The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About22 SOLID WASTE COLLEC 07-05-94AGENDA .DATE: JULY 5, 1994 NO. 22 7-5-947 -" Inter-Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNI~ DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS .,, SUBJECT: BIDDING OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT · .. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Cizy Council. FISCAL IMPACTS Undetermined at tP~s time. BACKGROUND - DIS CUSS ION In a response to a request from Mayor Pro Tem Potts, the City Council at a regular meeting on June 15th reviewed and discussed a draft ordinance tc be submitted to the voters which would require the bidding of the City's Solid Waste Disposal Contract every five years. As a resui5 of the discussion, the City Council requested that staff make certain inquiries such as how other cities in the County are selecting their solid waste contractors and whether exclusive or non-exclusive contracting for commercial and/or residential services was ureva!ent. Attached for the City Council's information is a matrix of information collecned from selected cities in the County. There were several areas cf potential concern that were expressed by the various cinies than staff surveyed in regards to.the non- exclusive collection of solid waste in any jurisdiction. The most prevalent con6ern was a City's obligations to comply with AB939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, and it's mandated solid wasse diversion amounts of 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. While there was agreement that through licensing or permitting procedures specific collection and diversion reports can be required of any hauler, the more specific concern expressed by those cities surveyed was the amount of administrative support required to collec5, review and verify these reports. The vast majority of cities surveyed do not have even one full-time staff City Council Report Bidding of Solid Waste Collection Contract July 5, 1994 Page 2 person dedicated to implementation of the various solid waste programs of that city. One exception to those concerns expressed about the lack of staff support came from the City of Irvine. For the industrial commercial areas, such as the Spectrum or the Irvine Business Center, Irvine does not have an exclusive collection agreement. These areas are serviced by fifteen (15) different waste haulers. The City of Irvine has a full-time staff of 2 to administer their solid waste management programs. One staff member is dedicated solely to overseeing these fifteen contracts, which includes the annual permitting process and receipt and review of monthly collection and diversion reports received from each of the fifteen haulers. Costa Mesa also does not have an exclusive agreement for collection of commercial waste They have fourteen (14) different permitted haulers. A'consultant hired by the City administers and monitors each of the fourteen contracts. The haulers each pay $0.75/ton collected to the City on a quarterly basis to offset the cost of the consultant and one-half (~) of a full-time City solid waste management employee. Further concerns expressed by those cities we contacted with non- exclusive solid waste collection programs included: difficulty in mandating specific ~waste management and recycling programs; loss of control over rate structures; difficulty in administering several agreements at one time due to limited staff resources; loss of ability to collect franchise fees; loss of control of customer service standards; and loss of control over equipment standards. Further, with an exclusive franchise agreement, the majority of cities contacted felt that they were better able to hold the contracted waste hauler liable for property damage caused in the course of collecting trash. in all our disCussions, it did appear that the majority of cities with "evergreen" contracts have had discussions regarding changing their program and or franchise ordinances to re_cfuire fixed-term contracts and ensuring competitive proposals and/or bidding. None of the cities with exclusive collection agreements appeared interested in implementing non-exclusive solid waste collection programs, citing the reasons mentioned earlier. Lastly, only two cities (Santa Aha and La Palma) indicated that they strictly selected their current contracted haulers based upon City Council Report Bidding of Solid Waste Collection Contract July 5, 1994 Page 3 a low bid. Every other city negotiated their contract and selected potential haulers through a Requesn for Proposal (RFP) process. It should be noted, that Santa Ana's selection of the lowest bid was not predicated by utilization of the Public Contracts Code; rather, the City had issued a very thorough and tight RFP which allowed them to either select the low bid or negotiate a program to meet the needs of their community. The City stated that they found that the RFP response of the selected hauler met every provision of the RFP and therefore no negotiations were re~cfuired. The City of Mission Viejo has also indicated %hat future contracts will most likely be through the selection of the lowest bidder. A copy of the draft ordinance considered by the Council on June 15th is also attached. Christine A. S~ingleton Assistant City-/Manager Kanie Pitcher Administrative Assistant CAS: KP: kbc\swcolcon ~0. 2O , JUNE 15, 1994 int'er-Com TO: FROM' SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER DRAFT ORDINANCE - BIDDING OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT Mayor Pro Tem Potts requested' that an ordinance be drafted which requires the bidding of the City's solid waste disposal contract'every five years. Attached is a draft ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's office. Attachment wastecon, wah DATE: ~ ~.S, Z~9~ { n t e r- C o m TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MF~M~EKS OF ~ CIT"/ COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDIKANCE FOR Tw~ COMPETITIVE BIDDING OF CITY CO~q{AC~S FOR EOLID W~%~TE ~OLLEC"r~ AND DI~mOBA~ Enclosed is a draft of the above-referenced ordinance proposed to be approved Dy the City Council and submitted Uo the electorate-. I will be pleased to discuss the wora{ng with you either before or at the Ci.ty Council meeting. c~ty At t crrney LEJIcaa :D: 0~/15/94 Enclosure cc: William Huston CNN ITNN ]0 ~3 ]7 2O 26 OP~D Ii~AN~E NO. 1130 AN ORDi/~A/TCE OF ~ PEOPLE OF THE CIT~/ O~ TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REQUIRIN~ THAT CITY CONTRACTS FOR THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID ~AMTE AND THE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIAL BE SUBJECT TO COMPETITIVE BID Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 4017, the People of thc City of Tus~in her=by ordain as follows: .Section 1. PurDo s_9. The purpose of this Ordinance is to require the competitive bidding of contracts for the collection and disposal of solid wamt= and the collection of recyclable materials. S~ction 2. Am_cndmen~ Df Section,,, ,~ustin City Tustin City Code Section 4333 is hereby amended to read as follows: The Council may enter into contracts for the collection a_nd disposal of solid waste material, and. may from time to time deem best and necessary. The terms, as set forth Lu Part 4 shall be the minimum terms of any ¢ontrac~ approvmd by =he City Council. At least every five (5) years City contracts for the collection and disposal of solid waste and for the collection of recyclable material shall be competitively bid in accordance with California Public Contracts Code Section 20162 et. .~.q. Thi= r~quirement ;hall apply upon th= termination of each City contract for the collection and disposal of solid waste material that is in effect as of the da~= of ~his Ordinance. _Section .~. S everabi 1 ltv. -- If any sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or uncon=ti~utional by thc decision .of any -' cou.~ of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. T~e People of the City of Tustin htr=by declare ~hat they would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective ol the fact that any one or more sections, 'subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. III -1- 2O 26 Ordinance No. Page 2 Section 4. _Effective. pate. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 4017, the Ordinance shall become effective upon the City Council's and City Clerk'~ certification that this measure has passed by a majority vote of the People. PASSED AArD ADOPTED, at a regular meetin9 of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this . day of , 1994. THOMAS ~. SALTARELLI, Mayor MARY E. WY/qN, City Clerk -2- Z z >. ~ z z z z z OF__. -- o o o '~ 'o Z Z Z r,.9 z z z 0 ~ ~ r~ ~ Z z Z Z Z -- UJ , "~0": n n E ~ E E E E..- E'-.- E E Cz< z~. c= c= .-z o .-. o '~'" I I ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ = o g ~g ~ o 0 m '= z -~ ~ ~ =~ O ~ ~ i · ! z , , ,