Strategic Planning

1. Strategic Planning

2. Strategic Planning MeetingSeptember 23, 2009 • A Joint Meeting of: • The Alameda County Recycling Board, and • The Alameda County Waste Management Authority • Some “Housekeeping” Before We Begin • Strategic Planning Memos Are Available Through “In the Spotlight” on Our Website • We’ve Tried to Keep Your Binders Up-To-Date, but There Were Some Errata, so Beware of Older Copies! • Our Planning Horizon Is 10 Years, but Flexible • Earliest Date For “Final Actions” Is February 2010

3. What Are We Trying to Achieve? • A “High-Level View” of Ourselves • An Expansive Dialogue About Possible Futures • Board Direction to Staff at a High-Level (“No” Is Good) • Priority Among the Outcomes We Seek • Priority Between Approaches and Programs • For Example, Mandatory Recycling Versus Grants • For Example, Green Building Versus Business Audits • Note: Budgets and Implementation Details Later

4. Topics To Be Covered Today • Successes to Date • What’s Wrong with the Status Quo? • What Are We Asking for Today? (And Why) • How Will the Proposed Approach Overcome the Challenges Discussed in June? • Where To from Here? (Future Meetings, etc.)

5. Successes to Date

6. What’s Wrong with the Status Quo?

7. Still Enormously Wasteful • 5.6 lbs/psn/day in AC • 5.3 in US • 5.8 in CA • 5.1 in Portland • Excluding Alternative Daily Cover, Beneficial Reuse, Biosolids, Contaminated Soils & Waste Created During Product Manufacture Outside Our County

8. In-County Composting Facility • 180,000 Tons per Year of Composting In-County Is an Explicit Objective in Our Governing Plans • We Haven’t Achieved Our Objective Yet! • And, 410,000 Tons Per Year of Compostable Materials from Alameda County Were Landfilled in 2008 (excluding ADC)

9. Successful Program Can’t Be Taken to Scale, Example 1 • Our Business and Large Organization Program • Has Created 80,000 tons of New Diversion Since 2001 • But Only 20% of the 3,000 Large Organizations in AC Have Participated Fully

10. Successful Program Can’t Be Taken to Scale, Example 2 • Very Popular Program • 4 Facilities in the County • Diverted 1270 Tons in FY07/08 • This Is About 1/6 of HHW, Excluding Electronics • $2,200 per Ton Diverted

11. Successful Program Can’t Be Taken To Scale, Example 3 • About 213,000 K-12 Students in Alameda County • Reach 18-27% of 4th and 5th Graders in Some Way • Support Service Learning in 17 of 120 Middle and High Schools in the County (14%)

12. Some Important IssuesNeglected: Litter

13. Some Important Issues Neglected: Biosolids

14. What Are We Asking for Today? (And Why)

15. Achieving Our Goals and Objectives Requires We Run Marathons, Not Sprints

16. Landfills Establish Core $ Commitment < Current Continue with Private Lands Green Building & BFL Ordinances Continue to Pursue Grants and Expanded Reach Through Partnerships Advance EPR, EPP, & Waste Prevention with CA/National/SF & In-County WWTP Partners, with MDR $s for 2-3 Years MOU WithEDA About RLF and Other Topics? Hazardous Materials (Most Purchases Pass Our “Sustainability Filters” by 2020) “Buy This, Not That” Virgin Materials “Put It Here, Not There” (Less Than 10% R+C In Garbage Cans, with Cost Cap, by 2020) Continue to Support Flynn Road and Other Outdoor Facilities Extra $s Until Achieve 75% Support C&D Ordinance Enforcement Franchise Review and Revisions Mandates After as Necessary IndoorComposting? MRF & HHW Capacity ? HazardousWaste Litter MOU with the Storm Water Program?

18. How Will This Approach Overcome The Challenges Discussed in June?

19. Nine (+1) ChallengesSpanning Three Areas

20. Challenge 10 • Getting to 75% Diversion by 2010 • Current Approach: • Many Programs, but Recent Emphasis on: • Food Scrap and Recycled Paper Media Campaigns, C&D Ordinances, and Plant Debris Landfill Ban • Proposed Approach: • Refocus Media Campaign Around “The Contest” • Enforce the Plant Debris Ban • Support Jurisdictional Implementation of C&D Ordinances • Enhance C&D Ordinances with MRFs (at Landfills?) ASAP • Modestly Focus Spending on Getting to 75% for Two Years

21. Challenge 1 • Multiplicity of Objectives • Current Approach: • Weighted Average Project Evaluation Scores • Try to Accommodate Everyone to Some Extent • Proposed Approach: • Short Term Prioritization for LF Ton Reduction • Thereafter, Commitment to Equal Spending on Discard Decisions and Purchasing Decisions • Commitment to Additional Targets, with a Cost Cap

22. What Additional Targets? • All Service Accounts Have 3-Sort Service or Equivalent By 2020 (?), Unless Exempted for Cost • 90% (?) of Accounts With 3-Sort Service (or Equivalent) Have Less Than 10% Recyclables + Compostables in Their Garbage by 2020 (?) • 95% (?) of Purchases of Designated Types (e.g., Landscapes, Buildings, Paints & Sealants, etc.) Will Pass Our “Sustainability Filters” by 2020 (?) • Note: Dates and Numbers Subject to Change Between Now and Final Adoption by the Board

23. Challenge 2 • Limited Control • Current Approach: • Limited Participation in State and National Coalitions • Considerably More Local Coalition Building (e.g., GB, BFL) • No Clear Approach to Commodity Price Fluctuations • Proposed Approach: • Two or Three Year Commitment from the Market Development Reserve to EPR, EPP, and WP Efforts • Strong Partnership With San Francisco if an Altamont Landfill Contract Extension Were to Occur • Strengthen Incentives and Communication in Next 2 Years • Thereafter, Use Diversion Requirements if Necessary to “Push” Materials into Commodity Markets and Stimulate MRF and Composting Investments by the Private Sector

24. Challenge 3 • Fragmented Control • Current Approach: • Model Ordinances, Franchise Language, etc. • StopWaste.Org Regional and Sub-Regional Role • Proposed Approach: • Franchise Review Taskforce Starting ASAP • Details TBD, but Includes TAC, Haulers, Board Committees • Minimum Standards Ordinance if Necessary

25. Challenge 4 • Diversion Is Not a Top Priority • Current Approach: • Multiple Benefits Used to Broaden Support • Technical Assistance and Specialized Outreach (for example, GHG Benefits of Recycling) • Proposed Approach: • Continue to Use Multiple Benefits to Broaden Support • Consider Mandatory Separation, Subject to Cost Cap, and with Significant Environmental Review • Consider Adopting in Phases, Possibly with Geographic Variation or Material Type • First Phase Likely Required in 2012 by the State

26. Challenge 5 • Public Perceptions and Misunderstanding • Current Approach: • Education of the Next Generation • Mass Media for Some Topics (e.g., Food Scraps) • Proposed Approach: • Adapt Schools Work to Reach a Greater Scale • Refocus Media Campaign Around “The Contest” • Create a Full-Time Communications Position and Better Coordinate Our Communications Efforts Internally and Externally, Including Legislation

27. Challenge 6 • Siting Issues for Material Processing, Composting, and Manufacturing Facilities • Current Approach: -- Try, Try Again • Proposed Approach: • Evaluate Maximum MRF Capacity at Existing Sites • Support Permits for Flynn Road, Jess Ranch, Altamont LF Composting, EBMUD Anaerobic Digestion, Biosolids Land Spreading Permits, etc. • Do a Siting and Cost Study for Indoor Composting with or Without Anaerobic Digestion • Develop an MOU With EDA Regarding “Our Issues” ?

28. Challenge 7 • Financial Incentives Not Always Aligned • Current Approach: • Be Willing to Impose Disposal Fees • Buy Down the Cost of Diversion in Various Ways • Offer Franchise Negotiation Assistance • Proposed Approach: • Franchise Review Taskforce Starting ASAP • “The Contest” and “Recycle Bank Pilot” Efforts • Consider Adopting Mandatory Recycling or Food Scrap Diversion in FY2011-12, with Cost Cap & CEQA Review

29. Challenge 7, Continued • Franchise Review Taskforce to Endorse as Many of the Following Types of Ideas as Feasible: • Service Pricing, Including Higher Rates When Not 3-Sort • Recycle Bank “Like” Efforts (Especially with RFID Tags) • Recycling Revenue Sharing (Especially with RFID Tags) • Charity Linkages (*****) • Revenue Adjustment Mechanisms for Haulers (*****) • Other Rewards for Haulers • Lump Sum Franchise Fees Versus % Franchise Fees • Mitigation Pass-Through Based on Diversion Success

30. Challenge 8 • Mission Success = Declining Revenues • Current Approach: • Some Diversification of Income (e.g., Wind Revenue) • But No Clear Approach at Present • Proposed Approach: • Continue to Seek Grants & Partner Cost-Sharing • Diversify Core Revenue Significantly, Exploring: • Product Fees to Support HHW and Possibly Litter Control, EPR, EPP, or Waste Prevention Efforts • Other Options as per Past Discussions

31. Challenge 9 • Need Many Technical and Managerial Skills • Current Approach: • Use Consultants Extensively • Ask Staff to be Flexible • But Need a More Explicit Approach • Proposed Approach: • Create a Full Time Communications Position • Develop an MOU with EDA to Strengthen Our Economic Capabilities (e.g., Benefits Modeling) ? • Review Our LT Skill Needs Explicitly in FYs12-14

32. Where To From Here?

33. Tasks • Hold a Seminar for Stakeholder Input • For February (or March) Board Meetings (or a Joint Meeting if Appropriate), Prepare a Full Staff Report Covering: • Today’s Proposal, Modified as per Input Received • Governing Document Changes, if Necessary • CEQA Documents, Including Alternatives, as Necessary • If CEQA Review Beyond a Negative Declaration is Required for a Specific Change, That Item Will Not Be Brought to the Boards in February (or March) but at a Later Time

34. Schedule • November 12th Seminar for Stakeholder Input • Mid-Year Budget Revision in December • February (or March) “Final” Strategic Decisions • Implementation Details in Annual Budgets, Starting with the FY2010-2011 Budget (April - June 2010)

35. Q&A, and Vote