK`
',.
fc�ly
cY Nos Hekywoe \ e>.r �nam
Holl
^2
'yiav P.vk
Y
smia ra;m"a nha
2 101
Srve, lnkx
}
111",
� M1tewase � } °a
3
ea.e:ry &vE Crtmel WEae
�IHanwckPa�A �k},.
BBVeAY Hl16 e.verty W -Ne
COW 4 5Y]N£1 Cenle RA. 11;
YlNaa O.n C i
wlnpe 1
canvYOb
L.osQnge
a
y
^v
$
^`Wpl L05 Palk
r
si
AMl4'ns n � SvtmMarbiivx� �y
"" � `*.
/vq/p
�
M+Ak1do1 fi]. Je.Yer
Me
$8flil:
.r
Prc+�
Monks
CoIVer Cily '(d^
[IL
}
ex .HSS Glcahin
W9s+wlolori
1 '^
IAal vml "Ille Ktt •U L men Pa.k H
6nikdaN Htln Sbb♦
)[4911 PPIF.
\ VSt64Gf.1WnNfd 5 rt q N
O eoera V1.P'A
VeN[e vM i, H01pa15SV,�,�i n
WmoMA.tn
y
e°
"
PolkvWnMOT
�T
`YfIkCO
Marine Hill,
9a 5vvge
�I
ee6a�`PwA
e
9eIRy
PlayaVwW
a'
Fiore
C Q wtt% Wel �P. _ MO-2141 \ "1VrxNa!atAa
In�{ewooQ Palk
Playa Vf
nN fleY
< * Wosbnont
T.a LOSAngeles 1 Lennox
`;Y INemol on9l