SONOMA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY. February 15, :00 a.m. City of Santa Rosa Council Chambers 100 Santa Rosa Avenue Santa Rosa, CA

Transcription

1 SONOMA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY February 15, :00 a.m. City of Santa Rosa Council Chambers 100 Santa Rosa Avenue Santa Rosa, CA Estimated Ending Time 11:30 a.m. *** UNANIMOUS VOTE ON ITEMS #6 and #7 *** AGENDA Item Action 1. Call to Order Regular Meeting 2. Agenda Approval 3. Public Comments (items not on the agenda) Consent (w/attachments) Discussion/Action 4.1 Minutes of January 18, Recycle Guide 2012 Printing Contract with Barlow Printing 4.3 FY Second Quarter Financial Report 4.4 Funding of Office Reconfiguration Regular Calendar 5. Discussion Regarding Contracts Discussion/Action [Mikus](Attachment) All 6. Oil Program & Spanish Language Outreach Contracts UNANIMOUS VOTE [Steinman, Chilcott](Attachments) HHW, Education 7. HHW Contract Negotiations UNANIMOUS VOTE [Steinman](Attachments) HHW 8. Compost Operations Request for Qualifications Discussion/Action [Mikus, Carter] Organics 9. FY Draft Work Plan Discussion/Action [Fisher](Attachments) All 2300 County Center Drive, Suite B100 Santa Rosa, California Phone: 707/ Fax: 707/

2 10. Carryout Bags Ordinance Direction Discussion/Action [Carter](Attachments) Planning 11. Sonoma County/City Solid Waste Advisory (SWAG) Discussion/Action [Barbose] Planning 12. Attachments/Correspondence : 12.1 Director s Agenda Notes 12.2 Reports by Staff and Others: 12.2.a February and March 2012 Outreach Events 12.2.b Update Report on MCR Project 12.2.c Update Report on Extra Oil Grant Expenditures 13. On file w/clerk: for copy call Resolutions approved in January Election of 2012 Officers th Amendment to Agreement between the SCWMA and C 2 Alternative Services Beverage Container Recycling Program Purchase 14. Boardmember Comments 15. Staff Comments 16. Next SCWMA meeting: March 21, Adjourn Consent Calendar: These matters include routine financial and administrative actions and are usually approved by a single majority vote. Any Boardmember may remove an item from the consent calendar. Regular Calendar: These items include significant and administrative actions of special interest and are classified by program area. The regular calendar also includes "Set Matters," which are noticed hearings, work sessions and public hearings. Public Comments: Pursuant to Rule 6, Rules of Governance of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, members of the public desiring to speak on items that are within the jurisdiction of the Agency shall have an opportunity at the beginning and during each regular meeting of the Agency. When recognized by the Chair, each person should give his/her name and address and limit comments to 3 minutes. Public comments will follow the staff report and subsequent Boardmember questions on that Agenda item and before Boardmembers propose a motion to vote on any item. Disabled Accommodation: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternative format or requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Office at 2300 County Center Drive, Suite B100, Santa Rosa, (707) , at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, to ensure arrangements for accommodation by the Agency. Noticing: This notice is posted 72 hours prior to the meeting at The Board of Supervisors, 575 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa, and at the meeting site the City of Santa Rosa Council Chambers, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa. It is also available on the internet at County Center Drive, Suite B100 Santa Rosa, California Phone: 707/ Fax: 707/

3 Agenda Item # 4.1 Minutes of January 18, 2012 The Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA) met on January 18, 2012, at the City of Santa Rosa Council Chambers, 100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa, California Present: City of Healdsburg Mike Kirn, Chair (2011) City of Cloverdale Nina Regor, Chair (2012) City of Cotati Marsha Sue Lustig City of Petaluma John Brown City of Rohnert Park Linda Babonis City of Santa Rosa Dell Tredinnick City of Sebastopol Jack Griffin City of Sonoma Steve Barbose County of Sonoma Susan Klassen Town of Windsor Matt Mullan Staff Present: Counsel Staff Clerk Janet Coleson Patrick Carter Karina Chilcott Charlotte Fisher Henry Mikus Lisa Steinman Debra Dowdell 1. Call to Order/Introductions The meeting was called to order at 9:06 a.m. 2. Agenda Approval Chair Kirn requested a modification to the agenda. He suggested Items #9, #10 and #12 be moved immediately after the Consent Calendar. Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, moved to approve the modified agenda. Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma, seconded. Agenda approved. 3. Attachments/Correspondence Chair Kirn called attention to the Director s Agenda Notes, Reports by Staff and Others; January and February 2012 Outreach Events, Eco Desk (English and Spanish) 2011 Annual Reports, Website Annual Report, and Education 2011 Outreach Summary 4. On File with Clerk Chair Kirn noted resolution approved in November 2011 authorizing the SCWMA to submit all CalRecycle Grant Applications. 5. Public Comments (items not on the agenda) None. January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 3

4 6. Election of 2012 Officers Marsha Sue Lustig, City of Cotati, nominated Nina Regor, City of Cloverdale, as Chair. Dell Tredinnick, City of Santa Rosa, seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mike Kirn, City of Healdsburg, nominated Marsha Sue Lustig, City of Cotati, as Vice Chair. Linda Babonis, City of Rohnert Park, seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Susan Klassen, County of Sonoma, nominated Mike Kirn as Chair Pro Tempore. Linda Babonis, City of Rohnert Park, seconded. Motion carried unanimously. The new officers for 2012 are; Nina Regor, City of Cloverdale, Chair; Marsha Sue Lustig, City of Cotati, Vice Chair; Mike Kirn, City of Healdsburg, Chair Pro Tempore. Consent Calendar (w/attachments) 7.1 Minutes of November 16, Home Compost Education and Pesticide Use Reduction Program Report Beverage Container Recycling Program Purchase Jack Griffin, City of Sebastopol, moved to approve the consent calendar. Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma seconded. Consent calendar approved unanimously. Regular Calendar 9. Clean Harbors Contract Amendment (continued) Lisa Steinman reported that since June 2002 the SCWMA and Clean Harbors have had a contract to operate the Household Hazardous Waste Facility and Mobile Toxic Collection programs. The contract expires January 6, 2013, but has an option to extend. At the November 2011 Board meeting SCWMA staff recommended extending the current contract through January 6, The Board recommended staff bring back options including discussion of distributing a Request For Proposal (RFP) versus extending the agreement. Background information and option details were presented to the Board. Boardmember Discussion John Brown, City of Petaluma, inquired about the funding source for Clean Harbors. Charlotte Fisher answered the funding comes from the surcharge tipping fee. Dell Tredinnick, City of Santa Rosa, requested the name and service area of the other service provider. Ms. Steinman replied the provider was Phillip s Services and they work all over the United States. Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, questioned if staff was aware of the company PG&E uses for their hazardous mitigation around their franchise areas. Lisa Steinman responded she was unaware of P.G.& E. s provider. Henry Mikus, Executive Director, stated Mr. Mullan had given him the company s information. Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, inquired if the outreach to potential vendors would include the current landfill operator, Republic Services. Lisa Steinman replied the distribution of the RFP would include anyone expressing interest. John Brown, City of Petaluma, commented that ten years is a long time to maintain a contract without looking at other alternatives. He also inquired if staff had considered keeping the existing contract without the CPI increase. Lisa Steinman advised that the contract is negotiable; the CPI doesn t have to be offered. January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 4

5 Public Comment None. Board Comment Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, remarked ten years has been invested in this contract and with ten annual amendments there are negotiations over the basis for an increase. Most long term contracts are written with terms clear to both the contractor and the contracting agency what the services being provided and how adjustments are made on an annualized basis. The contract and services being provided should be scrutinized. There is an obligation as a Board to be competitive. Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma, said the contract provides for an increase based on the CPI. Point made by Petaluma and Windsor with respect to the economic reality leads to the suggestion staff approach the contractor to get a flat contract in exchange for extending the term. Susan Klassen, County of Sonoma, is in support of staff contacting the provider to present that offer before going through the RFP process. Marsha Sue Lustig, City of Cotati, wondered if a long term contract would be impacted by the unknown status of the Landfill. Henry Mikus, Executive Director, explained the real limit refers to the SCWMA not the Landfill. Susan Klassen, County of Sonoma, commented she did not see the status of the landfill as an impediment at this time Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma, moved to direct staff to negotiate with existing provider for a flat contract and bring back findings to the next meeting in order to make a decision on the RFP at that time. John Brown, City of Petaluma, seconded. Town of Windsor opposes. Motion carried. 10. Oil Grant Planned Expenditures (continued) Lisa Steinman reported the SCWMA currently has overlapping funds through CalRecycle s used Oil Block Grant and the new Oil Payment Program. Due to this overlap there is a onetime surplus that must be spent by the end of FY The total funds currently available for expenditures are $221,612. Staff proposes a combination of a contract amendment with C 2 Alternative Services (C 2 ) as well as other projects to utilize the money. C 2 s proposed budget for additional services is $74, and is included in the agenda item. Due to the additional oil funds available staff is requesting the Board delegate signing authority for oil program related expenses, outside of the C 2 contract, to the SCWMA Executive Director. This would allow staff to expand radio advertising, print additional car care brochures, purchase storm drain labels and take advantage of any additional advertising and outreach opportunities as they become available. Board Discussion Dell Tredinnick, City of Santa Rosa, is aware that Kragen Auto Parts was purchased by O Reilly and wondered if outreach continued. Connie Cloak, C 2, reported O Reilly is very cooperative and is negotiating to do filter exchange events as a way of promoting filter recycling. Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, wanted to confirm his understanding that the contract would expire on June 30, Ms. Steinman replied yes. January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 5

6 Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, asked if the intent was to bid competitively. Ms. Steinman said this item will be back to the Board next month for direction. Chair Regor, asked what would happen if the money is not spent by the end of the fiscal year. Ms. Steinman responded the SCWMA would be required to return the grant funds to CalRecycle. Chair Regor, inquired if it was feasible to do these projects listed by the end of the fiscal year. Ms. Steinman replied it was possible. Public Comment None. Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, moved to adopt the resolution giving signing authority to Executive Director and adding direction to staff to prepare this contract for competitive bidding in FY The motion was seconded by Mike Kirn, City of Healdsburg. Jack Griffin, City of Sebastopol, opposed. Due to lack of a unanimous vote, the motion fails. Board Comments Jack Griffin, City of Sebastopol, requested hearing staff s recommendation next month with respect to the future contract and not necessarily decide without hearing the recommendation first. Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma, supported moving forward with the recommendation as presented and waiting for the recommendation for the bid process to be proposed by staff. Jack Griffin, City of Sebastopol, moved to approve staff s recommendation as presented. The motion was seconded Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma. John Brown, City of Petaluma, thinks it would be appropriate to resolve the question of future contract extensions including the use of the RFP process whenever feasible or possible. Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, added he was interested in giving staff time for a competitive process, particularly with respect to the consideration of the current contract being discussed. Chair Regor, stated her understanding is staff will proceed forward with the recommendation outlined in this item and return at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting with a proposal for an RFP process. Dell Tredinnick, City of Santa Rosa, requested clarification of his understanding that staff will be presenting an item generally about SCWMA bid process and won t be in reference to a specific contract. Chair Regor relpied that was her understanding. Henry Mikus, Executive Director, reminded the Board that a comprehensive listing of all SCWMA contracts was presented specifically for this type of discussion and will be presented as a part of agenda item at next month s meeting. Chair Regor called for a vote to the motion on the floor. There were no opposing votes. The motion carried unanimously. 12. Public Hearing for Receiving Comments on Draft EIR January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 6

7 Patrick Carter reported that in August 2007 the SCWMA Board entered into an agreement with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to assist the SCWMA in the selection, conceptual design and preparation of California Environmental Quality Assessment (CEQA) documents for a new compost site in Sonoma County. Numerous staff reports have been provided since that time. In June 2008, SCWMA Board selected a preferred site (Site 5a) and two alternative sites (Sites 13 and 14) for further study. In May 2009, Site 40 was added to be studied at an equal level of detail as Site 5a. In February 2010, the Central Disposal Site was added to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be studied at an equal level as Sites 5a and 40. Site 40 was ranked as the preferred site. On December 21, 2011, the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was mailed out to interested parties and relevant public agencies. The Notification of Completion was delivered to the California State Clearinghouse, which began the forty-five day comment period in accordance with CEQA guidelines. On December 23, 2011, a notice was published in the Press Democrat announcing the availability of the Draft EIR. Paul Miller, Environmental Services Associates, furnished a presentation providing a broad overview of the information contained in the Draft EIR. Public Comments Marilyn Herzog, Sleepy Hollow Dairy, 7689 Lakeville Hwy., Petaluma, CA Good morning my name is Marilyn Herzog. My husband and I own Sleepy Hollow Dairy on Lakeville Highway. Our family has owned our land since 1923 and this land and neighboring lands are all devoted to productive green agriculture. Site 5a makes no sense. County residents have gone to the voting booths twice and voted overwhelmingly to preserve open space and maintain agriculture. This is the priority of our County residents. Originally, it was told that the Central Site could not support and meet the projected growth of the composting operation. That is simply no longer the case. Central can potentially take care of the projected 200,000 tons per year. Central is environmentally superior to the other sites. Drainage ponds are already in place there. Noise is handled at central without much opposition. The trucks that haul to Central are split and so after dumping the recycling at Central they would then have to drive another 10 to 15 miles to dump the green waste at Teixeira, Site 40 or 5a on Lakeville. That does not make economic or environmental sense and it creates excess traffic. Both Lakeville and Adobe Roads are main commuter arteries. They serve as gateways to Sonoma County. Lakeville is a designated scenic corridor in comparison there is not much commuter traffic on Mecham Road. Lakeville Highway is a highly trafficked road and over 20,000 cars and trucks a day go through the middle of our ranch. In 2011 there were 30 traffic crashes on Lakeville alone. Adding more big trucks turning on to this road is the recipe for more traffic accidents. When 101 is closed for accidents all of the traffic diverts to Highway 37 and Lakeville and traffic can be backed up for miles. You have an existing site that works and will continue to work and there is absolutely no need to move from where you are. Thank you. Jim and Luci Mendoza, Ranchers, 601 Stage Gulch Road, Petaluma, CA Luci Mendoza Hi, we have the ranch immediately adjacent to the Site 40 and while they re counting on wastewater from Petaluma that water is delivered between May and October from the plants on Lakeville. It is intermittent at best. There is no water on weekends most of the summer and there s no water during the winter months. So will they be paying for, will the waste agency be paying for additional pumping costs to maintain the system and get water the rest of the year? The well on the property is not the best and there is, would definitely need to be ground water testing and it could impact our surrounding wells and the dam is only permitted for stock water use and landscape water not an irrigation, not for compost or commercial use. Traffic is going to be a major issue. You re going to need signals probably at both Lakeville and Adobe. Left hand turns out of there are impossible during commute time and when there are accidents, like Marilyn said on other sections of the road traffic is routed on Stage Gulch. Jim Mendoza Furthermore, over the last 30 years we ve trafficked cows across that road January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 7

8 during those months. During irrigation season four times a day. This increased amount of traffic is going to endanger us, it s going to endanger our animals and we ve tried to get an underpass put in there for years. It s going to take another environmental impact report and it s going to be very costly to us and very costly to somebody. But it is going to affect our business and essentially it s going to negate us from using half of our ranch and we are a ranch. We are considerate about air pollution and things like that but, we can discuss that later. That s our main concern and the water situation can be very volatile. The City of Petaluma s pumps are old and decrepit and they re going to have to rebuild them to supply you with water. But we deal with them every year. They shut us off for weeks sometimes they tried to shut us off for a month a few years ago. So the water delivery is inconsistent and I m sure they re going to rely on your agency to help them pay for their problems because they don t have the money to pay for it. So you re the one. So that s something to think about. Thank you. Dr. Frank Mitloehner, UC Davis Good morning ladies and gentlemen my name is Frank Mitloehner. I m an Associate Professor and Air Quality Specialist at UC Davis and I m the Director of the Air Quality Center there. I m challenged bringing my comments down to three minutes. So part of what I do is dealing with composting facilities and what I can tell you is that throughout my world I m often asked to be an expert in lawsuits dealing with similar situations as the one that you are about to face. I m also often confronted with regulatory agencies that try to find out whether or not composting facilities should go into their county or jurisdiction. The reason why compost facilities have the potential to cause friction amongst stakeholders is that indeed there are emissions coming off those facilities and these facilities or these facility emissions can be mitigated. The worst of all facility types with respect to compost are open windrows. And if you look at the EIR the draft EIR you will see that the current facility emits large amounts of what s called ROG s Reactive Organic Gases also volatile organic compounds. This can form smog but most importantly to the immediate neighbors there are also in many cases odors and that is what gets people into court. People complain about the odors which can be very pungent. So open windrow facilities are in any case are as the name indicates are open as they are mechanically turned and because of that compost material can leave the facility and get into the neighborhood. Aerated static piles are often times also open and not encapsulated so open but in contrast to the windrow they have air pipes inside which pump air into the compost. The compost is always in the aerated process it needs oxygen to allow the microbes to do their work. What I ve seen in this EIR is that an in vessel ASP is proposed. In vessel means that the aerated static pile will be capped and that s a better version. That s a much better version compared to the windrow alternative. The windrow is basically a situation where you have material that can blow off and will volatilize off the gases and also part of the compounds, in my opinion the worst of all possible solutions. The aerated static pile is improved because now you have more control of the microbes in processes. Decomposition will occur at a better rate. In vessel aerated static pile is a further improvement because now you have it capped. But in my opinion the best solution would be a total in vessel solution where the entire material goes into something that looks like a silo turned on its side. You put the material in on one side it makes its way through the in vessel facility within a week period and it comes out fully composted on the other end. Under those conditions you have basically no nuisances and that s really the reason why I am here. The reason why I am here is because neighbors of Site 40 asked me to ascertain whether or not there could be potential effects to neighboring organic dairies and/or wineries and my assessment is that yes indeed there could be those effects. If windrow were the only option offered I m fairly certain there would be impacts both on particulate matter, on reactive organic gases, on odors, potentially on other criteria pollutants as well and also on pests. So I think it s much more important that the question of windrow versus aerated static pile is the question, in vessel or not in vessel? Will the compost be covered or not? That will be absolutely critical for the air quality of the specter. In my opinion there are avoidable consequences and avoidable consequences could be that the in vessel practice would be mandated. I think that would be a feasible way to process and otherwise there might be January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 8

9 consequences then that might not be advantageous. Of course, I m happy to help you in any way. In three minutes I can t do much but we have dozens of faculty members within the University of California that would be happy to assist you in any anyway, shape or form. So thank you very much. Robert Weaver, 1388 Sutter St., #800, San Francisco, CA I m with Stage Gulch Vineyards. My name is Robert Weaver and Stage Gulch Vineyards is the property that is directly downwind from Project 40. I say directly downwind because if you take a look at the roads that are on the vineyards those go with the prevailing wind. The prevailing wind in this area is around 10 miles per hour day in and day out. In the summer time the winds are between 15 and 20 miles. In the time that I m going to get to speak, three minutes, it takes less time than that at 20 miles per hour for the wind to go from the project Site to the vineyard. Now what in fact does that have on us? The impact that it has is the same impact that when this was a dairy and manure was spread on the front area it would come over to the vineyard. It would impact the grapes. Impact the grapes so much so that we had sometimes trouble selling grapes. So that we coordinated with the old operator of the dairy, Frank, to when he could actually spread manure on his area. Now what s going to happen here is whatever volatiles, ROG s, dust, everything that is going to be generated here is going to come onto our vineyard. That s a given. One problem we have with the draft EIR is it looks inward. It doesn t look outward and it needs to look outward because we are not the only farming operation in this vicinity and were not the only farm operations down wind. In this chart this is Site 40, this is our vineyard here, there s a vineyard here, there s a vineyard here, there s a vineyard here, this is the organic dairy you just heard about immediately adjacent to that property and there s actually row crops out there. This is farmland. The comment made by the fellow that made the presentation concerning the draft EIR was that it was potentially in conflict with the general plan of the County and with the zoning. There s no potential about it. It s directly in conflict. This entire area, if you take a look at the map to the left, all of that area, all of that property is farmland of statewide importance of local importance. The County has made the determination that this is land that needs to be protected. The LESA analysis that was performed that s supposed to take into consideration areas around the property not just the project itself, I don t know how far it went out because it s really unclear. It s supposed to go out a quarter mile plus from an area bounded by a rectangle from the entire project area. I don t know if it took into consideration the road or not, it certainly should have. Which means it takes into consideration this vineyard and other properties also. But even if it didn t it came out with a determination that it was significantly going to impact the environment. And what that means is that the significant effect that they determined means that there s substantial adverse change in the environment that needs to be addressed. It was not addressed anywhere. The only mitigation that was mentioned at all in the report was we re going to change the designation from farmland into something else. Bob Bogel, 1190 Stage Gulch Road, Petaluma, CA I m Bob Bogel a resident on Stage Gulch Road. I think the key element that we re looking at here is that this project proposes conversion of prime farmland of statewide importance for use as a processing plant to convert green waste and food scraps to compost. We can always choose various locations for composting plants we can t choose the location of prime farmland of statewide importance. The EIR addresses concerns respecting the plant itself and what is occurring at the plant however, as was stated earlier it really ignores the impact on grape quality production, organic dairy farmers and olive growers, all of which are in the immediate area and would be effected long term by this operation. We also talked a bit about water, the report states that the water consumption will run from 52 to 104 thousand gallons a day depending on which system is going to be implemented and again they re going to, the plan is to use the City of Petaluma s recycled water and as was stated earlier the likelihood is that will be available in the future. Well it s the same water that we know is used by local farmers for their irrigation purposes and they can t always get what they need as it is now. My concern in January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 9

10 with regard to that is what if water availability becomes a problem for whatever reason? What if it simply falls to the point where there s just not enough for everybody that needs it? Is the County going to allow 560 tons of waste per day to accumulate and perhaps rot on the Site or are they going to cutoff the farmer s supply of water to keep the composting facility going? Neither of those options are really attractive or acceptable. And it could happen. It s a reality. Among health risks that are quoted in report is that it s stated that the Site will lead to toxic air contaminants exposure exceeding air quality threshold and constitute a significant impact to the close neighbors. I read the mitigation part of it. I m not sure whether that was thoroughly mitigated to acceptable levels or not. It just wasn t that understandable however, there s no question during the one year construction period that they will exceed irrespective of any mitigation efforts that may be made. Also, there s a cancer risk. Five carcinogens will be produced by the Site and cancer risks to closets neighbors will remain significant even after mitigation measures. With regard to traffic the report says that the impact is going to be less than significant and at the same time states that the traffic in the near term will jump from 20 vehicles, less than 20 vehicles a day entering the Site to about 500. And that 150 of those will be the heavy haul trucks. Jim Haire, Grape Grower, 5933 Haire Lane, My name is Jim Haire. I m a grape grower in Carneros which is the southern ends of the Napa and Sonoma Valleys. I ve been using compost from Jepson Prairie over by Fairfield for about eight years and its makeup is food waste and green waste. Three things quickly I just want to say and you ve heard some of them. If you have vineyards in the area of your proposed project dust is a problem and that problem would more than likely be one of the ones important is that dust will have a taste in the juice that s going to be tried to make into wine and into stock fermentation and other things. Number two is I haul all my own compost. I ve been at the Site of Jepson Prairie and at times the smell will knock your socks off. Three, if you have grapes that are in the process of ripening and are ready to be picked the birds are unbelievable. We fight birds every year. So when you have a facility like this I m sure like Jepson Prairie is going to draw in thousands and thousands of birds especially the starlings. You have got a problem. Thank you for your time. Tito Sasaki, North Bay Agricultural Alliance Good morning my name is Tito Sasaki of North Bay Agricultural Alliance. Our members own farm and manage over 50,000 acres of land in the southern Sonoma County and adjoining Marin and Napa Counties. All our members are very much concerned about your project, about the selection process. Because we all appreciate your efforts to improve the composting operations at the county landfill. The selection apparently pending for Site 40 worries us. As far as the completeness and accuracy of the draft EIR we like to have some more time to study carefully your documents and make appropriate reason comments on those aspects. Just one minor question that I have is that the main conclusion was that Site 40 as well as Site 5a is better than Central Site in terms of meeting the 3 objectives. But the 3 objectives is number 1 is relocate the facility from the central facility so naturally the central facility doesn t meet that objective and I m just wondering if that s the point of this arrangement by the consultant and if so why is this location from the central facility still one of those objectives one you voted to include the central facility as a viable alternative? There s some contradiction there. I don t understand. Is this a mistake there? Any explanation for that? Chair Regor responded: It needs to move from its current Site. Sasaki: Pardon. Chair Regor: It needs to move from its current Site. It can t stay there permanently. Sasaki: You say it cannot stay there. Chair Regor: Right because of the landfill operations and where it is right now. Sasaki: But still you are examining the Central Site as a viable location. Chair Regor: Right, at a different location on the Central Landfill. Sasaki: Okay so the objective means that that s small Site. Chair Regor: Exactly. Sasaki: So it s kind of, so that even the Chair Regor: But our purpose is to hear your comments I don t want to take up your time. Sasaki: Okay, then in that case then all 3 should have equal superiority in a sense. As far as the objection or concern at January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 10

11 Site 40 is primarily that it is a very important piece of agricultural land and many people have already addressed that one that s why we prefer you concentrate your effort on examining the Central Site more in depth. Thank you. Craig Jacobsen, 5070 Lakeville Hwy., Petaluma, CA Good morning my name is Craig Jacobsen. I live on Lakeville Highway. Every morning I leave my driveway at 6:30a.m., 6:45a.m., and I m there for 2, 3 minutes sometimes trying to make a right turn and you add as many trucks as you re talking about in and out it s going to affect all of the, everyone on either Lakeville or Adobe. I have an organic field just downwind of Site 5a that ends up going to the Mendoza Dairy. You know I haven t studied this but if the grape people are worried about dust and those kinds of things on their crops I m sure that would be a factor on the organic side also. Stage Gulch Road if you add that many vehicles in order for the Mendoza s to stay in business they re going to need an undercrossing for their livestock to get to the other half of their ranch. I just don t understand sending trucks an extra 13 miles; 10 to 15 miles whatever it is to these other Sites. The diesel, the wear and the tear of the tires all that stuff that s going to add to more recycle. Thank you. Gigi Hendricks, Ranch, 6614 Lakeville Road, Petaluma, CA Hi my name is Gigi Hendricks. We live at Rockin H Ranch right on Lakeville Highway or Lakeville Road which is turned into a highway. Again I don t want to be redundant our neighbors have very eloquently stated our case here. It is just, it s inconceivable to me it just seems like the most inappropriate place to put a, basically a dump on this beautiful bucolic wetlands. I mean we are a wetlands on the Petaluma River. Everybody has worked so hard this past decade to make that a pristine recreational area for boaters for water skiers and to have the smells coming off of a plant like this would severely impact I think all that recreational river traffic as well as just keeping the river clean and pristine from any leeching into the ground of wastes again it s just, it seems insane to put something on the Petaluma River, just adjacent to the Petaluma River like this. Secondly, we can t say enough about the horrendous traffic problem. This is a two lane road. It s turned into a highway. We all live there. We have properties, homes, vineyards, farms. We ve worked so hard to make that a no passing zone and to keep it a 55 miles per hour area and to have all this truck traffic as we have all already mentioned and trucks backing up with the beeping, beeping all night all day in this facility in this plant would just be horrendous. It will turn it into a nightmare because it s already well documented as one of the most dangerous corridors in California. So we certainly don t need more truck traffic. There using as it is as basically a shortcut so that they can divert and not go all the way to 101. They use Lakeville from 37 to 101 and it s horrendous. It s a horrendous problem for all of us. So we ate to see any more traffic there. And they had mentioned we are in a flood zone. So this project would be located within the 100 year flood plain. I see that as a problem. Levees break. It s going to displace the flood waters. God knows what will leech into the river as a result of problems like that. So I don t understand putting a facility like this in a flood plain. It just makes no sense. And the property certainly hasn t been zoned as we ve mentioned for any kind of a dump facility. These are farmlands, these are residential areas, we ve all put considerable money, time, oop. In any event think, think, please think. Pam Davis, Sonoma Compost Good morning Chairman of the Board and Members of the Board. I m Pam Davis with Sonoma Compost. First, I just want to acknowledge this process has been going on for a long time and congratulations on finally getting to this point. Sonoma Compost is going to be submitting some written comments along with some engineered our engineer proposal prior to the close of the comment period. We think that our proposal is going to offer an economic solution that meets the goals of the Agency including relocation of the permanent Site with adequate capacity and supporting the jurisdictions and meeting the AB 939 goals as provided on the EIR. This proposal we believe is going to meet all the regulatory requirements and also address all of the neighborhood concerns that we ve heard here today as well as meeting January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 11

12 environmental concerns. So we ll be submitting that to you prior to February 3 rd and I appreciate your time on this long ongoing process. Thank you Debbie Murnig, 1200 Stage Gulch, Petaluma I ll pass. I ll submit written comments. Tom Altenreuther, 520 Stage Gulch Road, Petaluma, CA Our family has two driveways we live right on Stage Gulch which is about less than a mile from Site 40. We have two driveways and a business parking lot that enter Highway 116. We feel that the traffic analysis done for Site 40 alternative is inadequate considering the extreme pressure the composting Site will place on this narrow windy stretch of 116. With existing 55 mile per hour speed limit entering and exiting this highway is already life threatening and the addition of a large commercial facility like your proposed Site 40 in our exclusively agricultural community would require many improvements to ensure safe movement on the road. Your traffic studies are spotty and inconclusive at best and do not address the huge influx of summer traffic and event traffic from Infineon Racetrack and increase Sonoma County contractor s hauling compost and compostable products from Marin County using Lakeville Highway. Site 40 is located on the hill above the north end of Tolay Valley. The propose Site 40 will loom over the north end of the basin and because of the topographic structure of the basin any noises become amplified so we can hear conversations heard a quarter of a mile away. Assessment of noise and any mitigation has not addressed the unique structure of this valley and equipment with backup alarms and all night aeration fans would cause extreme disruption of the basins tranquil environment and we feel that further testing and monitoring is needed to ensure that mitigation measures are adequate. We also feel that the odor will be a huge problem not only because of prevailing winds of west to southwest but because of the unique structure of the north Tolay basin and the location of the proposed Site 40 upwind and above it. In addition to the wind late night and early morning cold air inversion will bring undesirable and unavoidable composting odors of the proposed Site 40 to our doorstep. Your proposed mitigations are again inadequate and your yet to be revealed protocols for the mitigation of the odor sound more like voodoo than science. Finally I come to the most dangerous impact of all and that is the listing of five cancer causing agents on the Site 40. You refer to these people as residential receptors and I refer to them as my children and grandchildren, Thank you. Ernest Altenreuther, Lakeville Service Station, 5100 Lakeville Hwy., Petaluma, CA, I have Lakeville Service Station which is on the corner of 116 and Stage Gulch or Lakeville Highway and Tolay Valley Farms and to avoid being redundant I ll stick to just a couple of things. One is the environmental impact report doesn t seem to go into enough detail about nitrates entering the water from the facility. You already have partially contaminated wells in the area and this Site is going to continue to leech more nitrates into the groundwater that might bring the wells to an unusable state. The other thing is this Site being a vector for pests, insects, rodents, birds and diseases that could affect crops and animals in the area. And the other main thing that everyone has said is the traffic which is very bad at both intersections onto this section of Stage Gulch Road and I don t think that road can handle much more big trucks without being even more dangerous than it already is. Thank you. Jens Kullberg, Stage Gulch Vineyards, Petaluma Crop Winegrowers Hello my name is Jens Kullberg my family own and operates Stage Gulch Vineyard a 90 acre vineyard across the street from Site 40 which is also known as the Teixeira Ranch. I have some concerns about the compatibility of the compost operations since they re industrial in nature with Site 40 which is agricultural in nature. There are some deficiencies of the EIR. I have to skip some things because I m limited here but. Chapter 5 there s no mention of fungus, insects, pathogens or bacterial disease being introduced into the air and becoming airborne. These vectors, fungus and bacteria will adversely affects around grapes. I January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 12

13 understand that the compost itself will be free of these problems but 200,000 tons of green waste, viticulture waste, pruning s, manure and food scraps dumped in mass are bound to contain, generate and release harmful compounds into the air. There are some terms they use in the EIR. There s 3 terms; significant which means there has to be some mitigation, less than significant means that there s some mitigation that s taken care of the problem; and significant and unavoidable which is the problem has not/cannot be solved or remedied. This is a big strike against any project Site. Page 19-6 and figure 19-1 according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Site 40 is classified as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance and grazing land. Under these categories of project agriculture impact is considered significant under the California LESA Model. The mitigation measure suggested is number 9.4 which is described on page which is to cancel the Williamson Act by purchasing the property. Now how this mitigation measure will address the problem of converting prime farmland to an industrial use needs further explanation. But even with mitigation the project s impact is considered significant and unavoidable. In other words the problem of converting prime farmland cannot be solved. Under the agricultural section of all the chapters only the Williamson Act is discussed and no discussions about economical impacts to surrounding agricultural operations. On page 2-2 and 2-3, Site 5a has significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, Site 40 has 6 significant and unavoidable impacts and the Central Site has only 1, which is involved increase in ours. The vineyard prunings, pumice, viticulture products, food scraps and manure will be trucked to the compost facility. This will introduce pathogens that surrounding vineyards are not currently exposed to. My vineyard is upwind from other vineyards and is not exposed to many of the grapevine diseases plaguing other vineyards. Our isolation is an asset and would be jeopardized if the compost facility was located across the street. Also, the most, biggest concern is the value of my grapes will be adversely affected. Margaret Kullberg, Kullberg Farms, Stage Gulch Vineyards, 1036 Stage Gulch Road, Petaluma, My name is Margaret Kullberg. I live across the street from Site 40 on Stage Gulch Road for 63 years. Yes, I m 85 years old. Our ranch consists of over 200 acres which has been in my husband s family for over 100 years. My husband passed away so my son and daughter manage the 90 acres of grapes. There are some 500 acres of vineyards in the surrounding area, as well as an organic dairy and a row crop farm. Tour buses go along this Highway 116 as it s the beginning of the grape acreage in this area. Site 40 is not the place for a compost Site for many reasons. The compost consists of not only greenery, steak and vegetable scrap and meat scrap which will certainly attract rats, all kinds of viruses and strong odors when the compost is turned over. The wind will blow directly from it affecting the grape taste and we will be unable to sell them. Traffic from trucks hauling 100 to 200 tons of material is not well addressed. They say they will put a sign on Lakeville and Adobe Road saying trucks crossing. I don t think that would help the congestion. The addition of 350 vehicle trips and 500 on the weekend is anticipated with 30% being heavy hauling trucks on a small two lane highway which would be inadequate even if the road were widened. Bicyclists would not be able to travel our street easily. There was a study in the summer of 2009 where Stage Gulch was used by 30 to 80 bicyclists per day. The noise of construction would be huge 35 trucks per day and it would take a year to construct and the noise of the aerated static piles processing the compost would be ongoing 24 hours per day and sound carries very far in the country. The cost of Site 40 has not been addressed. I believe it is 6.9 million. No cost is mentioned for the one in 5a. In fact there is no mention of land or construction cost. Isn t this important in this difficult time? Doesn t the Board of Supervisors also have to locate any land purchased? My conclusion is not only Site 40 but also Site 5a off of Lakeville Highway will have the same problems with odor, traffic and pathogens affecting the grapes in the area. 5a is also in the 100 year flood plain zone and it s also under the Williamson Act. Agriculture is under the Williamson Act. Agriculture is the most important thing in this county. Milk and grapes bring the biggest income in this county and you want to put a compost Site in the most beautiful agricultural land there is in the area. I would like to invite any and all of you to take a January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 13

14 trip in our car to see these different Sites so you understand what we have and what our problems are. Thank you. I leave my number if you wish to call me to take the trips. Douglas McElroy, Rodney Strong Vineyards Good Morning. Douglas McElroy, Rodney Strong Vineyard. I m the Director of Wine Growing for Rodney Strong. We operate a lease on the Sleepy Hollow Dairy property, 140 acres of wine grapes. I m here to basically give you my experience with purchasing grapes and farming around areas like this. The people that have spoken to the lesser value of grapes is accurate. Winemaker s do have difficulty with grapes being grown adjacent to operations like this and as a matter of fact I have cancelled several contracts over the years of my grape purchasing which have been adjacent to operations like this because of the affects on the wine quality the off flavors that you get and the difficulty by which it is to remove them from the wine once you ve processed grapes from areas like this. So I m very concerned for our own operations but I m also very concerned obviously for all the other vineyards around any of the Sites your proposing. The Site that I mentioned was Site 5a that we have farm around. Thank you. J.T. Wick, Scallywag Ranch, 7670 Lakeville Hwy., Petaluma, CA Good Morning. I represent Scallywag Ranch which is at 7670 Lakeville Highway. We re at the end of Twin House Ranch Road. A one lane ag road that leads from Lakeville all the way to the Petaluma River. Where our business partner Craig Jacobsen grows conventional and organic hay. We object to Site 5a for two principle reasons and that s not complete reading of the full EIR. First, access when we look at the easement that we all share to get out to Lakeville it seems to us that the conversion of this portion of the 5a Site from agricultural to industrial will overburden the easement by the type of use and by the intensity of use. We are an old or Twin House Ranch Road is an old one lane road that s only been paved once. It has no road base, it has sharp turns, it s really meant for just an intermittent use of farm equipment as it s used today. To increase its use to an agricultural one is really going to impose safety conflicts before you even get out to Lakeville where the IR spends a good deal of its analysis with traffic concerns. The other concern we have our objections is groundwater contamination. They don t call us Lakeville for nothing. Groundwater where we are is about 18 inches below the service of the land. So if you have another facility that already has another way of catching that leeching making sure it doesn t get into groundwater that seems far more superior. Speaking now in a different capacity, as Board Chair of Friends of the Petaluma River, we normally don t get involved in evaluation of large scale projects like this but to take a regional environmental prospective, we already have the central Site that has mitigated all of the impacts that my neighbors and friends here have addressed this morning. At the Central Site we re actually talking about a different water shed. The Central Site drains to the coastal esteros. What we would be doing here is if we went into Site 40 or Site 5a would be transferring all those environmental burdens into the Petaluma River water shed and that just seems completely unacceptable to us. So we ask you to think about focusing on the Central Site and making a compost facility work successfully there. Thank you. Rene Cardinaux, 4233 Browns Lane, Petaluma, CA Good morning. My name is Rene Cardinaux. I m the southwest neighbor of Site 40 in Petaluma. We re on the downhill downwind side. So a lot of the issues that my neighbors have we won t have. But I would like to clarify a few things. At the top corner of the back of our ranch if you were to put up a pile of compost there and just leave it there I would guarantee you within a month it would be disappeared because the wind up there is steady and continuous and it just moves everything. Noise is the same thing. The amount of traffic noise we get from Lakeville Highway is pretty substantial. We re more than a mile away. I can imagine a 1000 feet away of this composting work the sound would be much greater. People that don t live on large parcels of land think 1000 feet is a long ways but not when there s sound or wind involved. It s right next door. The other thing I want to point out is the water that we get from Petaluma the reclaimed water that feeds this ranch goes right through our ranch. January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 14

15 We ve been using this water for 25 years. The city runs a great project. But they ve been doing such a great job of cleaning the water and using it that there s less and less available for agriculture. I promise you that we have serious concerns that the water will be there in We keep hoping it will because of its benefit. But we ve always worried that it wouldn t be there when we need it. I don t know how the assurances can be made but the compost facility even if I supported the concept I don t want to give up water to make it work. We need that water. The other thing that I wanted to point out is that we are very worried about the operation of this plant. During the construction and during all the first mitigations of this instead of using a windrow you can put it inside this plastic. It s a great idea but it s like any other operation. If we have to be neighbors to this equipment and all that s going on is that the quality of your new operator the person you contract with to do this work we are very, very concerned about how that will continue. You may have great intent, you may write a great contract. But things deteriorate, budgets get cut and then later on we may wind up with an operation that just isn t what we thought we were going to get. So I really worry about the long term operation of this. It s typical of government agencies that things get cut in cost. That they don t want to pay this much money and all the nice things that we agreed to, they just gradually disappear. And that really concerns us as the neighbors to that potential facility. I ve already written six pages of comments so I m not going to reissue all those. I won t bore you with that. Thank you. Ken Wells, AB 939 LTF, Guidance Sustainability Good morning Chair Regor and Boardmembers, Ken Wells, Guiding Sustainability. I m here to speak to you as the Sierra Club s representative to the AB 939 Local Task Force. As you all know the AB 939 Local Task Force is your advisory body for anything to deal with this programs we have and I would have a brief comment today that I would like to see the comment period extended. So essentially the Local Task Force could have the opportunity to discuss this and come up with some comments and responses to the draft EIR and I think I d like to wrap up just by saying the composting program in Sonoma County is the single most important diversion program you all are responsible for in terms of tons, in terms of greenhouse gases, in terms of satisfying the draft EIR so I look forward to a successful outcome of this EIR and I would just ask for a little bit more time perhaps a month to provide an opportunity for the LTF to consider this and to prepare comments. Thank you. Ashley Herman, Riverside Equestrian Center, 7600 Lakeville Hwy., Petaluma, CA Hi, this is in reference to Site 5a. My name is Ashley Herman and I own Riverside Equestrian Center and Sonoma Horse Park which are located at 7600 Lakeville. Twin House Ranch Road is the access to our facility. I just want to reiterate and stress that if this Site is selected for this project it will create a incredibly dangerous traffic situation. As everyone has mention and commented on Site 5a. Already Lakeville Highway is one of the most dangerous roads in Sonoma County. Every year there are fatalities. In particular the concern is the left hand turn lane coming off of Lakeville as well as large trucks turning left back onto Lakeville that follows directly after a blind turn and often time cars fly by there. And I am certain that if this project were to come to fruition that there would be increased fatalities. It s a incredibly dangerous prospect as far as traffic. Thank you. Linda Yenni, Wine Realty International, Arnold Dr., Sonoma, CA Hi I m Linda Yenni. So to avoid redundancy because I think the life style and the residence impacts to the neighboring properties have been well articulated so I m only go to speak to the economics of this. The return on investment for a very expensive improvement on that roadway that was put in and the connectivity between the Sonoma Valley and the Petaluma Valley is paramount so I m trusting that Sonoma and Petaluma will pay specific attention. I have a Victorian in Petaluma in the city district and a 100 acres of farmland in the Sonoma Valley. So I frequent that corridor often. I ve also sold 3-5 million worth or brokered/negotiated contracts for wine grapes and so everything that was said about the impact on those grapes is very, very significant. Especially for the Petaluma gap area that has been kind of at a standstill January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 15

16 with the current economy. We finally see red grapes starting to rise again and they re going to be not looked at by potential buyers if there contiguous or adjacent to or within proximity of this facility, if people could go elsewhere. Most importantly I m thinking of when we talk about visual appeal being far removed from the highway and up on the mountaintop are rolling hills and mountaintops are the highest and best used are winery terraces and facilities because they look back down on the property. So that argument I find from what I see with property values and wineries that s a highly desired and highly best used. Now a property like Green Acre the kind of property that s going to be near there what we want to see is them build a winery facility down there. So you put a green waste facility here why would anybody do that. You also have the watersheds, you have Tolay Creek. So the perfect use is for people to be able to use private funded money where they can actually afford to make these beautiful public use lands. They can look down on those restoration projects. So this project 40 I just can t even believe it s even being considered. As I drive in and I look at it every day since I heard of this which was from Margaret which at very short order if not insufficient time to look at a 1500 page EIR report. I think about not only the people you are impacting who own the properties today, that s a given, but all the people of those properties which will not develop, will not put value added to consumer cheese factories, organic cheese factories not build beautiful wineries because of this short term decision today. Thank you for your time. Clark Thompson, 1013 Palmetto Way, Petaluma, CA Good morning my name is Clark Thompson 1013 Palmetto Way, Petaluma and initially I d like to address the water issue. I know that the Rooster Run Golf Course and the Adobe Creek in Petaluma are using the water presently. And as far as Rooster Run s concerned they don t always get a chance to us it because there isn t enough water and we have to go to ground water. In times of draught we know the less water used by the citizens so therefore there s going to be less water to be used by any of the users in the city. The rate payers in Petaluma have spent a fortune on the new processing plant or new whatever we are calling it. What are we calling it Joe? Joe: Water recycle. I m sure the rate payers would not be happy to send the water up to Site 40 to use for composting when the need is in the city. And I know that every opportunity that the city has to use that water for irrigation of the parks, for all the other uses, they re going to use it and they have priority. So the use of this water is very questionable. Also, I know that the parcel that Dick Grey used to own next to the Central Site is now owned by the owner of North Bay Corporation, the garbage hauler and has anybody addressed that? To use that site. And another quick thing the composting, I think the gentleman from UC Davis there s probably some kind of facilities that we can incorporate into the study where it s more compact. He mentioned his last thing was some large container where the compost would come out at the end in 45 days or something. So maybe we don t need all this land that we re proposing. We re going to spend 6.9 million dollars on this property and all we re going to be using is 40 acres. I mean there s no economy of scale there. I do realize that it s in enterprise tax funds so we don t have to go to the tax payers but that s a big question in my mind. Why are we spending so much money when we already have an existing Site? Thank you and good afternoon to you. Ernie Carpenter, Occidental Road, Sebastopol, CA Good morning Ernie Carpenter Sebastopol, CA. Welcome to the wide world of trying to redirect the waste stream. Just a couple of comments: I ve long thought that continuing the use on Central Landfill was the best option and I ve heard nothing that would change my mind on that. A compliment to the City of Santa Rosa they ve done such a good job with the wastewater. I don t know if you oversubscribe but the pipelines, the leech runs two ways. And the most alarming thing I ve heard today is the amount of water usage, if in fact Santa Rosa has water from central treatment that can be run back to Central Landfill that might take care of part of the problem. What I really want to speak to though is that and believe me I m a late convert to this but many of those are talking about an anaerobic digester to generate power. I really don t know if that s going to work. They are several of those projects happening around January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 16

17 the state. But it comes to this point, the County owns Central Landfill. They re doing an analysis of reopening and presumably a merge sometime in the future it s also the current Site of the compost. Perhaps in combination with whatever the County chooses their project could continue to be the Site. The food waste could be perhaps if analysis bears it out turned into power that could be used as an anaerobic digester and cut down the amount of land that s needed at the Central Landfill. A no name garbage group has discussed this quite a bit recently with no conclusions except for waiting for the County s status. I know you ve got HDR and you ve got EIR and you ve got potentially a new project Site. I guess what I m saying is to avoid any segmentation our other kinds of issues I think we should look now at this entire question of whether or not it s going to be merged with an anaerobic digester to cut down on green waste and whether Central can be used by moving. Upgrade your process and we can all be happy. Thank you very much. Mike Kirn, City of Healdsburg, moved to close the Public Hearing. Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma, seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Board Discussion Chair Regor, asked staff for the next steps in the Draft EIR process. Mr. Carter responded that SCWMA will be receiving written comments until February 3, 2012 at 4:00p.m. After completion of the comment period, all communications will be forwarded to ESA, who will address each of them in the Final EIR, which is expected to be presented in late spring or early summer. Chair Regor noted there were requests to extend the public comment period, which the Board needs to address since the next Board meeting would fall after the close of the public comment period. Janet Coleson, Agency Counsel, recommended extending the comment period no more than a total of 60 days. Everyone who was originally notified of the comment period would need to be re-notified of the extension. Chair Regor asked if extending the comment period would have significant affects on the overall project. Mr. Carter stated the extension would push back the process longer. John Brown, City of Petaluma, stated he would be in favor of extending the comment period and wanted to know where the 60 days would take the comment period. Janet Coleson, Agency Counsel, answered that extending for a total of 60 days would allow for an additional 15 days for comments. Board Comments Dell Tredinnick, City of Santa Rosa, questioned if the AB 939 Local Task Force (LTF) felt the fifteen day extension would be sufficient. Marsha Sue Lustig, City of Cotati, asked how the LTF is involved in the process. Mr. Carter replied the LTF was initially involved in developing the screening criteria for the site study. Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma, suggested the LTF call a special meeting to discuss and comment on the draft EIR. John Brown, City of Petaluma, moved to extend the comment period an additional fifteen days. Marsha Sue Lustig, City of Cotati, seconded. Motion carried unanimously. January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 17

18 Janet Coleson, Agency Counsel, suggested setting a concrete date to end comment period due to the holidays in February. The date set by the Board is Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 4:00p.m. Chair Regor, called for a brief break and upon return wanted to discuss agenda management. Chair Regor, called the meeting back to order at 11:33a.m. Due to Boardmember time constraints, it was decided to skip Item #8 and move on to Items #11 and # Sonoma County/City Solid Waste Advisory (SWAG) This item was skipped and Boardmembers were encouraged to read the that was sent about the last SWAG meeting. 11. Compost Operations Request for Qualifications Patrick Carter informed the Board that the SCWMA received eight responses to the Request For Qualifications. Staff suggests forming a subcommittee of two SCWMA staff and two Boardmembers to conduct interviews of the top four candidates over a two day period then an additional two days to debrief and make recommendations. Recommendations would be brought forth at the February 15, 2012 Board meeting. Public Comments None. Board Comments Susan Klassen had concerns about only two Boardmembers being on the subcommittee. She suggested allowing staff to have a vote. Henry Mikus, Executive Director, acknowledged the time constraints, but felt that two people should be able to come to a consensus to be presented to the Board. Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, believes the Board has given clear direction. He suggested putting trust into SCWMA staff to handle this and come back to the Board with their findings. Marsha Sue Lustig, City of Cotati, Boardmember assistance would be appreciated, but she realizes the time constraints of all. Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma, endorses Mr. Mullin s suggestion because he wouldn t have time to serve on the subcommittee. Chair Regor, confirmed that the direction of the Board is for SCWMA staff to conduct the interviews and bring the recommendations to the Board. 13. Carryout Bags Ordinance Direction Patrick Carter recommended using the Veteran of Foreign Wars (VFW) buildings to host the stakeholder meetings. An attachment to the agenda for single-use bag ban ordinance options has been provided. Funding impact for rental of seven VFW facilities would incur a maximum cost of $2, Since there is no VFW building in Healdsburg another venue would be arranged. Board Discussion Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, asked if SCWMA would be categorically exempt if a single us bag ban was enacted. Mr. Carter answered that determination has not been made. January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 18

19 Matt Mullan, Town of Windsor, inquired about the use of the ordinance recently adopted in San Jose for SCWMA s purposes. Mr. Carter said the ordinance could very easily be brought forward. Linda Babonis, City of Rohnert Park, requested a stakeholder meeting be considered for Rohnert Park. Henry Mikus, Executive Director, noted the possibility of using the VFW Building in Cotati to hold a joint stakeholders meeting for Rohnert Park and Cotati. Steve Barbose, City of Sonoma, agrees that the San Jose ordinance should be brought forward along with staff s suggested modifications. Public Comment None. Board Comments Chair Regor, stated the Board recommends use of the seven VFW building for stakeholder meetings as well as adding additional meetings for Healdsburg and Rohnert Park. Meetings will not to be held until after the February 15, 2012 Board meeting so framework for the bag ban ordinance can be brought to the Board for discussion. Funding for rental of venues should be worded as not to exceed a particular dollar amount. 14. Boardmember Comments Chair Regor, asked if SCWMA staff would be providing the Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700), which are due April 1, Charlotte Fisher replied staff would be sending them to the Board. 15. Staff Comments Henry Mikus, Executive Director, introduced Anne Sherman and Melissa Bushway, project contract assistants for the Mandatory Commercial Recycling project, and reported the progress made thus far. Patrick Carter stated the use of Beverage Container Grant funds would continue as it has in the past with Mandatory Commercial outreach education and purchasing containers with the Boards approval. Charlotte Fisher reminded the Board the Non-profit Grant Program application has been posted on the web with a deadline of February 29, If Boardmembers know of any nonprofits who might be interested they should encourage them to apply. 16. Next SCWMA Meeting February 15, Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 11:53 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Dowdell Distributed at meeting: Handout of ESA s PowerPoint presentation on the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Compost Facility Environmental Impact Report. January 18, 2012 SCWMA Meeting Minutes 19

20 Agenda Item #: 4.2 Cost Center: Education Staff Contact: Chilcott Agenda Date: 2/15/2012 ITEM: Recycling Guide 2012 Printing Contract with Barlow Printing I. BACKGROUND In 2011, the Agency contracted with ChromaGraphics/Graphic Enterprises Inc., Santa Rosa for printing 20,000 English copies and 15,000 Spanish copies of the Sonoma County Recycling Guide for distribution at fairs, Chambers of Commerce, etc. Post-distribution, the supply of English Guides did not meet demand in 2011 and the supply of Spanish Guides were printed in excess. The Spanish Guide 2011 was the first printing. Considering increased outreach planned for the Mandatory Commercial Recycling program, in 2012 Agency staff plans to print 32,000 English copies and 10,000 Spanish copies. Printing extra copies after the initial printing is not economical. Distribution of Guides coincides with outreach planned around Earth Day. II. DISCUSSION Employing a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, staff distributed proposals to the following companies capable of printing on recycled newsprint. Sonoma County companies receiving RFPs Barlow Printing, Inc., Cotati Graphic Enterprises, Inc. (ChromGraphics), Santa Rosa GPM Print Mail Solutions, Rohnert Park Healdsburg Printing, Inc., Healdsburg Impress Northwestern, Santa Rosa Out-of-County companies receiving RFPs Delta Web Printing, Sacramento Paul Baker Printing, Sacramento Print Partners.com, Novato The RFP process required proposers to fill out a bid sheet detailing costs (image setting and proofs, printing, packaging and delivery). In addition proposers are asked to submit three samples of printed documents similar in quality to previous Recycling Guides and to provide three references. The sample requirement is waived for proposers that have previously worked for the Agency or that have previously submitted samples in the past. Two proposals were received. Name of proposer English Guide Proposal (32,000 copies) Spanish Guide Proposal (10,000 copies) Total amount Proposal complete Barlow Printing, Inc., Cotati $6, $2, $9, Yes Healdsburg Printing, Inc., Healdsburg $9, $3, $12, Yes The lowest cost proposal was submitted by Barlow Printing, Inc., Cotati. If awarded, the Agency will pay $9, or $.22 each for 42,000 Guides. In comparison, in 2011, the Agency paid ChromaGraphics/Graphic Enterprises Inc, Santa Rosa $10, or $.31 each for 35,000 Guides County Center Drive, Suite B 100, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax: Printed on Recycled post-consumer content 20

21 III. FUNDING IMPACT The proposed Purchase Order for printing and packaging of extra copies of the Recycling Guide 2012 (English and Spanish versions) is within the amount budgeted in the Education Contract Services for FY IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION Agency staff recommends the Chair sign the attached Purchase Order with Barlow Printing, Inc. for printing and packaging of extra copies of the Sonoma County Recycling Guide 2012 (English and Spanish versions). V. ATTACHMENTS Purchase Order with Barlow Printing, Inc. for printing and packaging of extra copies of the Sonoma County Recycling Guide 2012 (English and Spanish versions) Resolution of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency approving the Purchase Order with Barlow Printing, Inc. for Printing and Packaging of the Sonoma County Recycling Guide 2012 (English and Spanish versions). Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 2300 County Center Drive, Suite B 100, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax: Printed on Recycled post-consumer content 21

22 Exhibit A SCOPE OF WORK A. QUANTITY A total of 32,000 English Guides are to be printed. A total of 10,000 Spanish Guides are to be printed. 42,000 Guides total. B. IMAGE SETTING (English and Spanish versions) The Agency will supply sixty-four (64) pages (32-page English Guide/32-page Spanish Guide) of camera ready copy sized " x " (the odd shape results from an initial printing in the AT&T Yellow Pages Phone book) to the Contractor on MARCH 12, Pages should be proportionally scaled to approximately 8 3/8" x 10 ½" for printing. Artwork will be created using a combination of Illustrator CS3 and InDesign CS3. C. PRINTING 1. Stock: 56 pages (28 pages each Guide) 34# 20-30% post-consumer recycled (Xpedx Highbrite)/ 8 pages front/back cover (4 pages each Guide) 60# 30% recycled (Xpedx Williamsburg Offset). Printing: 64 pages (32 pages each Guide) in 4 color process with bleed of color on all pages. For consistency of the product, it is important that the paper selected for the cover and for the inside pages have a similar tone. 2. The Guides are to be bound (staple or glue) in booklet form and trimmed. 3. The Agency requires a color proof of all pages on MARCH 19, 2012 for review. Proofs should be an accurate representation of the final product. Delivery charges are to be the responsibility of the Contractor. Give at least 3 days for review by Agency staff. D. PACKAGING AND DELIVERY Packaging and labeling guidelines 1. All materials must be packaged in cartons, with a maximum of 150 guides per carton clearly labeled English or Spanish. 2. Each carton must be clearly labeled to identify the quantity contained in each carton. Delivery 1. Guides should be delivered to the Agency s storage locker on or before APRIL 6, 2012 between the hours of 10am-5pm at the following address: Lock It Up Storage 3570 Airway Dr. Santa Rosa, CA Please contact Agency staff to arrange exact delivery time. SCOPE OF WORK RECYCLING GUIDE

23 RESOLUTION NO.: 2012 DATED: February 15, 2012 RESOLUTION OF THE SONOMA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY ( AGENCY ), APPROVING THE PURCHASE ORDER WITH BARLOW PRINTING INC. FOR PRINTING AND PACKAGING OF THE SONOMA COUNTY RECYCLING GUIDE 2012 (ENGLISH & SPANISH) VERSIONS WHEREAS, all Agency member jurisdictions in Sonoma County have committed to educating all residents in the county as to how they can reduce, recycle and reuse; and and WHEREAS, Sonoma County has provided extra copies of the Recycling Guide as a public service; WHEREAS, Agency staff has completed a competitive RFP process for printing services; and WHEREAS, Barlow Printing, Inc. submitted a complete and cost-effective printing and packaging proposal; and WHEREAS, the Agency wishes to contract with Barlow Printing, Inc. to print and package 32,000 English version Recycling Guides 2011 and 10,000 Spanish version Recycling Guides 2012 at a cost that shall not exceed $9, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency ( Agency ) authorizes the Agency Chairman to sign the purchase order, subject to Agency counsel review and approval, in an amount that shall not exceed $9, MEMBERS: Cloverdale Cotati County Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Windsor AYES: - - NOES: - - ABSENT: - - ABSTAIN: - - SO ORDERED. The within instrument is a correct copy of the original on file with this office. ATTEST: DATE: Debra Dowdell Clerk of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency of the State of California in and for the County of Sonoma 23

24 Item: FY Second Quarter Financial Report I. BACKGROUND Meeting Date: 2/15//2012 Agenda Item #: 4.3 Cost Center: All Staff Contact: Mikus/Fisher In accordance with the requirement in the joint powers agreement the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA) staff present quarterly reports to the Board of Directors of agency operations and of all receipts to and disbursements from the SCWMA. This report covers transactions through the Second Quarter of FY (July to December, 2011). II. DISCUSSION The Second Quarter Financial Report uses information from the county accounting system, Financial Account and Management Information System (FAMIS), for expenses and revenues. The FY Second Quarter Financial Report contains the actual amounts spent or received to date at the end of the quarter, the projected revenues and expenses, the approved budget and the difference between the approved budget and the projections. Revenues There are some conditions that are common to a number of the cost centers. One is that Interest Earned is anticipated to be $26,305 over budget based on the actual interest postings through December. The interest rate was budgeted at 0.5% and the actual rate calculated by the Treasury Office is 0.879%. Another is the Tipping Fee Revenue. For the organics cost centers, it is anticipated that there will be additional revenues for both the Wood Waste and Yard Debris cost centers based on the actual tonnage of material coming to the facility for processing. One reason for this increase is the unusual mild weather experienced at the beginning of winter. There will be accompanying expenses associated with processing, but both cost centers will produce funds available for transfer to the Organics Reserve.. Tipping Fee Revenues in the surcharge cost centers are projected to meet budget according to current estimates of solid waste coming through the system. These estimates were provided by the County s Refuse Division. For the Second Quarter, the tipping fees were only posted through September. The Fiscal Division is experiencing difficulties with computer software and hardware compatibility. The revenues realized from the revenue sharing from the Construction and Demolition (C&D) pilot project are projected to meet budget. Per the amendment to the Agreement between the County of Sonoma and the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency for Transportation of Organic Materials, dated March 15, 2011, there were to be audits of the Healdsburg and Sonoma transfer stations C&D boxes to see if the estimated percentage of captured wood was correct or needed to be adjusted. The agreement set the percentage at 25% of incoming material from the C&D boxes to be computed as wood waste suitable for processing. After the audit, the percentage was adjusted to a 22.5% calculation for wood waste. The Healdsburg audit was conducted September 6 through September 13, The Sonoma audit was conducted July 12 to July 22, This revenue stream will continue to be monitored. Copies of the audits are available upon request. Even though the percentage has changed, the amount of wood waste realized through the pilot project is estimated to be more than originally planned and allows the project to meet budget. 24

25 Expenditures Contract Services is projected to be $147,606 over budget mainly due to increased processing costs in the Yard Debris cost center. There is also an increased expenditure approved by the Board, which is the amendment to the Environmental Science Associates contract to increase the scope of work for the composting site relocation project. Other projected expenditures are within acceptable limits of the approved budget. Reserves The only reserve requiring attention at this point in the fiscal year is the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Closure Reserve. The Board approved a new goal for the closure reserve and at the present time the designated reserve goal is shy by $46,000. As mentioned on the detail sheet, the Board could approve moving the funds from the HHW Facility Reserve to the HHW Closure Reserve. These two reserves were formed by Board policy and have no other restrictions in effect for them except that there must be a HHW Closure Reserve. Any additional details or comments are to be found on the detail page for a particular cost center. III. FUNDING IMPACTS None. IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the FY Second Quarter Financial Report on the Consent Calendar. V. ATTACHMENT Second Quarter Financial Report Revenue and Expenditure Comparison Summary. Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director 25

26 Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Indices , , , , Prepared by: Charlotte Fisher , ,799320,799338, E. D.: Henry Mikus, Executive Director A. Summary of Projections FY Adopted Budget Adjustment FY Adjusted Budget FY Projection Over/(Under) Budget Total Expenditures 6,839, ,839,031 7,013, ,247 Total Revenues 6,320, ,320,123 7,169, ,556 Net Cost 518, ,908 (156,401) (675,409) B. Summary of Expenditures Expense Total Adjusted Actual Estimated Estimated Budget Over/(Under) July-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget Liability Insurance 8, ,915 9,499 (584) Memberships 1,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 0 Miscellaneous Expenses 23,669 56,331 80,000 80,000 0 Office Expense 14,798 5,494 20,292 19, Professional Services 25, , , ,067 0 County Services 0 6,925 6,925 6,925 0 Contract Services 1,560,191 2,882,297 4,442,488 4,294, ,606 Administration Costs 319, , , ,980 (2,385) Engineering Services ,000 20,254 26,000 (5,746) Legal Services 32,195 37,805 70,000 72,000 (2,000) Accounting Services 2,738 6,050 8,788 8,788 0 Audit Services 0 19,500 19,500 19,500 0 Advertising 3,817 8,183 12,000 12,000 0 Equipment Rental 964 1,300 2,264 2,500 (236) Rents/Leases 2,400 23,100 25,500 25,500 0 Enforcement Agency 3,323 25,000 28,323 35,000 (6,677) Professional Development 0 2,450 2,450 2,450 0 Textbook/Tuition 0 2,534 2,534 2,534 0 County Car Expense 0 1,000 1,000 1,500 (500) Data Processing 4,217 5,899 10,116 10,

27 B. Summary of Expenditures (con't) Actual July-Dec 11 Expense Estimated Jan-June 12 Total Estimated FY Adjusted Budget FY Over/(Under) Budget Desktop Modernization 13,499 (535) 12,964 13,614 (650) Total Supplies and Services 2,017,133 3,895,842 5,912,975 5,783, ,401 OT-Within Enterprise 0 1,097,579 1,097,579 1,052,733 44,846 OT-Between Enterprise (ISD) 0 2,724 2,724 2,724 0 Total Other Charges 0 1,100,303 1,100,303 1,055,457 44,846 Total Expenditures 2,017,133 4,996,145 7,013,278 6,839, ,247 C. Summary of Revenues Actual July-Dec 11 Revenue Estimated Jan-June 12 Total Estimated FY Adjusted Budget FY Over/(Under) Budget Interest on Pooled Cash 16,576 49,728 66,304 39,999 26,305 State-Other 0 404, , ,067 0 Tipping Fee Revenue 1,260,781 3,672,374 4,933,155 4,795, ,105 Sale of Material 80,475 49, , ,000 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 20,615 59,385 80,000 80,000 0 Donations/Reimbursements 116, , , ,610 0 OT-Within Enterprise 0 1,097,579 1,097, , ,796 OT-From Replacement 0 12,964 12,964 13,614 (650) Total Revenues 1,494,594 5,675,085 7,169,679 6,320, ,556 C. Summary of Net Costs Actual July-Dec 11 Estimated Jan-June 12 Total Estimated FY Adjusted Budget FY Over/(Under) Budget Net Cost 522,539 (2,605,921) (156,501) 519,408 (675,409) 27

28 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection Wood Waste Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 6103 Liability Insurance (55) 6521 County Services Contract Services 78, , , ,845 6, Administration Costs 2,356 2,356 4,712 4, Accounting Services Audit Services 0 1,500 1,500 1, Data Processing ,686 1, Desktop Moderization 4,452 (2,226) 2,226 2,269 (43) Total Services and Supplies 86, , , ,600 7, OT-Within Enterprise 0 128, ,120 35,540 92,580 OT-Within Enterprise (budget) 0 173, , , OT-Between Enterprise (ISD) Total Other Charges 0 302, , ,444 92,580 Total Expenditures 86, , , ,044 99,927 Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash 351 1,053 1, Tipping Fee Revenue 87, , , ,750 99, Other Sales 31,064 8,936 40,000 40, Donations/reimbursements 0 5,000 5,000 5, OT-From Replacement 0 2,226 2,226 2,269 (43) Total Revenues 118, , , ,595 99,927 Net Cost (31,757) 205, , ,449 0 Expenditures Contract Services include invoices for Sonoma Compost Company and the orgnics hauling hauling reimbursement to the County. The estimated was calculated on five months of actuals. If delivery of material continues at this level, Contract Services will be over budget approximately 4%. Revenues Tipping Fee is estimated to be 53% over budget These revenues include both the tipping fee from organics as well as the revenue sharing from the construction and demolition pilot project (five months) and tipping fee (three months). Overview The amount of wood waste material available for processing is very dependent on the private sector markets. Should the level of material coming to the composting facility in the second quarter of FY continue, there would be more funds available for transfer to the Organics Reserve. No transfers will be made until after the end of the fiscal year. At this time, all other items are expected to meet budget. 28

29 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection Yard Waste Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 6104 Liability Insurance 2, ,125 2,264 (139) 6400 Office Expense 458 1,542 2,000 2, County Services 0 1,000 1,000 1, Contract Services 1,192,050 1,744,016 2,936,066 2,840,237 95, Administration Costs 48,859 34,170 83,029 83, Legal Services 78 1,922 2,000 2, Accounting Services 1,263 2,793 4,056 4, Audit Services 0 4,000 4,000 4, Rents/Leases - Equipment 964 1,200 2,164 2,500 (336) 7062 Enforcement Agency Fee 3,323 25,000 28,323 35,000 (6,677) 7110 Professional Development 0 1,200 1,200 1, County Car 0 1,000 1,000 1,500 (500) 7400 Data Processing 1,405 1,967 3,372 3, Desktop Modernization 2,847 1,691 4,538 4,538 0 Total Services and Supplies 1,253, ,074,873 2,986,696 88, OT-Within Enterprise (prior) 0 214, , ,071 (47,234) OT-Within Enterprise (budget) 0 467, , , OT-Between Enterprise (ISD) Total Other Charges 0 682, , ,979 (47,234) Total Expenditures 1,253, ,745 3,757,618 3,716,675 40,943 Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash 1,579 4,737 6,316 4,336 1, Tipping Fee Revenue 795,891 2,387,672 3,183,563 3,144,600 38, Other Sales 49,411 40,589 90,000 90, Donations/Reimbursement 11,628 (6,628) 5,000 5, OT-From Replacement 0 4,538 4,538 4,538 0 Total Revenues 858,509 2,430,908 3,289,417 3,248,474 40,943 Net Cost 394,863 (1,748,163) 468, ,201 0 Expenditures Contract Services include invoices for Sonoma Compost Company and the hauling reimbursement to the County. If the delivery of organic material continues to come to the composting facility for processing, Contract Services will be approximately 3% over budget. Enforcement Agency Fee is projected to be $6,677 under budget. Work is nearly complete for the permit 5-Year Review, but the LEA has informed staff that a Permit Revision will likely be required as well. Based on prior revisions, it is anticipated that the fees will still be under what was budgeted. Revenues Tipping Fee Revenue is estimated to be 1% over budget in keeping with the increased amount of yard waste material coming to the composting facility. Donations/Reimbursement contains a posted amount that is incorrect; it will be posted correctly to HHW. Overview Should the tonnages of yard waste coming to the composting facility in the second quarter of FY continue, there would be more funds available for transfer to the Organics Reserve. No transfers will be made until after the end of the fiscal year. At this time, all other items are expected to meet budget. 29

30 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection Household Hazardous Waste Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 6104 Liabiity Insurance 3, ,877 4,131 (254) 6280 Memberships 1,000 3,000 4,000 4, Office Expense 8,292 (3,000) 5,292 4, Professional Services 22, , , , County Services 0 2,300 2,300 2, Contract Services 257, ,251 1,240,800 1,240, Administration Costs 100, , , ,037 (539) 6610 Legal Services 176 7,824 8,000 8, Accounting Services 606 1,338 1,944 1, Audit Services 0 8,500 8,500 8, Advertising 3,817 8,183 12,000 12, Rents/Leases - Buildings 0 23,000 23,000 23, Professional Development 0 1,250 1,250 1, Textbook/Tuition Reimburse Data Processing ,686 1, Desktop Modernization 1, ,879 2,269 (390) Total Services and Supplies 400,448 1,383,513 1,783,961 1,784,571 (610) 8624 OT-Within Enterprise OT-Within Entrerprise (budget) HHW Closure OT-Between Enterprise (ISD) Total Other Charges Total Expenditures 400,448 1,383,967 1,784,415 1,785,025 (610) Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash , State-Other 0 268, , , Tipping Fee Revenue 289, ,513 1,123,390 1,123, Donations/Reimbursement 86, , , , OT-From Replacement 0 1,879 1,879 2,269 (390) Total Revenues 376,943 1,406,117 1,783,060 1,783, Net Cost 23,505 (22,150) 1,355 1,999 (644) Expenditures Expenditures are expected to meet budget. Revenues Revenues are expected to meet budget. Overview Baring any unanticipated events, it appears that the Household Hazardous Waste budget will be met for FY The fund balance/cash flow is anticipated to be adequate, but there will not be any additional funds available for transfer to the HHW Facility Reserve. 30

31 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection Education Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 6103 Liability Insurance 1, ,249 1,330 (81) 6300 Miscellaneous Expense 23,669 56,331 80,000 80, Office Expense 6,048 4,952 11,000 11, Professional Services 3, , , , County Services 0 2,300 2,300 2, Contract Services 4,321 22,679 27,000 27, Administration Costs 103, , , ,278 (3,313) 6610 Legal Services 7,553 17,447 25,000 25, Accounting Services 501 1,106 1,607 1, Audit Services 0 3,000 3,000 3, Rents/Leases - Buildings 2, ,500 2, Textbook/Tuition Reimbursement 0 1,034 1,034 1, Data Processing ,686 1, Desktop Modernization 1, ,772 2,269 (497) Total Services and Supplies 155, , , ,886 (3,891) 8624 OT-Within Enterprise OT-Within Enterprise (budget) 0 3,550 3,550 3, OT-Between Enterprise (ISD) Total Other Charges 0 4,004 4,004 4,004 0 Total Expenditures 155, , , ,890 (3,891) Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash State-Other 0 135, , , Tipping Fee Revenue 71, , , , Miscellaneous Revenue 20,615 59,385 80,000 80, Donations/Reimbursement 14,499 24,040 38,539 38, OT-From Replacement 0 1,772 1,772 2,269 (497) Total Revenues 106, , , ,856 (72) Net Cost 48,466 (51,251) (2,785) 1,034 (3,819) Expenditures Adminstration Costs are projected to be $3,313 under budget based on the actual expenditures for the first half of the fiscal year. Revenues Tipping Fee Revenue is expected to meet budget. Overview The fund balance/cash flow is anticipated to be adequate, but there will not be any additional funds available for transfer to the Contingency Reserve. 31

32 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection Diversion Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 6104 Liabiity Insurance Office Expense Professional Services Administration Costs Legal Services Accounting Services Audit Servicese Travel Expense Data Processing Total Services and Suppies OT-Within Enterprise 0 47,710 47,710 47,710 0 OT-Within Enterprise (budget) 0 61,336 61,336 61,336 0 Total Other Charges 0 109, , ,046 0 Total Expenditures 0 109, , ,046 0 Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash State-Other Tipping Fee Revenue Donations/Reimbursement Total Revenues Net Cost (238) 108, , ,046 (952) Overview The only financial activity anticipated for this cost center in FY is the transfer of the remaining funds into the Contingency Reserve. This cost center is being abandoned due to lack of activity and the lack of mention in the orginal joint powers agreement. 32

33 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection Planning Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 6103 Liability Insurance (55) 6521 County Services Administration Costs 30,455 30,455 60,910 60, Legal Services 0 2,000 2,000 4,000 (2,000) 6629 Accounting Services Audit Services 0 1,000 1,000 1, Textbook/Tuition Data Processing ,686 1, Desktop Modernization 2, ,549 2, Total Services and Supplies 34,644 36,220 70,864 71,840 (976) 8624 OT-Within Enterprise OT-Within Enterprise (budget) 0 1,576 1,576 1, OT-Between Enterprise (ISD) Total Other Charges 0 2,030 2,030 2,030 0 Total Expenditures 34,644 38,250 72,894 73,870 (976) Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash Tippping Fee Revenue 16,052 46,155 62,207 62, Donations/Reimbursement 3,243 5,378 8,621 8, OT-From Replacement 0 2,549 2,549 2, Total Revenues 19,341 54,220 73,561 73, Net Cost 15,303 (15,970) (667) 750 (1,417) Expenditures Legal Services are not expected to be required this fiscal year for the Planning cost center. Revenues Expenditures are expected to meet budget. Overview For the amount and type of activity in this cost center, the cash flow/fund balance will be adequate. 33

34 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection Organics Reserve Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 6540 Contract Services 28,019 16,981 45, , Administration Costs 19,231 60,903 80,134 80, Engineering Services ,000 20,254 26,000 (5,746) 6610 Legal Services 17,504 6,496 24,000 24, Audit Services 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 Total Services and Supplies 65, , ,634 39,254 Total Expenditures 65, , ,634 39,254 Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY ,990 Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash 9,981 29,943 39,924 24,875 15, OT-Within Enterprise 0 342, , ,611 45,346 OT-Within Enterprise (budget) 0 640, , ,450 Total Revenues 9,981 1,013,350 1,023, , ,845 Net Cost 55,027 (1,013,350) (852,443) (190,852) (661,591) Expenditures Contract Services is projected to be $45,000 over budget. This includes the extension to the ESA agreement approved at the September Board of Directors' meeting. Revenues The additional operating transfer funds are the result of the projections of increased operational activity of the organics program. Overview These reserve funds are restricted for use only for the organics program per the joint powers agreement. The fund balance is remaining constant at $4,500,000. As the composting site relocation process continues, the fund balance will be used for that purpose. 34

35 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection HHW Closure Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 8624 OT-Within Enterprise TOTAL SERVICES & SUPPL Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash OT-Within Enterprise TOTAL REVENUES NET COST (131) (393) (524) (333) (191) Overview This reserve was formed by Board of Directors' resolution and the goal was increased $46,000 after the FY Budget was prepared. This increase has not been dealt with yet and will need to be a part of any future budget planning or a transfer of funds from another reserve. With Board appoval, these additional funds could be moved from the HHW Facility Reserve to the HHW Closure Reserve. At the present time, attempting to accumulate the necessary funds from the cost center would have a negative impact on the ongoing programs in the HHW cost center. 35

36 Sonoma County Waste Management Agency FY Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Summary and Projection HHW Facility Reserve Detail Expenditures Expenditure Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 6540 Contract Services Administration Costs Engineering Services Total Services and Supplies Total Expenditures Revenues Revenue Total Adopted Over/ Sub- Actual Estimated Estimated Budget (Under) object Description Jul-Dec 11 Jan-June 12 FY FY Budget 1700 Interest on Pooled Cash 3,514 10,542 14,056 8,085 5, State-Other OT-Within Enterprise Total Revenues 3,514 10,542 14,056 8,085 5,971 Net Cost (3,514) (10,542) (14,056) (8,085) (5,971) Overview The reserve goal for this fund was modified at the June 2011 Board meeting to be held at $600,000 or 33% of the budgeted annual HHW program operational expenses, whichever is greater. At the end of FY 10-11, there was $1,607,767 being held in reserve. The extra funds can be made available for other uses with Board appoval and an appropriation transfer. 36

37 Agenda Item #: 4.4 Cost Center: TBD Staff Contact: Fisher Agenda Date: 2/15/2012 Item: Funding of Office Reconfiguration I. BACKGROUND The Sonoma County Waste Management Agency office was relocated to the current location of 2300 County Center Drive in Up until that time, regular desks, chairs, file cabinets, etc. were used within existing walls. At the time of the move, Herman Miller office cubical furniture replaced what had been used by SCWMA employees except for the Executive Director, who maintained the more traditional type furniture. II. DISCUSSION Since that time, there have been minor changes to the cube work surfaces to accommodate new employees ergonomic needs. The configuration has remained the same for the ten years the SCWMA has occupied the current office space. During the ten years, there have been changes to staffing as well as changes to the programs. Two part-time positions have been eliminated, which has resulted in two empty cubes. As a part of the educational outreach, staff designs and now produces the artwork used for printed handouts, table covers and backdrops for events. SCWMA has inherited a plotter, which is a large printing appliance measuring 5 feet long, 4 and a half feet tall and 2 and a half feet deep. The resulting output requires a sizable flat surface for continued work or storage until needed. The Executive Director s office has not had an upgrade except for new chairs as required for ergonomic needs. The traditional furniture does not allow for adjustments and has limited options for rearrangement such as for conferences. Another significant change has been the relocation of all of the Transportation and Public Works employees out of the area adjacent to where the SCWMA office is located. This has resulted in a very large, empty space without any enclosure for the SCWMA office. A layout drawing of the current situation labeled Second Floor South Evacuation is included. This has caused some concern for security and comfort. Although the main doors to the floor are security-keyed, the SCWMA work space is open, and readily accessible to people passing through from one end of the larger area to the other. There have been documented instances of unauthorized entries into this building and neighboring offices, particularly in recent months. The open space and the solitary/isolated location have become of increasing concern regarding the safety of SCWMA employees. As to comfort, heating and cooling to some reasonable level have become challenges as the building s systems try to cope with the big empty space next to the SCWMA office. Staff has been working with Trope Group, a local Herman Miller dealer, to reconfigure the SCWMA office space to accommodate some overdue changes. A primary goal has been to improve security by providing a locking security door on one side of our space, and enclose the other end. The new enclosure would also provide another locking security door, thus resulting in the SCWMA office becoming its own secure and enclosed space. Some modifications to the layout of the cubicles and the Executive Director s office are to be included so that the layout and furnishings reflect current staffing, work flow, and daily tasks. The proposed design is attached County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

38 The possibility discussed with the Board several months ago, namely that the SCWMA offices may need to relocate as part of a greater County office consolidation project, now appears to be very unlikely. In any case, the furnishings to be provided as part of the proposed changes will be the property of the SCWMA and can be moved and used if the SCWMA office ever does need to be moved. III. FUNDING IMPACT The estimated cost for the reconfiguration, additional equipment, and adjusting phone/data lines is $12,000. This was not budgeted FY 11-12, therefore a funding source will need to be found. One source of funding is the HHW Facility Reserve. This reserve was established by Board policy for any expansion to the HHW program and the balance as of the end of FY is $1.6 million. The only Board approved expenditure from this reserve was for the HHW Facility Expansion. The construction has been completed and all invoices and contractual obligations have been satisfied. There are no planned expenditures from this reserve fund at this time. The goal of the HHW Facility Reserve was modified in June 2011 to be either 33% (this equals 4 months out of a year) of the budgeted annual HHW program operational expenses or $600,000, whichever is greater. Adhering to the revised goal allows Board discretion for funding the office reconfiguration from this reserve. IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends authorizing the Executive Director to sign the attached to FY APPROVED BUDGET in order to fund SCWMA office reconfiguration, additional office equipment and adjusting phone/data lines as required. The budget adjustment is not to exceed $12,000 from the Household Hazardous Waste Facility Reserve. The alternative to office reconfiguration is to remain in the current situation. At a recent Transportation and Public Works Safety Committee inspection, the location of the plotter was noted as a housekeeping issue, which would need to be addressed in some other way. Relinquishing the plotter and seeking other ways to produce the needed printed materials is also an option. V. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Layout of SCWMA Office Second Floor South Evacuation Appropriation Transfer Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 2300 County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

39 CHARLOTTE o tj PATRICK- ~ o HENRY WASTE MANAGEMENT - PROPOSED SONOMA COUNTY LA PLAZA. BUILDING B. 2ND FLOOR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROPOSED FURNITURE LAYOUT DATE: I REVISED: SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" I DESIGNER: HS I APPROVED BY: T

40 SECOND FLOOR SOUTH ( ) GRAPH IC 5C~ l ~ EVACUA TION POWE 10 15, '" WEA =, 11 1'\ ::J ~m. '-' X--h 90 ow. 0 VACANT TI CHARLOTTE FISHER _ IiX 2413 c,.. 'If.. X 3788 X 2278 FAX VACAN T \j I~ JL DE;';~~T ~A8 ' [ X '" g VACANT ~ oo ~.--,.". L.JI' K 0 S ~-i X t668 KA IN A ~ CHI LCOTT [:] A579 ; ~ : ELlZAB&~Y KOETK - r FRT RE FUSE,, 7 X 3687 X 3632 PATR I CK LISA CARTER STEINMA rro o I""nU l C J o ~ % ~ ; j [=::J 6IJ L I ~I f IU ~ -;;,-J 40

41 SPECIAL DISTRICTS GOVERNED BY LOCAL BOARDS - BUDGETARY REVISIONS Resolution No Auditor s Office Use Only District Name: Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (JPA) DOCUMENT # Address: 2300 County Center Dr., Rm. 100B BATCH # Santa Rosa, CA BATCH DATE Phone: FY: TC INDEX SUB-OBJECT PROJECT SUB-OBJECT TITLE AMOUNT TO: Office Reconfiguration Office Expenses $12,000 FROM: Office Reconfiguration Household Hazardous Facility Reserve $12,000 WHEREAS, the reserve policy for the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency allows for the use of funds for one time and/or special projects; and WHEREAS, the SCWMA office has not had any updates in ten years; and WHEREAS, the number of employee workspaces and the scope of work being done on a daily basis has changed during those ten years; and WHEREAS, funding is available from the Household Hazardous Waste Facility for use with Board approval to bring the SCWMA office to a more efficient, secure and comfortable working environment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to make all necessary operating transfers and the above transfer within the authorized budget of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (JPA). The foregoing resolution was introduced by DIRECTOR ( x ) TRUSTEE ( ), who moved its adoption, seconded by, and adopted on roll call by the following vote: Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Rohnert Park Petaluma Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Windsor County WHEREUPON, the Chairperson declared the foregoing resolution adopted, and SO ORDERED. Date: February 15, 2012 Attested: Debra Dowdell Signature: Secretary/Clerk of the Board Signature: Chairperson 41

42 Agenda Item #: 5 Cost Center: All Staff Contact: Mikus Agenda Date: 02/15/2012 Item: Discussion Regarding Contracts I. BACKGROUND At the January 18, 2012, the SCWMA Board members requested a discussion be held concerning general guidelines on SCWMA contracts, with particular emphasis on duration and possible extensions. II. DISCUSSION SCWMA contracts regularly for numerous items. Some are for professional services, and are qualifications-based. Others are for operating agreements, and are cost based. A list of current contracts is attached, which lists the current contract holders, start date, expiration date, and brief description for each one. Historically, contracts of both types (service and operating) have been established on an as-needed basis, with the bid, qualification, evaluation, negotiation, and decision process done on a case by case and as-needed basis. This has included decisions made on contract durations, scope, and the desirability and character of contract term extensions. It must be recognized that contract time lengths (with resultant new bids upon expiration) should be set to achieve a balance between providing a long enough time frame to provide stable services coupled with a term that allows contractors to spread fixed costs over time, and ensuring that the contract costs are regularly updated to the most advantageous possible framework. Decisions regarding time extensions must take the same factors into consideration. Of related importance are the total cost of the contract, the unique nature of any requested services or operations, and the staff requirements to process rebids. As a starting point for discussion, the following questions are presented: 1. Should the contract procurement process be qualification or cost based? 2. What is the optimum contract term? 3. Would contract extensions be worth considering? If so, what time frames would work? 4. What cost index is valid for a fair mechanism for price adjustments? 5. Who should be involved in the evaluation and negotiation processes for bids or proposals? 6. To what level does the Board wish to examine or approve bid documents such as RFQ or RFP packages? 7. What time frame is required for the Board to adequately examine and make a decision regarding accepting particular contracts? 8. What should be a policy on proposal submittal requests for time extensions? 9. Within each contract procurement process, what factors are to be used in the evaluative process? It is possible that a formal policy could be formulated that would address the above questions. However, given the diverse list of current contracts, the present dynamic changing nature of economic conditions, and the 2017 limit for the Agency s ability to contract, such a policy may be unnecessary County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

43 III. FUNDING IMPACT None IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION None V. ATTACHMENTS List of current SCWMA contracts Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 2300 County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

44 February 15, 2012 Item 5 List of current Agency contracts with pertinent information (Reissued from October 2011 SCWMA Board meeting) Clean Harbors Environmental Services HHW Contracts Contract: For Operations of Household Hazardous Waste Programs The Agreement between Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, County of Sonoma, and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. (formerly Teris LLC (dba MSE Environmental))was approved on June 11, The 8th Amendment extended the term of Agreement until January 6, 2013, without any changes to the current terms and conditions, and included the option of three, one-year extensions. Funding Source: HHW Budget. The budgeted amount for this Contractor in FY 11/12 is $1,157,000. C 2 Alternative Services Contract: To Audit Oil Recycling Centers and Coordinate Oil Recycling Publicity and Programs. The original Agreement was dated May 21, This Agreement term was for three years with optional annual extensions. This contract has been amended 5 times. The 5th Amendment, dated April 21, 2010, extended the Agreement until June 30, 2012 with annual extensions upon mutual agreement. Funding Source: CalRecycle Used Oil Block Grants and Oil Payment Program. The Contractor is paid $62,825 which is included in the FY budget each year. ECS Refining Contract: For E-Waste Transport and Recycling Services The original Agreement was dated December 1, This contract has been amended twice. The 2nd Amendment dated, March 17, 2010, extended the Agreement until May 31, No option to extend was included. Funding Source: The Contractor pays the Agency through the State s Covered Electronic Waste Payment System. Goodwill Industries of the Redwood Empire Contract: For Electronic Waste Management Services (E-waste Collection Events) 44

45 On May 3, 2010, the Agency issued a RFP for Electronic Waste Collection Event Services. Four proposals were received by the deadline of May 26, The Term of this Agreement is June 16, 2010 to June 16, No option to extend was included. Funding Source: The Contractor pays the Agency through the State s Covered Electronic Waste Payment System. Organics Contracts ESA Renewable Resources Central Valley/Sierra Region Contract: For performing CEQA analysis for the potential new compost operations site The Agreement between Sonoma County Waste Management Agency and ESA Renewable Resources was approved on August 15, The 6th Amendment, dated March 16, 2011, extended the term of Agreement until November 16, 2011, without any changes to the current terms and conditions. Funding Source: Organics Reserve. The budgeted amount for this Contractor in FY 11/12 is $26,000. The total contract amount is $715, and the total funds expended to date are $690, Sonoma Compost Company Contract: For Operations of Composting Programs The Agreement between Sonoma County Waste Management Agency and Sonoma Compost Company was approved on September 28, The 8th Amendment, dated March 16, 2011, extended the Operating Term of the agreement until July 15, 2012 and the Post-Operating term of Agreement until November 15, 2012, without any changes to the current terms and conditions, and included the option of two, one-year extensions. Funding Source: Yard Debris and Wood Waste Cost Centers. The budgeted amount for this Contractor in FY 11/12 is $3,027,082. C 2 Alternative Services Contract: For Spanish Language Outreach Services Education/Outreach Contracts The Agreement between Sonoma County Waste Management Agency and C 2 Alternative Services was approved on June 16,

46 The term of Agreement is from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012 and contains provisions for July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012 with annual extensions upon mutual agreement. Funding Source: Education cost center: The budgeted amount for this Contractor in FY 11/12 is $48,000, and is drawn from CalRecycle Used Oil Block Grant (79%)/Education cost center (21%). The Education cost center is supported by the Agency tip fee surcharge. Mercury Disposal Systems Contract: For Recycling and Collection of Residential Spent Fluorescent Lamps The Agreement between Sonoma County Waste Management Agency and Mercury Disposal Systems was approved on August 17, The term of Agreement is from August 17, 2011 to December 31, 2012 and contains no provisions for any extensions. Funding Source: PG&E grant (100%) for $52,

47 Agenda Item #: 6 Cost Center: HHW/Education Staff Contact: Steinman/Chilcott Agenda Date: 2/15/2012 ITEM: Oil Program & Spanish Language Outreach Contracts I. BACKGROUND Oil Program In May 2003, the Agency entered into an agreement with C 2 Alternative Services to Audit Oil Recycling Centers and Coordinate Oil Recycling Publicity and Programs. C 2 Alternative Services assists Agency staff to accomplish the goals of the Used Oil Recycling Program, which is currently funded under a Used Oil Block Grant (UBG) and Oil Payment Program (OPP) from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). CalRecycle has streamlined the UBG program and has replaced this program with the OPP. Cycle 15 is the last cycle of the UBG program and all available funds from this program shall be available for expenditure through June 30, The new OPP allows participants flexibility in development and management of their local used oil programs while minimizing their administrative burden and reporting requirements. C 2 Alternative Services is contracted to do the following work: - conduct required site visits of oil recycling centers - gather required used oil collection data - conduct public education campaigns as defined during the contract term - maintain existing used oil recycling education programs (Eco-Desk voice mail boxes, Recycling Guide) - serve as liaison with oil recycling centers, e.g., trouble-shoot, assist with CalRecycle paperwork, re-certify centers, keep centers stocked with signs and flyers, develop and distribute logos, etc. - provide data and assist with annual reporting to CalRecycle - attend workshops and meetings upon request by Agency staff Use of Agency staff for this work is considered inefficient as staff is focused on existing work load and developing new programs requested by the Board. If the work is not performed, the Agency would not satisfy the requirements of the UBG and OPP and would lose this funding source. This agreement term was for three years with optional annual extensions upon mutual agreement between Agency and Contractor. The First Amendment to the agreement was approved on May 17, 2006, extending the term to June 30, The Second Amendment was approved on May 16, 2007, extending the term until June 30, 2008 with an amended Scope of Work and Payment Terms Schedule. The Scope of Work (Exhibit A) was modified to include implementation of various additional tasks developed in earlier stages of the contract. The Payment Schedule (Exhibit B) was 47

48 modified to update the billing rates for C 2 Alternative Services staff time from 2003 staff billing rates. The Third Amendment was approved on June 18, 2008, extending the term until June 30, The Fourth Amendment was approved on April 15, 2009, extending the term until June 30, The Fifth Amendment was approved on April 21, 2010, extending the term until June 30, The Sixth Amendment was approved on January 18, 2012 and added an additional Scope of Work in Fiscal Year only. Spanish Language Outreach Spanish Language Outreach is part of the implementation of one of the objectives in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP) to encourage waste diversion in non-english speaking communities. Reflecting the goals in the CoIWMP, the Agency implemented its first Spanish Language Outreach Program through award of a two-year Eco- Desk Spanish Language Pilot Project in This Contract was awarded to C 2 Alternative Services. Modifications to the Scope of Work, from lessons learned with the pilot project, were incorporated into the Spanish Language Outreach Services Contract which was first awarded in The current Spanish language Outreach Services Contract is held by C 2 Alternative Services. C 2 Alternative Services is contracted to perform the following work: - develop and maintain relationships with Hispanic media (radio, newspaper and TV) including determining target audiences, doing media appearances, feature stores, etc. - conduct person-to-person outreach through public event venues, businesses and other locations frequented by Spanish-speaking people - answer the Spanish Eco-Desk option #2 and record these calls in a provided Access database - consult with Agency staff and other sources to obtain information as needed for Eco- Desk callers - monitor Eco-Desk caller referrals to determine which outreach methods are generating calls - provide Spanish translations services to Agency staff as needed for various outreach materials - assist in preparation and manage distribution of the Spanish Recycling Guide to residents and businesses in Sonoma County - keep records, including any forms required for reimbursement for the CalRecycle Used Oil Grant program - write progress reports as required for reporting to the Agency Board Members and for the CalRecycle UBG program - prepare press releases as needed throughout the project - prepare an outreach/media buy plan of all activities 48

49 Below is a timeline outlining the development of this Contract including the RFQ and RFP process. Date Action/notes Funding CalRecycle Grant Used Oil OPP Funding Agency Education 2006 (Oct) C 2 Awarded two-year contract for Spanish $12,500 $7,500 Language Eco-Desk Pilot Project (Expired March (FY 06-07) (FY 06-07) 31, 2008) $12,500 $7,500 (FY 07-08) (FY 07-08) 2008 Agency Board approved an extension of C 2 (Jan) Agreement for the Spanish Language Eco-Desk Pilot Project from March 31, 2008 to June 30, 2008 to correspond with FY Budgeting (no cost implications) + requested staff to go out to bid RFQ distributed/received for Spanish Language (Apr-May) Outreach Services The RFQ was based on lessons learned from the Spanish Language Eco-Desk Pilot Project. In response to the RFQ two proposals were received:1) C 2 and 2) Calif. Human Development 2008 C 2 Awarded two-year contract for Spanish $15,000 $9,000 (June) Language Outreach Services (Contract expired (FY 08-09) (FY 08-09) June 30, 2010) Contract Scope of Work requires Used Oil Recycling $15,000 $9,000 education to meet CalRecycle Grant/ OPP terms & (FY 09-10) (FY 09-10) conditions (Apr-May) RFP distributed/received for Spanish Language Outreach Services In response to the RFP one proposals was received from C C 2 Awarded two-year contract for Spanish $18,886 $5,114 (June) Language Outreach Services (Contract expires (FY 10-11) (FY 10-11) June 30, 2012) Contract Scope of Work requires Used Oil Recycling $18,886 $5,114 education to meet CalRecycle Grant OPP terms & conditions. Annual extensions to contract with C 2 beyond June 30, 2012 available upon mutual agreement in contract terms. (FY 11-12) (FY 11-12) 79% of funding for the Spanish Language Outreach Services Contract has historically been paid through the UBG program and the new OPP. The Contractor provides outreach to Spanish speaking residents about used motor oil and filter recycling through community based social marketing strategies including call-in radio, Eco-Desk telephone, events, labor center talks, etc. For fiscal year , $18,886 was budgeted to be paid to C 2 Alternative Services from this funding source. The current contract with C 2 expires June 30,

50 II. DISCUSSION There has been discussion amongst the Board members to provide the opportunity for contractors to competitively bid on Agency contracts. Although staff has been very satisfied with the quality of this Contractor s performance and would be pleased to continue the relationship, staff is interested in seeing what other contractors might be interested in providing these services. Fiscal Year is the only year where the UBG and the OPP will overlap. As a result, each program (UBG and OPP) will require its own fiscal year report to be submitted to CalRecycle. C 2 Alternative Services provides a key role in providing information and assisting with the reporting. The reporting requirements for UBG15 are much more stringent than what will be required for the new OPP Program. All information, to be included in the annual CalRecycle FY report will not be available until mid July, Both annual reports, for the UBG and the OPP, are due in August, C 2 Alternative Services will be needed to meet the reporting requirements for the last UBG 15 reporting. If the Board decides to go out to bid on this contract, and C 2 Alternative Services is not the selected bidder, then arrangements will need to be made to hire C 2 Alternative Services for the purposes of completing the UBG annual report. C 2 Alternative Services is required to assist with the reporting requirements through the duration of their contract, which expires on June 30, The Agreements with C 2 Alternative Services for Used Oil and Spanish Language Outreach Services allow for annual extensions upon mutual agreement between Agency and Contractor. The Contractor submitted letters to Agency staff, both dated February 2, 2012, indicated their willingness to extend the term of both the Spanish Language Outreach Services Contract and the Contract to Audit Oil Recycling Centers and Coordinate Oil Recycling Publicity and Programs, with no changes to the current rates or scope. Both Contracts expire on June 30, Staff is providing two options for the Board to consider at this time. Issue a Request for Proposals (RFPs) for both Contracts with services to start July 1, 2012, the beginning of fiscal year The alternate option, if the Board prefers, is to exercise the option to extend the Agreements (Used Oil and Spanish Language Outreach) with C 2 Alternative Services for one additional fiscal year (July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013). III. FUNDING IMPACT The funding impact to issue the RFPs would be additional staff time needed to develop, issue, and review any proposals received. The Agreement to Audit Oil Recycling Centers and Coordinate Oil Recycling Publicity and Programs will be funded with OPP funds. The Agency was awarded $154,350 through OPP2. All funds shall be available for expenditure until June 30, It is expected that the Agency will continue to receive OPP funds annually. The Spanish Language Outreach Services Contract will be funded by 79% Oil Payment funds and 21% Education funds. 50

51 If the Board decides to continue with the present Contractor, the budgeted amount for these extensions are: Audit Oil Recycling Centers and Coordinate Oil Recycling Publicity and Programs- $62,825, which is included in the Draft FY HHW Professional Services budget. Spanish Language Outreach Services Contract- $24,000, which is included in the Draft FY HHW Program # 3.5 Spanish Language Outreach ($18,886) and in Education Program # 4.3 Spanish Language Outreach ($5,114). Due to the efficient and thorough performance of the Contractor, there is minimal Agency staff time required for contract administration. IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends: Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Services to Audit Oil Recycling Centers and Coordinate Oil Recycling Publicity and Programs and return to the Board with a draft RFP in April Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Spanish Language Outreach Services and return to the Board with a draft RFP in April The alternative is: Exercise the optional annual extension to the Agreement with C 2 Alternative Services to Audit Oil Recycling Centers and Coordinate Oil Recycling Publicity and Programs through a Seventh Amendment. (As the contract value is greater than $50,000, a unanimous vote is required for approval of this Contract extension.) Exercise the optional annual extension to the Agreement with C 2 Alternative Services for Spanish Language Outreach Services through a First Amendment. V. ATTACHMENTS C 2 Alternative Services Extension Letters Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 51

52 February 2, 2012 Ms Karina Chilcott Sonoma County Waste Management Agency 2300 County Center Dr. STE B100 Santa Rosa, CA Dear Karina, Thank you for your interest in extending our current contract for environmental outreach education to the Spanish speaking community. We are happy to extend this contract for a year or more as allowed in the contract terms, at no change to the current rates or scope. As you know, the next few months through the end of the current contract on June 30 will be exceptionally challenging as we work to complete extra scope tasks under our other contract with the Agency. It would be very difficult for us to do this while also answering a new RFP. I am of course available to discuss the contract extension further with Agency staff and Board. Thank you again, Connie Cloak Partner C 2: Alternative Services 758 Pine St. Santa Rosa CA phone 707/ resources@c2alts.net website 52

53 February 2, 2012 Ms Lisa Steinman Sonoma County Waste Management Agency 2300 County Center Dr. STE B100 Santa Rosa, CA Dear Lisa, Thank you for your interest in extending our current contract for services in the Used Oil Recycling Program. We are happy to extend this contract for a year or more as allowed in the contract terms, at no change to the current rates or scope. This holds our hourly rates at the level they have been since 2007, approximately 6% lower than our regular current rates. This extension would of course not include the additional services recently added to our current contract. The next few months through the end of the current contract on June 30 will be exceptionally challenging as we work to complete the extra scope tasks. It would be very difficult for us to do this while also answering a new RFP. In addition, the year-end reporting due after this July 1 will be especially difficult since both the old Block Grant and the new Oil Payment Program have to be completed. I can t imagine a worse time for you to transition to a new contractor, assuming we were not awarded the new contract. I am of course available to discuss the contract extension further with Agency staff and Board. Connie Cloak Partner C 2: Alternative Services 758 Pine St. Santa Rosa CA phone 707/ resources@c2alts.net website 53

54 Agenda Item #: 7 Cost Center: HHW Staff Contact: Steinman Agenda Date: 2/15/2012 ITEM: HHW Contract Negotiations I. BACKGROUND The County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors and Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA) have had an Agreement with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., (Clean Harbors) to operate the Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) and accompanying mobile collection programs. The Agreement between Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, County of Sonoma, and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. for Operations of Household Hazardous Waste Programs (Agreement) was approved June 11, At the May 19, 2010 Agency Board meeting, the Board moved to approve staff s recommendation to extend the term of the Agreement with Clean Harbors until January 6, 2013 without any changes to the current terms or conditions. In addition, the Board proposed amending the motion to include three, one-year extensions. The amended motion was approved. The term of this Agreement is through January 6, 2013 with three optional one-year extensions, mutually agreed upon between the SCWMA and Clean Harbors. At the November 16, 2011 SCWMA Board meeting, staff recommended exercising the first optional one-year extension with this Contractor. For the optional 2013 extension, Clean Harbors had requested that a Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase be implemented to the monthly labor component only, which will be based on the United States Department of Labor statistics from November 2011 through November There have been no rate changes to this contract since As the value of the Contract extension exceeds $50,000, a unanimous vote was required for approval. After discussion amongst the SCWMA Board members, there was a motion to continue this item to the January 18, 2012 meeting. The motion directed staff to come back in January with options in respect to going out with a RFP versus extending the Agreement. Staff brought this item back to the SCWMA Board at the January 18, 2012 Board Meeting. After much discussion, the Board moved to direct staff to negotiate with the existing provider for a flat contract and bring back the findings to the next meeting in order to make a decision on extending the Agreement or going out with a RFP. II. DISCUSSION As directed by the Board, SCWMA staff continued further negotiations with Clean Harbors. Both SCWMA staff and Clean Harbors, in trying to stay with the Board s desire for a flat contract, have come up with a plan that is satisfactory to both parties. This plan takes into consideration the impacts from California Assembly Bill 1343, the paint recycling bill, signed into law in County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

55 As part of the labor component of this contract, Clean Harbors provides a dedicated staff that SCWMA staff has been satisfied with. Clean Harbors staff at the HHW Facility is responsible for the successful paint bulking reuse program. SCWMA staff has been working with Clean Harbors and PaintCare, a nonprofit stewardship organization working on behalf of the paint producers, on coordination between the new paint program and the SCWMA s existing HHW collection program. AB 1343 requires paint manufacturers to develop and implement a program to collect, transport, and process postconsumer paint to reduce the costs and environmental impacts of the disposal of postconsumer paint in California. The implementation date for this program is in the summer of This bill was supported by the SCWMA and is a big win for extended producer responsibility (EPR). PaintCare representatives visited the HHTF in 2011 and have stated that our paint reuse program will fit in well with their program plan. Paint is collected through the HHTF and mobile collection programs. Re-usable latex paint is remixed and made available for free pick-up to the public. There are no disposal costs to the SCWMA for the re-usable paint made available to the public. Unusable latex paint, most oil based paint, and paint related materials are properly disposed of by Clean Harbors. In fiscal year , the cost to dispose of paint though the facility was $243,160. SCWMA staff met with a representative from PaintCare last month and discussed what future financial impact the SCWMA can expect to see with the implementation of the new California program. Once implemented, the SCWMA can expect disposal costs for latex and oil based paints to be eliminated. Disposal costs are expected to be covered through a California paint recycling fee. The SCWMA and PaintCare will need to draw-up a contract so that PaintCare s waste hauler will be able to take the paint generated by the HHTF. Clean Harbors had requested that a Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase be implemented to the monthly labor component only. Staff researched and found that the most current California CPI rate available (3.2% increase for Oct 2010-Oct 2011) is lower than the national rate. Clean Harbors has agreed to use the California CPI Index instead of the National Index, if the Agency prefers. An updated extension letter from Clean Harbors is attached to this staff report. In the letter, Clean Harbors has stated that they would also like to request the ability to approach the Agency for fuel recovery if the national average cost of diesel rises above $4.50 per gallon. The annual cost for labor with this Contract is $407,680. Based on a 3.2% increase, $12,230 would be the approximate increase to the labor component. To offset this cost and keep the contract flat, Clean Harbors is willing to propose deducting the same amount of the labor increase (approximately $12,230) off of the cost of paint disposal for the first optional one-year extension. If the Board was to extend under these conditions, there would be no increase to the amount paid by the SCWMA to this Contractor by approving the first year extension. At the last SCWMA Board meeting, there was a suggestion made by members of the Board to consider a longer term agreement. Although the Contract allows for three optional one-year extensions, Clean Harbors is willing to extend their Contract until February 11, 2017 (the expiration date of the Joint Powers Authority). The other options for the Board to consider are to either approve a one year extension or direct staff to go out with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for this contract County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

56 The Operations of Household Hazardous Waste Programs Contract is one of the Agency s largest and most complex contracts. The approximate yearly total for this contract is $1,038,000. Rebidding this contract would require a very complex RFP process and would involve a lengthy vetting process to ensure that any prospective contractor is clearly capable of managing the dangerous materials involved. SCWMA staff is aware of only one other vendor, besides Clean Harbors, who consistently bids on HHW Contracts within Northern California. Staff has not been approached by this vendor in recent years for the purpose of interest in SCWMA s HHW Contract. III. FUNDING IMPACT Currently Clean Harbors is paid approximately $438,000 dollars a year as an operating fee and disposal fees are currently about $600,000 annually. The approximate yearly total is $1,038,000. The budgeted amount for this Contractor in FY 11/12 is $1,157,000; it is anticipated that this will be the same amount included in the FY 12/13 budget. This amount is greater than the approximate yearly total because the budgeted amount includes a contingency to cover an increase in the volume of materials handled. As a result of extending the Agreement with Clean Harbors Environmental Services for an additional year, a CPI increase would be implemented to the monthly labor component only which will be based on the California Index from November 2011 through November It is estimated that the increase to the labor component of the Clean Harbors Contract would be $12,230 for FY13/14. This is based on a 3.2% increase but may actually be higher or lower. The same amount would then be deducted from the annual cost of paint disposal. There would be no increase to the cost of this Contract from approval of the first one year extension. If the Board decides to extend the current Contract beyond the first year then, the financial impact will be a yearly increase based on the California CPI, implemented to the monthly labor component only. This increase is estimated to be around 3.2 % per year. Attached is a chart with a list of historical California CPI data. IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION Approve extending the Agreement with Clean Harbors Environmental Services until February 11, 2017, and direct Agency Staff to come back to the Board Chair for approval of the 9 th Amendment. The alternatives to the recommended action are: 1. Approve the first optional one year extension to the Agreement with Clean Harbors Environmental Services until February 11, 2017, and direct Agency Staff to come back to the Board Chair for approval of the 9 th Amendment. 2. Direct staff to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) and come back to the Board for direction to issue the RFP County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

57 As the value of the Contract extension exceeds $50,000, a unanimous vote is required for approval. V. ATTACHMENTS Clean Harbors Extension Letter Historical California CPI data Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 2300 County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

58 ~ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES- Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc Commercial Street Suite 107 San Jose, CA Date: February 6,2012 To: Lisa Steinman RE: Contract Extension Ms. Steinman: With the current two year contract term ending January 6 th, 2013, Clean Harbors Environmental Services (CHES) would be willing to offer a five year extension to the current agreement. The extension would go into effect January ih, 2013 and end February 11 th, 2017 to coincide with the expiration ofthe JPA. CHES would like to ask that an annual CPI increase, based on the California CPI from November to November, be implemented to the labor component only beginning January 6 th, In order to help the Agency manage costs and stay within the budget, CHES is willing to reduce the cost ofthe paint waste stream to offset the increase to the labor component beginning January 6 th, 2013 for one year. CHES would also like to request the ability to approach the Agency for fuel recovery if the national average cost ofdiesel rises above $4.50 per gallon. Thank you for allowing Clean Harbors the opportunity to provide this proposal to you. Ifyou have any questions please contact Curt Lock at or lock.curt@cleanharbors.com. Account Manager "People and Technology Creating a Better Environment" 58

59 Consumer Price Index ( =100) Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics CCPI-U = California Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers CCPI-W = California Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers Percent Percent Percent Change Percent Change Change From From Change From From Previous Previous Previous Previous Year Month CCPI-U Month Year CCPI-W Month Year 2011 Oct % % 2011 Sep Aug % % 2011 July 2011 June % % 2011 May 2011 Apr % % 2011 Mar Feb % % 2011 Jan Annual % % 2010 Dec % % 2010 Nov Oct % % 2010 Sep Aug % % 2010 Jul Jun % % 2010 May 2010 Apr % % 2010 Mar Feb % % 2010 Jan Annual % % 2009 Dec % % 2009 Nov Oct % % 2009 Sep Aug % % 2009 Jul Jun % % 2009 May 2009 Apr % % 2009 Mar Feb % % 2009 Jan Annual % % 2008 Dec % % 2008 Nov Oct % % 59

60 2008 Sep Aug % A% 2008 JuL 2008 Jun % % 2008 May 2008 Apr % % 200S Mar Feb % A% 2008 Jan Annual 217A24 3.3% 209.S76 3.2% 2007 Dec % % 2007 Nov Oct 21S.959 3A% % 2007 Sep Aug. 217A80 2.6% % 2007 JuL 2007 Jun. 217A04 3.1% S% 2007 May 2007 Apr A% A% 2007 Mar Feb A% % 2007 Jan Annual % % 2006 Dec % 203A 3.2% 2006 Nov Oct 211.S 2.3% % 2006 Sep Aug % % 2006 JuL 2006 Jun S% % 2006 May 2006 Apr % % 2006 Mar Feb A% 200A 4.3% 2006 Jan Annual % % 2005 Dec % % 2005 Nov Oct % % 2005 Sep Aug % % 2005 JuL 2005 June % % 2005 May 2005 Apr % % 2005 Mar Feb % % 2005 Jan Annual 195A 2.6% % 2004 Dec % % 2004 Nov Oct % % 60

61 2004 Sep Aug % % 2004 Jul Jun % % 2004 May 2004 Apr % % 2004 Mar Feb % % 2004 Jan. 61

62 Agenda Item #: 8 Cost Center: Wood/Yard Staff Contact: Mikus/Carter Agenda Date: 2/15/2012 ITEM: Compost Operations Request for Qualifications I. BACKGROUND Joint Powers Agency Agreement One of the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA) s primary responsibilities is to ensure the proper treatment of wood and yard wastes in Sonoma County. The Joint Powers Agreement contains a number of provisions regarding the SCWMA s role in dealing with wood and yard wastes including the following: Section 11. Role of Participants in Collection of Wood, and Yard Waste Each Participant shall cause wood waste and yard waste generated within its jurisdiction (that could not be diverted otherwise) to go to the Central Landfill to be delivered to the Treatment System and shall take such actions as are appropriate and necessary to accomplish that result. The Joint Powers Agency shall establish standards for the quality of yard and wood waste acceptable for delivery to the Treatment System and may also approve diversions of wood waste and yard waste to alternative treatment systems. Three Party Agreement for Composting Services An Agreement between the County of Sonoma (County), the SCWMA, and the Sonoma Compost Company (Contractor) for Organic Material Processing, Composting and Marketing Services (Agreement) was entered into on September 28, This Agreement fulfills part of the SCWMA s obligation to provide a regional composting program to convert yard debris and wood waste into organic marketable products at the composting facility currently located at the Central Disposal Site. Amendments to this Agreement have been approved as follows: July 11, 2000 the First Amendment (A) modified a new work surface, included a termination provision and updated Exhibit B (List of Operating Equipment). February 20, 2002 the First Amendment (B) identified new finished products ( Specialty Products ) and set revenue allocation or sharing methods for these products. March 17, 2004 the Second Amendment approved an increase to the payment for wood waste processing, from $12 per ton of material delivered to the compost facility to $20 per ton for fuel products and $22 per ton for non-fuel wood chip products. April 21, 2004 the Third Amendment allowed for an expansion and/or relocation of the composting processing site, extended the term of the agreement to November 15, 2010, and created a new yard debris product designed for use by the City of Santa Rosa s Laguna Composting Facility. June 16, 2004 the Fourth Amendment added new language to the Agreement regarding prevailing wages. July 12, 2005 the Fifth Amendment added new definitions in order to add a Construction and Demolition Program ( C&D ) and establish partial reimbursement to the SCWMA for transportation costs associated with hauling green waste from the transfer stations to the Central Disposal Site. April 22, 2008 the Sixth Amendment amended the definition of Prepared Yard Debris to a product that would be agreeable to City of Santa Rosa for use as a bulking agent in their biosolids composting program, changed the amount of process material delivered per week from 350 tons to 400 tons, and amended the compensation to Contractor for the prepared yard debris to include an inflation computation and a trigger for rate change like the other products produced by Contractor. 62

63 January 20, 2010 the Seventh Amendment extended the termination date of the agreement to November 15, 2011, with acceptance of material ending July 18, 2011 and added a provision for the County to terminate the agreement with six months written notice if the County determined the area was needed for landfilling of refuse or to implement final closure on the composting area of the landfill. March 16, 2011 the Eighth Amendment extended the termination date of the agreement to November 15, 2012 and included provisions for extending the agreement two additional one year increments. At the April 20, 2011 SCWMA Board meeting staff presented estimated cost and capacity figures for several alternative plans for future composting operations, which included shipping materials to out of county locations, constructing locally, or privatized operations. At the November 16, 2011 SCWMA meeting, the Board directed staff to release a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for composting services. Staff released the RFQ on November 22, Responses were due December 19, At the January 18, 2012 SCWMA meeting, the Board directed staff to begin interviews with the respondents. II. DISCUSSION Eight responses to the RFQ were received by the December 19, 2011 deadline. The respondents were Cold Creek Compost, Inc., Northern Recycling, LLC, Recology Environmental Solutions, Redwood Landfill, Inc. (Waste Management), Renergy LLC, Soiland Co., Inc., Sonoma Compost Company, and Sonoma Vermiculture. In the interest of receiving as much input from the respondents as possible and developing a comprehensive set of options, staff interviewed all eight respondents. The interview process was useful in confirming several assumptions presented at the April 2011 SCWMA meeting. These include that no single facility was able to accommodate all the SCWMA s current composting capacity, and that while negotiated tipping fees may be lower than advertised tipping fees used in the April 2011 staff report, the transportation costs to out of county sites drastically increase the cost of utilizing those sites into a range where total costs become very high compared to the current rate structure. They also confirmed that no currently developed sites exist within Sonoma County that could handle the SCWMA s composting capacity, nor were large scale, regional compost facilities likely to arise due to the difficulties of developing these sites privately without government assurances or agreements. The respondents were unanimous in their belief that the Central Disposal Site should be utilized for future composting operations, and some respondents believed that configurations other than as presented in the Draft EIR would allow for 200,000 tons of organic material to be composted at that site. Second, it was clear to staff that two respondents, Recology and Sonoma Compost Company, understood the situation the Agency is in with regard to operating the current location at Central, the operations between now and the 2017 expiration of the SCWMA, the effort involved to permit, develop, and operate a new traditional composting site, and how the potential expiration of the Agency agreement affects these operations. Both companies made thorough presentations which addressed all of staff s questions and presented scenarios which would improve the handling of organics in the county with little or no negative impact to the ratepayers. Staff recommends negotiating further with both of these companies. Staff was also impressed by the potential and scope presented by Sonoma Vermiculture. Many respondents to the RFQ with experience in food waste composting noted the importance of having a proper blend of green waste and food waste. Staff 63

64 has, as a consequence, realized that maintaining a proper, operational blend of green and food wastes may limit the amount of food waste the system is capable of assimilating. HoweverSonoma Vermiculturehas demonstrated to staff s satisfaction that their facility can handle undiluted food waste at their facility, which is advantageous for achieving higher diversion rates, and would likely provide needed capacity for processing the maximum amount of food waste generated within Sonoma County. Though the facility has not been permitted to accept a substantial amount of material, they are in the process of obtaining a solid waste permit, and staff is believes this could be achieved this year. It is notable that Sonoma Vermiculture has established their site and facility without public assistance. Staff recommends the Board consider negotiations with Sonoma Vermiculture to gain additional food waste capacity, and to develop potential redundancy in the short term if difficulties arise in the transition from the current compost site to a new facility. At the request of the Executive Committee staff would propose that a committee of the SCWMA Board be involved in further negotiations with the selected respondents. Staff suggests the committee be prepared to hold several meetings with staff and the selected respondents the last two weeks of February and the first week of March with an intent to bring a terms of any agreements before the Board at the March 21 SCWMA Meeting. III. FUNDING IMPACT There are no funding impacts proposed at this time. IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board appoint two Board members to serve on a committee to negotiate with Recology, Sonoma Compost Company, and Sonoma Vermiculture and direct staff to schedule meetings with those companies. Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 64

65 Agenda Item #: 9 Cost Center: All Staff Contact: Mikus/Fisher Meeting Date: 2/15/2012 ITEM: FY Draft Work Plan I. BACKGROUND Beginning in FY 06-07, as a part of the budget process, a project list (Work Plan) was prepared for consideration and approval by the Board in order to have a detailed planning document containing a description of the SCWMA projects, contractor costs, and staff costs. The Work Plan, once approved, is used as the guidance document for preparation of the SCWMA s annual draft budget. The FY Work Plan includes the Organics Program (composting operations, food and home composting education, and Christmas tree recycling projects), the Surcharge cost centers (HHW, Education, and Planning cost centers), and a section on General Administration. The headings for the Work Plan include contractor cost, staff cost, the goal or justification for the program/project, and a schedule for the program or project, as well as the routine work that is done on a regular basis. The goal/justification heading identifies whether the program/project is MANDATED, CoIWMP or BOARD DIRECTED. The documents that provide a MANDATE for SCWMA activities include: Statute The most definitive document is the Assembly Bill 939 passed in 1989, which required each city and county to prepare solid waste management planning documents that demonstrate reduction of the amount of solid waste landfilled, long-term ability to ensure the implementation of countywide diversion programs, and provision of adequate disposal capacity for local jurisdictions through the siting of disposal and transformation facilities. Agreement The JPA agreement, approved in 1992, contains the provisions which establish the core mission of the SCWMA which are to provide four regional programs (household hazardous waste, wood waste, yard waste and public education). The First amendment to the JPA, made in 1995, added regional planning and reporting duties by making SCWMA the AB 939 Regional Planning Agency. The document that provides CoIWMP Programs for SCWMA activities is the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP), which includes the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE), and the Siting Element. This planning document identifies programs for implementation that address household hazardous waste, organic waste and public education. The plan is used as a guidance document for SCWMA programs. There are some programs which are neither MANDATED or programmed in the CoIWMP which were started at Board direction, these are identified in the Work Plan as BOARD DIRECTED II. DISCUSSION 65

66 The FY Draft Work Plan is organized into restricted funds and the individual surcharge cost centers. Restricted Funds are: Wood Waste and Yard Debris, restricted by the JPA agreement, Section 13, and the Reserves (Organics, HHW Closure, HHW Facility and Contingency) from the Surcharge Cost Centers. Restrictions on the Reserves were established by Board policy in 2002 and continue to be revised at Board discretion, most recently in August Board policy sets goals for the reserves, defines the appropriate use of funds, and states that these funds are to be used for onetime expenditures and not for on-going operational expenses. Organics (Wood Waste and Yard Debris) The programs remain the same for the Organics cost centers. The hauling of green waste has been included as a separate program where previously it had been included with the compost contract services expenses. Organics Reserve The compost relocation process will continue through FY The existing compost site at the Central Disposal Site has always been considered a temporary site and relocation of the composting operation is required. The environmental studies have progressed, a public hearing has been held and comments are being taken to be included in preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report, which is expected to be available in the Spring of Contingency Reserve With the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreement set to expire in 2017, the Board directed staff to include the JPA renewal or revision in the FY Work Plan. The lack of a long term JPA agreement is beginning to impact some of the operations of SCWMA, such as contract renewals or negotiations. The Board has directed staff to continue work on decreasing the usage of carry-out bags. Potential ordinance models will be presented to all stakeholders in each individual jurisdiction. Pending the outcome of these meetings, enacting a countywide ordinance could be initiated. Developing and enacting this sort of legislation would require funding support from SCWMA. Surcharge Tipping Fee Cost Centers The revenues for the cost centers funded by the surcharge on the tipping fee are expected to be at the same level as FY The amount of solid waste coming through the County system has stabilized for the present time and, and therefore, the surcharge income has as well. The Diversion cost center continues to appear in the budget, but only until the time has expired within the History pages of the annual budget. This cost center is not a listed program in the JPA agreement and has been vacated. Household Hazardous Waste The operation of the Household Hazardous Waste Facility continues to be the most expensive program in the surcharge cost centers. Education The education program has been successful with grant awards from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. These awards are for the collection and disposal of florescent bulbs. This program has proven to be very successful in Sonoma County. 66

67 The Recycling Guide is now published in English and Spanish. There are also continuing outreach efforts to the Spanish-speaking community. Planning The Planning Cost Center s programs remain the same as last year. General Administration The activities in General Administration remain the same as last year. County Projects The only County Projects are the support of the AB 939 Local Task Force and a minimal amount of requested graphic design work to be used for signage at the solid waste facilities. III. FUNDING IMPACT There is no direct funding impact of the FY Work Plan. This document is informational and used for planning purposes and to complement the proposed FY Draft Budget. IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the FY Draft Work Plan as a guide for the FY Draft Budget. V. ATTACHMENTS FY Draft Work Plan Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 67

68 SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Organics (Wood Waste and Yard Debris) Program Composting Program Organics Hauling Debris Box Pilot Project Food Waste Education Christmas Tree Recycling Program Description Manages contract for composting operation, reconcile and process monthly invoices for payment. Processes revenue sharing and product allocations. Agreement with County to reimburse for the transportation of yard debris and wood waste from the transfer stations to the composting facility Explore the opportunity for increased diversion in conjunction with construction and demolition debris boxes delivered to the Sonoma and Healdsburg transfer stations. Agency would be responsible for organics processing of recovered materials. Supports residential and commercial pilot food waste collection programs as needed. Develops messages, performs graphic design and incorporates information into Agency promotional materials Coordinates with stakeholders (e.g., Sonoma Compost Company, garbage companies, etc.) Provides education to the public about Christmas tree recycling options. Coordinates with local non-profit organizations to provide convenient Christmas tree composting Coordinates drop-off sites with haulers Updates information on Agency s web site and establish/record seasonal voice message system Contractor Cost $2,762,217 (FY $2,603,829) $424,482 (FY $369,325) See Above $0 (FY $0) $0 (FY $0) Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $58,070 (FY $28,295) $1,301 (FY $2,920) $1,301 FY $2,920) $6,666 (FY $12,064) $3,248 (FY $4,438) MANDATED Major diversion program in the Joint Powers Agreement and Section of the CoIWMP. BOARD DIRECTION Agency assumed the responsibility for organic hauling in BOARD DIRECTION Agency is exploring the increased diversion resulting from participating in the proposed pilot project. CoIWMP/Section Provide recycling information to all County residents and businesses CoIWMP/Section Diversion program that adds organic feedstock Monthly Monthly Monthly (two year project) Ongoing November, December, and January, Annually Approved 68

69 SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Organics (Wood Waste and Yard Debris) (Con t) Program Program Description Contractor Cost 1.6 Home In order to reduce the Agency s compost program $16,660 $1,823 composting costs, the Agency has supported an educational education program teaching home composting through the (FY (FY (UCCE) Master Gardeners. $16,660) $6,233) Total FY $3,203,359 $72,409 Prior Year FY $2,989,814 $56,870 Reserves ( Restricted by Board Policy) 2.1 Compost Site Relocation Project 2.2 Carryout Bags 2.3 JPA Renewal Environmental document completed using existing FY funds. Requested amounts will allow staff to issue an RFP for permitting site design, and site operator. Site purchase/lease expected to occur in FY 12-13, though the amount is too speculative to include in this plan and will be appropriated separately. At the request of the Board staff will: Continue Agency member and community outreach Issue an RFP for a CEQA consultant to analyze the environmental impacts of a potential ordinance If adopted, begin implementation of a carryout bag ordinance Obtain Board direction whether to seek amendment to original or rewrite a regional charter to satisfy AB 939 Prepare a model resolution for use by the Board of Supervisors/City Councils Attend regularly scheduled meetings to present new/revised document Follow up with representatives to obtain the necessary documentation for passage of a revised/new joint powers authority agreement $24,000 Legal (FY $24,000 budgeted) $150,000 Consultant $20,000 Legal $20,000 Legal Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $78,162 (FY $62,070 budgeted) CoIWMP/Section Reduce organics being landfilled and compost program costs CoIWMP/Section $36,729 BOARD DIRECTED $60,936 BOARD DIRECTED (recognizing the expiration date of 2017) Ongoing One Time Use One Time Use One Time Use Approved 69

70 SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Household Hazardous Waste Program HHW Collection Program E-waste Collection at Disposal Sites (Subsidized by State) E-waste Transport Oil & Filter Recycling (State funded) Program Description Manages contract for collection of hazardous waste from residents and CESQG (businesses) at the Household Toxics Facility (HTF), Community Toxics Collections (CTC), and Toxics Rover. Provides education resources for the program as needed. Covered Electronic Wastes (CEW and UWED s) are accepted at all of the County disposal sites for recycling. This program is subsidized by the State through the Electronics Recycling Act of State subsidy is based on pounds received for recycling. Covered Electronic Wastes (CEW and UWED s) are accepted at all of the County disposal sites for recycling. Covered Electronic Wastes are transported by a Licensed Hauler from the County Transfer Stations to the Central Disposal Site. The Agency funds the e-waste transportation operations. This program includes a wide variety of efforts from reporting and auditing to collection and education. Funding is provided through the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery s (CalRecycle) Oil Payment Program (OPP). Actual projects vary year to year depending on State funding levels. Contractor Cost $1,157,000 (FY $1,157,000) $0 (FY $0) $70,000 (FY $70,000) $102,825 (State Funded $102,825 for FY 11-12) Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $100,638 (FY $72,167) $17,170 (FY $17,676) $2,297 (FY $2,892) $13,325 (FY $9,800) MANDATED - JPA Comply with regulations, contract administration/oversight (Section 5.3 of the CoIWMP) MANDATED - JPA Required by regulation, contract administration/oversight (Section of the CoIWMP). MANDATED - JPA Required by regulation, contract administration/oversight (Section of the CoIWMP). BOARD DIRECTED Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing (Consultant contract expires June 30, 2012) The program is ongoing. Approved 70

71 SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Household Hazardous Waste (con t) 3.5 Program Spanish Language Outreach (79% funded from the State s UBG and OPP) Reporting California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC)/Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) Product Stewardship (Extended Producer Responsibility) Education and Outreach Program Description Outreaches to Spanish speaking residents about used motor oil and disposal of hazardous waste community based social marketing strategies including call-in radio, Eco-Desk telephone, events, labor center talks, etc. The State requires reporting and quantification of HHW collection efforts annually. Participates in statewide and national Extended Producer Responsibility efforts. Develops and incorporates information for local take-back opportunities into Agency promotional materials (e.g., Recycling Guide, fliers and online) Outreaches to the community at events. Contractor Cost $18,886 (Grant Funded- FY $18,886) $0 $0 (FY $0) $0 (FY $0) Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $1,638 (FY ,016) $6,311 (FY $5,520) $2,827 (FY $14,132) $3,193 (FY $20,858) BOARD DIRECTED MANDATED Required by regulation. BOARD DIRECTED EPR Implementation Plan (CoIWMP/Section ) CoIWMP/Section Provide recycling information to all County residents (Consultant contract expires June 30, 2012) November 2012 Ongoing Ongoing Approved 71

72 Household Hazardous Waste (con t) Program E-waste Recycling Events Out-of-County Hazardous Waste (Mendocino County) Program Description This program accepts electronics that are defined as hazardous waste. This program is subsidized by the State through the Electronics Recycling Act of State subsidy is based on pounds received for recycling. A contractor conducts electronic recycling events under contract with the Agency. Provides supports for coordination of e- waste event. Performs graphic design and placement of advertising (e.g., utility bill inserts, fliers, radio, newspaper ads, on-line, etc.) Administers the contract. Sonoma County residents living in the north/west part of the County can dispose of hazardous waste close to their homes. Agency staff produces educational materials to help publicize disposal opportunities. Agency reimburses Mendocino County for disposal. SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Contractor Cost $0 (FY $0) $13,800 (FY $13,800) Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $12,917 (FY $14,564) $492 (FY $1,424) Total FY $1,419,036 $160,806 Prior Year FY $1,362,511 $159,048 CoIWMP/Section Provide recycling information to all County residents MANDATED - JPA Consultant contract expires June 16, Spring, Summer, and Fall Approved 72

73 SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Education Program Recycling Guide English/Spanish versions Eco-Desk phone number (English and Spanish) Program Description The annual 32-page Recycling Guide is a comprehensive resource for recycling, reuse and hazardous waste disposal options in Sonoma County. In 2011, a Spanish version was added. Researches and designs all pages. Coordinates consultants as needed for illustrations and cover artwork. Coordinates review of publication among stakeholders (e.g., garbage companies, CalRecycle staff, listers, etc.). Prepares publication for on-line viewing. Arranges for graphics and printing of 37,000 English copies and 10,000 Spanish copies. Telephone and response to questions from the public on recycling, disposal and hazardous waste. Listens to messages daily, logs call into the Access database and returns phone calls/ s within one business day. Manages the voice tree system. Researches topics to help foster more opportunities (e.g., carpet, formed Styrofoam, plastic bags, etc.) as needed. Information gets recorded in the Access Eco-Desk database. Prepares annual reports summarizing activity on the English and Spanish Eco- Desk. Coordinates with Spanish language contractor as needed. Contractor Cost $15,000 (FY $13,000) $0 Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $39,734 (FY $35,412) $22,979 (FY $22,500) MANDATED -JPA Provide recycling information to all County residents and businesses (Section of the CoIWMP) BOARD DIRECTED (Spanish Guide) MANDATED - JPA Provide recycling information by phone to all County residents and businesses (Section of the CoIWMP) December 2012 to April 2013 Daily Approved 73

74 SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Education (con t) 4.3 Program Spanish Language Outreach (21% funded from Education) 4.4 Grants 4.5 Web site now.org Program Description A contractor provides outreach to Spanish speaking residents about recycling issues employing community based social marketing strategies including call-in radio, Eco-Desk telephone, events, labor center talks, etc. Manages the contract for services Provides support for educational materials as needed. Applying for grants as they become available have become a substantial funding source for educational programs. is a comprehensive web site including topics for toxics, recycling, business, multifamily, schools, disposal, compost, resources, newsroom and agency. The web site is ADA section 508 compliant and accommodates multiple user types (e.g.,mobile device users). Updates the content for the pages as needed with County ISD staff. Posts.pdfs, articles, news, etc. to the web site and create new pages as needed. Converts all web posted documents to ADA compliancy. Updates the Eco-Desk Access database to the web site. Manages contract for Guide on-line booklet. Manages administering the domain name registration. Updates resources/links on related web sites such as etc. Prepares annual reports on web site activity. Contractor Cost $5,114 (FY $5,114) $0 Service Provided by County Information Systems Department and are included in the budget with all the other ISD charges Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $2,179 (FY $9,420) $13,507 (FY $14,341) $33,281 (FY $6,940) MANDATED - JPA Provide recycling information in Spanish (Section of the CoIWMP). MANDATED - JPA Leverage limited Agency resources (Section of the CoIWMP) MANDATED - JPA Communicate recycling information using the web (Section of the CoIWMP) Consultant contract expires June 30, 2012 As available Ongoing Approved 74

75 SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Education (con t) Program 4.6 Green Building 4.7 Outreach Partnerships BEA Program Description Staff maintains the Agency s Green Building Products Showcase and participates as needed on the Build It Green Public Agency Council and other similar efforts. The Agency provides funding and some staff support to the Business Environmental Alliance (BEA), The contribution to the BEA helps support the February BEA Business Awards breakfast. Contractor Cost $0 EDB - $3,000 (FY $3,000) Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $953 (FY $3,460) $2,922 (FY $4,210) MANDATED - JPA Reduce waste and increase recycled product purchasing (Section of the CoIWMP) BOARD DIRECTED Expand Agency outreach to businesses (BEA), as well as the general public Ongoing Ongoing Fairs 4.10 Non-profit grant awards Social Community Based On-line Marketing Outreach As Board directed, non-profits will apply for small grants ($500-$2,000) to fund activities that promote the mandate of AB 939. Each year the Agency picks a new outreach theme that responds to current topics. The outreach theme for 2012 is Used Motor Oil/Filter Recycling opportunities, in addition to promoting the new web site. Coordinates vendor registration and makes up calendar. Graphic design and production for tabletop and 10 x10 displays and any auxiliary displays (e.g., backdrop, floor, information panels, brochure holders, etc.) Coordinates staffing for events Coordinates fair set up and tear down. Orders supplies Refurbishes display materials Designs and procures giveaway promotional items Online marketing and access to information is an important tool in the Agency s education program. Manages no cost on-line marketing options for Agency topic using services such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Blogs, - etc. $5,000 (FY $0) $4,000 (FY $4,000) $0 $3,370 (FY $0) $10,750 (FY $22,080) $7,805 (FY $14,000) BOARD DIRECTED Providing funding opportunities to non-profits in Sonoma County for further outreach MANDATED - JPA (Section of the CoIWMP) BOARD DIRECTED Ongoing Summer and Fall Ongoing Approved 75

76 Education (con t) 4.11 Program Beverage Container Recycling (Grant funded) Program Description Grant money from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to increase beverage container recycling is expected, though the amount is unknown Landfill Tours HHW collection, recycling wall, reuse area, garbage tipping floor, active landfill, power plant, and composting area Jurisdictional public education Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure (Program 4.10 Grant Funded) PG&E grant Napa/Sonoma coordination grant for fluorescent lamps (Grant funded) SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Contractor Cost $0 (FY $0) Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $6,797 (FY $11,940) BOARD DIRECTED Make recycling bins convenient for public consuming containerized beverages at events and outdoors Provides tours for the public at the Central Disposal Site. This includes an overview of $2,930 CoIWMP/Section $0 (FY DTPW staff provide tours of the $2,360) Central Disposal Site Assist member jurisdictions with public education by encouraging/supporting haulers. Provide support for implementing CalRecycle s Mandatory Commercial Recycling program which will focus on education, monitoring and reporting. Potential activities could include convening stakeholder workshops, educational videos, coordinating with garbage company staff, outreach to businesses, development of resources, etc. Coordinate with PG&E and Napa County on expanding the locations for public drop-off of fluorescent lamps engaging in publicity for the campaign. $0 $0 $30,000 (PG&E Funded $77,000 for FY 11-12) $684 (FY $2,00) $29,712 (FY $21,500) $6,457 (FY $12,440) Total FY $62,114 $184,058 Prior Year FY $25,134 $185,063 BOARD DIRECTED PROPOSED Under state law, local jurisdictions are responsible for reporting progress on commercial recycling to CalRecycle. PROPOSED Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing This grant project concludes in Dec Approved 76

77 Planning Program AB 939 Reporting Requirements Program Description Annual Report writing consists of: Collect and enter data from: the haulers, transfer stations, Central Landfill, out-ofcounty landfills, biomass facilities, large venues/events, HHW program Update text description of programs. Submit report to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Contractor Cost $0 Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $6,707 (Y $13,715) Legislative $4,884 Research & Staff researches information relevant to products $0 Ordinance and policies of Board interest. (FY Development $32,142) Total FY $0 $11,591 Prior Year FY $0 $45,857 General Administration Prepare agendas/packets Attend meetings $73, Agency Meetings Research and document development $0 (FY Prepare and file minutes, resolutions, $83,300) agreements SCWMA Financial Management Monitoring legislation Approve invoices/journal vouchers Prepare financial statements to Board Prepare budget and facilitate approvals Respond to audits (internal and external) Examines recent and pending legislation relevant to current and projected Agency projects $0 $0 $119,647 (FY $51,594) $2,338 (FY $7,000) Total FY $0 $195,385 Prior Year FY $0 $141,894 MANDATED AB 939 Compliance with State regulations (Section of the CoIWMP) BOARD DIRECTED MANDATED-JPA MANDATED-JPA BOARD DIRECTED 2010 Annual Report due August 2011 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Approved 77

78 County Projects A B Program Disposal Site support AB 939 Local Task Force (LTF) Program Description Assist as needed with education efforts including signage, fliers, fee schedules, information requests, etc. Provide staff support and administrative functions, as needed, to the AB 939 Local Task Force. SCWMA FY Draft Work Plan Contractor Cost $0 $0 Staff Goal/Justification Schedule $1,601 (FY $4,080) $7,422 (FY $18,900) Total $0 $9,023 Prior Year FY $0 $22,980 Grand Total FY $4,898,509 $809,099 Prior Year FY $4,410,459 $723,362 Requests by County staff Agency staff has historically provided this service. Ongoing Approved 78

79 Agenda Item #: 10 Cost Center: Planning Staff Contact: Carter Agenda Date: 2/15/2012 ITEM: Carryout Bags Ordinance Direction I. BACKGROUND The SCWMA Board of Directors requested staff to provide carryout bag legislation updates at each SCWMA meeting subsequent to the March 2008 meeting. Since that meeting staff has researched developments within California and out-of-state legislation regarding paper and plastic carryout bags. At the May 18, 2011 SCWMA meeting, the Board directed staff to present the three options for addressing carryout bags developed by staff to the Board of Supervisors and nine councils so those decision-making bodies could give direction to their respective SCWMA representative regarding action on one of those options. Staff has presented the materials approved by the Board to all jurisdictions, though staff has not been invited to present information to the full Rohnert Park City Council. Staff would characterize the direction from the Councils and County Board as generally supportive of exploring a countywide ordinance to be created and adopted by the Agency. II. DISCUSSION At the January 18, 2012 SCWMA meeting staff presented a plan for making presentations and receiving feedback from stakeholders and members of the public at the Veterans Buildings throughout the County. It has come to staff s attention that the County is in the process of changing the management structure of the Veterans Buildings which may make renting the buildings more complex after March Furthermore, renovations at the Sebastopol Veterans Building have made staff examine other options for presenting to the Sebastopol stakeholders. Staff examined and could arrange a rental at the Sebastopol Masonic Center for a price comparable to the Veterans Buildings. Staff also examined room rentals at the Healdsburg Community Center to add another north county outreach/feedback location. Staff was also directed to present the specifics of the City of San Jose carryout bag ordinance for potential use as a discussion starter for the stakeholder and community outreach meetings. Since the January 18, 2012 SCWMA meeting the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (also known as Stopwaste.org) has adopted a carryout bag ordinance. While Stopwaste.org s membership structure and voting requirements differs from the SCWMA s, staff included a comparison of the scope of that ordinance for analysis purposes. The table below shows the high level differences between the ordinances, and copies of the ordinances are attached to this packet County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

80 Issue San Jose Stopwaste.org CEQA Analysis EIR EIR Adoption Date 12/15/2010 1/25/2012 Implementation Date 1/1/2012 1/1/2013 Affected Businesses Plastic Bag Restriction Retail establishments (not including public eating establishments or nonprofit charitable reusers) Ban on plastic carryout bags provided at the point of sale. Does not affect produce, bulk food, or meat bags, prescription bags from pharmacies, or bags used to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other items when placed in a reusable bag or recycled paper bag Grocery stores with gross annual sales of $2 million or greater, stores of at least 10,000 square feet and contain a pharmacy, drug store, pharmacies, grocery stores, convenience food stores, foodmart or other entities engaged in retail sale of goods that include milk bread, soda, and snack foods Ban on plastic carryout bags provided at the point of sale. Silent on other plastic bags Paper Bag Restriction On or before 12/31/2013, $0.10 minimum charge for recycled (minimum 40% post consumer recycle content) paper bags that do not contain old growth fibers. On or after 1/1/2014, $0.25 minimum charge for recycled paper bags. On or before 1/1/2015, $0.10 minimum charge for recycled (minimum 40% post consumer recycle content) paper bags that do not contain old growth fibers. On or after 1/1/2015, $0.25 minimum charge for recycled paper bags, but will not be enforced if the Authority finds after 1/1/2014 that the $0.10 minimum charge has achieved the goal of substantially reducing environmental images of Single Use Carryout Bags Other Provisions Recycled Paper Bag charges must be itemized on the receipt. One or more recycled paper bags may be provided at no cost to customers participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program Recycled Paper Bag charges must be itemized on the receipt. One or more recycled paper bags or reusable bags may be provided at no cost to customers participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program. Allows member agencies to opt out by a resolution of its governing body by March 2, 2012, and allows member agencies to be reincluded at a later date 2300 County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

81 III. FUNDING IMPACT The Board has authorized the Executive Director $4,000 in spending authority to arrange for venue rentals on this project. Estimated costs for building rentals are within that amount. IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends scheduling the community meetings to be held between this meeting date and April and to select an ordinance starting point of the San Jose model. V. ATTACHMENTS City of San Jose Carryout Bag Ordinance Alameda County Waste Management Authority Carryout Bag Ordinance Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 2300 County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

82 Office of the City Clerk 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, California Telephone (408) FAX (408) CITY OF SAN JOSE" CALIFORNIA City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA) CITY OF SAN JOSE) I, Dennis Hawkins, City Clerk & Ex-Officio Clerk of the Council of and for the City of San Jose, in said County of Santa Clara, and State of California, do hereby certify that "Ordinance No ", the original copy of which is attached hereto, was passed for publication of title on the 14th day of December, 2010, was published in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of San Jose, and was given final reading and adopted on the 11th day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CAMPOS, CHU, CONSTANT, HERRERA, KALRA, LlCCARDO, NGUYEN, OLIVERIO, PYLE, ROCHA; REED. NONE. NONE. DISQUALIFIED: VACANT: NONE. NONE. Said ordinance is effective as of 11th day of February, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal th of the City of San Jose, this 19 day of Janua (SEAL DENNIS HAWKINS, CMC CITY CLERK & EX-OFFICIO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL Irmk 82

83 RD:RLT:RLT ORD. NO /15/2010 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10 OF TITLE 9 OF THE SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW PART 13 TO BAN SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS, AND PROHIBIT THE FREE DISTRIBUTION OF RECYCLED PAPER BAGS, BY RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS, TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2012 WHEREAS, on November 17, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of San Jose, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto and Title 21 of the San Jose Municipal Code, all as amended to date, certified that certain environmental impact report prepared for a Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance, under File No. PP (the "EIR"); and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2010, the City Council of the City of San Jose conducted an administrative hearing on an Appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of the EIR for the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance, under File No. PP , to add Part 13 to Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 of the San Jose Municipal Code to ban single-use carryout bags, and prohibit the free distribution of recycled paper bags by retail establishments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Jose is the decision-making body for the approval and adoption of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, this Council has adopted Resolution No setting forth the findings of the decision-making body in connection with the environmental impacts identified in the EIR in connection with the approval and adoption of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE: T-13981\ 6 Council Agenda: 12/14/2010 Item Number: 7.2 (b) 1 83

84 RO:RLT:RLT ORO. NO /15/2010 SECTION 1. Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 of the San Jose Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Part to be numbered and entitled and to read as follows: Part 13 Single-Use Carryout Bag Definitions The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this Part 13. A. "Customer" means any Person obtaining goods from a Retail Establishment. B. "Nonprofit Charitable Reuser" means a charitable organization, as defined in Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distinct operating unit or division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycles donated goods or materials and receives more than fifty percent (50%) of its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials. C. "Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization or group however organized. D. "Prepared Food" means foods or beverages which are prepared on the premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, or squeezing, and which require no further preparation to be consumed. Prepared Food does not include any raw, uncooked meat product or fruits or vegetables which are chopped, squeezed, or mixed. E. "Recycled Paper Bag", means a paper bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment that contains no old growth fiber T-13981\ 6 2 Council Agenda: 12/14/2010 Item Number: 7,2 (b) 84

85 RD:RLT:RLT ORD. NO /15/2010 and a minimum of forty percent (40%) post-consumer recycled content; is one hundred percent (100%) recyclable; and has printed in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag the words "Reusable" and "Recyclable," the name and location of the manufacturer, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled content. F. "Public Eating Establishment" means a restaurant, take-out food establishment, or any other business that receives 90% or more of its revenue from the sale of Prepared Food to be eaten on or off its premises. I G. "Retail Establishment" means any commercial establishment that sells perishable or nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, food, and personal items directly to the Customer; and is located within or doing business within the geographical limits of the City of San Jose. Retail Establishment does not include Public Eating Establishments or Nonprofit Charitable Reusers. H. "Reusable Bag" means either a bag made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles, or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mil thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse. I. "Single-Use Carryout Bag" means a bag other than a Reusable Bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment. Single Use Carryout Bags do not include bags without handles provided to the Customer (1) to transport produce, bulk food or meat from a produce, bulk food or meat department within a store to the point of sale; (2) to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy; or (3) to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together in a Reusable Bag or Recycled Paper Bag. T-13981\ 6 3 Council Agenda: 12/14/2010 Item Number: 7.2 (b) 85

86 RO:RLT:RLT 12/15/2010 ORO. NO Single-Use Carryout Bag A. No Retail Establishment shall provide a Single-Use Carryout Bag to a Customer, at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this Section. B. On or before December 31, 2013, a Retail Establishment may make available for sale to a Customer a Recycled Paper Bag for a minimum charge of ten cents ($0.10). C. On or after January 1,2014, a Retail Establishment may make available for sale to a Customer a Recycled Paper Bag for a minimum charge of twenty-five cents ($0.25). D. Notwithstanding this Section, no Retail Establishment may make available for sale a Recycled Paper Bag unless the amount of the sale of the Recycled Paper Bag is separately itemized on the sale receipt. E. A Retail Establishment may provide a Customer participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section ) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code; and a Customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, with one (1) or more Recycled Paper Bags at no cost through December 31, Recordkeeping and Inspection Every Retail Establishment shall keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase and sale of any Recycled Paper Bag by the Retail Establishment, for a minimum period of three (3) years from the date of purchase and sale, which record T-13981\ 6 4 Council Agenda: 12/14/2010 Item Number: 7.2 (b) 86

87 RD:RLT:RLT ORD. NO /15/2010 shall be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by any City employee authorized to enforce this Part. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the Retail Establishment address. The provision of false information including incomplete records or documents to the City shall be a violation of this Section. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective on January 1, PASSED FOR PUBLICATION of title this 14TH day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: CAMPOS, CHIRCO, CHU, HERRERA, KALRA, LlCCARDO, NGUYEN, OLIVERIO, PYLE; REED. CONSTANT. ABSENT: NONE. DISQUALIFIED: NONE. CHUCK REED Mayor LEE PRICE, MMC City Clerk T-13981\ 6 5 Council Agenda: 12/14/2010 Item Number: 7.2 (b) 87

88 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE USE OF CARRYOUT BAGS AND PROMOTE THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS The Board of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority ( Authority ) ordains as follows: SECTION 1 (Enactment) The Board of the Authority does hereby enact this Ordinance in full consisting of Section 1 through Section 11. SECTION 2 (Findings) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) The purpose of this Ordinance is to reduce the use of single use carryout bags and promote the use of reusable bags at the point of sale in Alameda County. The Authority has the power to enact this Ordinance pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Waste Management ( JPA ). The JPA grants the Authority the power, duty, and responsibility to prepare, adopt, revise, amend, administer, enforce and implement the County Integrated Waste Management Plan ( CoIWMP ), and pursuant to Section 5.m of the CoIWMP, the power to adopt ordinances necessary to carry out the purposes of the JPA. Reducing single use bag use is reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of the JPA and implement the CoIWMP, including the following goals and policies. Goal 1 of the CoIWMP is to promote environmental quality, ensure protection of public health and safety, and to minimize environmental impacts in all aspects of solid waste management. Policy includes reduction of hard to recycle materials. Goal 2 of the CoIWMP calls on the Authority and its member agencies to achieve maximum feasible waste reduction and to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills through improved management and conservation of resources. Policy adopts a waste management hierarchy that ranks management of waste through source reduction and then recycling and composting above landfill disposal. Goal 7 of the CoIMWP is to "Promote Inter-jurisdictional Cooperation. Policy states that the Authority shall coordinate with other organizations as needed to fulfill its countywide role including coordinating on related issues such as water and litter. Objective 7.8 states that the Authority will coordinate and facilitate program implementation by individual or subregional groupings of member agencies

89 (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) Numerous studies have documented the prevalence of plastic carry-out bags littering the environment, blocking storm drains and fouling beaches. Plastic bags are a substantial source of marine debris. Plastic bags cause operational problems at County landfills and transfer stations and contribute to litter countywide. The Authority has participated in a campaign with The Bay Area Recycling Outreach Coalition to promote reusable bags countywide for several years. Despite these efforts, plastic bags comprise 9.6% of litter collected during coastal cleanup days (based on 2008 data) in Alameda County. Additionally, plastic bags continue to cause processing equipment problems at County transfer stations. There are several alternatives to single-use carry-out bags readily available. Studies document that banning single use plastic bags and charging for single use paper bags will dramatically reduce the single use of both types of bags. The Authority prepared the Mandatory Recycling and Single Use Bag Reduction Ordinances Environmental Impact Report, which considered two separate projec ts and included the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act for this Ordinance. The Authority certified those portions of the EIR relevant to this Ordinance. SECTION 3 (Definitions) The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this ordinance. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Alameda County means all of the territory located within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Authority means the Alameda County Waste Management Authority created by the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Waste Management (JPA). Authority Representative means any agent of the Authority designated by the Enforcement Official to implement this Ordinance, including Member Agency employees, or private contractors hired for purposes of monitoring and enforcement. "Covered Jurisdiction" means a Member Agency of the JPA that has not opted out of coverage under this Ordinance pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance. Customer means any Person obtaining goods from a Store. Enforcement Official means the Executive Director of the Authority or his or her authorized designee. Executive Director means the individual appointed by the Authority Board to

90 act as head of staff and perform those duties specified by the Authority Rules of Procedure and by the Board. (h) "Member Agency" means a party to the JPA. Current member agencies are the County of Alameda, the Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmon t, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, and the Castro Valley and Oro Loma Sanitary Districts. The service areas for the purpose of Section 9 of this Ordinance are: (1) The legal boundaries of each of the 14 incorporated municipalities within Alameda County. (2) The unincorporated sections of the County. (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) Nonprofit Charitable Reuse Organization" means a charitable organization recognized as having Section 501 (c)(3) status by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distinct operating unit or division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycles donated goods or materials and receives more than fifty percent (50%) of its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials. Person means an individual, firm, public or private corporation, limited liability company, partnership, industry or any other entity whatsoever. Postconsumer recycled material means a material that would otherwise be destined for solid waste disposal, having completed its intended end use and product life cycle. Postconsumer recycled material does not include materials and byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing and fabrication process. Primary Enforcement Representative is the chief executive of a Covered Jurisdiction or a qualified designee who will coordinate with the Authority regarding implementation of the Ordinance. A qualified designee shall have at least two years of municipal code enforcement experience or have undergone at least the level one municipal code compliance training program of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, or equivalent training program approved by the Enforcement Official. Public Eating Establishment means a restaurant, take-out food establishment or other business that receives 90% or more of its revenue from the sale of foods and/or drinks prepared on the premises. "Recycled Paper Bag means a paper bag provided by a Store to a Customer at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other location for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the Store and that contains no old growth fiber and a minimum of forty percent (40%) postconsumer recycled material; is one hundred percent (100%) recyclable and compostable, consist ent with the timeline and specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D6400; and has printed in a highly visible mann er on the outside of the bag the words Recyclable, the name and location of the

91 manufacturer, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled content. (o) (p) (q) "Reusable Bag means a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: 1 ) has a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, which for purposes of this subsection, mean s the capability of carrying a minimum of 22 pounds 125 times over a distance of at least 175 feet; 2) has a minimum volume of 15 liters; 3) is machine washable or is made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected; 4) does not contain lead, cadmium or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, as defined by applicable state and federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags; 5) has printed on the bag, or on a tag that is permanently affixed to the bag, the nam e of the manufacturer, the location (country) where the bag was manufactured, a statement that the bag does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy me tal in toxic amounts, and the percentage of postconsumer recycled material used, if any; and 6) if made of plastic, is a minimum of at least 2.25 mils thick. Single-Use Carryout Bag means a bag other than a Reusable Bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other location for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the Store. Single-Use Carryout Bags d o not include bags that are integral to the packaging of the product, or bags without handles provided to the Customer (i) to transport produce, bulk food or meat from a produce, bulk food or meat department within a Store to the point of sale, (ii) to hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy, or (iii) to segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together in a Reusable Bag or Recycled Paper Bag. "Store" means any of the following stores located within Covered Jurisdictions: (1) A full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, that sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items; (2) A store of at least 10,000 square feet of retail space that generates sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) and that has a pharmacy licensed pursu ant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code; or (3) A drug store, pharmacy, supermarket, grocery store, convenience food store, foodmart, or other entity engaged in the retail sale of goods that include milk, bread, soda, and snack foods, including those stores with a Type 20 or 21 license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. SECTION 4 (Carryout Bag Restrictions) (a) No Store shall provide a Single-Use Carryout Bag or Reusable Bag to a Customer at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other location for the purpose of

92 transporting food or merchandise out of the Store after January 1, 2013 except as provided in this Section. (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) On or before January 1, 2015, a Store may make available for sale to a Customer a Recycled Paper Bag or a Reusable Bag for a minimum price of ten cents ($0.10). On or after January 1, 2015, a Store may make available for sale to a Customer a Recycled Paper Bag or a Reusable Bag for a minimum price of twenty-five cents ($0.25). This restriction, however, shall not apply if the Authority finds, after January 1, 2014, that the Ordinance has achieved its goal to substantially reduc e the environmental impacts of the use of Single Use Carryout Bags, in which case the minimum ten cents ($0.10) per bag price provided in Section 4(b) sh all apply. No Store may make available for sale a Recycled Paper Bag or Reusable Bag unless the amount of the sale of the Recycled Paper Bag and Reusable Bag is separately itemized on the sales receipt. A Store may provide a Reusable Bag at no charge if it is distributed as part of an infrequent and limited time promotion. An infrequent and limited time promotion shall not exceed a total of 90 days in any consecutive 12 month period. A Store may provide free Reusable Bags or free Recycled Paper Bags at the point of sale to a Customer participating in the California Special Supplemen tal Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section ) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 1 06 of the California Health and Safety Code and a Customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, as necessary to carry the items purchased at the Store by each such Customer. SECTION 5 (Permitted Bags) Nothing in this Ordinance prohibits Customers from using bags of any type that they bring to the Store themselves or from carrying away goods that are not placed in a bag. SECTION 6 (Exemptions) This Ordinance does not apply to: (a) (b) Single-Use Carryout Bags or Reusable Bags distributed to Customers by food providers for the purpose of safeguarding public health and safety during the transportation of take-out foods and drinks prepared on the food provider's premises but intended for consumption at or away from the food provider's premises. Single-Use Carryout Bags or Reusable Bags used by Public Eating Establishments or Nonprofit Charitable Reuse Organizations

93 SECTION 7 (Recordkeeping and Inspection) (a) (b) (c) Every Store shall keep complete and accurate records of the number of Recycled Paper Bags and the number of Reusable Bags purchased and sold each month at the Store during the period commencing July 1, 2012 and ending December 31, The store shall also keep complete and accurate records of the days on which free Reusable Bags are distributed pursuant to section 4(e) of this Ordinance. All records required by this Ordinance shall be available for inspection within 7 days of the Authority's request at no cost to the Authority during regular business hours by any Authority Representative authorized to enforce this Ordinance. Unless an alternative location or method of review is mutually agreed upon, the records or documents shall be available at the Store address. The provision of false information including incomplete records or documents to the Authority shall be a violation of this Ordinance. Authority Representatives are authorized to conduct any other inspections reasonably necessary to further the goals of this Ordinance, subject to applicable laws. SECTION 8 (Enforcement and Phasing) (a) (b) (c) An enforcement action shall not be taken in any Covered Jurisdiction without written approval from the Primary Enforcement Representative of that Covered Jurisdiction. The Primary Enforcement Representative shall provide approval or disapproval of a proposed enforcement action in a timely manner. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute grounds for assessment of a notice of violation and fine by an Authority Representative in accordance with Government Code or as the code shall subsequently be amended or reorganized. Where an enforcement action is necessary to enforce this Ordinance, the Enforcement Official will typically issue a notice of violation as authorized in this subsection prior to taking the actions authorized pursuant to sections 8(c) or 8(d) of this Ordinance. A separate notice of violation and fine may be imposed for each day on which a violation occurs. The fine shall not exceed the amounts detailed for misdemeanors in Section 8(d) of this Ordinance. The notice of violation shall list the specific violation and fine amount and describe how to pay the fine and how to request an administrative hearing to contest the notice of violation. The fine must be paid within 30 days of the notice of violation and must be deposited prior to any requested hearing. A hearing, by a hearing officer, will be held only if it is requested within 30 days of the notice of violation. Evidence may be presented at the hearing. If it is determined that no violation occurred, the amount of the fine shall be refunded within 30 days. The Authority shall serve the final order on the Person subject to the notice of violation by first class, overnight or certified mail. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance may be enforced by a civil action including an action for injunctive relief

94 (d) (e) (f) Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 for the first violation, a fine not to exceed $750 for the second violation within one year and a fine not to exceed $1000 for each additional violation within one year. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance may also be enforced as an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 for the first violation, a fine not to exceed $200 for the second violation within one year and a fine not to exceed $500 for each additional violation within one year. There shall be a separate offense for each day on which a violation occurs. Enforcement pursuant to this Ordinance may be undertaken by the Authority through its Executive Director, counsel, or any Authority Representative. In any enforcement action, the Authority shall be entitled to recover its attorneys fees and costs from any Person who violates this Ordinance. Enforcement of this ordinance shall be phased on the following schedule. Prior to January 1, 2013, Stores will be notified and public education and outreach activities will take place. Warnings and enforcement actions will be taken as needed after January 1, SECTION 9 (Local Regulation and Opt-Out and Opt-In Provisions) (a) (b) (c) (d) Local Regulation. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prohibit any Member Agency from enacting and enforcing ordinances and regulations regarding the distribution of Single-Use Carryout Bags and Reusable Bags, including more stringent requirements than those in this Ordinance. Opt-Out Provision. Any Member Agency by a resolution of its governing body prior to March 2, 2012 may choose to exclude its service area from this Ordinance. Opt-In Provision. Any Member Agency that chooses to exclude its service area may request of the Authority by a resolution of its governing board to be reincluded in coverage of the Ordinance at any subsequent time. Such coverage under the Ordinance, however, shall not occur unless it is accepted in writing by the Enforcement Official or the Authority Board, and shall become effective only on the date specified in such written acceptance. Such acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute between the Authority and a Covered Jurisdiction regarding the implementation of this Ordinance, either party may request a meeting, in which case the Enforcement Official and the Primary Enforcement Representative for the Covered Jurisdiction (or other designee of the chief executive of the Covered Jurisdiction) shall meet to discuss implementation of the Ordinance. After such meeting, the parties may agree to enter into mediation to resolve any disputes between the parties related to implementation of the Ordinance. In addition, after meeting to seek to resolve any disputes between the parties and possible mediation, the Authority Board or the governing body of the Covered Jurisdiction, with at least 30 days public notice, may by resolution

95 choose to exclude the service area of the Covered Jurisdiction from this Ordinance. SECTION 10 (Severability) If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any situation is held to be invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 11 (Notice and Verification) This Ordinance shall be posted at the Authority Office after its second reading by the Board for at least thirty (30) days and shall become effective thirty (30) days after the second reading. Passed and adopted this by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINING: ABSENT: I certify that under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the ORDINANCE NO GARY WOLFF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

96 Item 12.1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Board Members Henry Mikus, Executive Director February 15, 2012 Agenda Notes General Comment: During our last conference, as part of reviewing draft agendas for upcoming meetings, the Board s Executive Committee suggested revising the order in which items appeared on the agenda. Because of Board members time commitments, the thought was to place the items requiring action, particularly unanimous votes near the front end, and keep routine items, and items that did not require decisions, towards the end of the agenda. Thus, with this February 2012 meeting agenda, we have made these types of changes. Of particular note are that two item categories, Attachments/Correspondence and On file w/clerk are now found near the end of our agenda. Because the Board-requested discussion on contracts could affect the three contract-related agenda items, it was placed first on the Regular Calendar section even though it will likely not require a vote. Consent Calendar These items include routine financial and administrative items and staff recommends that they be approved en masse by a single vote. Any Board member may remove an item from the consent calendar for further discussion or a separate vote by bringing it to the attention of the Chair. 4.1 Minutes of January 18, Recycle Guide 2012 Printing Contract: Despite contacting multiple firms by offering them the opportunity to quote on this work, we only received two reasonable responses. Barlow Printing clearly had the better quote. We have adjusted the number of copies to be printed to reflect our needs from planned programs plus to reflect recent years actual distribution quantities. This contract approval would be a consent item. 4.3 FY Second Quarter Financial Report: We report quarterly to show our agency financials to the Board; this is the second quarter for the current fiscal year, and as such also represents the mid-year point. Thus far there are no surprises or items of concern either on the revenue or expenditure sides. However, there is a situation that bears mention. We run our financials through the county system; that is one of the services we receive as part of our MOU with Sonoma County. The county has experienced numerous problems in recent months with its system, which is acknowledged to be older and difficult. As a result, posting of transactions has fallen behind with the lag approximately three months. We have adjusted our report entries in the anticipated expenditures column to accommodate this lag. Also, we have monitored the available data even if it is not posted to the system, such as landfill tonnages (which impact our surcharge revenues), to ensure to the extent possible there are no surprise issues. The report typically requires 2300 County Center Drive, Room B100 Santa Rosa, California Phone: 707/ Fax: 707/

97 Item 12.1 approval, and is presented as a consent item. 4.4 Funding of Office Reconfiguration: Modifying and updating our office layout to reflect ten years of changes was actually planned to occur a year ago, but this work was put on hold due to evolving county plans that included our potentially moving. The move, and its implications, were discussed by our Board last fall. It now appears any relocation project is postponed for an indeterminate period of time. Aside from making our office layout current, the concern of greatest import is security. We occupy an isolated, yet open area, that has caused worries about ease of access to our workspace by others. We have improved the original year-old plan to enhance our office workspace security by enclosing the open access areas and providing locking security doors. Funding for this project was always planned to come from reserves as a one-time expenditure. Because the total project cost exceeds the Director s approving authority and due to the use of reserves, Board concurrence is required. This item is presented as a consent item. Regular Calendar 5. Discussion Regarding Contracts: Because of the numerous Agency contracts that are due for rebid or renewal, at the last meeting the Board asked to have a discussion item on contracts in general. The staff report was done to give a starting point for discussion and to include some contract questions that might warrant some thought or possible consensus. The list of current contracts put together last fall is reissued for this discussion. Recommended Action: No specific action was recommended or is required. 6. Oil Program and Spanish Language Outreach Contracts: For the sake of this initial discussion, these two contracts are presented together since as a practical consideration both have a fair amount of common effort. In fact much of the outreach efforts are funded to some extend by oil program grant monies. These contracts are nearing their term dates, so would be suitable for rebid. However, both current contracts carry provisions for extensions if we so desire. Staff recommends going to bid, but has also presented information related to accepting the extensions. Please note if the Board desires these contracts to be bid, the plan is to return with draft RFP documents in April. Also please note if new contractors are selected, there will have to be some sort of transition arrangement made specifically because of the annual reporting requirements tied to the grant funds. Recommended Action: Rebid both contracts. However, if the Board chooses the alternative, to accept contract extensions, approval will require a UNANIMOUS VOTE. 7. HHW Contract Negotiations: At the most recent meeting the Agency Board requested staff negotiate with the current HHW contactor, Clean Harbors, to see if an extension could be agreed to that kept the contract expense flat. Some Board members also expressed interest in extending this contract a full five years to coincide with the current Agency JPA expiration date. Negotiations were successful on maintaining the same contract amount for the year, and on terms for a five year agreement. Clean Harbors has asked for a change in labor rates but has balanced that with an equal decrease in expenses via adjusting the material disposal rates for oil based paint. Staff has also presented alternate choices particularly doing a new bid. Recommended Action: accept the five year contract extension, approval will require a UNANIMOUS VOTE. 8. Compost Operations Request For Qualifications (RFQ): Staff interviewed all eight responders to the RFQ. Two respondents presented information during their respective interviews that answered all the interview questions listed in the RFQ, and described plans and processes that appeared viable in meeting the Agency s needs for future organics 2300 County Center Drive, Room B100 Santa Rosa, California Phone: 707/ Fax: 707/

98 Item 12.1 operations. These were Recology, and Sonoma Compost. A third respondent, Sonoma Vermiculture, presented information that indicated their firm s participation in our organics program would provide good value for portions of our organics stream sufficiently to be considered for inclusion in future programs. Staff recommends entering contract negotiations with all three firms, with the aim of developing a framework for working with either Recology or Sonoma Compost and including Sonoma Vermiculture for participation in an appropriate component of the overall program. The Board s Executive Committee also asked staff to suggest to the Board that at least two Board members serve as a negotiating team with participation by staff. Recommended Action: Appoint two board members to serve as negotiators with Recology, Sonoma Compost, and Sonoma Vermiculture, including staff assistance. 9. FY Draft Work Plan: Staff prepares a draft Work Plan that, with Board input, serves as the framework for development of a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The Work Plan lists the many tasks staff plans involvement with for the upcoming year, and includes estimates of staff time plus costs, and estimates where appropriate of contractor costs. Typically, the board provides commentary on the Work Plan, which is then brought back for approval together with the first draft of the actual budget. Recommended Action: Provide input to the Work Plan for use in developing the draft budget. No other formal action required. 10. Carryout Bags Ordinance Direction: At the January Board meeting staff presented an outline and plan for the stakeholder meetings. The Board asked staff to include in their materials for the meetings some sort of draft ordinance as a discussion starting point. The ordinance recently implemented by San Jose or some other recent effort was suggested as an example. Since then Alameda has also developed an ordinance. Both are presented as examples for discussion. Staff recommends use of the San Jose ordinance. Recommended Action: Use the San Jose ordinance as a start point for stakeholder discussions. 11. Sonoma County/City Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) report, a standard monthly item presented by the Board member that has a position on SWAG, Steve Barbose. No action required. Additional informational item: My presentation for the January SWAG meeting regarding how our Board members are selected, and the procedural steps for renewal of the SCWMA JPA agreement, was tabled until the February 9, 2012 SWAG meeting. Attachments/Correspondence There are three items this month presented under Reports by Staff and Others 12.2.a Outreach Events Calendar: This is our regular, updated listing of Outreach Events which contains events planned for February and March b MCR Project Report: A written report is provided to brief the Board on accomplishments, current activities, and plans for the Mandatory commercial Recycling outreach project. Perhaps worth noting by geographic area related to individual Board members particular locale are the planned dates for visits to groups or firms in those areas. Also, the supporting printed materials are available to member jurisdictions as an aid to their own, local efforts for MCR c Extra Oil Grant Expenditures Report: Since the Board kindly gave the Director special signing authority for expenditures specifically related to the extra oil grant money, it was felt giving a monthly report on the status of those purchases would provide appropriate transparency County Center Drive, Room B100 Santa Rosa, California Phone: 707/ Fax: 707/

99 Item 12.2.a February 2012 Outreach Events Day Time Event 6 1:00 PM Rohnert Park, Master Gardener s Compost Curriculum Presentation 7 4:00-7:00 PM Windsor Chamber of Commerce Business Expo 7 4:00-8:00 PM Community Toxics Collection, Rincon Valley 8 10:00 AM SCC, Compost Tour, Master Gardener s 10 5:00-8:00 PM Cotati Pasta Dinner & Bingo 14 4:00-8:00 PM Community Toxics Collection, Larkfield 14 7:00 PM Doubletree, Rohnert Park, Composting in Sonoma Co. RP/Cotati Sunrise Rotary 14 7:45 PM Marin Rose Society Art & Garden Center, Compost Presentation noon-8 PM Cloverdale Citrus Fair 21 4:00-8:00 PM Community Toxics Collection, Rohnert Park 22 3:45 PM Bay Friendly Landscaping Compost Presentation, San Rafael 25, 26 8 AM-4 PM E-Waste Recycling Event, Oakmont, Cloverdale Goodwill Retail Store 28 4:00-8:00PM Community Toxics Collection, Santa Rosa, NW March 2012 Outreach Events Day Time Event 6 4:00-8:00 PM Community Toxics Collection, Monte Rio 7 1:30 PM Sonoma Academy, Santa Rosa, Sonoma Compost Presentation AM 9 PM Santa Rosa Custom Auto Show, Sonoma County Fairgrounds, Santa Rosa 10 5:00 8:00 PM Cotati Pasta Feed, Staff Informational Table 13 4:00 8:00 PM Community Toxics Collection, Sebastopol 15 5:00-7:00 PM Sonoma Chamber of Commerce Business Expo AM 9 PM Latino Family Summit, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park 20 4:00-8:00 PM Community Toxics Collection, Cloverdale 24, 25 8 AM-4 PM Sebastopol, City Corporation Yard Parking Lot 27 4:00-8:00 PM Community Toxics Collection, Santa Rosa, NE 27, 28 9 AM to Noon Sonoma County Ag Day (Farm Bureau) Santa Rosa Fairgrounds, SCC Booth 31 10AM 2 PM Cesar Chavez Health Fair, Meadow View Elementary School, Santa Rosa 99

100 Agenda Item #: 12.2.b Cost Center: Education Staff Contact: Mikus/Carter Agenda Date: 2/15/2012 Item: Update Report on MCR Project I. BACKGROUND Mandatory commercial Recycling (MCR) was contemplated originally as a part of The California Air Resources Board (ARB) Scoping Plan for the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). However, California AB 341, passed in late 2011, superseded this initial effort, and placed the MCR program under CalRecycle. MCR regulations are planned to be in effect by July, 2012, and are to apply to commercial entities (including businesses, non-profits, strip malls, government offices & schools) that generate4 or more cubic yards of trash per week; this also includes multifamily residential complexes with 5 units or more. Utilizing grant funding, SCWMA has started an MCR outreach educational program that is targeting the groups affected by these regulations to help them achieve compliance with as little difficulty as possible, and prior to the compulsory start date. As single-stream recycling is defined in all the jurisdication franchise agreement, the Agency s outreach effort targets single-stream recycling where cardboard, paper, bottles and cans are mixed together. The program also is documenting MCR activities, both extant and new, to comply with state reporting requirements. A status report on MCR project activities to date is presented below. II. DISCUSSION The initial task entered into was to formulate a comprehensive database listing all entities/groups/firms subject to the regulation. This task is nearly complete. Data was received and compiled from individual cities, towns and the unincorporated regions of the county, utilizing one or more of the following sources: City business license databases (electronically) Chamber of commerce business directory (electronically from Cloverdale, manually from all other cities) City s online business directory (manually) Health inspector records (electronically) Sonoma County Office of Education (manually) Google searches Data was examined and adjustments were made for duplicate records. Thus far, our research has found 12,818 entities/firms/groups that will be subject to our outreach contacts. *Please note that Sebastopol s city database has yet to be received but is expected directly. The Sebastopol data included thus far has been drawn from the Chamber directory and Health Inspectors. The first level of outreach will be via letters (tailored to particular types of entities/firms/groups) that include a brief three-question survey and a reply card. The letters are complete and in process of printing and mailing. Responses to the letter will dictate the next level of outreach, which will be visits to survey respondents. It is also likely a telephone campaign will be employed to contact prospective outreach recipients County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

101 Goal of outreach is to reach 10% of total commercial population, equally visited per geographic region. This will result in 1,282 visits. A high estimate of 5% mail return rate will provide us with half of those visits, the remainder would then be initiated via the phone campaign to set up further contacts. Using zip codes as a reference point, the county was broken into 10 regions. Data was analyzed to determine how many of the targeted 10% commercial accounts were present in each area. Based on the number of visits, a rough time bracket was allotted. As commercial accounts contact us, we will try to schedule a visit based on their pre-determined time bracket associated with their geographical area. The order of targeted areas was determined by geographical layout, with the understanding that there will be crossover or spillover outreach visits of each area. This also allows for a 2-week follow up visit on the way to a different area. The calendar Plan for visiting each area will be: March, Week 1-4: Santa Rosa April, Week 1: Rohnert Park April, Week 2: Rohnert Park/Cotati April, Week 3: Petaluma April, Week 4: Petaluma May, Week 1: Petaluma May, Week 2: Sonoma May, Week 3: Sonoma/Glen Ellen May, Week 4: Windsor May, Week 5: Healdsburg June, Week 1: Cloverdale/Geyserville June, Week 2: Sebastopol June, Week 3: Russian River area/bodega/coast The initial mailing will be for the greater Santa Rosa area. Print and website materials are in the process of being developed. Input from various involved parties, such as CalRecycle and the franchise haulers that provide commercial recycling services, have been utilized in drafting the outreach letters and other printed materials. Print materials include a single-stream recycling service provider flier and single-stream recycling poster. Dedicated Agency web pages on and as well as a MCR voic box on the Eco- Desk and address at recycling@sonoma-county.org support the effort. The business pages in the English and Spanish Recycling Guides are also being drafted to focus on MCR. A table top display announcing the program has also been created to use at Chamber of Commerce Business Expos. The first event was at the Windsor Business Expo on Feb. 7, with plans to participate in the Sonoma Valley Chamber of Commerce Business Expo on Mar. 15. III. FUNDING IMPACT The MCR project is currently operating within budget. IV. RECOMMENDED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDATION None required County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

102 V. ATTACHMENTS Database sort by zipcode with outreach visit phasing noted Outreach letter Outreach single-stream recycling flier Approved by: Henry J. Mikus, Executive Director, SCWMA 2300 County Center Drive, Suite 100 B, Santa Rosa, California Phone: Fax:

103 CITY ZIP ZIP % /CITY # BUSINESSES /ZIP CITY TOTAL % of Grand Total 5% of Total 10% of Total Post-it Code % 854 7% # % 683 5% #8 Santa Rosa % 571 4% # % 297 2% # % 568 4% # % 177 1% 9 18 #31 Santa Rosa Total: 3,150 25% Fulton % 0 1 #7 Rohnert Park % #26 Cotati % #27 Penngrove % 3 5 #29 Petaluma % 2,000 16% # % 1,403 11% #36 Petaluma Total: 3,403 27% Kenwood % 2 3 #32 Glen Ellen % 3 7 #33 Color Code of Rollout Sonoma ,473 1,473 11% #35 Eldridge % 0 0 #34 Windsor % #6 Phase 5 Healdsburg % #5 Phase 6 Cloverdale % #23 Geyserville % 2 4 #34 Sebastopol* % #18 Occidental % 1 3 #17 Graton % 0 1 #10 Camp Meeker % 0 0 #11 Duncan Mills % 1 1 #15 Forestville % 2 5 #4 Guerneville % 5 9 #2 Monte Rio % 1 2 #12 Rio Nido % 0 0 #3 Valley Ford % 1 1 #20 Annapolis % 0 0 #22 Cazadero % 1 1 #1 Jenner % 0 1 #14 Stewarts Pt % 0 0 #37 Ville Grande % 0 0 #13 Bodega % 1 1 #19 Bodega Bay % 2 4 #16 Sea Ranch % 0 0 #21 GRAND TOTAL: 12, % 641 1,282 *Please note that Sebastopol's numbers are an estimate. We have no offical data for Sebastopol. Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 7 Phase 8 Phase 9 Phase

104 February xx, 2012 NEW STATE requirement July Free resources: Agency staff visit to assess your individual waste needs and help you save money. Sonoma County Recycling Guide English and/or Spanish versions. Posters for single-stream recycling. Recycling containers for indoor use. Please note supplies are limited. Why recycle? State law now requires all businesses that generate four (4) or more cubic yards of waste per week to recycle. State law now requires all multifamily dwellings of five (5) units or more to recycle. Recycling may provide opportunities for your business to save money. Save money by reducing your garbage & increasing your recycling. The cost for disposal services is based on your level of garbage service. The more material recycled, the less you pay in disposal. Recycling helps conserve resources and extends the life of California s landfills. It also helps create a healthy environment for our community and future generations. More information: State: CalRecycle The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has the authority to implement AB 341, California s Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law. Visit www. calrecycle.ca.gov/climate/recycling/ default.htm for more information. Local: SCWMA The Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA), formed in 1992, is a joint powers authority of the nine incorporated cities and the County of Sonoma. The SCWMA reports local progress to CalRecycle with regard to outreach and monitoring related to AB 341. Visit for more information. PRINTED ON FSC PAPER / 30% POSTCONSUMER RECYCLED FIBER. Dear Business Owner, Re: New State Recycling Requirement for Businesses & Multifamily Dwellings, Including Government Offices & Schools We are contacting you to help you comply with a new State law. California Assembly Bill (AB) 341 requires all businesses that generate four (4) or more cubic yards of waste per week to recycle. Businesses include, but are not limited to, non-profits, strip malls, government offces, and schools. The law also applies to multifamily dwellings of five (5) units or more, regardless of the amount of waste generated. Businesses and multifamily dwellings are required to separate recyclable materials from their solid waste stream and either self-haul, subscribe to a hauler, and/or allow the pickup of recyclables. Sonoma County s recycling effort targets singlestream recycling where cardboard, paper, bottles and cans are mixed together turn over page to see single-stream recycling poster. Please respond Your recycling program must be in place by July 1, 2012 in order to comply with State law. If you already recycle at your business or multifamily dwelling, contact us to register your compliance. If you haven t established recycling service, contact us as there is assistance available to you. Contact us by February XX, 2012 using one of the following methods: Return the enclosed postcard including your contact information, us at recycling@sonoma-county.org, or Call us at the Sonoma County Eco-Desk (707) We appreciate the enthusiastic support for recycling from Sonoma County businesses and residents, as Sonoma County has reduced its per capita trash by half since The State estimates that the commercial sector still generates nearly three-fourths of the solid waste in California; we look forward to assisting you in any way we can to reduce this waste stream. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Henry J. Mikus Executive Director Sonoma County Waste Management Agency recycling@sonoma-county.org Eco-Desk Sonoma County Waste Management Agency 2300 County Center Drive, Ste. B-100 Santa 104 Rosa, CA 95403