county s solid waste collection agreements l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 34

County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
county s solid waste collection agreements

County’s Solid Waste Collection Agreements

Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division

November 5, 2009

board direction
Board Direction
  • July 2009, BOS
    • Received results of audits of three solid waste collection companies
    • Directed staff to form a Project Team
    • Created a Subcommittee to oversee the Project Team
purpose of project team
Purpose of Project Team
  • Evaluate options available to the BOS for the procurement of collection services
    • Zone 2
    • Zone 4
    • Zone 5
  • Contracts expire June 30, 2011
purpose of subcommittee
Purpose of Subcommittee
  • Oversee work of Project Team
  • Provide recommendation to BOS
  • Maintain transparent process
  • Meetings subject to Brown Act
protecting the integrity of the procurement process
Protecting the Integrity of the Procurement Process
  • Important public project ($21.7M annually)
  • High level of public interest
  • Need to maintain transparency
  • Legal concerns:
    • Lobbying and undue influence
    • Confidential information
    • Public Records Act
protecting the integrity of the procurement process6
Protecting the Integrity of the Procurement Process
  • Subcommittee may want to:
    • Avoid ex parte meetings with potential vendors
    • Identify single point of contact for project
customer service goals
Customer Service Goals
  • Collection services
    • Comprehensive
    • Consistent
    • High Quality
  • Competitive cost to ratepayers
  • County control
franchise project participants
Franchise Project Participants

Subcommittee

Salud Carbajal County Supervisor

Doreen Farr County Supervisor

Project Team

John McInnes Deputy County Executive

Mark Schleich Deputy Director, Public Works

Mark Paul Auditor-Controllers, Division Chief

Marie La Sala Deputy County Counsel

Leslie Wells Solid Waste Program Leader

Thomas Chiarodit Solid Waste Senior Program Specialist

Constance Hornig Solid Waste Consultant

general background10
General Background
  • Solid waste system includes the collection, processing, and/or disposal of:
    • Trash
    • Recyclables
    • Greenwaste
    • Construction & Demolition Debris
    • Electronic Waste
    • Hazardous Waste
general background11
General Background
  • Each jurisdiction responsible for own waste
  • Mixture of public and private services offered
  • Many regional services provided
general background12
General Background
  • Santa Maria, Lompoc, Guadalupe and Carpinteria provide or contract for
    • Collection
    • Processing
    • Disposal
    • Hazardous & e-waste program
    • Education
general background13
General Background
  • Buellton, Solvang, Goleta, Santa Barbara and unincorporated areas served by the County for
    • Processing
    • Disposal
    • Hazardous waste programs
    • Education
  • Each of these jurisdictions contracts for collection services separately
franchise background15
Franchise Background
  • December 1996, BOS approved 5 exclusive franchise agreements for collection of solid waste from residents and businesses
  • Currently, there are 5 collection zones served by 3 service providers
    • Zones 1 & 3: MarBorg Industries
    • Zone 2: Allied/Republic
    • Zones 4 & 5: Waste Management
  • Total annual revenue of $21.7 million
work completed
Work Completed
  • Audits of all franchisees
  • 3rd customer satisfaction survey
  • Franchisees notified of upcoming process and invited to submit proposals
  • Franchisees have submitted information
project team to date
Project Team to Date
  • Information presented/reviewed for all zones
    • Customer Counts
    • Tonnage
    • Other service considerations
    • Recycling performance
    • Regional revenue
    • Customer satisfaction survey
  • Discussed variety of procurement options
customer satisfaction survey results scale of 1 10
Customer Satisfaction SurveyResults (scale of 1-10)

1999 2004 2009

Residential

Field 9.1 9.3 9.3

Office 9 9.3 9.1

Commercial

Field 9 8.9 9.2

Office 8.7 9.2 9.2

procurement our choice
Procurement – Our Choice
  • Section 40059 of PRC states, each County may determine
    • Aspects of solid waste handling which are of local concern including frequency and means of collection, type of services, and charges
    • Whether services are to be provided by means of franchise, contract …either with or without competitive bidding
procurement options
Procurement Options
  • Wide range of options
  • Could choose different procurement path for each zone
  • Could use a back up path if do not achieve desired results
key policy issues
Key Policy Issues

A. Public vs. private service providers

B. Regulated franchise agreement options

C. Zone reconfigurations

D. Work cooperatively with other jurisdictions or on own

a public vs private
A. Public vs. Private
  • Public
    • More control for County (flow, accountability) (+)
    • Capital investment/risk (-)
  • Regulated franchise agreements
    • More control than private (flow, accountability) (+)
    • Less impact on community than open market (+)

(truck traffic, noise, emissions, road impact)

  • Private (open market)
    • Customer choice (+)
    • More impact on community (-)

(truck traffic, noise, emissions, road impact)

    • Less control for County (flow, accountability) (-)
b regulated franchise agreement procurement options
B. Regulated Franchise Agreement Procurement Options

Competitive Procurement

Considerations:

  • Best market price due to market competition (+)
  • Unpredictable transition (-)
  • Quality of service less known (-)
b regulated franchise agreement procurement options29
B. Regulated Franchise Agreement Procurement Options

Sole-source negotiation with existing providers

Considerations:

  • Smooth transition (+)
  • Known high quality service provider (+)
  • Limited leverage in service and rate negotiations (-)
b regulated franchise agreement procurement options30
B. Regulated Franchise Agreement Procurement Options

Competitive procurement limited to existing service providers

Considerations:

  • Smoother transition than open procurement (+)
  • Known high quality service provider (+)
  • Competition leading to better rates than negotiation (+)
c service zones
C. Service Zones

Currently Chap 17 says:

  • BOS shall establish 5 service zones

(Article II Sec. 17-29 (c))

  • BOS may consider many factors in determining the service zones

(Article II Sec. 17-29 (c) (4))

  • Collector shall not provide services in more than 2 zones

(Article II Sec. 17-29 (c) (5))

c service zones32
C. Service Zones
  • BOS can modify ordinance subject to 2 public hearings
  • Ability to reconfigure zones
  • Limited ability on South Coast (contracts for zones 1&3 still in effect)
d work cooperatively with other jurisdictions
D. Work Cooperatively with Other Jurisdictions
  • Options:
    • Invite Goleta, Buellton and/or Solvang

Pros: Regional consistency in services

May get better price

Cons: Added difficulty of coordinating

with other jurisdiction

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