1 / 34

County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements

County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements . Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division November 5, 2009. Board Direction. July 2009, BOS Received results of audits of three solid waste collection companies Directed staff to form a Project Team

bat
Download Presentation

County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division November 5, 2009

  2. Board Direction • July 2009, BOS • Received results of audits of three solid waste collection companies • Directed staff to form a Project Team • Created a Subcommittee to oversee the Project Team

  3. Purpose of Project Team • Evaluate options available to the BOS for the procurement of collection services • Zone 2 • Zone 4 • Zone 5 • Contracts expire June 30, 2011

  4. Purpose of Subcommittee • Oversee work of Project Team • Provide recommendation to BOS • Maintain transparent process • Meetings subject to Brown Act

  5. Protecting the Integrity of the Procurement Process • Important public project ($21.7M annually) • High level of public interest • Need to maintain transparency • Legal concerns: • Lobbying and undue influence • Confidential information • Public Records Act

  6. Protecting the Integrity of the Procurement Process • Subcommittee may want to: • Avoid ex parte meetings with potential vendors • Identify single point of contact for project

  7. Customer Service Goals • Collection services • Comprehensive • Consistent • High Quality • Competitive cost to ratepayers • County control

  8. Franchise Project Participants Subcommittee Salud Carbajal County Supervisor Doreen Farr County Supervisor Project Team John McInnes Deputy County Executive Mark Schleich Deputy Director, Public Works Mark Paul Auditor-Controllers, Division Chief Marie La Sala Deputy County Counsel Leslie Wells Solid Waste Program Leader Thomas Chiarodit Solid Waste Senior Program Specialist Constance Hornig Solid Waste Consultant

  9. General Background

  10. General Background • Solid waste system includes the collection, processing, and/or disposal of: • Trash • Recyclables • Greenwaste • Construction & Demolition Debris • Electronic Waste • Hazardous Waste

  11. General Background • Each jurisdiction responsible for own waste • Mixture of public and private services offered • Many regional services provided

  12. General Background • Santa Maria, Lompoc, Guadalupe and Carpinteria provide or contract for • Collection • Processing • Disposal • Hazardous & e-waste program • Education

  13. General Background • Buellton, Solvang, Goleta, Santa Barbara and unincorporated areas served by the County for • Processing • Disposal • Hazardous waste programs • Education • Each of these jurisdictions contracts for collection services separately

  14. Franchise Background

  15. Franchise Background • December 1996, BOS approved 5 exclusive franchise agreements for collection of solid waste from residents and businesses • Currently, there are 5 collection zones served by 3 service providers • Zones 1 & 3: MarBorg Industries • Zone 2: Allied/Republic • Zones 4 & 5: Waste Management • Total annual revenue of $21.7 million

  16. Summary of Agreement Status

  17. Work Completed • Audits of all franchisees • 3rd customer satisfaction survey • Franchisees notified of upcoming process and invited to submit proposals • Franchisees have submitted information

  18. Project Team

  19. Project Team to Date • Information presented/reviewed for all zones • Customer Counts • Tonnage • Other service considerations • Recycling performance • Regional revenue • Customer satisfaction survey • Discussed variety of procurement options

  20. Zone Information

  21. Zone Information

  22. Customer Satisfaction SurveyResults (scale of 1-10) 1999 2004 2009 Residential Field 9.1 9.3 9.3 Office 9 9.3 9.1 Commercial Field 9 8.9 9.2 Office 8.7 9.2 9.2

  23. Procurement – Our Choice • Section 40059 of PRC states, each County may determine • Aspects of solid waste handling which are of local concern including frequency and means of collection, type of services, and charges • Whether services are to be provided by means of franchise, contract …either with or without competitive bidding

  24. Procurement Options • Wide range of options • Could choose different procurement path for each zone • Could use a back up path if do not achieve desired results

  25. Key Policy Issues A. Public vs. private service providers B. Regulated franchise agreement options C. Zone reconfigurations D. Work cooperatively with other jurisdictions or on own

  26. A. Public vs. Private • Public • More control for County (flow, accountability) (+) • Capital investment/risk (-) • Regulated franchise agreements • More control than private (flow, accountability) (+) • Less impact on community than open market (+) (truck traffic, noise, emissions, road impact) • Private (open market) • Customer choice (+) • More impact on community (-) (truck traffic, noise, emissions, road impact) • Less control for County (flow, accountability) (-)

  27. B. Regulated Franchise Agreement Procurement Options Competitive Procurement Considerations: • Best market price due to market competition (+) • Unpredictable transition (-) • Quality of service less known (-)

  28. B. Regulated Franchise Agreement Procurement Options Sole-source negotiation with existing providers Considerations: • Smooth transition (+) • Known high quality service provider (+) • Limited leverage in service and rate negotiations (-)

  29. B. Regulated Franchise Agreement Procurement Options Competitive procurement limited to existing service providers Considerations: • Smoother transition than open procurement (+) • Known high quality service provider (+) • Competition leading to better rates than negotiation (+)

  30. C. Service Zones Currently Chap 17 says: • BOS shall establish 5 service zones (Article II Sec. 17-29 (c)) • BOS may consider many factors in determining the service zones (Article II Sec. 17-29 (c) (4)) • Collector shall not provide services in more than 2 zones (Article II Sec. 17-29 (c) (5))

  31. C. Service Zones • BOS can modify ordinance subject to 2 public hearings • Ability to reconfigure zones • Limited ability on South Coast (contracts for zones 1&3 still in effect)

  32. D. Work Cooperatively with Other Jurisdictions • Options: • Invite Goleta, Buellton and/or Solvang Pros: Regional consistency in services May get better price Cons: Added difficulty of coordinating with other jurisdiction

  33. Next Steps • Future Subcommittee meeting to: • Determine recommended service structure • Determine recommended procurement process • Determine recommended service boundaries • BOS approval of Subcommittee recommendations • Goal of completing the process with approved contracts by January 2011 for implementation on July 1, 2011

More Related