02-06-1996 - Waste Materials Recovery Facility ReportCity of West Covina
Memorandum
To: Cit 'Mana er
AGENDA
Y. 9
City jCounci 1
ITEM NO. F-1
• - From: Environmental .Services DATE FEBRIIARY 6, 199.6
/ Dire tor ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .
Subject: Waste Materials Recovery January 31, 1996
Facility Report
Summary: This�is a report on the Council requested review of the
Athens Materials Recovery Facility, survey of other such
facilities and considerati.on of other options. These
reviews lead to a more in depth analysis and consideration
of the Pomona Materials Recovery Facility that is in this
report.
On December 5, 1995, the City Council directed staff:
(1) To analyze and refine the Athens proposed Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) Agreement:
a
(2) To survey the other proposed MRFs for possible
consiIderation:
(3) To obtain collection rates for the collection and processing
of mixed trash or commingled materials recycled at the MRF:
(4) To survey other cities served by Athens to update the status
of their consideration of the Athens MRF.
This work resulted in a more in depth analysis and consideration of the
Pomona MRF by staff. Staff believes this analysis and comparison to the
Athens MRF leads.`,to the conclusion that the Pomona.MRF will best meet
the needs of West Covina and be more economical for the collection rate
payers in doing so. Thus the staff is recommending the City Cour.il
direct staff to negotiate with the City of Pomona for waste materiials
recovery facility services.
BACKGROUND r
As a result of the City Council direction to staff on December 5, the
following information is provided according to their placement after
this report:
1. MRF COMPARISON of the Athens and Pomona facilities.
•
-111 ►1 N1 =111► 1111:�
3. Copies of alliof the surveys.
El
5. Letters datedIJanuary 4 and 11, 1996 from Athens providing costs for
waste collection and MRF processing of mixed trash and commingled
recycled materials.
CONSIDERATION
MRF2RPT
MLM
2/1/96
1
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Staff identified several issues as a result of the analysis of the
Proposed Agreement and MRF Proposal. These issues are:
1. Consolidating the MRF services provision into the Waste Collection
Franchise that has the effect�of extending the Franchise up to 15
years with little or no economic return.
2. Sending the commercial (apartments and businesses) to a MRF now and
possibly losing leverage when'the City sends residential wastes to
the MRF.
3. Annual increase in the Gate Rate up to the percentage increase in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) with no further justification.
4. Obtaining the lowest possiblelMRF Gate Rate that meets the
community's needs for waste diversion and disposal.
5. Indemnification of the City for compliance with AB 939 diversion
requirements..
6: A reasonable approach to the sharing of the revenues from recycled
materials.
7:-Date of the commencement of the MRF operations in light of the
closure of the BKK Landfill on September 15, 1996.
8. Ability to transfer collected'trash and yard wastes as BKK closes and
other landfill's capacity or programs diminish.
9. Availability of a disposal site for the City's trash considering the
closure of the BKK Landfil-1 and the disposal caps at other landfills. •
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
These -are the main issues staff considered when reviewing the MRF
surveys and in meetings with Athens and Pomona. The MRF survey
concluded that the Athens and Pomona MRFs are the only viable facilities
that could address the city's needs for waste diversion and disposal.
After .two meetings with each staff had sufficient information. to answer
the following questions:
1. Should the City sign up for MRF services now or should we wait for
other options?
Answer: The MRF survey indicates Athens and Pomona MRFs are
located best to serve West Covina. These facilities are also most
likely to meet our needs. It appears other MRFs are many months
or years in the future. The prices offered today will probably
not significantly improve. Thus the City should move to.select a •
MRF to service the City.
MRF2RPT 2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
MLM
2/1/96
U
•
I
2. Which MRF facility offers the best range of services that meets
our needs at the most economical rate to the community?
Answer: The MRF COMPARISON chart that immediately follows this
report compares in detail the Athens and Pomona MRFs. Using the
issues listed above to measure the qualities of these MRFs, staff
concludes the Pomona MRF best meets the communities needs in the
most economiical fashion for the community. The Pomona MRF:
A. Calls for a separate agreement from the Waste'Collection
Franchise.
B. Leaves the Citythe option to send commercial wastes now and
residential wastes later at the same gate.rate.
C. Has the;same annual rate increase approach that uses the CPI,
but it.starts with a lower gate rate.
i
D: The $281per ton gate rate is the lowest rate and is achieved
without anyibuy-down or subsidy from other funding sources.
E. Provides the City with full AB 939 indemnification.
F. Provides a reasonable approach for the sharing of revenues
from recycled materials without any "negative" revenues having to
be made up from the City's recycled materials revenues or the
waste collection rates. d
G. The commencement of the MRF operation.is guaranteed to be no
later than September 1, 1996.
1
H. The will be an immediate ability to transfer all wastes as of
that date.
0
I. Guaranteed availability of landfill disposal capacity for -14
years at a 'guaranteed disposal rate of'$18 per ton. Today'.s
disposal rate is $16.67 per ton, but is expected -to rise.
I
Based on the abov'e,'staff is recommending the City Council direct staff
to negotiate with the City of Pomona for MRF services and return with an
agreement for City Council action.
The City Councillmay decide to direct staff to negotiate an agreement
with Athens. Staff has been told by Athens that if the City does not
select the Athens MRF, Athens will approach other communities to provide
them MRF services. It was inferred that if Athens does not secure
adequate waste volumes by March 31, 1996, their financing will probably
end.
Bottom line, the Ionly options for MRF services that may meet our needs
are the two listed here. The best option for the City of West Covina.is
the. Pomona MRF.
3
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
If the City Council authorizes staff to negotiate with the City of
Pomona, we will immediately start negotiations and return with an
agreement for City Council consideration.
Other service options may be considered during negotiations. The City
may decide during the course af,negotiations which wastes will be
delivered to the MRF at a firm price and when. Given the closure of the
BKK Landfill, the disposal caps at other landfills and the lowering of
some disposal caps in 1997, selecting the Pomona MRF for services is the
best option for the community.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City,'Council authorize staff to negotiate
with the City of Pomona for waste Materials Recovery Facility Services.
Michael L. Miller
Environmental Services Director
Attachments
4
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•
•
•.
MRF COMPARISON
SUBJECT ATHENS POMONA
•
•
0__
Gate rate
$42 per ton or as low as $34
$28 with a $32 per. ton
if recyclable revenues are
maximum.
applied.
Rate adjustment
Adjustment per CPI for
Adjustment per CPI for
Operations Component.
Operations Component.
Pass -through for Disposal
Pass -through for Disposal.
Component.
i
Component.
Revenues from
Athens receives 75 % & City
Mixed trash will generate
recycled
receives 25% of revenues.
small amount.
materials
Clean commingled recycled
materials results in 80% to
City.
If this becomes negative
Guaranteed no negative value
value. City compensates 100%.
passed on to City.
Marketing of
Markets
through others.
Markets their diverted
recycled
materials and that of others.
materials
Long term contracts for
materials.
Financing
California Pollution Control
California Pollution Control
source
Financing Authority through
Financing Authority through
Wells Fargo Bank.
Sanwa Bank.
Agreement
Amends Waste Collection
Separate agreement for MRF'.
Franchise Agreement.
15-year term based on
15 to 30 year term depending
J.
financing.
upon City choice. Longer
term spreads costs could
lower gate rate.
Agreement
Draft submitted for review
Agreement with deal points
Status
and consideration. Issues
may be completed in two
and terms have raised several
weeks along terms outline in
concerns as outlned in the
this report. Draft agreement
analysis of the Proposed
should be available in early
Agreement and Proposal..
March.
MRF Operator
Athens.
Taormina.
MRF Ownership
Athens.
Pomona.
MRF Capacity
1,920 tons per day.
6.000 tons per day.
Materials
Commercial mixed trash.
Commercial mixed trash.
processed
Residential capacity reserved
Will accept now residential
for mixed trash or commingled
mixed trash or commingled
recyclable materials.
recyclable materials. City
choice.
Yard wastes through waste
Yard waste through waste
transfer facility for long
transfer facility for long
Haul..
haul :.
MRF COMP
MLM
2/1/96
MRF COMPARISON
SUBJECT ATHENS POMONA
Indemnification
25% diversion nowiand 50% _
25% diversion now and 50%
diversion later, provided
diversion later, provided.
waste stream profile contains
waste stream profile contains
materials that can be
materials that can be
recycled. ;.
recycled.
May be affected by, available
Has market contracts for
markets for diverted
diverted materials. Has
materials.
found markets for materials
that are typically deposited
at landfills.
Disposal cost of any possible
Will dispose of what cannot
diverted material 'is compared
be separated or marketed.
to cost of diversion & the
revenue received from
marketing diverted materials.
Start of
June to September,!1996.
June, but no later than
Operations
!
September 1, 1996.
Waste disposal
Use the most cost -;effective
Use the most cost-effective
landfill that complies with
landfill that complies with
laws and regulations.
laws and regulations.
No specific sites or
Guaranteed 14 years of
guarantees. �.,
disposal capacity at a
guaranteed rate -of $18 per
ton.
Rail_.haul
No commitments. f
Agreement with Waste
Management, if needed, and if
i
site is permitted.
Waste sources
Will accept only Athens waste
Will accept any hauler
haulers.
contracted to serve any city.
Will. accept West Covina
Disposal.
Site status
Land use permit received.
P
About 112 through the land
9
use permit and EIR process.
i
Solid Waste Facilities permit
Solid Waste Facilities Permit
in final stage.
is about 2/3 drafted.
Building exists to start MRF
Building permits in process.
operation Only needs the
equipment installed.
MRF COMP
MLM
2/1/96
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•
•
•
•
•
•
r�
ISSUE
ATHENS
AZUSA
COMMERCE
POMONA
SANITATION
(BFI)
(WMX) I
DISTRICTS
RESIDENTIAL
Mixed Trash
Reserved
Yes
Yes,
$28 per
Yes
space
.1 i mi ted
ton .
Source-
Reserved
Yes
Yes
$28 per
No
separated
Space
ton
Recyclables
Mixed
Reserved
Yes
Yes.
$28 per
No
Recyclable
Space
ton
Yard Waste
Resierved
No
Yes
$28 per
No
space
ton
Household
No Load
No.
No. Load
Load check
No..
Hazardous
check only
check only
and work
Waste
with
County
COMMERCIAL
Mixed Trash
$42
per
$39.50 per
Yes,
$28 per
Yes
ton
ton
limited
ton
Source-
$25 per
Yes
$28 per
No
separated
ton
ton
Mixed
No
$25 per
Yes
$28 per
No
Recyclable
ton
ton
Yard Waste
Not
No
Yes
$28 per
No
ton
Site
Operator
Operator
Operator
In final
In
Ownership
owned .
owned
owned
stages of
litigation
purchase
SITE STATUS
Financing
CPCFA thru
Totally
Financed
CPCFA thru
To be
Status &
Wells
financed
by Waste
Sanwa -Bank
determined
Source
Fargo Bank
by BFI '
Management
Land Use
Cup
CUP
Complete
EIR.in
No
approved
approved
progress.
Permit
about 112
done
SWFP
In'last
No answer
Complete
2/3 done
No
stage
Building
Permits in
Yes.
Grading
Building
No
process
Permit
in place
issued Itoday
OTHER
Date for
June to
March 1,'
Early 1997
June, but
About 30
Start of
early
1996
no later
months
Operations
September,
than
after
1996
September
litigation
i
1, 1996
Tip.Fee
Onjly as
Only as
To be
As noted
Not
noted
noted
determined
determined
MRF Survey Summary
MLM
1/31/96
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ROBERT A. DELOACH
Director
•
January 23, 1996
•
Mr. Mike Miller,
Director of Environmental Services
CITY OF WEST CO IINA
1444 W . Garvey Avenue
West Covina, CA 91793
Dear Mike:
THE CITY OF
POMONA
Public Works Department
Thank you for your letter and phone call. I have prepared the information we discussed and I am
confident that it•will meet your needs. I look forward to discussing it at our upcoming meeting in
your office on Wednesday, January 24th at 2:00 p.m.
Please review the following, more detailed response to your recent questionnaire regarding Material
Recovery Facilities available to your city. There is no doubt in my mind, that working together, we
can develop excellent solutions to your waste handling needs.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Respectfully,
/A
OB RT A. DeLO CH .
Director of Public Works
Attachment
• cc: William Taormina
RAD:N507
City Hall, 505 So. Garey Ave., Box 660, Pomona; CA 91769, (909) 620-2261
•
El
•
• What is the location of Your MRF ? (address or nearest cross streets)
The Pomona Regional Material Recovery Facility (PRIVIRF) is located at the intersection of the
Route 71 Expressway and Holt Blvd. in Pomona. The PRMRF is accessible from Valley Blvd.,
Holt Avenue, the 210 Freeway, the 60 Freeway, the 10 Freeway and the Route 7.1 Expressway.
To travel the 8.5 miles from the City of West Covina to. the PRMRF ranges from 12 to 25
minutes depending on traffic intensity. Please see the attached map for further details.
Has the site been purchased or otherwise secured for use as a NHW
Yes. The City of Pomona and the United States Government GSA are involved in the final stages
of negotiations for the property. The GSA has agreed to allow the site (the former location of the
General Dynamics Naval (Weapons facility) to be transferred to the City of Pomona for use as a
regional solid waste transfer and recycling facility.
What is the status of
The agreement with MR;
• provide financing for all i
improvements. All mone.
at State Street Bank and
responsible for all financi
arrange for a representati
need further information.
What is the status of
Land Use Permit: The
Our City'Council and
endorsed it.
financing for the MRF ?
' developer/operator, Taormina Industries, stipulates that the contractor
iachinery, equipment, transport vehicles, and real property
s needed for the procurement of these capital items is being held in trust
Trust. Sanwa Bank of California is the lead banking institution
ig arrangements and credit enhancement instruments. I will be happy to
fe of our contractor, or our contractor's bank to meet with you if you
for the MRF ?
of Pomona considers the PRMRF as a top priority project for our city.
ing Commission are in concurrence with our project and have
Solid Waste Facilities Permit: Our permit is about half way completed at this point in time. Our
CEQA documentation is iwell underway with our environmental consultant, Betsy Lindsay of
Ultrasystems. All permits are expected to be in hand by late April of 1996.
Building Permits: The
• site. Our MRF operati
existing buildings. As
we will add -on additic
0
ility will need no building permits since the buildings already exist on the
will simply install conveyors, balers, and other equipment inside the
tonnage of the facility increases beyond our projected opening amount,.
I floor space as needed.
When is your MRF expected to commence operation ?
Our target date is June 1 st, 1996. Because the City is the proponent of the project, w* e. will
expedite any and all approvals that are needed on the local level. We have the assurances of our
consultants that our target date is valid and achievable.
What wastes will your MRF be acceptingi?
Waste Type
Yes or No.,
When will each
What materials
Tip Fee9
be accepted for
will be
processing?
recovered?
Residential
Mixed Trash
YES
June 1, I1996
All recyclable materials
. _.
$28.00 per ton
including organic
compostable material
Source -separated
YES
NOW -Oar existing site at
All recyclable materials
'including
$28.00 perton
Recyclables
3869 Valley Blvd can
organic
accept your material for
compostable material
processing now.
Mixed Recyclable
YES
NOW - Our existing site at
3869 Valley Blvd.
All recyclable materials
including
$28.00 per ton
Materials
can
organic
accept your material for
compostable material
processing now.
Yard Waste
YES
NOW - Our existing site at
All organic materials will be
$28.00
3869 Valley Blvd can
processed and converted to
accept Yi w material for
compost, fertilizer, and
processing now.
other soil additives.
Household
YES
June 1, 1996
All HHW materials will be
Included with Tip Fee.
Hazardous Wastes
removed from the waste
Working in concert with
stream and processed at an
LACSD our program will
approved facility..-
offer these services to the
j
entire region.
Commercial
..
Mixed Trash
YES
June 1, 1996I
All recyclable materials
$28.00 .
including organic
"
oompostable material
Source Separated,
YES
NOW - Our existing site at
All recyclable materials
$28.00
Recyclables
3869 Valley Blvd can
including organic
accept your material for
compostable material
processing now.
Mixed Recyclable
YES
NOW - Our existing site at
All recyclable materials
$28.00
Materials
3869 Valley Blvd. can
including organic
accept your material for
compostable material
processmgnow.
Yard Wastes
YES
NOW - Our existing site at
All organic materials will be
$28.00
3869 Valley Blvd. can
processed and converted to
accept your material for
compost, fertilizer, and
processingnow.
other soil additives.
•
0
•
0
•
•
•
•
To assist in the follow-up, please provide the following:
Name of the person responding: Robert A. DeLoach
Title: Director of Public Works
City of Pomona v
Phone and Fax Numbers: (909) 620-2269 Fax
(909) 620-2262 Phone
Please provide any further information you may feel would be useful for the City to
consider when choosing a MRF:
The Pomona Regional Material Recovery Facility will be developed in a unique manner by the
City and our contractor, Taormina Industries.
r
The most significant aspect of our NW, is the manner in which the Tip Fees will be established.
The methodology that will be used is, simply stated "the more tonnage throughput - the lower
the tip fee". Restated, "due to the economies of scale inherent in higher tonnage over the
base amount, operating and capital costs per ton go down. These savings over the base
amount will be passed along to the charter member user group". The "charter member user
group", as mentioned above, will consist of those cities that commit to the use of our MRF prior
to the opening of same. These cities, and these cities only, will received the financial benefits
(lower tip fees) associated with the economies of scale mentioned above. No other MRF is
established under this business plan ... except one, Taormina Industries' MRF in Anaheim,
California.
Further; as another vital aspect of our NW, the net revenues derived from the sale of
recyclable materials will be shared with the charter member user group. The prorata amount
received will be a result of the tonnage delivered and the length of the commitment to do so.
Again, no. other NW operates in this fashion (sharing income with its'customers) except
one ... Taormina Industries MRF in Anaheim, California.
Of importance for your consideration is the amount of experience that our team has compared
to any others in the West Covina region that could possibly serve your needs. Taormina
Industries has been in the solid waste recycling and collection business for over 45 years. The firm
is the largest privately owned business of its type in the United States. The firm owns and
operates the largest MRF of its type in the State of California, procl.,ssing over 5000 tons of
material per day. Our contractor has established markets for the sale of recyclables throughout
the entire world and serves the needs of smaller recyclers throughout the Western United States
as the -marketer/broker f0rover 40,000 tons of re.-ycled materials every month. Please -
compare all this information when you interview other proposers for your waste processing and
disposal needs. You will discover that the combination of the City of Pomona and Taormina
Industries serving your needs is unbeatable !
Thank you for your consideration of our response to your questionnaire.
l
.01i26/96 16:35 C714 238 3305
TAORMINA IND
•.
Q1001/002
January 26th, 1996
City of West Covina
Environmental Services
1444 West Garvey Avenue
Post Office Box 1.440
West Covina, California 91793
Attention: Mr. Mike Miller
Ms. Sharon Gardner
Regarding: Follow-up to our meeting
Dear Mike and Sharon,
Just a short note to thank you both again
this week. After our meeting, as Robert ai
other and commented what a pleasure it v
of the public trust. You both impressed ul
citizens of West Covina".. Both Robert an
your city's utilization of our Pomona Regi
expectations and generate benefits, both f
hauler.
Robertand I have taken the liberty to preF
why our MRF facility makes the most sen:
in your report to the City Council. As-1 ha
both Robert and I not to communicate dir,
visited about this project. We feel it is ma
mcrnagemt'nt/staff so that a non -political c
Please feel free to give us a call should yo
public/private partnership business plan.
Res ctfully,
V
William C. Taormina .
C.C. Robert DeLoach
O�
rlow
9G
�'�9COVOt`j
adt�
a
r inviting Robert DeLoach and myself to visit with you
l I rode down the elevator together, we turned to each
.s to have spent time with such professional stewards
in us that your mission is to "do what is best for the
I are convinced that by working in concert towards
nal Material Recovery Facility, we will exceed your
ancial and operational,.to your citizens and your waste
re a one page "bullet list" (attached) of the reasons
for your city. We are hopeful that this will assist you
mentioned to you in the past, it remains the policy of
;tly with elected officials of the various cities we have
appropriate to provide our information to city
cision can E made on this important matter.
need any further information about our project or our
1131 N. Blue Gum St.•IP.O. Box 309 *Anaheim, Ca 92815
Voice Mail (714) 238-3312 • Fax: (714) 238-3305
•
•
•
•
O1ii6/96 16:36 '$714 8 3305 TAORMINA IND. . 2 002/002
Top Ten Reasons Why
The Pomona Regional Material Recovery Facility
is the
Right .Choice
for the
City. of West Covina
1) The Pomona MRF is operated as a PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. The City of Pomona and Taormina
Industries are working as a TEAM.
2) The Pomona NIRF proNides a very LARGE SCALE REGIONAL SOLUTION for, the East San Gabriel Valley
and the Pomona. Valley as to waste disposal, waste processing, and recycling.
3) The Pomona MRF will be developed with NO CAPITAL RISK to the municipalities that will utilize it.
4) Due to its large scale volume, by adding the tonnage generated by the City of West Covina to the Pomona MRF,
the COST FOR ALL USERS WILL BE REDUCED due to economies of scale. These cost saving benefits will be
PASSED ALONG to all "charter member" municipal users of the facility in the form of lower tip fees.
5) The City of Pomona and Taormina Industries wish to INVITE WEST COVINA TO BECOME A CHARTER
MEMBER of our municipal user group TEAM. By working together, all users will enjoy lower costs and greater
synergism.
G) The tip fees charged and the financial and operational results of the Pomona MRF will be shared with all
municipalities that are charter member users. Complete and FULL DISCLOSURE of this information will assist
member users'in controlling 'their costs and planning their budgets.
r
7) The Pomona MRF will be, operated by Taormina Industries, the oldest and LARGEST PRIVATELY OWNED
WAST>; HANDLING AND RECYCLING COMPANY in the United States. Taormina Industries OWNS AND
OPERATES THE LARGEST MRF IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in Anaheim, California with a daily
throughput of over 4,500 tons per day. Taormina Industries has 50 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE WASTE
PROCESSING AND RECYCLING BUSINESS with established markets for the resale of recyclables wor&wide.
I .
8) By becoming a charier member user of the Pomona MRF, the CITY OF WEST COVINA WILL HAVE A
VOICE IN, AND CONTROL OVER, ITS FUTURE as to solid waste disposal, processing, and recycling. .
9) THE POMONA MRF WILL PROVIDE FULL AB939 AND CERCLA INDLMNIFICATION to all charter
member users, including theCity of West Covina.
10) The Pomona MRF will provide a RISK FREE SOLUTION for West Covina's future needs for the next
THIRTY YEARS or more. The Pomona MRF is an integral part of a SYSTEM of waste handling that will work in
concert with the City's existing collection systems for both. residential and commercial/industrial materials. By
using the Pomona NW, the; City of West Covina and YOUR WASTE HAULER CAN ENJOY ALL THE
OPERATIONAL SAVINGS'; INHERENT WITH THE USE OF A TRANSFER STATION MRF, WITH NO
CAPITAL RISK AND NO OPERATIONAL/MANAGEMENT HEADACHES.
•
Mr. Michael Miller
Environmental Services) Director
City of West Covina
1444 West Garvey Avenue
West Covina, CA 91793
Dear Michael:
Enclosed is our completed Material Recovery Facility Survey.
As we discussed when I met with you and Jim Starbird, this facility is mainly
designed to mine the commercial waste stream for fiber. This technology is
working for us across the United States at 130 sites. The suggestion that
businesses won't separate is definitely not true. BFI has thousands of
commercial customers being collected in a two -stream manner; enough that we
currently control 2.5 million short tons of fiber per year. It just takes a little
time and effort on the part of the hauler to educate the customer and re-route
trucks. 1
At current market conditions, we would pay you $25 per ton for source -
separated commercial loads and would charge you $39.50 per ton for mixed
loads. As the commodities markets regain some of their pricing, the source -
separated price would go up, and the mixed load price would go down.
This pricing structure provides your commercial entities and the city the best
possible pricing and the AB 939 benefits commercial recycling brings.
BFI will also give West Covina a CERLA indemnification for all residual
materials disposed of at Azusa or Sunshine landfills.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Cordially,
I'
Y
J ue Duncan
.Market Development Manager
1201 W. GLADSTONE STREET • P.O. BOX 949 • AZUSA, CALIFORNIA 91702 • (818) 334-0719 • FAX (818)969-1529
,dhat iS iccat on of ,cur L,F? (addor rarest cr^ss streets)
M as the s' te ueen curchased or securs f ecr Use as a
,what i s tr.e status of you rn anti g for the MRF?
�lV
What is the status of permits for the MRF?
Land Use Permit
Solid Waste Facilities Permit
Building Permits
When is your MRF expected to commence operation? YYI�rC� ( 1 9
What wastes will your MRF accept for processing:
Waste Type
Yes or No
When. will each
What materials
Tip.
be accepted for
will be
Fee?.
processing?
recovered?
RESIDENTIAL
Mixed Trash
3 f4C.
Fa�
Source -separated
Recycl abl es
Mixed
4�---
Recycleable
Materials
•
•
•
•
•
,vdS._7
each
�ihd" mdterlalS
TIC
ce _.,_-epi:ed for
vi 11 be
Fee?
orccessing?
recovered?
Yard !�i w s e
N /f�
Househol
Hazardous Wastes
COMMERCIAL (Apartment, business and industry wastes)
Mixed Trash
.2 AC
Source -separated
31�C
F`
Recycl abl es
f4c., Q
Mixed Recyclable
Y
t
3
fir,
Materials
lotoGµ-mww
Yard Wastes
�,1,
t-1/,a
+-I/A
To assist in any follow up, please provide the following:
Name of the person responding: J PceQu�. u.1J
Title:
Phone and Fax Numbers �)�• �{• U� 9 J 1 lei /
Please provide any other information you may feel would be useful for
the City to consider when chosing a MRF.
pj2.t v 1� t� _ ��06/` 'ptti GJ►. G vA�1^t('(ti�.
C �S Aa loX�. C%4COl'l3 W &A-
c . irC (Z 41Z-Kf.1T
AA-C NE6oi1AbL2 . Vo�.ut[�J At-lp WA17`C. 'I-"AhA4:,1'r-PL4 4T%Q _I 6tL-&_ ILJPLwQ'
MRFsrvy �€t��Sft' F��CRCOt's' R�^ 2 cvcoe.i0 AS.rcne
' MLM
12/19/95
e+► , >�
' A COMPREHENSIVE RECYCLING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
City 0.�
January 23, 1996
Sharon Gardner
City of. West Covina
1444 West Garvey Avenue
P.O. Box 1440
West Covina, CA 91793
Dear Sharon;.
I have completed the survey form you forwarded to me last month for the Commerce
MRF. I apologize for the delay in getting it back to. you. As you are probably aware, the .
Commerce MRF is part of the RAIL -CYCLE system which is designed to provide long
term rapacity to the greater Los Angeles Basin. RAIL -CYCLE plans to design, build, and
operate several MRF's that will provide recycling and will ship residual waste to the Bolo
Sts'.Jon Landfill by rail.
If you need any information, please give me a call at 818-252-3108. i
rely;
Dave Ed war s
Manager, MRF Development'.
cc: Stu Clark
Glen Odell
A
PARTNERSHIP
ATBF WMI
18500 Von Karman Avenue - Suite 900 - Irvine, CA 92715 - (714) 757-2595 • FAX: (714) 757-2508
•
•
What is the location of your MRF? (address or nearest cross streets)
Has the site beef purchased or otherwise secured for use as a MRF?
�
What is the status of your financing for the MRF? Prx, A A__4cS,
W ,J
What is the status of permits for the MRF?
Land Use PI rmi t . Co
Solid Wastl Facilities Permit
Bui 1 di ng Permi is
When is our MRFI
y expected to commence operation.?
6:i% 2 447 -7
What wastes will your MRF accept for processing:
r
Waste Type
Yes or No
Aeh will each
What materials
Tip
be accepted for
wi 1.1 'be
ee?
processing?
recovered?
RESIDENTIAL
Mixed Trash
1130
Source
-separated
Recycl abl es
«
Mixed
RecycleabTe
Materials
MRFsrvy 1
MLM
12/19/95
�Aaste Type
Yes or No
'Aihen will each
What materials
Tip
be accepted for
will be
Fee?
processing?
recovered?
RESIDENTI."L (continued)
Yard Waste
Household`
Hazardous Wastes�i�
COMMERCIAL (Apartment; business and industry wastes)
Mixed Trash
{�
'
Source_separated
Recyclables
IV
t,
Mixed Recyclable
4
��
Materials
Yard Wastes
r'
l
To assist in any follow up, please provide the following:
Name of the person responding: !�A✓/y 6"gwaws
Title: A44A1A4 62 'Af Oove wrt' .
Phone nd Fax Numbers IFlOf- ZSZ-3IDS
Please provide any other information you may feel would be useful for
the City to consider when chosing a MRF.
•
LRCSO Solid Waste ID 0_692-2941 JRN 0096 10:59 No.006 P.01
Whc?t is the lOC�t10f1 t �
�f your MRF. (address or nearest cross streets)
u �' a s W ark+.. %A 4,1I
Has the site been �purchased or otherwise secured for use as a MRF?'' . S ;
TC, "Q CXSAAi41114.
What is the status of your financing for the MRF? .o 6 do jo, I
n..
What is the status of permits for the MRF?
Land Use Permit le
C.uf Q
Solid Waste Facilities Permit e t a \C
Building Permits G
When is your MRF expected to commence operation? f
What wastes will your MRF accept for processing.
Waste Type Yes'or No. when will each What materials Tip
be accepted for w711 be Fee?
processing? recovered?
RESIDENTIAL
Mixed Trash S�.e b���,oPt,�►!� a,n a4
Source-separated
Recyclables �+{
Mixed
Recycleable J
Materials
Post -It* Fax Note 7671 bate papas
MRFsrvy w To MLM d, From
1?119/95 Ca.�Dep6 Co.
Phone # phone
r # j Fax #
l i
4
f
LKSD .. Solid Waste
•
•
0
ID:310-692-2941. JAN 03'96 11:OO No.006 P.02
Yes or No When will each what materials Tip
be accepted for will be Fee?
processing? irecovered?
RESIOENTia.L (continued)
Yard Waste
Household
Hazardous Wastes D
COMMERCIAL (IA artment. business, and industry wastes)
Mixed Trash f
?(A PO-CJ 4SS o+ ( ��Gs�;` qi 4t„ ., ,
Source -separated
Recyclables iU a
.Mixed Recyclable
Materials b '
Na � Mac=
Yard Wastes
To assist in any follow up, please provide the following:
Name of the berson responding : . m e [. L-6
Title: D;± 0 rnec
Phone and Fax Numbers c �
u t ers In C� � t 7 S/r
Please provide. any other information you may. feel would be useful for
the City to consider when chosing a MRF.
MRFsrvy
MLM 2
12/19/95
:paste Tyre
•
0
• Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 60009 R EC E IV r:
City of Industry, California 91715 ' . Environmental sIII
818-336-3636 JA,N U S 1 .)
January 4, 1996
City of. West Covina
Mike Miller
Environmental Services Director
City of West Covina
P.O. Box 1440
West Covina, California 91793
Dear Mike:
Please review the . following response to your December 19, 1995 request for rates for residential.
recycling options:
Third Automated Container
In this option, all barrel serviced residents would receive a third barrel of a different color to source
separate recycled materials. The items listed below will be accepted:
Aluminum Cans File Folders Newspaper
Aluminum Foil Glass Bottles & Jars Newspaper Supplements
Brochures - Clear Glass Pamphlets .
Business Cards - Brown Glass. Paper.Tubes
Cardboard - Green: Glass Phone Books/Directories
Cardboard 12-pack Glass Cosmetic Bottles Pizza Boxes
Soda Container Boxes Index Cards Plastics -:All #1.
Catalogues Journals : Plastics - All #2 .
Cereal Boxes Junk Mail Stationery Envelopes
Colored Ledger Paper, Laundry Bottles Tablet. Paper
Computer Paper Letterhead. Tissue Boxes
Computer Print-outs Magazines Text Books
Coupons Manila Envelopes ' White Ledger Paper
Drink Boxes . Milk Cartons (paper) Wrapping Paper
Egg Cartons Milk Cartons (plastic)
Assumptions for pricing the program are.that 18 pounds per household will..be set out weekly, and, that.
ten (10) % will be trash commingled with the reIcyclables. _ It is important to note'that the ongoing price
of the program will vary based on pounds of recyclables and trash set out weekly, per barrel serviced
resident.
While we cannot project the success of the program, these factors will reduce the chances of active/total
participation.
1. The fact that residents will need to source separate all of the aforementioned items.
2. No room to store additional barrel.
3. Use of a third barrel to roll out to the curb.
4. Contamination will occur if there is not sufficient capacity in their black barrel for trash.
The cost of the program if it were initiated today would be $4.50 per month.`
® Printed on Recycled Paper.
Mike Miller
January 4, 1996
Page t
Black Barrel MRE Concept
In this program, barrel serviced residents would make no changes in their habits The black barrel trash
.
would be sorted at our MRF and 100% of the. residents would participate.
For a twenty five (25) percent diversion rate, the cost of the program would be $3.95 per month:
The two options also vary in terms of being intrusive. The third barrel' will necessitate, four additional
trucks on West Covina streets daily and require significant work on the part of -all residents.
Mike, as you are aware as part of our MRF proposal, it is not necessary. at this time to include additional
residential recycling to meet the twenty five (25) percent goal of AB 939. If we simplyprocess all multi-,
family, commercial bins and industrial waste through our MRF, we will meet the AB 939, 1995 mandate.
The residential portion could be considered in 1999 when we must comply with a fifty (50) percent.
diversion goal or when it is economically feasible due to high landfill costs, in the future as local landfills
discontinue operation:
Please call me with any questions that you might have on the proposed programs and associated rates.'
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Chiappetta
General Manager.
DMC jk
®: Printed on Recycled Paper.
•
•
•
0
Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.
P_n_ Rnx annn9
P.O. Box 1440
West Covina, California 91793
Dear Michael:
Please review the following points of clarification to our pricing (third, automated barrel for
recyclables) that was outlined in my January 4, 1996 letter to you.
1.. The size of the container is 90- gallons.
2. The price included processing the source separated materials at Athens' proposed MRF.
3. The "cost as of today" simply means that we calculated the cost of the program now based.on .
current cost of landf 11 for residual trash and. containers. If the program is delayed for. any
length of time, the cost might go up or down .depending on landfill/container costs at that
time. i
I �
If you need further clarifications, please advise ; a
Status of other Cities' Consideration
of the Athens.' MRF Proposal
AZUSA:
The City of Azusa hired a.consultant to review the Athensproposal. City
Staff and the City Attorney are reviewing the study.
COVINA:
The City of Covina is not going forward with the Athens' MRF at this time.
The City stated that they are going to look into other options prior to making
any decisions. They had hired a consultant to review the MRF proposal.
GLENDORA:
• The City of Glendora is not going forward with the Athens' MRF at this time.
The City stated that they are going to look into other options prior to making
any decisions. The city is exploring the possibility of using the proposed
Puente Hills MRF. Glendora had formed a committee, consisting of
councilmembers and citizens, to review the MRF proposal as well as their SRRE
programs.
MONTEREY PARK:
The C.i-ty Council has authorized staff to enter into contract negotiations.
Contr'act negotiations include issues related to indemnification language and
landfill pass through language. The contract calls for servicing multi -family
bin service only (no commercial or residential).
SAN GABRIEL:
_ _The:. City_ of.Saa—Gabr_i_el ..approved the Athens' MRF proposal.
SOUTH PASADENA:
The City of South Pasadena has approved the Athens' MRF proposal. Commercial
and multi -family will be serviced.
TEMPLE CITY:
The City of Temple City has approved the Athens' MRF proposal.
ABLE N0. 2
ATHENS MRF PROPOSAL ANALYSIS AND ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT ATHENS COMMENTS COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
A.
Athens proposes to amend the
Such an amendment mixes the
All other cities have amended
Recommend.a separate MRF
existing Waste Collection Franchise
responsibilities between the
their franchise agreements.
Agreement no matter which MRF
Agreement to include the processing
Collection Franchisee and the MRF
operator the City selects.
of collected commercial wastes at
Operator. Also relieves the
A separate MRF agreement would
the Commercial MRF.
Franchisee of some responsibilities
not be acceptable to Athens.
that City would like to retain
regardless of the.MRF used to
Agreements with other cities are
process wastes.
for 15 year terms.
B.
Proposed agreement proposes to
Conditions prevent the City from
MRF should be considered the same
Any proposed MRF.agreement should
indemnify the City for the AB 939
controlling the annual rate
as a landfill for rate increase
have incentives for the operator
goals. These are conditioned with-
increases.. Any proposed
purposes.
to.secure markets for.recycled
actions the City must take to
indemnification needs to rely on
materials. Any conditions on the
approve rates or allow automatic
the cooperation of both parties.
There are landfill disposal and
indemnification must relate to
increase in rates. Proposed
For example, there is no incentive
MRF service components to the MRF
the costs and services needed to
indemnification modifies the
for the Operator to market
Gate rate. Service costs are
divert waste and not include
requirements of the Waste
collected recycled materials, but
controlled by Athens.
factors and rates not directly
Collection Franchisee.
the City is obligated to.increase
associated with these efforts.
rates or we lose indemnification.
P-1
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
I I ATHENS PROPOSAL .I ASSESSMENT I ATHENS COMMENTS I COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION I
C. Proposal only processes the
collected commercial wastes in the
I.city. Proposes to divert 25% of
the commercial waste. Space is
reserved to consider processing
residential wastes up to the year
2000.
1
Diversion of 25% of the commercial
wastes in the City will only
achieve an estimated increase in
the City's total diversion rate of
10% according to the City's Waste
Management Plan, This increases
our total diversion rate.to about
35%. Even if 50% of the commercial
wastes are diverted, the new
citywide diversion rate would be
about 45%.
If we are to reach the 50%
diversion goal, our,residential
wastes will need to be processed.
We are in the process of.validating
all of the waste.disposal reported
last year as coming from West
Covina. We believe.the.City will
reach the 25'_diversion rate.
Based . on pre] -ffi dary data we are at
or very close to the 25% diversion
rate.
Processing of the commercial City should approach any MRF
wastes and diverting recyclables proposal with the intent of the
from the landfills will help City MRF meeting all of our needs for
reach the 25% diversion goal for waste diversion.
1995.
The measurement of the City
compliance with the 1995 waste
diversion goal was done in 1995.
Diverting commercial wastes in
1996 will not be considered. It
may help in our showing of.a
"good--faith—effort" to--reach--the
goal, but this would be after the
measurement year and may not be
considered.
The Waste Collection Franchisee
was required to guarantee the
City would reach the 25%
diversion goal by January 1,
1995. The diversion of
residential yard wastes was
represented by the Franchisee as
the means to meet the goal.
Athens Proposal P _ 2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
' • •
TABLE N0. 2
ATHENS MRF PROPOSAL ANALYSIS AND ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT ATHENS COMMENTS COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
D. J.Proposal is to process commercial
wastes now and other wastes
possibly later.
Athens Proposal
Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
Commercial wastes are the easiest It is understood this is a City needs to consider commercial
to route and collect to maximize. negotiation position. However, and residential wastes at the
diversion of waste types. This committing the commercial waste same time if we are to meet our,
appears to make commercial wastes to this MRF will help the City AB 939 needs.
more profitable than other wastes. reach the 1995 diversion goal of
Other wastes; including residential 25%. The measurement of City
wastes, are Auch more difficult in compliance with the,1995 waste
this.regard. Thus they are less Plan is to process.the commercial diversion goal was done in 1995.
profitable. wastes, evaluate the processing Diverting commercial wastes in
and evaluate the dynamics of the 1996 will not be considered. It
diversion requirements in the may help in our showing of a.
coming year(s) and consider "good faith effort" to.reach the
processing residential wastes goal, but this would be after the
later. measurement year and may not be
It is very difficult to apply
source -separated (crates, bags.
etc) recycling to apartments.
P-3
Mixed trash not open to routing
.one week to collect certain
recyclables and avoid
contamination and rerouting the
following week.
considered.
The Waste Collection Franchisee
was required to guarantee the
City would reach the 25%
diversion goal by January 1,
1995. The diversion of
residential yard wastes was
represented by the Franchisee as
the means to meet the goal.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
TABLE NO. 2
ATHENS MRF PROPOSAL ANALYSIS AND ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT ATHENS COMMENTS COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION.
E.
Proposes an automatic annual rate
City Council policy has been to
We should treat the MRF Gate Rate
This is a City Council policy
increase based on the Consumer
continue to receive adequate
like a landfill tip fee. Our
matter. However, -absent the
Price Index.
justification for any rate
experience.with West Covina
ability of the City to examine
increases. Recently it was
Franchise rate increase requests
the financial details of the MRF
reported that the CPI overstates
has been actual costs have
operation, it is reasonable to
the actual cost increases consumers.
exceeded the CPI rate.
have the City retain.the
experience. This may apply to
requirement for adequate
businesses.
Will take wastes from MRF to the
justification for any rate.
landfill that is the most cost-
increases.
effective to use and is in full
compliance with RCRA (Waste
Di-sposal Regulations) and not a
CERCLA (Superfund) site.
City does not ask County.
Sanitation or BKK to justify
disposal tip rate.
F.
Agreement proposes to give City 25%
If there is a sharing of the
$42 Gate rate provides a 5%
Operator had previously stated
of these revenues from the recycled
revenues from recycled materials,
profit for MRF Operator. Most of
that the $42 per ton cost is
materials. If the revenues from
there needs to be an equal sharing
Athens' profit is from sale of
really $34 per ton if the
recycled materials in any month or .
of any "negative" revenues.. This
recyclables. Will share.pro
recycled materials revenues are
year become "negative", the City
sharing approac does not provide
forma.
used to "BUY DOWN" the collection
will be required to make up 100% of
any real.incentive to the MRF
rates. It is probably more
the deficit. This is accomplished
Operator to seek and secure markets
Cannot lower the Gate rate, but
appropriate for the City to:get
by either deducting the deficit
for the recycled materials.
can "BUY DOWN" the rates by
the lowest possible MRF gate rate
from future recycling revenues
returning City's proceeds on sale
1with adequate rate increase
Athens.Proposal P _ 4. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
1
•
COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
F.
received by the City or include in
of recyclables to Athens.
controls. This should be at a
cont
future rate increase.requests
MRF that also effectively
If a particular commodity goes
diverts the City's wastes from
negative and MRF Operator still
landfills to meet AB 939
_diverts the commodity instead of
mandates. MRF Operator would have
disposing of it, City covers the
an incentive to seek and secure
deficit. Could consider
markets for'the recycled
recovering another commodity for
materials.
recycling.
Accounting could be done annually
If this is done, specific dates
to reduce impact of short-term
and list of materials surveyed
fluctuations in recycled-
must be provided.
commodities market.
Willing: to accept 100% of the
risk and split the revenues 90%
for Athens and 10% for City.
G.
Agreement proposes to give City 25%
Operator has also proposed these
The commercial rates may be
The City should seek the lowest
of the revenues from the recycled
funds be used for a commercial
affected by diverted commodities.
Gate Rate from the MRF operator
materials. Such revenues may be
waste collection rate stabilization
without consideration to the
used to offset any negative
program. If the revenues are all
revenues from recycled materials.
balances in the recycled materials
used to stabilize rates, there will
MRF Operator would have an
revenue account. Absent a positive
be no funds to balance the recycled
incentive to seek and secure
balance in this account, City would
revenues account. Thus, collection
markets for the recycled
be obligated to approve increased
rates will have to be increased.
materials.
rates.
Athens Proposal
Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
P-5
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
r
�_.1 Ili '►1'1 :_ :1:_ :11 1► 11 �-►�
ATHENS PROPOSAL
COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
H:
Agreement proposes to give City 25%
MRF Operator has also proposed
The commercial rates may be
The City should seek the lowest
of the revenues from the recycled
these funds be used.for an account
affected by diverted commodities.
Gate Rate from the MRF operator
materials. Such revenues may be
for revenue from recycled
without consideration to the
used to subsidize the commercial
materials. Tf this revenue in any
revenues from recycled materials.
Collection rates by offsetting the
month becomes `''°V.;,gatiVe", the
MRF Operator would have an
MRF Gate Rate cost.
balance in the account has to be
incentive to seek and secure
compensated or the City has to
markets for the recycled
consider a waste collection rate
materials.
increase. If all revenues are used
to balance this account, the rates
If we receive the lowest possible
have to be increased. Thus, the
Gate Rate and control rate
funds may be.used to -subsidize a
-
i-ncreases, the City would-be
collection rate and have a
better served.
collection rate increase because
there is no revenue balance.
I.
MRF Agreement has a proposed term
The effect of the 15 years is to
All other cities have amended
The terms of the Waste Collection
of 15 years. This relates to the
create a 15-year term for the waste
their franchise agreements.
Franchise and any MRF agreement
maturity of the bond financing.
collection franchise.
There are no separate MRF
need to be separate. Separate
agreements.
agreements are warranted.
Agreements with other cities are
for 15 year terms..
Athens Proposal P _ 6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
J
1
ABLE N0. 2
• •
ATHENS MRF PROPOSAL ANALYSIS AND ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT ATHENS COMMENTS COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
J.
Agreement has a December 31, 1997
deadline for the opening of the
WE
Operator has stated they may be
operating as early as June, 1996
and should be operational for
transfer of waste to other
landfill(s) before September 15.
If the City delays consideration
of this MRF, the .Athens MRF
proposal will likely not move
forward or Athens will have to
open it to other cities with
Such a deadline leaves open the
question of the consideration of
other MRFs.
All permiis have not been received
other haulers.
to date. Solid Waste Facilities
Permit needs a finding of
conformance prior to issuance.
K.
The Agreement includes a commercial
Current financial picture for City
Athens has provided both
This is a City Council policy
waste collection rate schedule that
revenues and expenditures for all.
schedules at the request of the
matter. Any reduction of the
does not apply the 10% Franchise
City operations supported by the
City.
commercial waste collection rates
Tax to the portion of the new
General Fund need to be -considered.
by decreasing the Franchise Tax
collection rate resulting from the
Any reduction of commercial
would be a potential expense to
MRF.Gate Rate. It is suggested by
collection rates are at the expense
others.
the MRF Operator, that this will
of the balance of the City. If
reduce the impact of the MRF on the
overall citywide costs can not be
It could create an unfair;
commercial customers.
covered by the,General Fund; there
undefensible taxing structure.
may be other revenues sought from
residential and commercial sources.
Athens Proposal
Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
P-7
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
J
I
�_1 Ili �i��� .►._ .1� �i �► �_►_. �1
® ATHENS ..1.1 /
, policy
NDATION
L.
The.Agreement includes a commercial
The C ity's .Integrated Waste
Athens has provided both
This is a City Council
Athens Proposal P-8
Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•
�_► W: ':1'1 lo ulo W&I 6M.11►01: 1► 1_:_: 1►
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT ATHENS COMMENTS COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
N.
Flow Control
City is subject to Carbone court
decisions.
May be addressed in separate MRF
agreement.
0.
MRF would operate as a yard waste
It is a function of the waste
This is addressed in the MRF
Any use of a proposed.MRF should
transfer station.
transfer facility to_-bulk_up_the _
operati-on_and_p:roposal_ .__have-this-component-addr-essi-ng
yard wastes for long -haul shipment.
the transfer of yard wastes to
this needs to.be a consideration
composters. Absent this
since the use of landfills for this
component, City's 25% waste
waste is proposed to cease in 1997.
diversion rate will be impacted.
Composting facilities are a long
haul for automated collection
trucks.
P.
AB 939 indemnification by waste
Staff reviewed the Franchise
Athens advised us at the January
Interpretation of Franchise
collection franchisee: West Covina
Agreement that states -.in part:
17 meeting that if the City does
Agreement is incorrect: Not
Disposal.
"Given.the full cooperation of the
not select the MRF and approve an
selecting this MRF or selecting
City, Contractor guarantees to the
agreement, West Covina Disposal
another MRF or two does not
City"...25% will be diverted by
is relieved of any AB 939
equate to less than "...full
January 1, 1995. If the Franchise
indemnification of City.
cooperation of the City..."
is in effect beyond 2000, the 50%
diversion is guaranteed January 1.
At a later meeting they indicated
2000.
if City does not select MRF, City
would have to select other
option(s) or program(s) for the
waste collection franchisee that
gives him the opportunity to
reach the 50% diversion goal.
Athens Proposal
Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
P-9
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
•
ATHENS
Proposes to amend the
existing franchise
agreement with West
Covina Disposal.'
SECTION 1 1
Agreement not
effective until
"sufficient number of
cities" sign on.,
SECTION 2
Proposed definitions
to be amended into the
Franchise Agreement.
SECTION 3
Changes the Franchise
Agreement expiration
date from 2001 to
2004.
Proposes to prohibit
the City from giving
notice to terminate
Franchise Agreement in
1997- or any year
thereafter, until.
March 2, 2004: 1
SECTION 4
Directs waste
collection
"Contractor" to take
all* commercial waste
to MRF. I
ASSESSMENT
Proposed amendment may
relieve West Covina
Disposal of some
obligations.
Cities that.have been
approached by Athens
have been networking
on the proposal and
each city's
evaluation.
Language needs to be
coordinated with the
definitions and terms
in the Franchise
Agreement if an
amendment is used.
This is measuring the
evergreen terms
approved by the City
Council last year from
1995 instead of 1992.
It is in,effect a
three year extension
of the Franchise
Agreement.
Currently either party
may give notice
commencing in 1997 or
any year thereafter.
If notice is given and
Agreement evergreen
provision is not used
to extend one
additional year,
Agreement remains
effective for balance
of last approved
evergreen period.
Applies to ALL wastes
collected in the City.
City would be
directing where.the
waste should be taken
Flow -control court
decisions need to be
evaluated for impact.
COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
Separate agreement as
we would do with any
MRF.
City could sign on and
be told March 31, 1996
that the Agreement i.s
canceled. .
Use separate MRF
Agreement to avoid any
conflicts with the
Franchise Agreement.
Perfect example as to
why a separate MRF
Agreement is the best
approach. Do not
extend Franchise
Agreement three years
without negotiating
something in return.
Another good example
as to why there should
be a separate MRF
Agreement. Such an
approach would allow
us to evaluate the MRF
issues on their merits.
and terms only.
Could be avoided with
a separate MRF
Agreement.
Athens MRF A - 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT 1COMMENT7RECOMMENDATION
Waste collection
"Contractor" to cause
the MRF operator to
use their best efforts
to divert waste.
•SECTION 5
All wastes collected
from commercial
customers and City
facilities are
directed to the MRF.
Residential is
excluded.
City is potentially
placed in a second
position.
Needs to be clear that
"commercial" includes
apartments.
City should cause the
MRF operator to do
this work with
guaranteed diversion
rates.
If amendment approach
is used, any
definition needs to be
assessed for impacts
on other provisions in
the Franchise
Agreement.
The term "It" is used Is this the waste Revise to be
in this paragraph. collection "Contractor".
"Contractor"?
Waste collection
contractor required to
cooperate with the MRF
Operator.
SECTION 6
Proposes to change the
language to allow
."Contractor" to divert
collected residential
wastes prior to any
disposal to a MRF or
composting facility,
but all waste
collected from -
commercial/industrial
and City facilities
mut go the proposed
commercial MRF.
SECTION 7
Revises the current
language to direct the
commercial/industrial
and city facilities
wastes to proposed
commercial MRF.
Appropriate to do so.
If separate MRF
Agreement is used, the
existing Franchise
Agreement does not
need to be amended.
Existing Franchise
Agreement language
that applies to all
collected wastes,
including residential,
commercial/industrial
and City facilities,.
will continue to allow
these wastes to go to
a MRF or. this MRF.
Current Franchise
Agreement language
would provide for this
di recti'on .
Need to assess Court
decisions regarding
flow control.
Include language in
any Franchise
Agreement Amendment.
Use separate MRF
Agreement. Existing
Franchise Agreement
language may remain as
it is today in that it
will allow the
collected wastes to go
to a MRF.. Separate
MRF agreement can
specify the proposed
commercial MRF. .
Use separate MRF
Agreement.
Athens MRF A _ 2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Agreement Analysis.
MLM
1/30/96
0
40
•
•
TABLE -NO. 3
ATHENS MRF AGREEMENT ANALYSIS
•
•
•
ATHENS PROPOSAL 1 ASSESSMENT (COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8 1
"Contractor" will
City should be the one.
A separate MRF
cause the "MRF
to cause this to
Agreement should
Operator" to build
happen to implement
resolve this
MRF.
any.agreement
confusion.
regarding the MRF.
"Contractor" will
City was told at the
A separate MRF
cause the MRF Operator
December 5, 1995 City
Agreement should
to have the MRF
in
Council meeting that
resolve this
operation by December
the MRF would be fully
confusion. Relate any
31, 1997.
operational by June,
operational dates to
1996.
construction schedule.
"Contractor" will
City should be the one
A separate MRF
cause the MRF Operator
to cause this to
Agreement should
to use their besp
happen.
resolve this
efforts to divert
confusion..
wastes.
Second paragraphl
uses
Elsewhere in the
A separate MRF
the term "Contractor".
Franchise Agreement
Agreement should
In this context
the
the term applies to
resolve this.
term is intended
to be
the waste collection.
confusion.
the MRF Operator'.
The agreement "will
This extends the
A separate MRF
expire according
to .
Franchise Agreement
Agreement should
the terms" of the
.
term to at least 15
resolve this
terms, expiration,
and
years, the maturity
confusion. Should
the maturity date
of
date for the bonds.
apply to the wastes
the MRF bonds.
Current evergreen
City wants to take to
provision is
MRF"only.
superseded or in
conflict.
,Su aragraRh A ,
The revenues .from
Instead of attempting
Proposes to provide
recyclables must be
to -keep the monthly
City with 25% of' 'the
split with City
rates lower through a
revenues from the sale
equitably whether they
subsidy from a
of recylables. If the
are positive or
variable.source of
value of the
negative. In Section
revenue, all
recylcables is less
14, revenues from
recyclable revenues go
than zero, City will
recyclables may be
to the" MRF Operator
cover all of the loss
used to "stabilize"
and the City receives
from: 1) City
rates. If used to do
a lower tip fee. We
recylacable revenues
so, there would be no
were told this may be
in succeeding months
recyclable revenues
$34 per ton if the
or 2) from collection
from succeeding
recyclable.revenues
rates approved by the
months. Thus, the
are applied instead of
City for the
rates in the
$42 per ton.. This
succeeding year.
succeeding year would
approach provides an
have to i-ncrease..
incentive to the
Operator is kept whole
Operator to find
at commercial
markets for the
customers' expense.
recyclables.
Athens MRF
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
A-3
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
i
TABLE N0. 3
ATHENS MRF AGREEMENT ANALYSIS
ATHENS PROPOSAL
ASSESSMENT
COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
Proposes a periodic
Since other cities
This expense to the
waste sort to
will bejusing the MRF,
Operator could be
determine the amount
this is;the best
partially offset if
of recycled materials
approach, however, the
the Operator retain
applicable to City
frequency of the sort
the revenues from the
sources to determine
and theitypes of
recyclables and the
the basis for the
materials involved in
City received a lower
revenues to City.
the sort must be
tip fee for the
specified.
i
commercial customers.
"Contractor" will.,
The City, is currently
If Operator has the
notify City if the
obligated to divert
revenues from the
cost of diversion
the wastes from
recyclables and the
exceeds the cost of
landfill's. City wants
City has a lower tip
disposal. City may
to receive maximum
fee and
direct the Operator to
diversion credit.
indemnification from
dispose of the
City wants to have
the Operator, the
materials. If so,
indemnification from
Operator will have the
Operator is relived of
the Operator to do so.
incentive to find
its "indemnification".
markets for diverted
materials -and keep
costs down.
Proposes that in. the
A granting of a waiver
Operator has to
event the City directs
is not likely. City
cooperate with the
the Operator to
must make a continuing
City to maximize the
dispose of wastes
good faith effort to
diversion of wastes
instead of diverting
divert wastes.
from landfills and
wastes, "we" will
!.
indemnify City
attempt to get a
regarding the 50
waiver of diversion
percent diversion
requirements from the
requirement.
California Integrated
Waste Management
Board.
j
Sub arauraph B
Curr(;..t1language is to
Need to retain
Proposes to modify
ass'izt City in
existing language for
existing language from
reporting to the CIWMB
original purpose and
a waste collection and
on the City's efforts
consider other
diversion report to a
to divert wastes.
language for the
recycled materials
revenue report. -
revenue report.
i
SECTION 9
A. Adds a subsection
Existing provision
Proposed additional
identifier "A" to the
requires the waste
language relieves the
ex-isting provision.
collection franchisee
franchise waste
Proposes to amend the
to "guarantee" our 25%
collector of this
existing provision in
diversion in 1995 and
obligation.
the Franchise with the
50% diversion in 2000.
qualifying language
In bothlcases it
that follows.
assumes; cooperation
between; the franchise
waste collector and
City.
Athens MRF A _ 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
U
U
TABLE: ENO. 3
ATHENS MRF AGREEMENT ANALYSIS
•
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
B. New proposed
.language that
qualifies the waste
diversion
indemnification.
Indemnifies if the.
City does not reach
the diversion goals,
even if.the goals are
changed to a lesser
percentage.
B.(1)(a) Contractor
relieved of
indemnification if
City or State causes
them to cease I.
diversion programs.
B.(1)(b)
Indemnification relief
if the City contacts
with another firm or
person to recycle or
divert waste that
results in a change in
the quantity of
recyclables collected
in the City."from
Commercial Customers
by the Contractor and
deposited at the
Commercial MRF.'
Athens MRF
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
Under the current
regulations, it is not
just the diversion
goals that will be
measured. CIWMB will
also examine the
City's implementation
of programs as listed
in the SRRE. City has
to demonstrate good
faith effort to reach
goals.
It is possible that
some language like
this may help clarify
the Franchisee's
obligations: The use
of the term
"Contractor "here may
be the MRF operator or
the waste collector.
A reasonable concern
that does need to be
considered.
"Contractor" in this
language is the waste
collection franchisee
A-5
If language is to be
changed as a part of
this agreement or in
any revision of the
waste collection
franchise, the City
must require
cooperation in the
implementation of
programs and the
reaching of diversion
goals. Proposed
language later in the
proposed Agreement
makes this proposed
change almost moot.
A separate MRF
agreement would help
in this problem.
Address in separate
agreements for waste
collection and MRF.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ATHENS PROPOSAL I ASSESSMENT (COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
.B.(1)(c)
Indemnification
changes if the market
for recyclables or
laws change that
affect "bona fide"
markets. Contractor
will solely determine
if they may be able to
modify their services
to continue to meet
diversion
requirements. City
must agree to a rate
increase to cover the
cost of the
modification.
Subsections (a) and
(b) are considered
"less than 'full
cooperation of the
City' for purposes of
Section 7.4.A:"
B. 0 Relieves the
contractor of
indemnifying City:
• Unless Commercial
MRF is constructed.
• Unless necessary
rates are approved
• Until the
Commercial MRF
begins operation.
B.(3) Indemnification
obligation related
directly to the
Commercial MRF.
Proportionate
indemnification
responsibility of the
contractor if another
person -or entity
collects waste or
recyclables in City
and is required to
meet the same
diversion
irements.
If the Contractor
(waste collector -or
MRF operator) receives
all of the revenues
from the recyclables,
they should be more
likely to push to
create markets or seek
new ones; . Any
determination that -
Contractor cannot
market their
recyclables should not
be the ";sole
di scre6on" of the
Contractor.
If the City Council
and/or City staff
negotiate a change in
the services without a
rate increase is this
is "less than full
cooperation"?
The.waste collection
franchisee
indemnification
obligations are being
changedby the
Commercial MRF
operator's conditionF..
If the City does no-'-
approve;rate increases
for thei7ranchisee or
the MRF;Operator,
their indemnification
obligation ceases.
This addresses the
recent court decisions
that allow a
"recycler" to operate
in any city, even if
the city has an
exclusive waste
collection franchise.
"Recycler" may provide
service;to customers
for free or the
customer may be paid
by the recycler. The-
recycler cannot be
paid by the customer.
There must be a mutual
determination by the
City and Contractor
after presentation of
adequate information
to have the City agree
that programs must
change. If City is to
agree to increased
rates, this is an
absolute must.
There needs to be some
language as to the
"full cooperation" of
the contractor.
A separate MRF
agreement is
necessary. If there.
is to be any relief of
the indemnification
obligation, there has
to be solid
information that the
Contractor provided
City with the
requested information
for the City Council
to make a
determination.
City is drafting an
ordinance to address
this legitimate issue.
"Recycl er" will :
• Be allowed to
collect source -
separated recycled
materials only.
• May pick up such
.materials at no
cost to customer or
pay the customer
for the services.
Athens MRF A - 6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
•
•
Is
•
•
TABLE -AO. 3
i ATHENS MRF AGREEMENT ANALYSIS
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
Applies to source
separated materials
only. No mixed
Will have a zero
recylables or waste is
tolerance for waste
j
considered.
from the collected
source -separated
recycled materials.
• Will be required to
provide quarterly
reports on amounts
and types of
recyclables
collected and where
they were
processed.
• Any violation of .
conditions will be
cause to revoke
business license.
(C) A 50% diversion
How?
City should be
requirement on the
controlling the MRF
Contractor to cause
Operator, not the
the MRF Operatorito
waste collection
adjust operations to
franchisee.
meet.
C
Waste.collectionj
City should be the one
Separate MRF agreement
franchisee may
assessing the options
and waste collection
determine that there
after requesting
agreement can spell
are other,Xprograms to
proposals for both the
all this out.
meet the -diversion
Franchisee and the MRF
requirement that are
Operator. If the City
less expensive or, more
is provided with the
cost effective than
requested information
any MRF gate rates or
to make a
increases in same'.
-determination, this
Franchisee may make a
may be a cooperative
proposal to City.1
i
effort.
Parties will negotiate
Certainly if funds are
Separate MRF agreement
in good faith any rate
not available to
is appropriate.
increases for
contractor to conduct
diversion programs.
diversion programs, it
City not obligated to
is reasonable to
approve any increase.
consider options,
If increase is not
which may or may not
approved, Contractor
be a rate increase.
M is relieved of his
Current franchise has
50% diversion
a 50% diversion
obligation and i
indemnification. MRF
indemnification of the
agreement does not.
City. JWho
is the Contractor?
Athens MRF
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
A-7
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
J
0B� 1$
illim- 14VX - fli M-
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 10
Baseline.budget for
MRF in Exhibit 3. All
future rates are based
on this budget.
MRF Gate Rates are to
be adjusted annually
according to the.
Consumer Price Index
(CPI). This is to be
done according to the.
schedule in the
Franchise Agreement
for annual collection
rate reviews.
SECTION 11
Proposes to add a
provision to the
Special Interim Rate
Review of the
Franchise Agreement to
include costs the
"contractor" may
experience as a result
of -increases in the
MRF Gate.Fee to -reach
the 50% diversion
level.
SECTION 12
Deletes an Exhibit C
that has the language
.requiring the Waste
Collection Franchisee
to submit a._ MRF
proposal.
SECTION 13.
Replaces the
collection rate
schedule that has the
modified commercial
rates as a result of
the Commercial MRF.
Athens MRF
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
Exhibit '3 was
incomplete in that
there are no dollar
amounts.
Annual rate reviews
are per the CPI but
supported,by data from
the hauler that their
costs have increased.
It has been recently
reported that the CPI
really overstates the
actual cost increases
experienced by
consumers:
The Franchisee already
has the ability to
approach the City with
a request for this
review and provide the
justification for the
request;. City Council
has to approve
request:. Unless the
MRF Operator provides
specific
justification, the
only justification we
will receive from the
Waste Collection
Franchisee is "the MRF
Gate Fete has been
increased to reach the
50% diversion level."
Deletion is reasonable
if the ;City has no
intention of asking
for the proposal
again..
Reasonable, but need
to decide issues
related to the
Integrated Waste
Management Fee and the
Franchise Tax.
•
Need dollar amounts
for Exhibit 3.
Retain the need for
justifying rate
increases based on the
actual cost increases
experienced by the MRF
Operator. Use a
defined list of
categories similar to
the one used for the
hauler.
Certainly may consider
an amendment to the
existing Franchise
Agreement language,
but without some
justification in the
MRF Operators'
expenses., the addition
would really be
meaningless.
Delete, but only if
there is a separate
MRF Agreement.
Subject to policy
review and
determination and
final approval of
rates.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
is
•
•
•
�J
• 1.
•
TABLE N0 3 a
ATHENS MRF AGREEMENT ANALYSIS
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 14
Adds a.new Section D,
Mixes MRF Gate Fee and
Separate MRF
E and F to Exhibit F
disposal fee. Should
Agreement.
addressing the tip fee
be separate
of commercial
considerations.
customers.
Section D provides a
Puts the commercial
Formula should be in
formula to adjust the
customers' rates into
the separate MRF
.tip fee component of
a performance -based
agreement and make it
commercial customers'
formula that affects
an incentive for the
rates based on the
the commercial
MRF Operator to divert
changes in the MRF
customers and provides
wastes. Let the
Gate Rate and the
no incentive to the
commercial collection
disposal costs
MRF Operator to divert
rate*be calculated
associated with the
waste. Need an
accordingly.
waste from the
example of calculation
commercial customers.
to make sure everyone
understands the
execution of the
formula.
Section E provides the
Appears to be
Put into a separate,
formula to adjust the
reasonable. Suggest
MRF Agreement
MRF Gate Fee.
an example to make
sure it is clear to
all.
Adds the Waste
If the MRF Gate Rate
Separate MRF
Collection Franchisee
is not approved, the
Agreement.
as a component in any
Waste Collection.
MRF Gate Rate increase
Franchisee is relieved
associated with
of indemnifying City.
increased costs to
Increased MRF costs
reach 50 percent
would warrant
diversion. If not
justification. Need
approved by City
to retain the
Council, Waste
indemnification
Collection Franchisee
requirement on the
is relieved. of current
Waste Collection
requirement to
Franchisee.
indemnify City for the
50% diversion
requirement.
Provision is made for
Reasonable provision.
the MRF Operator to
consider the
processing of City's
residential wastes
subject to agreed upon
terms.
Athens MRF
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
A-9
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
TABLE.NO. 3.
ATHENS PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION
Equal treatment
Reasonable provision.
provision for all
cities using MRF.
Section F provides a
City would have to use
Use this source one
rate stabilization for
these same revenues to
way or the other.
commercial collection
cover negative
Preference is to have
customers by using the
revenues associated
all of the revenues
revenues from the sale
with the revenues from
from the recycled
of processed recycled
recyclables in
materials go to the
materials.
Subparagraph a in
MRF Operator and the
Sectionl8.
commercial customers
get a lower Gate Fee.
The MRF Operator also
has the incentive to
maximize diversion and
markets.
Yard wastes may be
City needs to address
brought to the,MRF to,
the yard waste
be processed in the
produced in our
waste transfer
collection system and
facility.
find a location to
load the yard waste
into larger trucks for
long -haul shipment:
I
Increased rates in
* depends upon.how
Exhibit E reflects_
Franchise Tax and
increases:
Wastel Management Fee
is applied.
1. commercial bin
service 32.9% or
** depends upon level
37.6% *
of service and how
Franchise Tax and
2. apartment bin
Waste Management
service
Fee �is.applied.
7:1% to 31% or
8.1% to 36.5% **
3. roll -off bin
service
46% to 51.1%
Flow Control
City is subject to
May be addressed in
Carbone court
separate MRF
decisions.
i
i
agreement.
I
Athens MRF A-1 O
Agreement Analysis
MLM
1/30/96
I
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
L�l
•
•
•
J.IARhl ll TU $II02V (IIANI;I L UM2z8 3A1=1
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF WEST COVINA
AND
• ARAKCLIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., (DBA WEST COVINA
DISPOSAL)
FOR THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLES,
YARD WASTES, AND OTHER COMPOSTABLES
•
•
is
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1992, the City of West Covina (hereinafter, the "City") entered
into an agreement with Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., (dba West Covina Disposal),
(hereinafter, the "Contractor") to provide waste and recyclable collection in the City,
which .agreement has been amended from time to time by the parties (the agreement as
amended thereby bang hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement"); and,
WHEME-AS; in thc'; Agreement, the parties acknowledged the landfill diversion
rcquiremcnts of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (hereinafter,
"A13 939" ); provided for future programs including recycling and composting of yard
waste and other comliostable materials, and further indicated the City's wish to maintain
maximum flexibility in order to meet "rapidly changing solid waste disposal 'I and
elivcrsion laws and regulations"; and,
Wll13REAS, on August 19, 1992, the parties amended the Agreement in -order to provide.
for automated collection of solid waste and yard waste for residential customers, (the',
"1st
Amendment"); and,
Wl R,'AFAS, City and Contractor agree that. as contemplated by the parties inj the
Agreement, a further expansion of recycling programs is necessary in order to meet the
requirements of AB 939, and that such expansion is most effectively achieved through the
use of a materials recovery facility which will allow the recovery of recyclables collected
fi-om"icon-residential (including City facilities) and bin and roll off serviced residential
(including multi -family residential) customers within the City,; and,
WI IERLAS, Contractor has indicated that its affiliate company intends to construct] and
operate a materials recovery facility at its site in the County of Los Angeles which Twill
allow Contractor to provide such additional recycling service by depositing solid waste
and rccyclablcs at said materials recovery facility where recyclable materials will be
recovered; and,
W1113It17AS, City desires that Contractor use said materials recovery facility in order to
continue to maximize its flexibility relating to solid waste issues by taking advantage of
said recycling activities and the solid waste transfer capability of the facility at such time
as such transfer activity will be economically necessary due to the cost structure of
alternative disposal sites and is therefore willing to increase the rates charged bin and roll
16
o,�2AU8-9S
s
off serviced residential and non -reside
Contractor for its costs incurred due to t,
materials recovery facility defined herein
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto
SECTION 1. This Amendment
parties. However, notwithstanding the j
that the duty of the Contractor to cause 1
the Agreement as amended hereby to b
shall not exist until notice is given to th
of other cities served by the Contractc
Commercial MRF by the Contractor an
not have been given by rch 31. 1996,
the Agreement shall continue in full fort
the modifications made hereby.
SECTION 2. Section I of the
after the period at the end of subs(
subsections which follow:
alhwet
9"-MOS-95
•
al customers in order to. compensate the
deposit of solid waste and recyclables at the
as follows:
hall be effective upon execution thereof by the
evious sentence, the parties hereto understand
e Commercial MRF described in Section 7.3 of
constructed or operated by the MRF Operator
City by the Contractor that a sufficient number
and its affiliates also agree to the use of the
its affiliates on their behalf. If such notice shall
ment is modified by adding a new sentence
A thereof and then adding the numbered
...As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings (all
terms defined in this Section,1 said Municipal - Code, or elsewhere in this
Agreement in the singular to have the same meanings when used in the plural and
vice versa.):
1. Article. "Artie
"Section" and shall refer to all t
hand column of the Agreement
said left hand column, includii
numbered or not.
2. Commercial Cu
the non-residential, and all bin
customers, located within the C
" shall have the same meaning as the word
material between the Section number in the left
r amendment thereto and the next such number in
all subsections or paragraphs thereof, whether
"Commercial Customers" means all of
roll off serviced residential and multi -family
3. Commercial MRF. "Commercial MRF" means that cert,. in
materials recovery facility to be constructed and operated by an affiliate of the
Contractor on a site in the County of Los Angeles, adjacent to the City of Industry
which will accept solid waste, recyclables, yard waste ane, .:aother compostables
collected by Contractor from Commercial Customers within the City.
4. MRF Operator. "MRF Operator" means that affiliate of the
Contractor which will construct and operate the Commercial MRF.
26
PJ
•
•
J
SECTION 3. Section 3.1 of the Agreement is modified by deleting the date
"March 3, 2001" and substituting the date "March 3, 2004" therefor. Then, it is further
modified by deleting the period at the end of the first sentence of paragraph B thereof and
adding the following:
...except that the City may not give such notice, and if given said notice shall not
be effective, to terminate the automatic one year extension provided above prior
to sixty days prior to March 3, 20043.
SECTION 4. Section 5.4- of the Agreement is amended deleting the words,
"appropriate solid waste facility" or "appropriate solid waste management facility" where
they are found in the first paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the words,
"Commercial MRF". The last sentence of said Section 5.4 is amended by inserting the
words; "...cause the MRF Operator to..." after the words, "Contractor shall..." iri said
sentence.
SECTION 5. Section 5.11 of the Agreement is amended by deleting and restating
in its entirety the first paragraph thereof as follows:
Upon commencement of commercial operations of the Commercial MRF,
• Contractor shall transport all solid waste, recyclables, yard waste, and other
compostables collected pursuant to Sections 5.4 and 5.5. to the Commercial MRF.
It shall dispose of all solid waste, recyclables, yard waste and other compostables
collected pursuant to Section 5.3 (including bin serviced residential), and all such
materials collected under Sections 5.4 and 5.5 before commercial operations of
the Commercial MRF, and all such materials (exclusive of recyclables which can
be sold or otherwise transported to users thereof) remaining as residue after
processing. at the Commercial MRF, at the disposal site it selects. That site may be
disapproved by the City Manager in which case a new site shall be selected by
City Manager and Contractor. Contractor shall consider the most cost-effective
facility, including tipping fees, operating, and hauling costs.
The' second and third paragraphs of said Section 5.11 is amended by inserting the words,
"...or the Commercial MRF..." after the words, ".:.disposal site..." wherever they appear
in said paragraphs.
SECTION 6. Section 5.12 of the Agreement is amended by deleting the words,
"...under this Franchise..." and substituting therefor the words, "...pursuant to Section 5.3
(and Sections 5.4 and. 5.5 but only until commencement of commercial operations C, the
Commercial- MRF)...":
SECTION 7. Section 5.13 of the Agreement is amended by deleting it and
restating it in its entirety with the following:
81h.ecov
9-2808-95
•
26
I
Contractor shall dispose of all solid waste collected under Section 5.3, and all
solid waste collected under Sections 5.4 and 5.5 whether directly, before
commencement of commercial operations of the Commercial MRF, or that which
remains as residue after processing at the Commercial MRF, as Contractor
determines to be proper or failing designation by Contractor or approval by the
City Manager at the disposal site determined by the City Manager and Contractor.
CTION 8. Section 7.3 of the A amended by deleting the word
SE reement is g
"Proposal" in the title thereof, and the deleting the Section in its entirety and
substituting the following therefor:
The Contractor shall cause the MRF Operator to, at MRF Operator's and its
affiliates' own expense, cause the construction of the Commercial. MRF-and-IQ
place it in operation no later than December 31 1997 unless a delay in such
operation date shall be caused byL an event of Force Majeure or other event out of
the reasonable control of CONTRACTOR. Upon commencement of commercial
operations of the Commercial MRF, the Contractor will deposit all solid waste
collected from Commercial Customers at the Commercial MRF and will cause the
MRF Operator to use its best efforts to recover recyclables therefrom.
used to finance the Commercial MRF which expiration dates may ditter from tnn
maturity., such differences shall not require modification of this Agreement, as
ai cndc .
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7.2 hereof, or any other section of this
Agreement, Contractor, on a monthly basis, shall remit (or cause the MRF
Operator to remit) twenty five percent (25%) of net revenue generated from the
i
nthw nv .I
911-2908-95 -
•
.•
•
•
sale of recyclable materials diverted' from the City's solid waste and recyclable
materials delivered to the Commercial MRF by the Contractor pursuant to this
Agreement.. For the .purpose of calculating amounts owed under this Section 7.3,
net revenue shall be the gross revenue received for recyclable materials less any
amounts paid to users of such materials in consideration of their diversion thereof
taking into consideration the tons of waste from the (�ity—processed at the
Commercial MR.Fand the composition of_that waste as determined by periodic
waste characterization so=
to pay the Contractor the full amount of any recomy of sucn costs
succeeding year as an addition to the- rates otherwise set pursuant to this
Agreement If the Contractor determines that the amounts paid to users of
place those materials at the disposai site, it the t-uy se uircULb. LIM;
Contractor shall be relieved of its indemnification obligations under the
its successor of the diversion requirements then in effect.
its own expense shall have the right to reasonawy examine or auait the
licreunder.
SECTION 9. Section 7.4 of the Agreement is amended by adding a subsection
identifier and title, "A. Diversion Guarantee.", in front of the current paragraph
making up said Section and then adding the following:
31hwec
91l-2808-9,5
�6
B. Nature of Guarantee. The "guarantee given in Subsection A of
,this Section 7.4 is intended by the parties to be an indemnification in the event
that after reasonable contest by the City and Contractor, the California Integrated
Waste Management Board actually imposes fines or penalties due to the failure
of the City to divert from landfills at least twenty five percent (25%) of the solid
waste and recyclable materials attributable to it until December 31, 1999 or fifty
percent (50%) of such solid waste, and recyclable materials thereafter, or such
lesser percentage equal to the landfill diversion goals imposed on local
governments by AB 939 as it may be amended from time to time. Subject to the
conditions contained in this Section 7.4, Contractor agrees to protect, defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City against all such fines or penalties actually
imposed provided that the City's failure to accomplish the landfill diversion goals
imposed by AB 939 shall not result from any negligent or willful act or omission
of City. Nothwithstanding the foregoing, the obligations of the Contractor
pursuant to this Section are conditioned, or modified by the following:
a1hWe W V
911-2908-95
(1) The Contractor shall be relieved of its indemnification and other
obligations contained in this Section 7.4 if, (a) the Contractor shall have
been required, either by the City or due to a change in law or regulation, to
cease performing any of the recycling, green waste collection, or other
services which contribute to landfill diversion which are described in this
Agreement as of the date of this 5th Amendment; or if, (b) the. City
i contracts with, ' t allows another person or entity to
provide recycling services to customers served by the Contractor as of the
date of this 5th Amendment and such act by the City results in a material
change in the quantity of Irecyclables contained in the solid waste collected
from Commercial :Customers by the Contractor and deposited at the
Commercial MRF; or if, �(c), due to a change in recyclable markets or in
.law or regulation which materially impacts the ability of the MRF
Operator or Contractor to find bona fide end users users of recovered
materials, unless the Contractor shall have otherwise agreed in writing or
unless the Contractor determines, in its sole discretion, that it can modify.
its services pursuant to Ithis Agreement so as to continue to meet the
diversion requirements of AB 939 and the City shall have agreed to any
rate increase reasonably necessary to compensate the Contractor for any
such modification. 'the parties agree that the actions by the City, described
in subsections (a. and (b) of this subsection (1) shall be considered to be
less than the "full cooperation of the City" for purposes of Section 7A.A.
(2) This Section 7.4 shall have no force and effect and the Contractor
shall have no indemnification or other obligations pursuant hereto unless
the Commercial * MRF is constructed and the rates necessary to allow the
Contractor to use said facility are approved by the City. Further,
notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 7.4, the Contractor shall be
66
•
•
0
0
relieved of its indemnification and other obligations hereunder until the
date of commercial operations of the, Commercial MRF. Should the
California Integrated Waste- Management Board impose .any. such fines
and penalties, and should the Contractor have indemnification obligations
under this Section 7.4, it shall be further relieved of any such obligations
attributable to the failure to divert at least twenty five percent (25%) of
waste and recyclable materials before such date of commercial operations.
(3) This Section 7.4 shall have no force and effect and the Contractor
shall have no indemnification or other obligations pursuant hereto as long
as it shall divert at least twenty five percent (25%) of the waste and
recyclable materials it collects pursuant to this Agreement, after the date of
commercial operations of the Commercial MRF until December 31, 1999
and fifty percent (50%) of waste and recyclable materials it collects
pursuant to this Agreement thereafter or such lesser percentage as shall
then be required by AB 939. In the event that the failure of any 'other
person or entity collecting waste and recyclable materials within the City
to divert such materials in at least the same percentages as cited above
shall have contributed to the imposition of such fines and penalties, the
Contractor's monetary obligation to the City in respect of the
indemnification created under this Section 7.4 shall be limited to an
amount equal to the amount of any fines and penalties assessed due to
failure to reach the diversion percentages, multiplied by a fraction, the
numerator of which is; (a) the shortfall in diversion amount, expressed in
tons, by which the Contractor failed to divert waste and recyclable
materials it collected pursuant to this Agreement during the period for
which the fines are being assessed from the diversion amounts which
would be required by applying the same percentages as' the AB' 939
diversion percentages then in effect, and the denominator is; (b) the
_ shortfall in diversion amount, expressed in tons, by which the City has
failed to divert waste and recyclable materials during the period for which
the fines are being assessed from the diversion amounts which would" be
required by applying the same percentages as the AB 939 diversion
percentages then in effect. (See Exhibit 2 to this 5th Amendment for a
sample calculation.)
(4) This Section 7.4 shall have no force and effect and the Contractor
shall have no indemnification or other obligations pursuant hereto during
any period during which it determines that the net recyclable income as
that term is -described in Section 7j of this Agreement shall be less than
zero and it shall deposit recyclable materials at the disposal site as
directed by the City pursuant to said paragraph.
alhwecov
911-MOS-95
0
Zg
1
C. 50% Diversion Level. The parties hereto acknowledge that as of
the date the Contractor first deposits the City's solid waste, recyclables, yard
waste and other compostables at the Commercial MRF pursuant to the Agreement
as amended, the landfill diversion will be less than the fifty percent (50%)
diversion requirement of AB 439 which takes effect in the year 2000. The
Contractor will use its best efforts and will cause the MRF Operator to use its best
efforts to achieve that goal in a cost effective manner. The Contractor expects that
the MRF Operations will be modified as and if necessary at that point to meet the
50% goal and that the MRF Operator will pr2pose an_increase in MRF Gate
Fee as provided in Exhibit. F hereto to compensate it for any such modifications.
If, however, in the Contractor's judgment, in lieu of, or in addition to any "such
modification and increase in the MRF Gate Fee, the most cost effective method of
achievement of that fifty percent, (50%) diversion goal in a timely manner is for it
(as opposed or in addition to the MRF Operator) to increase its own staff or
operating costs, add additional, collection programs, further process residential
solid waste, or make additional capital expenditures (exclusive of normal
equipment replacement), then the Contractor shall submit a proposal to the City
explaining the nature of the required increase for itself or for the MRF Operatorl f
in staff, operating costs, programs or capital expenditures and the monthly
increase in Commercial Customer collection rates that would be required to
compensate the Contractor for such increase. Such proposal shall be submitted by
the Contractor at least sixty days before the expenditure is to be made and ninety •
days before any rate increase required thereby. The parties shall negotiate in good
faith as to the increase in rates required hereby. Upon approval by the City, the
Contractor shall be entitled to a rate increase calculated to compensate it for the
increased staff, operating costs, programs,or capital expenditures. Nothing in this
Subsection shall require the City to approve any such rate increase pursuant to this
Subsection but if, not so approved, the Contractor shall be relieved of its
Iindemnification and other obligations related to the 50% diversion level ut not
and cffcctl required by AB 9391Indemnification as provided in this Section 7.4 as
amended from the date of the ;Contractor's proposal pursuant to this subsection
until such time as the City shall have approved such rate increase. Further, such
failure to approve shall be considered -to be less than the "full cooperation of the
City" for purposes of Section 714.A.
i
SECTION 10. Section a.2 of the Agreement is amended by adding the
following sentence at the end thereof:
equipment are appended hereto as Exhibit 3 Notwithstanding the provisions of
the precccdina paragraph. €eFegeing, the Contractor shall not be required to
provide such data or to demonstrate the need for any such increase in rates due to
an increase in the MRF ('late Fee (except for increases due to efforts to meet the
a�hwccov 6
011-2R0&95 l
0
• 1 •
•
0
50% diversion level as described therein), other than a statement by the
Contractor certifying that the MRF Gate Fee has been increased in conformance
with subsection E of Exhibit F, hereto, and stating the increase in disposal costs
and/or consumers price index resulting in the increase.
SECTION 11. Section 8.3 of the Agreement is amended by adding the
following subparagraph after subparagraph "4" of this Section as follows:
5. An increase in the contractor's costs in attempting to reach the 50%
diversion level as described in Section 7.4.0 hereof or an'increase in the
MRF Gate Fee as provided in Exhibit F hereof.
SECTION 12. Exhibit C to the Agreement is deleted in its entirety although the
title, "Exhibit C", shall be retained in reserve and subsequent Exhibits shall not be re -
lettered.
SECTION 13. As of the date the Contractor first deposits the City's solid waste
at the Commercial MRF, which date shall be no earlier than thirty days after notice from
Contractor to City informing it of its intent to begin depositing such materials at the
Commercial MRF, Exhibit A of the 4th. Amendment is deleted in its entirety and replaced
by Exhibit I of this 5th Amendment, which shall be Exhibit E to the Agreement.
SECTION 14. Exhibit F to the Agreement is hereby amended by re -lettering
Section D of this Exhibit as Section "G" and then adding new sections "D", "E", and "F"
preceeding the new Section G as follows:
D. Tipping Fee Component, Commercial Customers.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A of this Exhibit F, from thedate
Contractor first deposits solid waste, recyclables, yard waste and other compostables at
the 'Commercial MRF, which date shall be no earlier than thirty days after notice from
Contractor to City informing it of its intent to begin depositing such materials at the
Commercial MRF, the Tipping Fee component of Commercial Customer rates shall be
based on the total costs incurred by the Contractor for its disposal of solid waste,
recyclables, yard waste and other compostables from Commercial Customers at the
Commercial MRF (which costs are defined on a per ton basis as the "MRF Gate Fee").
The Tipping Fee component of Commercial Customer rates shall be adjusted based on an
increase or decrease in such disposal costs.incurred by the Contractor at the Commercial.
MRF. The amount of any such adjustment required hereby shall be calculated'aby"
multiplying the Tipping Fee component of each rate then in effect by a fraction, (1) the
numerator of which is the disposal. costs as calculated by multiplying the new increased
or decreased MRF Gate Fee (but only if it has been. adjusted pursuant to Subsection E.1
of this Exhibit F) by the annualized number of tons of solid waste, recyclables, 'yard
waste and other compostables collected from Commercial Customers in the period since
nlhweaw
911-2808-95
46
the Tipping Fee component of each rate has last been adjusted pursuant to this Section,
and; (2) the denominator is the annualized disposal costs being recovered in the Tipping
Fee component of the Commercial Customer rates then in effect.
The Contractor shall- give notice of such proposed adjustment, shall provide such . • .
information, and the City shall act on such notice, agree to any such adjustment, and
adopt any increase required thereby in the same manner as is required by Section A of
this Exhibit F.
E. Adjustments to MRF Gate Fee.
The Contractor shall not be entitled to any rate adjustments in respect of the MRF
Gate Fee except as the MRF Gate Fee shall be adjusted by the MRF Operator in the
manner described in this Section. The MRF Gate Fee shall have two components, a
disposal fee component and a service ,fee component. They shall be added together to
equal the MRF Gate Fee, expressed din dollars per ton of material delivered to the
Commercial MRF. The. two components shall be adjusted as follows:
(1) isposal Fee Component. Adjustments to the disposal fee component
shall be made by the MRF Operator based on any actual increase or decrease in its
costs of disposal of solid waste (including related transportation costs) collected
from the City after recovery and processing of recyclables therefrom. The disposal •
fee component of the MRF Gate Fee shall be adjusted upon any change in
disposal costs (including related transportation costs) at disposal sites periodically
agreed upon by the City and Contractor by multiplying .the disposal fee
component of the MRF Gate Fee then in effect by a fraction, (1) the numerator of
which is the new increased or decreased, per ton disposal costs, and; (2) the
denominator is the per ton disposal costs being recovered in the disposal fee
component of the MRF Gate Fee then in effect.
(2) Service Fee Component. The service fee component of the MRF Gate Fee,
expressed in dollars per ton ofl material received at the Commercial MRF, shall
be adjusted annually in proportion to any increase or decrease in the Consumers
Price Index of Los Angeles/Long Beach, all items as of April, 1996 which
adjustment shall thereafter be incorporated into the MRF Gate Fee.
Notwithstanding the preceding, however, the MRF Gate Fee may also be :.
increased if, in the MRF Operator's judgment, based on _actual diversion. attained and
other relevant factors, achievement of the fifty percent (50%) diversion goad by January "
1; 2000 in a timely manner shall require any material increase in staff or...
operating costs, or additional programs or capital expenditures (exclusive of normal
equipment replacement and staff increases due to volume) provided that Contractor. n
behalf of the MIKE—Opgrat ot an such Drnor increased costs to the
,
City in the same manner as provided in Section 7 4 C hereof and the City shall not be
9I_I-�RIIB-95 JQ[
0
r1
U
7
•
•
obligated to. approve same as provided
therein._
However,
if not so
a roved, the
Contractor shall be relieved of its indemnification
and other obligations
as prov� Ld& d in
Section 7.4. hereof from the date of Contractor's
proposal
until
such time as
the Citv shall
have approved such rate increase.
The Parties recognize that one of
the
options
available to meet the
goals of AB
_
939 at some future date, is the inclusion
in
the
MRF diversion
elan
all or part o
residential curbside pick ups Therefore.
until
June
30. 2000 the
Contractor
will reserve
sufficient capadjy-at the Commercial MRF
to
accomodate
the
volume of such
resid
waste according to such terms and conditions
as
may be agreed
upon
at that time
inclusion of such residential curbside pick ups by June 30 2000 then the Contractor's
obligations imposed by this subparagraph shall expire and it shall be free to use the
capacity reserved hereunder as it sees fit.
he equal treatment concepts embodied here are restated in Section 8f t ohe
amendment a ove _shall net be entitled te r-eeever- ffem the
rute�fe
any -ad
agAmendment,
loweF than4hat --deteFmined pursuant to this Amend ent, it shall notify the City and the
pai4ies shall ther-eafter adept an additional amendment t". he Agr-eeffient medifying the
the „*tip
I.. Rate Stabilization.
In lieu of the imposition on Commercial Customers of any rate increase
required by this Exhibit F, the City may choose to use its share of recyclable revenues
from the Commercial MRF as a rate stabilization fund. If it chooses to do so, it shall frst
determine the new rate as provided herein. It shall thereafter notify the Contractor of its
intent not to impose a portion of such rate on Commercial Customers and instead pay
directly to the Contractor on a monthly basis from such revenues, or any other sources,.
an amount equal to the amount which the Contractor would have received due to' the
iiiiposition of the rate increase on Commercial Customers that would.otherwise have been
required hereby. Should such revenues prove sufficient, the City may also lower.
applicable rates charged to Commercial Customers from time to time provided that i.t
shall so notify the Contractor and from the effective date of such decrease in rates, pay to
the Contractor on a monthly basis an amount equal to the difference between the amount
received by the Contractor from Commercial Customers in respect of the new rate, and
what the Contractor would have received from Commercial Customers had the rate not
been decreased. However, neither the provisions of this Section F nor any use of the
athwecov
411-2R08-95
116
recyclable revenues or other funds by the City to pay the Contractor as described herein
shall be construed so as to alter the method of determination of the rates charged pursuant
to the Agreement as amended for purposes of payment to the Contractor or to diminish
the amounts owed or paid to Contractor pursuant hereto.
SECTION 15. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force .
and effect except as they may conflict with the provisions of this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this 5th Amendment to be
duly executed.
CITY OF WEST COVINA j ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.
(DBA WEST COVINA DISPOSAL)
By: MI By:
AYOR Ron Arakelian, Jr., President
By. ,
Michael Arakelian, Vice President
ATTEST:
By:
Janet Berry
City Clerk
{
APPROVED AS TO FORM: i
By:
Elizabeth Dixon
City Attorney f
•
athwecov �
91 {-2A08-95
i