Loading...
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