HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCTOBER 4,1988
I
I
30:0228
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
ROLL CALL
b
r\~
[.
M I NUT E S
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
REFUSE PROPOSALS STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 4, 1988
The Arcadia City Council met at 5:15 p.m. October 4, 1988 in the
Conference Room of the Council Chambers to consider proposals from
refuse collection firms for the residential refuse collection
agreement in the City of Arcadia.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Young and Harbicht
Councilmember Lojeski (Councilmember Lojeski arrived
at 5:40 p.m.)
The primary purpose of this Study Session was to receive presenta-
tions and additional input, if any, from refuse collection operators
who responded to the City's Request for Proposals. Staff distributed
RFP's to 28 refuse companies in the Greater Los Angeles area. The
following five (5) comp~nies submitted proposals for evaluation:
1. Best Disposal Systems, Monrovia, California
2. BFI, Pacific Region, Pasadena. California
3. Murcole Disposal, Compton, California
4. Webster's Refuse Disposal, Baldwin Park, California
5. Western Waste Industries, Gardena, California
PRESENTATIONS
Of the five companies listed above, three were present to submit
presentations to Council.
WESTERN WASTE INDUSTRIES
Bill Goedike, Vice-president, and colleague Bernie Nash introduced
their firm to Council through a slide and tape presentation.
Western Waste has been in business in this area since 1955. Their
Southern California clientele includes Sierra Madre, Gardena and
the Los Angeles County Health Services. 60% of their business in
Southern California is residential. Mr. Goedike stated, in part,
that their biggest asset is their transfer station which can be
utilized on Saturday and Sunday when the landfills are closed.
With reference to their proposal, which Council has already received,
they would like to suggest that with the City's approval they would
provide free backyard service to senior shut-ins. Secondly, they
would suggest that seniors who qualify under the City's present pro-
gram, receive a senior citizen discount for a limited amount of
trash, such as one barrel or bag per week at' a cost of one-half the
residential rate. This would not apply to apartment buildings.
In connection with a recycling program
provide free curbside pickup for a one
proposal requires the City or resident
After nine months the program could be
a proposal was submitted to
year trial period. This
to provide the container.
evaluated and the necessary
-1-
10/4/88
30: 0229
changes made. At that time perhaps a more aggressive advertising
campaign to encourage recycling could be promoted by the City,
the Chamber of Commerce and Western Waste. Another proposal was
the Saturday buy-back centers for the residents who would like to
sell their recyclable materials. The current market rate would
be paid for those kinds of material. Perhaps, the senior citizens
would like to operate this type of a project. Under a State sub-
sidy program Western Waste would work with them with the profit
going to their group or whoever else would like to man the buy-
back center. Mr. Goedike defined the buy-back center as a mobile
unit...a large roll-up. In response to where this would take
place, Mr. Goedike stated, in part, that normally parks are used
or the City Hall parking lot could alao be used. He believes there I
are a lot of environmentalists who like to save the material and be
paid for it. The recycling center would be open every Saturday
from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Western Waste would organize the program.
With reference to curbside recycling, the customer would provide
the container but would not have to separate the materials. Western
Waste would take it to a buy-back center and separate it. They
would only handle paper, plastic, aluminum cans and bottles.
Mr. Goedike stated, in part, that although this program is very labor-
intensive the whole purpose of recycling is to get the material out
of the dumpster and not have to pay the dump fee and try and elimi-
nate the landfill situation. If these recyclable materials are not
hauled and buried at the dump, the dump fee is lowered. Dumping
bills have increased from $5.50 to $14.00 per ton. In response to
the City Manager's comment that the savings on dump fees, coupled with
whatever they can sell the materials for, does not equal their costs
in collection and separating it, Mr. Goedike replied that they did
not agree with that. A.brief discussion ensued in connection with
the price of a ton of paper, which is now down to $65.00.
Mr. Goedike stated, in part, that the refuse trucks would be housed
in Santa Fe Springs. The collection hours would be regulated by the
City...residential collection usually begins at 7 a.m. and commercial
areas after 6...particularly those areas that are close to residen-
tial properties. In response to a question from Councilmember Young,
Mr. Goedike stated that his company could cover Arcadia in a week
using six trucks. Their proposal is essentially the same as the
service the City has now - that is, unlimited pickup, single-family.
In reference to the collection of heavy bulky items - referred to as
"cleanup" - they propose to pick these items up on an ongoing basis
throughout the year and spread the cost throughout the year rather
than having to pick up these items all at once in a "cleanup".
"Cleanup's" are very costly. Bulky items such as refrigerators,
washing machines, couches, etcetera, will be picked up weekly at no
additional cost.
Referring to Western Waste's proposal in connection with the disposal
of household hazardous materials, Mr. Goedike stated, in part, that 1
their program is briefly described as a program that is operated at
the City yard on a Saturday. They will bring in a chemist to certify
the material before it is separated and taken to a disposal site.
The proposal requires the City to provide a guard service to certify
that only City residents are bringing in the hazardous materials.
Mr. Goedike noted that they usually ask the fire chief to be the
certifying officer and be present to monitor the program. Western
Waste would provide barrels and boxes...the cost to the residents
for this program would be approximately $3.00 per year for service
two times during the year. Mr. Goedike noted that motor oil is the
most frequent material that is brought in. This particular item is
sent to a recycling center since it is not a hazardous product.
Their experience with this type of program has shown that after the
-2-
10/4/88
1
1
30:0230
program begins and residents go through a "garage cleaning" there
are less and less materials to be disposed of later on. The cost
for this type of a program would run around $3.00 a year per
household.
Referring to their rate schedule, the City Manager noted that the
initial rate for the single-family can pickup in their proposal is
$7.45...somewhat less than the current rate, and with the percentage
increases over the next 5 years the fifth year rate is onlyl at $9,05.
He questioned the reality of these figures...especially with regard
to dumping fee increases over the next five years. Mr. Goedike
responded that the figures do not include the increases in dumping
fees...when this occurs Western Waste would be entitled to petition
the City Council for a rate increase.
2.
WEBSTER'S REFUSE DISPOSAL
Michael Muller, General Manager, and Wylie Scott, Special Projects
Manager for the district were present to introduce their company and
explain the services they provide. Mr. Muller stated, in part, that
Webster's is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.
Waste Management operates about 500 operating companies such as
Webster's throughout the United States and various other countries.
Webster's has been in operation in the San Gabriel Valley for over
40 years. They currently service approximately 150,000 single family
residences and 4500 commercial and industrial establishments including
the Arcadia School District. They are located in Baldwin Park with a
full service facility on 10 acres of land, 115 trucks and 85 routes.
They currently}have contracts with Baldwin Park, La Verne, San Dimas,
Walnut and others. In most of these cities they have or are going
to have curbside recycling programs.
Wylie Scott then presented a slide presentation of Arcadia properties
on trash colleciton days and Webster's plan to service the City's
waste management needs. The slides depicted various lot sizes, also
the volume and variety of containers and other disposable items.
Webster suggested a fully automated system may not be the solution...
a combination of semi-automated containers and plastic bag program
should be presented to Arcadia with the residents having the choice
of one or both depending on the volume of trash generated...the
first semi-automated container at a standard rate and additional
containers at a lower rate. Tree trimmings and such could be
bundled and placed next to the containers. In conjunction with that
service, they have included in the base price once-a-week curbside
recycling using three stackable containers. Mr. Scott mentioned a
buy-back center in Monrovia, so this was not included in their re-
cycling plan. The program also extends into household hazardous
waste disposal and is included in their monthly rate for solid waste
collection.
Mr. Scott also stated, in part, that Chemical Waste Management
Company is also a mostly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management and
it was noted that Waste Management also owns the Kettlemen Hills
Landfill for hazardous materials thus providing "cradle to grave
responsibility for any hazardous waste generated in the City of
Arcadia". Their Chemical Waste Management people would staff 'the
receiving station and identify materials for recycling. Their
hazardous waste recycling company is OS CO located in Azusa. In
their proposal the household hazardous cleanup program operates
once a year.
In connection with the proposals submitted by Webster's, Mr. Muller
stated, in part, that three proposals were put together. No. 1 - Use
-3-
10/4/88
"';"~' ,.'>~:::
,1.1':'.
30: cii31"';::;~:~5:
exactly what Arcadia is using now, such as unlimited service.
No. 2 - Use their (Webster's) bags and a semi-automated container.
No.3 - Use a fully-automated container system where the driver
would not have to leave the cab to pick up anything extra. The
three proposals put forth are now. being provided to other cities.
They felt the most beneficial system for Arcadia is a combination
of what is currently being done. In response to Mayor Harbicht's
question for clarification, Mr. Scott replied, the $9.25 rate quoted
is based on what is currently being done - unlimited curbside
collection plus recycling and the annual household hazardous waste
program. For container services the cost would be 25c for the first
container or $9.50 per month, or bags could be purchased from
Webster's at $1.00 per bag...if four bags per month are used the 1
bill would be $4.00, with up to 8 bags per month before getting a
semi-automated container at a flat rate of $9.50 per month. Under
the semi-automated or automated systems residents could not use
their own cans. Webster's would supply the containers and for those
of low volume the bags could be purchased from Webster's. If addi-
tional containers were required the cost would be $3.00 for each
additional container per month.
I"~
,,,
Mayor Harbicht commented that their annual increases are relatively
modest, and were they assuming that there will be renegotiatons based
on dumping fees? Mr. Muller responded that the annual increases were
projections by the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and that most of their
contracts are CPI contracts... the only situation that would concern
them would be if there would be extreme increases in landfill fees
which would be higher than the cost of living, which they anticipate
will happen. Mr. Muller also stated, in part, that right now the
County landfill fees are, the lowest and they would like to use the
County as a guideline and say as long as the County fill went from
"here to there", as long as it was within the CPI they would not ask
for any additional increases. If they were to ask for an increase
they would justify it as a portion higher than the CPI...strictly for
disposing only. He also noted that private landfill fees, including
their own landfills, are at a much higher cost than County landfills.
In connection with costs, Mr. Muller commented that their recycling
program is fixed into the rate at a figure at this time of around
$1.00 per household. In response to the City Manager's comment and
question that should Arcadia decide not to have the recycling pro-
gram - since the best recycling program has not yet been found - could
Webster's give the City the service for $8.25? Mr. Muller replied
that they haven't even thought of this possibility. They would have
to take a really close look at it. He felt that recycling has an
economic effect on everyone. By reducing landfill waste the life of
the landfill would be extended by 5 to 10% which means the flat rate
in the contract may be extended for another period of time.
Mayor Harbicht asked if recycling were mandatory, would it pay for
itself? Mr. Scott replied, in part, that right now'recycling does
not pay for itself but the long-term alternative is $40 per ton for
hauling by rail.
3.
BEST DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
I
Dale Newton, President, and George Schnell, Operations Manager, were
present to give the presentation for their company. Best Disposal,
Mr. Newton stated, knows the problems that Arcadia has as far as
volume and yard waste, for example, since they have had the residen-
tial contract for the last 15 years. In reference to automated
service and recycling they have a program in the City of Duarte. A
video presentation of Best's experience was then shown.
-4-
10/4/88
30:0232
1
After the video presentation Mr. Newton then went on to outline
their proposal for the City of Arcadia, stating, in part, they are
proposing a dual system. This would include a combination of an
automated bin pickup utilizing a 60 or 90-gallon container and a
recycling system using a set of three plastic stackable bins for
separation of the material. Although recycling is not mandated,
he pointed out that legislation is in process to require disposal
firms to recycle or have some type of a voluntary program that would
work for each city. In a review of their proposal it was noted that
Best has been in business for 50 years. Best, he believes, has a
tremendous amount of experience both in its Operations Department,
Maintenance Department and Sales staff. They are not a national
company but have been in the San Gabriel Valley for those 50 years.
In reference to the recycling program Mr. Newton explained that
three bins for sort-separating will be delivered to each single-
family residence. The recyclable items they are proposing to col-
lect for the program would include newspapers, glass, aluminum and
steel cans and plastic containers. Yard waate could be put out
separately without any additional charge...although a recycling bin
would need to be placed at the curb with it. Those that do not wish
to participate in the recycling program need only decide the number
of containers needed for the automated system. With regard to the
present free large-item pickup, a charge will be made for this
service to eliminate the repeat callers who may be conducting a
business of some sort.
In reference to rates, Mr. Newton explained that a scale has been
set up basing the rates on volume. The proposed rate for the 90-
gallon container for th~ automated service would be $7.35 per month
for the first container or $8.35 if the City wishes to include the
recycling program, with Best supplying the three sort-separate bins.
They will also provide a 60-gallon container for those who have less
volume at $6.00 per month plus $2.00 per month for each additional
container for both 60 and 90-gallon service. In response to a
question from Council, Mr. Newton replied that those using the larger
bins could add two more 90-gallon bins and not have to use the big
dumpsters, although the dumpsters will not be eliminated.
.1
Councilmember Gilb expressed concern about the automated pickup if
the bin was not positioned correctly or cars were parked along the
curbs since each truck has only one man, the driver. Mr. Newton
responded that in certain instances the driver may have to leave the
truck and move the container...but it would still be just one auto-
mated container...not three or four cans. In response to other
inquiries from Council, Mr. Newton replied that currently five trucks
are in service for the curbside residential collection in Arcadia.
Best will use a total of 11 vehicles for a combination of service:
automated, recycling, and the bin service they are presently offering.
The automated collection vehicles will be new vehicles. With respect
to the size of the 60 and 90-gallon containers, Mr. .Newton replied
that the 90-gallon container is 31-1/2 inches across the top and 47
inches tall. The 60-gallon is also 31-1/2 inches across the top but
the height is less.
To clarify a point made by Mayor Harbicht, Mr. Newton stated that a
residence could have a 90-gallon container; the three recycling
bins; and in addition to that also put out six or seven of their
own trash cans as long as their own cans contained only yard waste.
No other trash could be mixed with the yard waste. Best has an
operator that will take the yard waste and make mulch and compost.
By recycling they will be able "to return it back without landfilling
it". A second truck with three bins will be in service to pick up
recyclable items, including yard waste in cans or bundles once a week
-5-
10/4/88
LOWER AZUSA
LANDFILL
f;....
LOEFFLER
RESIGNATION
(Sr. Citz.
Comsn. )
AGENDA
ITEMS
'.
,
\~-5
f
30:0233
the same day as regular trash day. In answer to a question from
staff with reference to items that may be inbetween...either a
little too large or possibly the wrong configuration to put into
an automated bin, Mr. Newton replied that the cover of the auto-
mated container can be opened and the item placed on top then
dumped into the truck.
In response to several questions posed by the City Manager,
Mr. Newton responded that if the company receiving the yard waste
could no longer accommodate the materials, Best would still take
the yard waste at no additional cost, for the life of the contract.
As to accomplishing the recycling program at no cost to the City,
including a non-source separation, as was presented earlier by I
another refuse firm, Mr. Newton stated, in part, that source separa-
tion is important since they need to have a salable product. If all
materials are mixed together they must then be separated because
recyclables are not salable when mixed...it then becomes more cost
intensive with machinery and labor. With the help of the individual
homeowner it is a viable product when separated.
Mr. Newton also stated, in part, that in Duarte the bins are placed
on the curb or in the gutter, although Best would like them in the
curb well. The trucks are also capable of retrieving the bins from
the top of the, curb as well.
THE STUDY SESSION THEN ADJOURNED AT 7:15 P.M. AND THE CITY COUNCIL
AND ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONVENED IN AN ADJOURNED REGUI.AR
SESSION AT 7:17 P.M.
In connection with the proposed Rodeffer Landfill, the City Manager
distributed copies of a letter from the City Manager of Baldwin Park.
El Monte has contacted both Baldwin Park and Rosemead to join them
in opposing the proposed landfill. In talking with both City
Managers of Rosemead and Baldwin Park, Mr. Watts reported that their
Councils want to take a closer look at the EIR to see what effect it
will have on their respective communities.
It was also noted that the Councilmember in Baldwin Park who brought
the matter up happens to own property in El Monte. Also, the
Councilman in Rosemead is a Battalion Chief with the El Monte Fire
Department.
Council was informed of the resignation of Henrietta Loeffler from
the Senior Citizen Commission. Councilmember Gilb then MOVED that
Mrs. Loeffler's resignation be accepted with regret, seconded by
Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED.
Staff recommended that Item 8a on the regular meeting agenda be I
scheduled for a public hearing on November 1; Item 8b for public
hearing October 20; and 8c - Refuse contractor selection...it was
noted that a public hearing is not required for this matter. If
Council does schedule a hearing they do not necessarily have to
receive any further presentations from refuse companies. Mayor
Harbicht commented that anyone who wishes to address Council on this
could do so under Agenda Item No.4 - "Time Reserved...... Discussion
ensued as to the pros and cons of a public hearing. Mayor Harbicht
suggested an agenda item would be appropriate such as "Consideration
of Refuse Contractors". Council can then discuss the matter and
give staff direction to negotiate the fine points of a new contract
with one of the refuse operators. The City Manager commented also,
in reference to a schedule, that after the contract is awarded the
operator will have to gear up for a March 1 start-up..;getting
-6-
10/4/88
.
1
I
I
~ \ \9~
CLOSED
SESSION
ARB
DECISIONS I'
APPEAL
FEES
ADJOURNMENT
ATTEST:
30:0234
equipment and soforth. Council concurred...this will be placed
on the regular agenda October 20 for discussion and direction to
staff. Councilmember Lojeski requested staff supply Council with
a current sheet that lists the rates of each refuse contractor
including any additions or changes from the presentations at the
Study Session. Another suggestion from staff in connection with
the October 20 meeting was to waive the procedure ordinance and
have the refuse agenda item first, since the October 20 meeting
may be a long meeting with the Landfill Public Hearing on the
schedule that evening also.
The City Manager requested a closed session after the regular meeting
this evening.
Councilmember Chandler reported he had heard from a resident on Hugo
Reid who wished to add seven feet to the rear of his garage. The
ARB in his area said no to his plan because of setback requirements.
The ARB informed him that the setback requirements have changed,
consequently the resident will now have an irregular roof line and
so forth. Councilmember Chandler noted that now this person will
have to pay $248 for an appeal. Discussion then ensued regarding
the appeal procedures; the cost...and this project in particular.
Councilmember Young commented that she also had recieved a phone call
from this person.
In response to a question from Mayor Harbicht, staff replied that in
a situation such as this, if the resident was not in a homeowners
association then he could possibly go through an Administrative
Modification procedure at a cost of $50. If a resident is in a
homeowners association and their decision is appealed, it then goes
before the Planning Commission. The question was brought out that
this seems as if there is not equal treatment to various residents
in the City. A discussion then ensued of the possibility of undue
pressure being put on members of the ARB's from neighbors when plans
are put before the review board that a neighbor may disagree with.
Councilmember Chandler noted that he had checked with Planning and
this person had not been treated any differently than anyone else
with a similar situation. It was also noted by Council that the
real problem is that things are being denied by homeowner associa-
tions that are routinely approved by the City...maybe a change is
needed.
The City Attorney commented that Council may want staff to look
into the possibility of controlling the jurisdiction of the ARB's.
The City Manager suggested that staff could prepare a report and
recommendation if Council so desired. Council concurred.
The meeting adjourned sine die at 7:30 p.m.
/~~
R. C. Harbicht, Mayor
J
-7-
10/4/88