Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24-Public Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FO,R COUNCIL ACTION :rom: Pat Malloy, Director Subject: Citywi de Refuse and Recycl i ng Program )ept: Pub 1 i c Servi ces )ate: 12/08/94 :ynopsis of Previous Council action: DlIH' 3/02/92 Resolution 92-83 adopting the SRRE and HHWE. 9/09/92 Resolution 92-355 establishing a residential recyclying pilot program. 3/08/93 Resolution 93-52 establishing a commercial cardboard recycling program. 9/07/93 Resolution 93-331 establishing a commercial greenwaste recycling program. 6/06/94 Resolution 94-128 requesting distribution or remaining AB 939 funds ($410,000) to San Bernardino to offset cost of recycling implementation. 'Ii'" 6/.08/94 WQY~ anJ ~i~ans Committee approval of staff recommendation to develop program. -'~fo6/94 MC 910 amending Chapter 8.24 of San Bernardino Municipal Code relating to garbage and rubbish adopted by Mayor and Common Council. DEC 9<, 1: 54 lecommended motion: 1. That the report by the Director of Public Services relative to the split container system for residential recycling be received and filed. 2. Authorize staff to proceed with implementation of the three can residential collection program. 3. Authorize staff to release requests for bids on the necessary refuse collection vehicles and automated containers for commingled recyclables and green materials. ~ /v(~/ , s~ature /r<! ,;I,!i,J :ontact person: Pat Malloy, Director of Public Services upporting data attache\l: Staff Report Phone: 5140 Ward: All UNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Requires continuing existing refuse service rates for FY 94/95. . Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Per approved budget. Finance: 3uncil Notes: ..0262 Agenda I tem No d-L CI'rV OF SAN BERNJQDINO - REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the "California Integrated Waste Management Act" (AB 939). The intent of AB 939 is to reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed in California by requiring every City to divert 25 % of the waste stream by 1995 and 50 % of the waste stream by 2000. This diversion is measured against a base year of 1990. In order to comply with this Act, the City completed its Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) in 1992. The waste composition element of the SRRE indicated that, in 1990, the City as a geopolitica1jurisdiction generated 217,841 tons, disposed of 217,841 tons and diverted through source reduction and recycling, 12,554 tons. The City's base year diversion rate is 5.8 %. Subsequent legislation prohibited the inclusion of inert materials (road and construction rubble), agricultural wastes, scrap metals and large appliances from being counted towards the diversion. Thus the City's adjusted 1990 diversion rate is now 4.7%. AB 939 established a hierarchy of waste diversion strategies. In order of preference, these include source reduction, recycling, composting, environmentally safe landfilling, and incineration. Additional restrictions on diversion require that only 10% of the waste stream may be diverted through incineration in 2000, and that only 7% of a jurisdiction's yard waste stream may be used as Alternate Daily Cover (ADC) at landfill operations. The City must therefore be sensitive to certain diversion approaches in order to ensure maximum allowable diversion and meet the 25% and 50% diversion mandates. Based on a Diversion model developed by the State of California, in 1993, the City's adjusted diversion rate is 16.74%. This diversion model adjusts the 1990 waste generation for economic activity, employment and population growth. The residential waste stream is approximately 36 % of the total waste stream within the City. This staff report addresses actions proposed for the residential waste stream only. DISCUSSION In August, staff presented a recommendation to implement a three can weekly collection program. This three can system would consist of a blue 9Q-gallon container for glass, plastics, papers and metals (commingled) recycling; a green 90-gallon container for yard trimmings and grass clippings; and a black 90-gallon container for remaining rubbish and garbage, such as meat scraps and diapers, that were not classified as recyclables. Further investigation by staff determined that a new collection technology was being developed. This technology was developed by the City of Visalia, who is currently implementing this program within their City. It consists of a 11 O-gallon container that was divided into two sections. One section is used for garbage and rubbish, while the second section is used for commingled recyclables. This technology appeared to have advantages over the three can system previously proposed. These advantages included reduced refuse truck trips, reduced operating costs, less space needed for can storage by resident, and possible higher participation and diversion rates. To fully investigate this collection alternative, staff prepared and released a Requests for Proposal (RFP) for a split container collection vehicle. In this RFP, the City requested that a vendor either modify an existing City refuse vehicle or provide the City with a demonstration model for a six month trial. The vehicle had to be capable of handling a split container. Staff received two responses to this RFP. 5.0264 1"""'. '-' ~ -- Staff developed a computer based model which allows comparisons of costs between the various collection scenarios. This model takes into consideration the volumes of materials collected per household, the annual costs of operation, expected cost of material processing, and disposal, and the annualization of capital costs for both the three can and split container trucks and containers. This model assumes that there is no existing collection system and does not include pre-existing equipment lease payments, nor that the system is currently being converted from rear loader operation to automated side loader operation. . The model is predicated on once per week coIlection of each container. Based on current information, the foIlowing table provides a brief overview of the monthly cost per 40,000 residential customers of both the split can and three (3) can coIlection systems. MONTHLY COST PER RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER PLEASE NOTE: 77Ie purpose of this 1IUJdel is to provide II method for ewdUDtion ONLY: IIduDl operating costs ""'J wuy. CoIlection System Projected range of Monthly Cost Percent City Diversion per Resident SCENARIO 1: Three Can $14.25 to $14.46 16.5% to 18.4% SCENARIO 2: Split Can $14.53 to $14.75 16.5% to 18.4% (Staff is currently evaluating responses for processing materials from the City's residential recycling and green materials streams. Based upon direction of Council regarding this item, staff will prepare a revised cost that will include the actual costs of equipment.) If the City provided no curbside programs, and used a dirty Material Recovery Facility (MRF), the cost per residential customer per month is $10.84 and the City's diversion rate would be approximately 12.4% to 14.2 % overall. Use of this type offacility would mean that the green materials, refuse and recyclables are all combined in one truck, to be sorted out at the MRF. Development of a dirty MRF facility would require approximately $38.0 million and a development time of three to five years. The City would not meet the required deadlines of 25 % by 1995, and could therefore be subject to penalty by the State of up to $10,000 per day. The City is mandated to meet the 25% diversion by 1995. A provision in the law allowed a one year extension of this deadline, provided certain conditions were present. To determine if this extension could apply to developing a pilot of the split container system, staff wrote to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) on October 4, 1994, requesting an informal Board consultation to determine whether a one year extension was grantable to allow pilot testing of this collection technology. In a letter from the CIWMB dated November 4, 1994, the Board advised staff that a one year extension was not grantable under the circumstances presented. It was staff's intent to recommend that a six-month pilot of the split container system be established in order to fuIly evaluate the system under the City's operating and waste generation conditions. Staff cannot make that recommendation due to the foIlowing actions and conclusions. First, as a result of the Waste Board's ruling, the City must now proceed expeditiously in implementing the residential recycling c () program in order to meet the 25% diversion mandate by 1995. Secondly the risk of full-scale implementation of the relatively new split can collection system with unknown performance standards is too large. A realistic evaluation of the system's performance can only occur after a pilot operation conducted by refuse staff. Finally, cost modeling provided no cost savings of the split can system over the three can system. Instead, the split can system appears to be slightly more expensive than the three can system originally proposed by staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the following actions: 1. Accept and file staffs report regarding the split container system. 2. Authorize staff to proceed with implementation of the three can residential collection program. 3. Authorize staff to release requests for bids on the necessary refuse collection vehicles and automated containers for commingled recyc1ables and green materials.