HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2004-08-09 #UCity of Seal Beach
Agenda Report
Date: August 9, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor a City Council
From: John B. Bahor i
City Manager
Subject: Review of Solid Waste Contract
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The City Council has raised concerns regarding the solid waste agreement with
Consolidated Disposal Services. This report is intended to provide the City Council with
historical information, rate comparison data and a performance summary of Consolidated
Disposal Services in Seal Beach. The existing agreement with Consolidated Disposal
Services provides for an annual review of performance, quality of service as well as a
system and service review. Staff has requested representatives from Consolidated
Disposal Services to present information on their service to Seal Beach.
BACKGROUND:
Staff approached this issue in a similar fashion as the reports on the redevelopment
agency, trailer park and the Rodi /Zoeter School. The City files were reviewed to create a
historical context for reviewing solid waste disposal in Seal Beach. In addition, staff
worked with Consolidated Disposal Services to present information to Council on
performance and quality of service.
History of Solid Waste Hauling Contract
Seal Beach has had a series of trash hauling firms over the years. Based on a historical
review, the City had a contract and contract extensions with Seal Beach Disposal from
1959 to 1969. In 1969, Mr. George Briggeman acquired the Seal Beach Disposal
Company. Shortly thereafter, the City entered into an agreement with Briggeman
(Attachment A) dated May 1970. The term of that agreement was for a five -year period
and included an option, for an additional five -year period to May 31, 1980. The City
acted upon this option period in March 1975, and the Briggeman agreement was extended
'to May 1980 (Attachment B). Staff recommended the extension based on the quality of
the equipment, services provided at community events and rates. A 1975 staff report
(Attachment B) indicates that the rates charged by Seal Beach Disposal Company were
well below average in the County for commercial rates and about average for residential
rates.
In September 1980 the City and Seal Beach Disposal Company (Briggeman) entered into
an agreement for a five -year period with a five -year option (Attachment C). The initial
term ran until August 1985. This agreement was essentially the same as the agreement
previously executed between the parties. Amendment number I to this agreement was
executed in 1982 (Attachment D). This amendment addressed compensation and the
methodology for setting the rates. Please note this amendment locked Seal Beach
Disposal into a rate structure that could not exceed the CPI for Los Angeles -Long Beach
and that this resulting compensation "shall not exceed the average compensation paid by
the seven Orange County cities having the lowest rates in the County." This action
basically locked in rates for Seal Beach over the course of the agreement. Attachment E
is the staff report that explains why the renewal of the agreement was warranted.
Staff research indicates that Seal Beach Disposal formally changed to Briggeman
Disposal and a new agreement was entered into on October 1, 1987. This new agreement
was a 13 -year agreement with a five -year extension option for a total of 18 years. The
initial term under the agreement expired in September 30, 2000 (Attachment F). This
agreement was in place until March 1997 when the current waste hauling agreement with
Briggeman was executed.
Between 1987 and 1997, two actions changed the solid waste business in Orange County.
The first significant change was the enactment of AB 939 in 1989 that mandated all
California cities reduce solid waste deposited in landfills by 25% in 1993, and 50% in
2000. AB 939 brought about curbside recycling and green waste collection in many cities
in California in order to meet the 50% reduction by 2000. Due to AB 939, the world of
solid waste disposal changed in California and in Seal Beach. Because this was a State
mandated program, Seal Beach could not avoid the requirements of AB 939. The efforts
to implement residential recycling were discussed at length by the City Council, and
Attachment G is a staff report that discussed the residential recycling program. The
second action that changed the solid waste collection in Orange County was the County
flow control agreements that directed all trash collected in Seal Beach to a County -owned
landfill. The City of Seal Beach approved a 10 -year agreement with the County in
exchange for a rate of $22 per ton. Attachment H is an analysis of the flow control
agreement staff discovered during its research, and provides a good background on the
flow control issues.
In early 1997, the City began addressing how to comply with the AB 939 mandate of
50% diversion. Failure to met the AB 939 mandates could have subjected the City of
Seal Beach to a $10,000 per day penalty. In addition, the City began discussion with
Briggeman on a plan for semi - automated refuse and recycling. These discussions resulted
in a new agreement with Briggeman Disposal executed in April 1997. The 1997
agreement was negotiated between the City and Briggeman and resulted in the following
changes:
2
1. Briggeman Disposal provided a $50,000 performance deposit upon execution of
the new franchise agreement providing for recycling in Old Town.
2. Residential recycling would be implemented in Old Town with no rate increase to
customers beyond rates that were previously authorized by City Council for a
minimum of 18 months from the effective date of the franchise.
3. Rate controls would be strengthened on behalf of the consumer by limiting future
increases to at least 20% below CPI annually.
4. Free disposal services would be provided at City and school facilities in Seal
Beach.
5. Bulk items pickup provisions would be enhanced.
6. Performance compliance measure would be tightened.
7. Responsibility for billing commercial accounts would be transferred from the City
to the contractor.
8. The contractor would provide the City a $10,000 cash payment annually to offset
costs for compliance with AB 939.
9. A 15% discount for persons over 65 that meet federal income guidelines for low -
income heads of households.
10. The City would assume control over where solid waste is deposited.
11. The contractor indemnified the City for any penalties, fees or costs associated
with non - compliance AB 939 and other state and federal laws (e.g. CERCLA).
In exchange for these service enhancements, Briggeman Disposal was provided with a
three -year extension on the term of the existing franchise, and the agreement was
converted to an evergreen basis. An evergreen contract functions in the following
manner: at the end of each year, the agreement is extended another year unless the City
Council takes a specific action to terminate the evergreen contract. In that case, the
franchise would proceed toward expiration. The agreement with Briggeman is a seven -
year evergreen contract. Under state law cities are required to provide five years advance
notification of termination of a waste contract, thus, the City provided Briggeman with an
additional three years.
During staff's research on this subject, four staff reports were found dated February 10,
1997, February 24, 1997, March 10, 1997 and March 24, 1997 that explains the terms of
the agreement that the City is currently operating under for solid waste disposal. These
staff reports are attached to this report and are labeled Attachments I, J, K and L. The
four reports should be carefully reviewed by City Council because they explain in detail
the benefits received by the City in consideration for the revised franchise agreement
with Briggeman. Staff s review of the report indicates that the City received some
significant benefits as a result of this agreement, and the most significant was rate
control. The limit of rate increases to 20% below CPI is significant since, prior to this
agreement, the City was locked into rate being set at CPI.
The City is currently operating under the 1997 agreement with Briggeman Disposal, and
has experienced very minimal complaints, all of which were quickly corrected.
Questions and Answers:
Staff understands that some members of the community have concerns about the
agreement with Briggeman Disposal and will attempt to answer those concerns in the
remaining portion of this report.
Did the community understand the terms of the current solid waste agreement with
Briggeman Disposal Company?
As staff has previously mentioned, there are four staff reports, see Attachments I through
L, that succinctly pointed out the terms of the agreement entered into by the City in 1997.
In addition, staff located a 1997 public hearing notice that informed the community of the
rate increase and change in terms of the agreement (Attachment M). City Council should
take note that the public hearing notice indicated that rates had not increased since 1990,
making it seven years that residents in Seal Beach enjoyed the same solid waste rate.
Staff also discovered in its research, the transparencies from the City Manager's
presentation to City Council. These documents clearly outline the ternis of the new
franchise agreement (Attachment N). City Council, at the time, was made aware that the
rates had not been raised since 1990, and that of the 23 cities surveyed, Seal Beach had
trash rates below the average.
What were the financial implications of the 1997 solid waste agreement?
The City of Seal Beach received service and revenue valued at $135,000 in the first year
of the new agreement. Within the documents in Attachment N, there is a transparency
that shows the fiscal benefit. Essentially the City enjoys the following fiscal benefits of
the current franchise agreement:
$30,000 in free collection services
$15,000 additional franchise revenues
$30,000 billing at pre - established rates
$10,000 in cost recovery for AB 939 compliance administration
$85,000 in recurring revenues
The City also received a one -time $50,000 payment upon execution of the agreement.
Are Seal Beach trash rates the highest in the County and what about the old trash
rates?
According to information provided by Briggeman Disposal, Seal Beach has the third
lowest rates of 21 cities surveyed (Attachment O). In order to confirm the information
received from Briggeman Disposal, staff contacted the County of Orange and obtained a
2003 rate survey. With 31 cities reporting, Seal Beach trash rates ($13.84) were below
the survey average of $14.15. Seal Beach was ranked the 13th lowest out of 31 cities in
the survey (Attachment P). Based on these two surveys, it does not appear that the trash
rates are out of line with other Orange County cities and, in fact, are favorable to the
customers in Seal Beach. One reason for the low rate is the current agreement locks the
rate increase to 80% of the CPI.
Historically, Seal Beach also appears to have fared well on trash rates; staff was able to
locate a 1996 and 1997 survey that indicates Seal Beach trash rates were less than several
other cities in Orange County. For example, Seal Beach had the 8`h lowest rates of 30
cities surveyed in 1996 (Attachment Q). In a 1997 survey, Seal Beach rates were $12.25
versus the survey average of $13.66. (Attachment R).
How many cities have an evergreen clause in their trash hauling agreements?
Staff located a 1995 survey that indicates of 31 cities surveyed, 21 cities had evergreen
clauses in their solid waste contracts. The term of the evergreen contract ranged between
5 to 20 years. The remaining cities had fixed -term contracts ranging from 1 to 20 years.
While this information is out of date, it was used during the discussion on whether to
grant an evergreen contract to Briggeman Disposal (Attachment S). Clearly an evergreen
contract is not unusual or unique to Seal Beach. In fact, in Orange County, it appears this
style of agreement is common.
Staff obtained a 2003 survey that indicates that of the 33 cities reporting on the survey,
14 cities employ evergreen type contracts. Of those 14 cities, 9 cities have an evergreen
agreement longer than 7 years (Attachment T).
Clearly the evergreen type agreement is not out of the ordinary and is common in cities
throughout Orange County.
Why was the Solid Waste Agreement amended in 1997?
As staff has already pointed out, the focus in 1997 was to implement recycling programs
to meet the AB 939 mandates. Like the Zoeter School purchase, the Council wanted the
recycling program cost to not impact the community, or if it did, at the lowest possible
rate. The 1997 agreement accomplished that goal. At the June 10, 1996 City Council
meeting, the City Manager explained his direction: " The refuse contractor has developed
a green waste
program that is anticipated to be implemented by August for all areas except Leisure
World and Old Town inasmuch as there is insufficient green waste generated from Old
Town and with the understanding that the City, within sixty days, prepares a
comprehensive franchise agreement renewal for an additional three years in return for
implementing a green waste program including all equipment and without any rate
increase to the customer or City." Again, similar to the Zoeter School agreements, this
deal was the result of trying to obtain a service without a cost to the community
(Attachment U).
What has been the quality of service provided by Briggeman?
Staff has received little to no complaints on the quality of service provided by
Briggeman. According to information collected by Briggeman, complaints have been rare
and quickly resolved. Historically, staff has approved contract extensions for Briggeman
based on the quality of service. In fact, in 1980, staff indicated that satisfactory level of
service over the ten -year period was one of the reasons the trash contract was renewed
(Attachment E).
How can the City maintain the quality of the services provided by Briggeman?
The City can continuously monitor the quality of service based on three sections of the
current franchise agreement. Sections 3.19, 3.20 and 3.21 on page 18 of the Solid Waste
Agreement does allow the City to review performance, quality of service and a systems
review (Attachment V). The information provided by Briggeman in their system and
services review complies with the sections cited earlier. In fact, if the City desires, a City
representative can even ride on the contractors vehicles to ensure performance. City
Council can, if desired, direct staff to conduct an annual performance review, if that is
deemed appropriate.
If the City Council wished to terminate the evergreen contract, what steps would
need to be taken?
Section 1.4 of the franchise agreement governs the automatic renewal portion of the
agreement. The contract language reads as follows: " Should either party desire that the
automatic renewal and extension provision be terminated, such party shall give the other
written notice of termination. Any such notice shall serve only to terminate the automatic
one -year renewal and extension provision, and this agreement shall remain in effect for
the balance of the term then outstanding." (Attachment V). Effectively, this means that
if the termination notice were invoked today, the contract will still not expire for
approximately seven years.
0
If determined to be the best course of action, how can the Council bid a new trash
contract?
Section 10 -3.1 of the Solid Waste Franchise Ordinance gives Council latitude to bid
either an exclusive or non - exclusive contract and with or without competitive bidding.
Attachment CC explains in greater detail the discretion City Council has on this matter.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of re- bidding the existing contract?
Advantages
• Address Community Concerns
• Confirm the benefits of existing
agreement
• Possibly reduce rates
Disadvantages
• Cost of Service may not be reduced
• Quality of service could drop
• Cost of bidding the contract
• The indemnification provision may
not be acceptable to future bidders
• Negative impact on service over
the remaining severs years of the
contract
Typically, contracts are bid if there is a lack of service or costs are high. In this case, the
cost of service is below the County average and the quality of service is very good.
However, if community concerns over the trash contract is overwhelming then Council
may wish to engage in this re- bidding process to answer those concerns. Staff does
believe there will be significant cost to re -bid this contract.
Conclusion
Staff has prepared this report based on City Council's interest in the trash franchise and a
desire to ensure the consumers of the service are getting a fair price and excellent service.
Should Council decide to consider terminating the automatic contract renewal option, it
would be approximately seven years before the contract could be awarded to another
provider. Staff will need direction from Council to send a letter of termination per the
contract should the Council make that determination.
Attachment W are Council minutes that explain the direction Council gave staff in 1997
when the current agreement was negotiated. The City Council minutes indicate the City
Manager explained that "to accomplish the Old Town recycling, the contractor is being
asked to make a capital investment for equipment, systems and labor for an entirely new
program therefore there needed to be some give and take in order to avoid passing the
costs on to the consumer." Given those parameters, the current agreement was favorable
to the City in light of the expectation that there would be no increase for the additional
recycling service. When the history of the current contract is reviewed, the City received
a favorable deal from Briggeman and, with the rate increase locked into 80% of the CPI,
customer's costs are controlled.
Following staffs presentation, representatives from Briggeman Disposal will provide
City Council with a briefing on the service to Seal Beach and discuss their performance.
Attachment X is the material submitted by Briggeman for this agenda item.
Based on the materials reviewed by staff, the current contract is providing the City fair
rates for trash collection with good customer service and allows the City to meet its AB
939 mandates.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive report.
2. If appropriate, provide staff direction concerning the franchise.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. 1975 Solid Waste Agreement between City of Seal Beach and Seal Beach
Disposal
B. March 20, 1975 Staff Report on Solid Waste Contract Extension
C. 1980 Solid Waste Agreement between City of Seal Beach and Seal Beach
Disposal
D. Refuse and Collection Amendment No. 1
E. Staff Report on Renewal of Trash Collection Contract
F. 1987 Solid Waste Agreement between City and Briggeman Disposal
G. November 8, 1993 Staff Report on Residential Recycling Program
H. Analysis of Solid Waste Landfill Alternatives
I. February 10, 1997 Staff Report on Old Town recycling, franchise agreement and
refuse ordinance
J. February 24, 1997 Staff Report on Old Town recycling, franchise agreement and
refuse ordinance
K. March 10, 1997 Staff Report on Old Town recycling, franchise agreement and
refuse ordinance
L. March 24, 1997 Staff Report on Refuse Franchise Agreement
M. Public Hearing Notice for June 9, 1997
N. Terms and benefits of the new franchise agreement
O. City trash rate comparison
P. Staff generated trash rate survey
Q. 1996 trash rate survey
R. 1997 trash rate survey
S. Solid waste franchise survey
T. 2003 solid waste franchise survey
U. June 10, 1996 City Council Minutes — Agreement to Franchise Agreement
V. March 1997 Solid Waste Agreement between City of Seal Beach and Briggeman
W. February 10, 1997 City Council Minutes — Franchise Agreement
X. Solid Waste Collection — Systems and Services Review
Y. June 9, 1997 City Council Minutes — Refuse Rate Adjustment*
Z. August 11, 1997 City Council Minutes — Refuse Franchise*
AA. February 24, 1997 City Council Minutes — Solid Waste Services Agreement*
BB. March 10, 1997 City Council Minutes — Solid Waste Services Agreement*
CC. Solid Waste Ordinance adopted March 1997
* Not referenced in report, background material only
ATTACHMENT "A"
ATTACHMENT "E"
s'
July 23, 1980
mF7mnRAmnijm
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Renewal of Trash Collection Contract
At its last meeting City Council was given a staff report which
indicated that negotiation of a new trash collection contract was
underway but was incomplete. Since that time negotiations have
been completed and the new contract formulated. A copy of the
proposed contract is included in the package for City Council
consideration. In the event City Council finds the contract
acceptable it should direct the City Manager to implement the
signing of the appropriate documents.
Significant features of the new five year contract are as follows:
1. The contract provides for further renewal.
2. The contract rate for twice - weekly residential trash collection
is increased from $2.82 to $4.00 monthly.
3. The contract provides that bin service (3 cubic yard'bins)
shall be charged for based on the number of pick-ups-per week.
The spread is from $40 monthly`for 1 pick -up per week to $65
monthly for 6 pick -ups per week.
4. After two years the contract provides.that rates shall be
increased by the change in the Consumer Price Index.
5. The contractor is required to provide the City with quarterly
operating statements showing gain or loss.
6. Public Liability coverage is increased.
Based on the current state of the market it appears the proposed
contract provides an excellent level of service at a fair price.
It should be noted however that acceptance of the rates provided
in the contract will require the City to raise the rates it
charges its residential and commercial users. An accompanying
resolution has been prepared for City Council consideration to
authorize an increase in those rates effective September 1, 1980.
Taking into consideration the satisfactory level of service our
contractor has provided over the past ten years, and recognizing
his willingness to disclose financial data regarding his operation
AGENDA ITEM #XI. B.
I 7A
Page Two
it is the staff recommendation the contract be renewed as proposed.
If the City Council is disposed to accept this recommendation it
should now direct the City Manager to implement the contract by
submitting the appropriate documents for signatures.
a
Dennis Courtemarche
DC: DT: se
ATTACHMENT "G"
November 8, 1993
'1
�U
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and C unc Members
FROM: Jerry Bankston, Cit r
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Adopt Resolution No. ya approving the residential recycling
program, approve first amendment to franchise agreement, and set
the residential rate for said program.
DISCUSSION
In 1989, the State mandated each city to develop a Source Reduction
and Recycling Element (SRRE) , designed to reduce waste going to
landfills by 25% as of January 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. An
integral part of this plan is the implementation of a residential
recycling program.
Staff has worked with the City's franchise hauler, Briggeman
Disposal, to recommend an acceptable curbside recycling program.
The program under consideration uses two 100 - gallon, automated
containers, one for trash /non - recyclables and the other for mixed
recyclables. The trash container would be collected once per week
and the mixed recyclables container would be collected once every
two weeks.
The residential program would be split into two phases. The
initial phase would involve the residential communities of College
Park East, College Park West, the Hill, to include all residences
north of Pacific Coast Highway, Riverbeach and Bridgeport. This
phase would be implemented in February, 1994. Phase II would be
the "O1dTown" area and would begin July, 1994.
This type of residential program has been used successfully in many
cities throughout the county and state and typically the program -
meets or exceeds the 25% diversion mandate. It is anticipated that
this program will be as successful as the recycling program at
Leisure World„ where 38% of their waste, including green waste, is .,
recycled.
Adt)VOA its.
Some of the advantages of the automated, curbside recycling program
are: cleaner streets /alleys, waste generator involved in the
program, a flexible system to add more recyclables as markets
improve and residents do not have to buy new trash cans.
To prepare for this change, Briggeman shall provide education
brochures, hold meetings with homeowners associations and community
groups, operate a recycling hotline, purchase and distribute
containers, and retrofit collection vehicles for automated
collection.
To implement such a residential program generally increases the
cost to the resident. However, due to savings from fewer
collections per week, the residential rate shall remain at $12.75
per single family residence.
FISCAL EMPACT
The components of the residential rate will be restricted to
provide Briggeman with an adjusted fee based on costs and savings
of the new program over the twice a week trash collection service.
The residential rate also includes a 7% franchise fee, billing
service and waste management charges. The billing and waste
management charges reimburse the City for the costs associated with
the development and implementation of waste management programs,
reportings and billing costs.
SUGGESTED ACTION
A MOTION TO APPROVE A TWO- PHASED RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM AS
OUTLINED AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. Sao? 7'7 , SUPPORTING THE
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM, APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND SET THE RESIDENTIAL RATE.
ATTACHMENT "H"
AN ANALYSIS OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY LANDFILL STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES STUDY
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY CITY MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION
SOLID WASTE WORKING GROUP '
BACKGROUND
The future of the ownership and operation of the Orange County landfill
system will soon be decided by the Orange County Board of Supervisors based
on an in -depth analysis of the County's landfill system currently managed by
the Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD). Since the creation
of the landfills the cities of Orange County have been key partners with the
County and the IWMD, as cities for decades have deposited and directed their
waste stream to the County landfill system and their residents and businesses
have paid for each ton deposited in the landfills. It is essential at this critical
juncture that the cities of Orange County step forward and offer thoughtful
advice and counsel to the County on this matter.
The Orange County City Managers' Association ( OCCMA) in 1995 created the
Solid Waste Working Group (SWWG) to examine solid waste issues on
behalf of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities. The
SWWG has been closely involved with County IWMD staff as they have
overseen' the preparation of a consultant report on the Strategic Alternatives
available to the County with the current landfill system. After completion of
the study the IWMD staff has invited the OCCMA SWWG to review the
study and offer thoughts on the most optimal alternative course of action for
the IWMD and the County.
CITY LANDFILL SYSTEM PRINCIPLES
The SWWG in its review has utilized three main principles to guide its
deliberations on the optimal alternative for the County. These three
principles are:
1. Competitive And Reliable Gate Fees
The citizens of Orange County are ultimately the owners of the
landfill system and will pay directly or indirectly for the
operation of the landfills through gate fees paid by their City or
their City's. franchised waste hauler(s). In the last three years the
County's gate fee has ranged from a low of $22 per ton to a high
of $35 per ton. As the County debates alternatives, it is critical
that the future landfill owners and operators develop and create
a reliable and competitive rate structure to keep residents'
monthly trash bills as low as possible now and in the future.
2. Long Term Capacity
Past County policy makers had the vision to create a landfill
system that today has over 50 years of legally permitted future
capacity, a rare situation in California today, a fact borne out by
the consultants in the County's own study. It is vital that the
future capacity of the system be a key focus of County policy
makers and the benefits of the past foresight not be lost.
3. Sound Environmental Management
The County's landfill operation has been prudently managed to
carefully care for former closed landfills so that they don't harm
the health of nearby property occupants, while creating new
landfills that are operated according to stringent Federal and
State guidelines. This is in sharp contrast to landfills operated in
nearby counties that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars to remediate, while nearby residents worry about
possible long 'term health effects. The cities of the County are
vitally concerned that the policies and practices of the past not be
lost in the future for possible immediate financial gain.
COUNTY STUDY STRATEGIC QPTIONS IDENTIFIED
The consultant study prepared by A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. and Alex. Brown
& Sons Inc. has identified three strategic alternatives available to the County.
The OCCMA SWWG has reviewed the Strategic Options to determine which
in our opinion best fits the principles outlined above. The three alternatives
include:
1. County Sale or Lease of All or a Portion of the Landfill System
2. County Continued Ownership Without Contracts With Cities
3. County Continued Ownership + Contracts With Cities
In analyzing the alternatives, the consultants made no specific
recommendations to the County. However, they did conclude that the
County could maximize its upfront revenues and minimize its long -term
obligations through the outright sale or long -term lease of the County's
landfills to the private sector. Should the County exercise this option, the
consultants concluded that the tipping fee charged to Orange County citizens
would reflect market rates, resulting in higher costs to Orange County
residents. A private operator could also exercise unlimited discretion in
allowing imported solid waste at these sites, potentially shortening the life of
the landfills for use by Orange County residents and cities.
The second alternative reviewed by the consultants would continue County
ownership of the landfill system, requiring the County to compete with other
regional landfills, either with its existing management structure or through a
private management contract. In this situation, the consultants assumed that
the County would levy a tipping fee comparable to other Southern California
sites. ,In this scenario, the County would transfer net revenue from imported
waste to the County's General Fund. However, the consultants point out that
under this option without a guaranteed waste flow, the County would
continue to assume all risks due to price variations and closure costs. To date,
the County's Chief Executive Officer has indicated that this option is not
acceptable, due to the significant financial risks it could impose on the
County.
The final option analyzed by the consultants assumed continued operation of
the landfills by the County, but under a long -term contractual relationship
with Orange County cities.,- Under this scenario, the County's risk would be
minimized because a guaranteed stream of solid waste would flow to the
landfills. This guaranteed minimum level of solid waste would also allow
the County to refinance its existing debt on the landfills, reducing overall
annual expenses. Under this option, the consultant concludes that tipping
fees could be established at a rate significantly below expected market rates,
resulting in major savings for Orange County citizens. The estimated average
rate over the next ten years under this scenario would be approximately
$17.53 per ton. The consultant's evaluation also assumed operation of the
three County landfills at maximum capacity and continued importation of
solid waste to County landfills from outside the County, with importation
revenues earmarked to assist the County's bankruptcy recovery and cover a
portion of fixed operating costs of the system.
THIRD PARTY EVALUATION OF COUNTY ANALYSIS
The analysis of the County's solid waste system included several financial
projections and analyses. Many of these projections are quite complex, and
different assumptions can result in significant financial variations in the data.
In order to ensure that these financial projections are reasonable, the SWWG
engaged the services of Hilton Farnkopf to independently analyze the data.
To this end, Hilton Farnkopf carefully examined the County consultant's
study and have concluded that the financial and operational projections are
optimistic, particularly on the volume, growth and price per ton of imported
waste. Hilton Farnkopf has taken a more conservative approach to the
assumptions and financial projections on imported waste volumes and
concludes that a tipping fee of $20.06 is financially viable. These assumptions —
include the County's transfer of $15 million per year for bankruptcy recovery
purposes, and if additional importation is achieved that the excess income
would be retained in the enterprise fund to further reduce -gate fees.
After reviewing all of the alternatives analyzed by the County's consultant,
and in light of the independent third party review of this analysis, it's the
recommendation of the Orange County City Managers' Association Solid
Waste Working Group that the cities urge the Board of Supervisors to retain
ownership of the existing solid waste system and, furthermore, that City
representatives be appointed to negotiate a master long -term disposal contract
with the County for use by all Orange County cities. This alternative best
meets the objectives of the cities by resulting in stable, below market, long-
term tipping fees, as well as the continued assurance of long -term capacity for
the residents of Orange County. It will also result in continued public
oversight of the landfill system, in order to ensure that adequate reserves are
maintained for closure costs and for environmental remediation.
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
The Orange County City Managers' Association Solid Waste Working Group
also analyzed the existing governance structure of the solid waste system.
Should the cities enter into long -term contracts with the County for the
disposal of solid waste, it's the recommendation of the City Managers that we
also seek modifications to the existing governance structure, in order to allow
a greater voice of cities in the policy issues related to management of the
landfills. We urge that a more open structure be established, with greater
review of the annual budget, closure costs, etc., as a part of the charter of the
-Solid Waste Commission.
TERMS SUGGESTED FOR CITY AGREEMENTS WITH IWMD
The key to reaching a successful agreement is obviously in the terms of such
an agreement. The SWWG recommends that the following key issues be
incorporated into these agreements:
Term: A minimum of ten years with options to renew for an
extended period.
Pricing: A fixed rate for the initial ten years, with minimum
tonnage requirements and a formula on competitive and
reliable rates in option years incorporating floors and
ceilings.
Incentives: Pricing and capacity incentives to encourage cities'
participation in a long term contract. Non - participating
cities would pay higher rates and not have guarantees on
long tern tipping rights in County landfills.
Uncontrollable During a long term agreement the County and private
Factors: landfills may experience new Federal or State mandates
imposing new cost obligations. A long term pricing
structure must provide for these adjustments.
Indemnification: County provision of indemnification to cities for any
current and future waste disposed in the landfill system
and payment of any joint defense costs in the event of
litigation.
Governance: Continuation of the Solid Waste Commission with
additional oversight duties. Appointment and .selection
through the City Selection Committee process.
City Duties: Secure agreement from contract or franchised operators in
cities to deposit the waste stream in the County landfill
system now or at the earliest possible date through
contract or franchise amendment if necessary.
County Duties: Guarantee all terms above are fulfilled and actively
pursue importation agreements to financially secure the
IWMD district operations. If the County is able to achieve
imported waste revenues above $15 million then the
additional revenue would be retained in the enterprise
fund to reduce gate fees for County cities.
Assignment: Assignment of rights by County in any landfill system
divestiture after initial ten year term.
Termination: Termination by cities or County for necessity or
convenience upon payment of termination fee.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended by the SWWG that the Orange County Division of the
League of California Cities:
1. Urge the Orange County Board of Supervisors to retain ownership of
the current landfill system and appoint representatives from the
County to negotiate long -term agreements with Orange County cities
in accordance with the terms suggested by the City Managers' Solid
Waste Working Group;
2. Designate a group of City representatives to negotiate with County
representatives on a long -tern agreement; and
3. Encourage all Orange County cities to adopt resolutions or forward
letters of support to the Board of Supervisors recommending the
retention of the landfill system and agreements with Orange County
cities for the long -term disposal of City waste streams.
MOURESOLID WASTE
MAJOR DEAL POINTS
Term
10 years (with a renewal of additional 10 years, upon mutual agreement of the
parties)
2. . Rate
Fixed.rate of $22 per ton over 10 -year term
3. CERCLA Indemnification
County shall provide cities with CERCLA indemnification.
4. Commitment to Dispose in Orange County Landfill System
Cities commit to dispose 100% of their solid waste over which they have control.
Excess Importation Revenue
Revenues from importation revenue in excess of $15 million/year shall be
retained in Waste Management Enterprise Fund or deposited in debt repayment
reserve for future bond defeasance. Deposits into the debt repayment reserve
can only be redirected by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors.
6. In- County Tonnage Shortfall Remedies
If actual in- County tonnage falls below the "cumulative target" upon which the
$22 per ton gate fee was based, the County may utilize these options to remedy
the shortfall in revenues in the following priority order:
A. Reduce costs
B. Utilize net import revenues in excess of $15 million per year
10. Waste Management Commission
The Waste Management Commission in its present configuration shall continue to
advise the County on policy issues.
11. Execution of Solid Waste Agreements
The agreement is conditioned upon execution by March 1, 1997, by a sufficient
number of cities or other contract customers (i.e., independent waste haulers)
representing at least 1,842,000 tons per year, based on disposal volumes reported
during the 12 months ended September 30, 1996. Once the minimum threshold is
achieved, non - participants have one final opportunity to enter the agreement by
July 1, 1997.
FOLLOW -UP
1. Orange County City Management Association -- January 8
2. Orange County Division, League of California Cities -- January 9
3. MOU signed by two chief negotiators
4. Solid waste contracts drafted by sub - committee of City Managers and City
Attorneys
5. Cities and County to execute contracts -- by March 1
FB:kts
tb \solid wazte mou
C. Utilize unrestricted reserve funds (including 25% of postclosure reserves)
D. Adjust in- County rates
If all of these remedies are unsuccessful in balancing revenues and expenditures, the
County has the option to terminate the agreements with the cities.
Import Tonnage Shortfall Remedies
If actual import tonnage falls below the "annual target" upon which the $22 per
ton gate fee was based, the County may utilize these options to remedy the
shortfall in revenues in the following priority order:
A. Reduce costs
B. Utilize net import revenues in excess of $15 million per year
C. Utilize unrestricted reserve funds (including 25% of postclosure reserves)
D. Adjust in- County rates
Cities can terminate the agreement if tonnage falls below target and cities are
unwilling to accept an in- County rate increase.
8. Availability of Contracts to Other Parties
The County shall offer a waste disposal contract at the same $22 per ton gate rate
to Sanitary Districts, MRF and transfer station operators, and haulers for waste
not subject to city franchise agreements, provided they commit 100% of their
waste stream.
9. Posted Gate Rate for Non - Contract Customers
Cities, Sanitation Districts, MRFs, and hauling companies that choose not to
contract with the County shall pay the posted gate rate (which must be at least
10% above the $22 per ton contract rate).
ATTACHMENT "I"
Memorandum
February 10, 1997
TO: AM YOR FORSYTHE AND
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEITH TILL,
CITYAL NAGER
SUBJECT: Old Town Recycling, refuse franchise agreement, refuse ordinance and
participation in countywide landfill agreement
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That City Council receive report and provide direction on
whether to proceed with formal hearings on the items presented.
BACKGROUND: The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB939) mandated
that all California cities reduce solid waste deposited in landfills by 50 % no later than the
year 2000. In response to this mandate, Seal Beach convened a citizens group which
oversaw development of a comprehensive Source Reduction and Recycling Element and
Hazardous Waste disposal plan. The SRRE and Hazardous Waste Plan called for phased-
-in recycling programs in the city. The phased approach gave the advantage of allowing for
a revising and fine- tuning of recycling procedures in individual areas prior to going
citywide.
So far, commingled recycling systems and greenwaste programs have been implemented in
every area of the city except Old Town. Old Town presented particular challenges due to .
the prevalence of narrow sideyards and alleys. Greenwaste recycling is not considered
viable in Old Town because the costs of providing such service are not warranted by the
relatively small amount of greenwaste that would be diverted.
Briggeman Disposal has now developed a plan for "semiautomated" refuse and recycling
service specifically in Old Town. That is, standardized refuse containers can be wheeled to
the front -end of a specially designed truck, which would then mechanically lift the barrel
up and over into the large container on the truck.
The advantage to this system is that it provides a labor cost savings to the city's refuse
hauler, which in turn enabes the city to hold down the residential rates. Additionally, with
the new standardized containers, trash service can be provided effectively on a weekly
rather than semi - weekly basis. Twice a week service is an extremely rare and very
expensive alternative that is not necessary, as evidenced by the recent conversion to
weekly service in other areas of Seal Beach and communities nationwide. Reducing the _.
Agenda Items - 1`l
REFUSE FRANCHISE REPORT
Page - 2
truck traffic on city streets also provides a cost savings in terms of repair and maintenance
costs. Significant noise and air pollution from the trucks are also reduced by as much as
half.
Negotiations with Briggeman Disposal have resulted in tentative agreement on the
following:
i. Briggeman Disposal would provide the City a non - refundable cash deposit of $50,000
upon signing of a new refuse franchise agreement providing for recycling in Old Town.
2. Residential recycling would be implemented in Old Town with no rate increase to
customers beyond rates previously authorized by City Council for a minimum of 18
months from the effective date of the franchise.
3. Rate controls would be strengthened on behalf of the consumer by limiting any future
increases to at least 20% below the Consumer Price Index annually.
4. Free disposal services would be provided at City and school facilities in Seal Beach.
5. Bulk item pick -up provisions would be enhanced.
6. Performance compliance measures would be tightened.
7. The City would assume control over where the solid waste is deposited (flow control).
8. Responsibility for billing commercial accounts would be transferred from the city to
the contractor.
9. .There would be a discount for senior citizens.
In consideration of these service enhancements, Briggeman Disposal would be provided a
three -year extension on the term of the existing franchise agreement, and the agreement
would be converted to an "evergreen" basis. That is, at the end of each year the agreement
would be extended another year unless the city council takes specific action to terminate
the evergreen. In that case, the franchise would proceed toward expiration. It is proposed
that the evergreen term be set at seven years, which is just two years beyond the five -year
statuatory requirement for advance notification to terminate an open -ended refuse
franchise agreement.
Briggeman Disposal would also be allowed to phase -in commercial rate increases for
specific customer groups over a three -year period. It has been clearly demonstrated that
rates for larger commercial customers in Seal Beach are far below reasonable and
REFUSE FRANCHISE
Page - 3
customary charges for such services in Orange County. At the end of the phased -in rate
adjustments, rates will still remain lower than charges in comparable cities.
The hauler would also benefit from enforcement provisions for the exclusivity clause
pertaining to commercial construction bin service.
SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE
With the franchise agreement under consideration, it is timely to also review and revise the
solid waste ordinance as appropriate. Among the more significant revisions presented is a
requirement that trash containers be removed from curbside at the end of collection day,
along with citation authority for chronic failure to comply.
LANDFILL FLOW CONTROL
In addition to the local issues discussed above, the City Council faces a decision this
month on the proposed countywide landfill agreement. The agreement would require a 10-
year commitment by the City to direct all solid waste to one of the county -owned landfills.
In return, rates would be frozen at $22 per ton and the city would be provided the security
of having a known landfill source for the next decade.
The $22 landfill tipping fee compares favorably to the $27.75 currently being charged at
the Long Beach waste to energy facility currently being used by Briggeman Disposal.
However, the Long Beach facility could,— and very likely will — raise rates significantly
over the next 10 years.
The disadvantage of committing to the county landfill system is the added distance to the
Brea landfill, where Seal Beach's refuse would be transported. The added travel time adds
to costs.
However, given that tipping fees and travel time represent a relatively small portion —
about 30 % -35% -- of the total costs of refuse disposal, an analysis of the costs and savings
associated with the comparison indicates not much difference between transporting to a
county landfill vs. continuing to use the Long Beach facility. For this reason, the
countywide landfill agreement is a viable option for the city. As time passes, the frozen
rates at the county landfills would increase the benefits of the city's participation.
REFUSE FRANCHISE
Page - 4
SUMMARY: Staff believes Briggeman Disposal has developed a workable system for
achieving the state - mandated waste reduction goals, with no increase in cost to residential
ratepayers. The use of new technology, and the resultant gain in efficiency, makes it
possible. Extending the franchise in this situation enables the contractor to obtain more
attractive financing for the capital expenses that will be incurred as a result of the
technology shift. The City Council still has the ability to terminate the evergreen provision
at its prerogative.
The proposed changes to the refuse ordinance will be consistent with terms of the
franchise agreement, and will be largely updating and "housekeeping" in nature.
On the issue of the countywide landfill agreement, it appears at this point that Seal
Beach's participation may be.the preferred option. However, it would be advisable to
await the final terms of the agreement, which should be ready by the February 24 Council
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council consider the terms of the new franchise
agreement and recycling program and become familiar with the issues related to the
proposed countywide landfill agreement. If Council concludes the proposal warrants
further consideration, it would be appropriate to pass a motion setting the matter for
public hearing on February 24.
ATTACHMENT " F
Memorandum
February 24, 1997
TO: MA YOR FORSYTHE AND
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEITH TILL,
CITYMANAGER
SUBJECT: Old Town Recycling, refuse franchise agreement, refuse ordinance and
participation in countywide landfill agreement
SUMD4IARYOFREQUEST. That City Council give tentative approval to the Agreement
for Solid Waste Collection Services and to the Countywide Waste Disposal Agreement,
with formal approval to coincide with Second Reading of refuse ordinance; approve First
Reading of Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
At the February 10 City Council meeting, Briggeman Disposal presented a plan for
"semi- automated" refuse and recycling service specifically in Old Town. The plan
provides for standardized refuse containers that would mechanically lift the barrel up and
over into the large container on the truck.
The advantage to this system is that it provides a labor cost savings to the city's refuse
hauler, which in turn enables the city to expand recycling services without the contractor
raising residential rates beyond the cap previously set by City Council. Additionally, with
the new standardized containers, trash service can be provided effectively on a weekly
rather than semi - weekly basis. Twice a week service is very expensive option and is not
necessary, as evidenced by the recent conversion to weekly service in other areas of Seal
Beach and similar communities nationwide. Reducing the truck traffic on city streets also
provides a cost savings ih terms of repair and maintenance. Significant noise and air
pollution from the trucks is also reduced by as much as half.
The revised franchise agreement presented for Council's consideration provides the
following:
1.) Briggeman Disposal would provide the City a non - refundable performance deposit of
$50,000 upon signing of a new refuse franchise agreement providing for recycling in Old
Town.
AGENDA, ITEM P
REFUSE FRANCHISE
Page - 2
2.) Residential recycling would be implemented in Old Town with no rate increase to
customers, beyond those presented to Council in 1993, for a minimum of 18 months from
the effective date of the franchise. That is, the $12.75 per month residential rate presented
for Council approval in 1993 but never. implemented, would become the effective rate
April 1. The rate for multi- family residential would be $12.25 effective April 1. (The
rates actually implemented in 1993 and continuing to present are $12.25 for single- family
residential and $11.75 for multi- family.)
3.) Rate controls would be strengthened on behalf of the consumer by limiting any future
increases to at least 20% below the Consumer Price Index, computed annually.
4.) Free disposal services would be provided at City and school facilities in Seal Beach.
5.) Bulk item pick -up provisions would be enhanced.
6.) Performance compliance measures would be tightened.
7.) The City would assume control over where the solid waste is deposited (flow
control) -
8.) Responsibility for billing commercial accounts would be transferred from the city to
the contractor.
9.) The contractor would provide the City a $10,000 cash payment annually as an offset
to costs for compliance with AB939.
10.) A 15% discount would be provided to persons age 65 and over who meet federal
income guidelines for low- income heads of households.
In consideration of these service enhancements, Briggeman Disposal would be provided a
three -year extension on the term of the existing franchise agreement, and the agreement
would be converted to an "evergreen' basis. That is, at the end of each year the
agreement would be extended another year unless the city council takes specific action to
terminate the evergreen. In that case, the franchise would proceed toward expiration. It is
proposed that the evergreen term be set at seven years, which is just two years beyond the
five -year statutory requirement for.advance notification to terminate an open -ended
refuse franchise agreement.
Briggeman Disposal would also be allowed to phase -in commercial rate increases for
specific customer groups over a three -year period. It has been clearly demonstrated that
rates for larger commercial customers in Seal Beach are far below reasonable and
REFUSE FRANCHISE
Page - 3
customary charges for such services in Orange County. At the end of the phased -in rate
adjustments, rates will still remain lower than charges in comparable cities.
The maximum allowable rates for commercial accounts to the year 2000 would be as
shown in Exhibit B. Note that the largest increases would be for commercial accounts
with trash pick -up three to six times per week. The rate would not increase for once -a-
week service until April 1998, and the increase would be smaller than for those with
more service.
The hauler would also benefit from enforcement provisions for the exclusivity clause
pertaining to commercial construction bin service.
SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE
With the franchise agreement under consideration, it is timely to also review and revise
the solid waste ordinance as appropriate. Among the more significant revisions presented
is a requirement that trash containers be removed from curbside at the end of collection
day, along with citation authority for chronic failure to comply. The emphasis is on
chronic abuse of the system, which requires trash containers to be removed from public
view by 10 p.m. the day of collection. Enforcement of this provision would be in
response to resident complaints, and will not be proactive.
LANDFILL FLOW CONTROL
In addition to the local issues discussed above, the City Council needs to decide by
March 31 whether to participate in the proposed countywide landfill agreement. The
agreement would require a 10 -year commitment by the City to direct all solid waste to
one of the county -owned landfills. In return, rates would be frozen at $22 per ton and the
city would be provided the security of having a known landfill source under public
ownership for the next decade.
The $22 landfill tipping fee compares favorably to the $27.75 currently being charged at
the Long Beach waste to energy facility currently being used by Briggeman Disposal.
However, the Long Beach facility could — and very likely may — raise rates significantly
over the next 10 years.
REFUSE FRANCHISE
Page — 4
The disadvantage of committing to the county landfill system is the added distance to the
Brea landfill, where Seal Beach's refuse would be transported. The added travel time
adds to costs. However, the significant decrease in tipping fees offsets this cost. For this
reason, the countywide landfill agreement is a viable option for the city. As time passes,
the frozen rates at the county landfills would increase the benefits of the city's
participation.
SUMMARY: Staff believes Briggeman Disposal has developed a workable system for
achieving the state - mandated waste reduction goals, with no increase in cost to residential
ratepayers above the rates presented in 1993. The use of new technology, and the
resultant gain in efficiency, makes it possible. Extending the franchise in this situation
enables the contractor to obtain more attractive financing for the capital expenses that
will be incurred as a result of the technology shift. The City Council still has the ability to
terminate the evergreen provision at its prerogative.
The proposed changes to the refuse ordinance will be consistent with terms of the
franchise agreement, and will be largely updating and "housekeeping" in nature.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council hold a public hearing on the refuse franchise and
ordinance. At the conclusion of the hearing, it is recommended that Council approve the
ordinance on first reading; and give preliminary approval to the revised Agreement for
Solid Waste Collection Agreement and the Countywide Waste Disposal Agreement.
ATTACHMENT "K"
Memorandum
March 10, 1997
TO: MAYOR FORSYTHE AND
iMIEAMERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROAL• KEITH TILL,
CITYMANAGER
SUBJECT: Old Town Recycling, refuse franchise agreement, refuse ordinance
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That City Council approve Agreement for Solid Waste
Collection Services and Second Reading of Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
At the February 24 City Council meeting, Briggeman Disposal presented a plan for "semi -
automated" refuse and recycling service specifically in Old Town. The plan provides for
standardized refuse containers that would mechanically lift the barrel up and over into the
large container on the truck.
As part of a negotiated package, the revised refuse franchise agreement would include the
following:
1.) Briggeman Disposal would provide the City a non - refundable performance deposit of
$50,000 upon signing of a new refuse franchise agreement providing for recycling in Old
Town.
2.) Residential recycling would be implemented in Old Town with no rate increase to
customers, beyond those presented to Council in 1993, for a minimum of 18 months from
the effective date of the franchise. That is, the $12.75 per month residential rate presented
for Council approval in 1993 but never implemented, would become the effective rate
April 1. The rate for multi - family residential would be $12.25 effective April 1. (The rates
actually retained in 1993 and continuing to present are $12.25 for single - family residential
and $11.75 for multi - family.)
3.) Rate controls would be strengthened on behalf of the consumer by limiting any future
increases to at least 20% below the Consumer Price Index, computed annually.
AGENDA ITEM H
REFUSE FRANCHISE
Page - 2
4.) Free disposal services would be provided at City and school facilities in Seal Beach.
5.) Bulk item pick -up provisions would be enhanced.
6.) Performance compliance measures would be tightened.
7.) The City would assume control over where the solid waste is deposited (flow control).
8.) Responsibility for billing commercial accounts would be transferred from the city to
the contractor.
9.) The contractor would provide the City a $10,000 cash payment annually as an offset
to costs for compliance with AB939.
10.) A 15% discount would be provided to persons age 65 and over who meet federal
income guidelines for low - income heads of households.
In consideration of these service enhancements, Briggeman Disposal would be provided a
three -year extension on the term of the existing franchise agreement, and the agreement
would be converted to an "evergreen" basis. That is, at the end of each year the agreement
would be extended another year unless the city council takes specific action to terminate
the evergreen. In that case, the franchise would proceed toward expiration. It is proposed
that the evergreen term be set at seven years, which is just two years beyond the five -year
statutory requirement for advance notification to terminate an open -ended refuse franchise
agreement.
Briggeman Disposal would also be allowed to phase -in commercial rate increases for
specific customer groups over a three -year period. It has been clearly demonstrated that
rates for larger commercial customers in Seal Beach are far below reasonable and
customary charges for such services in Orange County. At the end of the phased -in rate
adjustments, rates will still remain lower than charges in comparable cities nearby.
The maximum allowable rates for commercial accounts to the year 2000 would be as
shown in Exhibit B. Note that the largest increases would be for commercial accounts
with trash pick -up three to six times per week. The rate would not increase for once -a-
week service until April 1998, and the increase would be smaller than for those with more
service.
The hauler would also benefit from enforcement provisions for the exclusivity clause
pertaining to commercial construction bin service.
REFUSE FRANCHISE
Page - 3
CONCERNS FROM COLLEGE PARK EAST
At the February 24 Council meeting, questions were raised about the desirability of
continuing with the existing waste collection and recycling program, in its present form,
which has been in place elsewhere in the City for approximately four years. Specifically, it
was suggested that smaller containers be used, at least in College Park East, to solve the
problem of residents permanently storing trash barrels in their front yard area.
A closer review of these complaints concluded that many households are, in fact, leaving
trash containers in the front yards or in other high visibility areas of the property.
However, no evidence has been found to show that there is a widespread problem fitting
them through the sideyard.gates. A survey of an entire section of CPE found only one
house where a gate had been re- constructed too narrow for a barrel to pass. It is more
likely a convenience factor, a desire to maximize sideyard space for other purposes, or
perhaps a combination of the two that leads large numbers of CPE residents to leave their
trash containers out in public view.
At the February 24 meeting, Mr. Briggeman offered to provide once a week -- as opposed
to every other week — recycling service in CPE and elsewhere, if the City Council so
desires. Before taking action on this matter, Council should consider the following:
Pros:
1.) Smaller containers are more easily maneuvered.
2.)They take up less space in sideyards (approx. 4 inches narrower)
3.)With a new ordinance requiring residents to store containers out of sight, makes
compliance easier for some.
4.) No more forgetting if it's recycling week or not.
Cons:
1.) Wear on City streets from additional truck traffic (three trips per week vs. two)
2.) Added noise and aesthetic issues.
3.) Possible difficulty squeezing cardboard boxes and other larger items in smaller
containers.
4.) Adding a full route is likely to lead to future rate increases.
REFUSE FRANCHISE
Page - 4
SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE
With the franchise agreement under consideration, it is timely to also review and revise the
solid waste ordinance as appropriate. Among the more significant revisions presented is a
requirement that trash containers be removed from curbside at the end of collection day,
along with citation authority for chronic failure to comply. The emphasis is on chronic
abuse of the system, which requires trash containers to be removed from public view by 10
p.m. the day of collection. Enforcement of this provision would be in response to resident
complaints, and will not be proactive.
SUMMARY: Staff believes Briggeman Disposal has developed a workable system for
achieving the state - mandated waste reduction goals, with no increase in cost to residential
ratepayers above the rates presented in 1993. The use of new technology, and the
resultant gain in efficiency, makes it possible. Extending the franchise in this situation
enables the contractor to obtain more attractive financing for the capital expenses that will
be incurred as a result of the technology shift. The City Council still has the ability to
terminate the evergreen provision at its prerogative.
The proposed changes to the refuse ordinance will be consistent with terms of the
franchise agreement, and will be largely updating and "housekeeping" in nature.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council hold a public hearing on the refuse franchise and
ordinance. At the conclusion of the hearing, it is recommended that Council approve the
ordinance on second reading; and approve the Agreement for Solid Waste Collection
Services, stipulating whether recycling will remain as -is or convert to a weekly service
citywide.
WHAT THE NEW REFUSE PROGRAM DOES IN OLD TOWN
1) Provides new, uniform trash containers, with wheels and lids.
2) Eliminates "hodgepodge" of containers.
3) Starts recycling in Old Town.
4) Changes to once -a -week collection in Old Town.
5) Keeps current system for apartments with bin service.
6) Customized collection for portions of Seal Way.
WHAT THE PROGRAM DOES ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY
(EXCLUSIVE OF LEISURE WORLD)
OPTION l: No Change - Trash Weekly
Greenwaste Weekly
Recycling Bi- Weekly
OPTION 2: One or two new 60- gallon recycling containers to be issued to
all residents requesting the smaller containers.
Recycling pick -up bi- weekly (no change).
OPTION 3: ' One New 60- gallon recycling container.
Recycling pick -up weekly.
RATES
1) $12.75 /month - Single Family Residential
$12.25 /month - Multi - Family Residential
(Same as recommended to Council in 1990)
2) Currently, 23 surveyed cities in Orange County are
higher; Seal Beach will remain below average of
$12.83 /month.
3) a. 3 -year phase -in of new commercial rates.
b. No change in 1 st year for weekly service.
c. Commercial rates will remain lower than Los
Alamitos, Cypress, Huntington Beach and
Fountain Valley.
4) Additional public comment at hearing in June.
REVENUES (COST - SAVINGS) FOR CITY
$30,000 in free collection services.
$15,000 additional franchise revenues.
$30,000 billing at pre- established rate.
$10,000 in cost - recovery for AB 939 compliance administration.
$85,000 - Total Recurring Revenues
$50,000 - One -Time Payment to City
$135,000 - Total for Year 1 (estimated by Finance Office)
ATTACHMENT "L"
MEMORANDUM
March 24, 1997
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM.- CITYMANAGER k�N
SUBJECT: REFUSE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That City Council pass a motion to approve changes to
the refuse franchise agreement consistent with policy direction provided at the March 10
public hearing.
BACKGROUND: At the March 10 public hearing, City Council agreed to a new refuse
franchise agreement and directed the city attorney to draft specific language
implementing new terms and conditions. These changes relate generally to the following:
1.) Recycling changes from bi- weekly to weekly.
2.) Residents can use either the 60 gallon or 90 gallon containers.
3.) Old Town residents can opt out of the semi - automated system and use their own,
non - automated containers upon written request
Additionally, it has been requested that any future decisions regarding selection of a
landfill be made by City Council. Also, termination of the contract for failure to perform
would be made by the City Council. This change has been incorporated into the
agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council pass a motion approving the refuse
franchise agreement as amended.
Agenda Item E
one blue 60 gallon container for recyclables
residential household which is not receiving
service. Certain portions of the "Old Town"
will not receive automated containers due to
Contractor will.provide to the City a list o
September 1 of each year.
to each multi - family
commercial bin
portion of the City
inaccessibility.
E such areas on
Any residential service customer may request in
writing to be excluded from the recycling program. Anv
Gen-traet r shall', provide: additional 60 or 90 gallon containers
for solid waste at the rate of $5.00 per month, per container; up
to two (2) additional containers for Recyclable Material without
additional charge; Land/orl containers of a smaller size then set
forth herein. I
Repairs to containers `,shall he the
replacement of wheels, lids, hinges, axles
be the responsibility of the Contractor}.
3.7.3. Frequency of Collection - Residential
Premises. Contractor shall collect all residential solid waste
on a regular schedule which will specify the day during which
collection will occur in City. `T-he sehedule `-3F eelleetien -F`
JA111 residential solid waste \,szall be submitted -lly to
was€e'711 recyclablesl and green waste shall be collected once
each week, on the same day during each week, within two hours of
the specified time, except as otherwise provided herein.
ef eiEeept that l hl es nl d Trew.. shall talee
rlae - ei-y week, the saffie Jay e€ the week within fire hags
e€ the - speeifled -tife.', Not later than November 30 of each year,
commencing in 1997, Contractor shall submit to City {Manager its
proposed collection schedule for the ensuing calendar year. LThe
schedule is subject to the City Manager's aDvroval.l The
schedule shall indicate all regularly scheduled collection days
which fall on a holiday and the collection day which is proposed
to be substituted therefor so as to ensure that collection shall
take place once each week. Contractor shall mail a written
notice to all customers of such schedule not later than December
31 of each year.
3.7.4. Residential -Carrvout Services. The
Contractor shall provide carry -out services for those individuals
who are unable to place their solid waste and recyclables for
collection in the usual manner due to severe physical handicap.
The Contractor shall not receive special payment for this
service.
970318'S7296-00333 qmb 1093457.9 (1) - 8 -
(c) Nothing contained herein shall be
deemed to affect the commercial /industrial exclusions set forth
in Section 10 -6.3 of Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code.
3.8.4. City Facilities. Contractor shall
collect and dispose of all solid waste and recyclables from all
City facilities and public parks. Contractor shall also collect
and dispose of all street sweepings on an on -call basis, from a
location designated by City. Both of these services shall be
provided at Contractor's expense, with no charge to the City.
3.9. Special Events
Upon request, the Contractor shall provide solid waste
and recyclables collection to special events conducted by the
City, at Contractor's expense, with no charge to the City.
3.10. Solid Waste Disposal.
1.10.1. Contractor shall dispose of all
collected solid waste at Contractor's expense and in accordance
with all state, federal and local laws and regulations. In
accordance with and subject to the provisions of Article IV
hereof, the cost of disposal will be included in the rates
charged by Contractor hereunder. City may require Contractor to
dispose of all solid waste collected in City at a site designated
by the City `
--r�, {Council . If City exercises its right to
require disposal at a designated site, rates will be subject to
immediate adjustment pursuant to Article IV.
3.10.2. Contractor shall deposit all municipal
solid waste collected in the City at landfills which have been
properly permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
which are classified as Class 3 landfills (landfills designated
to receive only municipal solid waste), and which are not on or
being considered for inclusion on a state or federal Superfund
list. Alternatively, Contractor may deposit the municipal solid
waste collected in the City at transfer stations, waste to energy
facilities or resource recovery facilities which have been
properly permitted and which are not on or being considered for
inclusion on a state or federal Superfund list. Contractor shall
have an affirmative duty to, annually or, if reasonably
warranted, more frequently, obtain copies of permits issued for
all disposal facilities at which it disposes of City's waste,
inspect all such facilities, and check with regulatory agencies
to ascertain the fitness of such facilities to accept waste,
including whether such facility is on a state or federal
Superfund list, or is being considered for inclusion on such a
list. Failure to conduct such due diligence, or disposal of
municipal solid waste collected in the City in violation of this
Section 3.10.2, to the extent it causes liability or damage to
City, shall trigger Contractor's obligation to indemnify City
970318 S7296 -00333 qmb 1093457.9 (1) - 11 -
Response Providers, and, if appropriate, the National Response
Center, of reportable quantities of hazardous waste, found or
observed by Contractor anywhere within City, including on, in,
under or about City property, City easements, City rights of way
and City waste containers. In addition to other required
notifications, if Contractor observes any substances which it or
its employees reasonably believe or suspect to contain hazardous
wastes unlawfully disposed of or released on City property,
streets in the City, storm drains, or public rights of way,
Contractor also will immediately notify the City Manager and the
TW :� oran e County Fire �nr^}__t;_n Disti- eta
{Authority). Notwithstanding the above, Contractor has no
obligation to collect hazardous waste pursuant to this Agreement.
Contractor shall provide written information regarding
household and other hazardous waste to all customers upon
initially beginning service and on a yearly basis thereafter.
This information shall specify what types of waste may and may
not be disposed of through routine collection procedures, the
availability of household hazardous waste collection programs,
the tagging procedure if hazardous waste is found in the
customer's deposited waste, and other pertinent information.
Examples of household hazardous waste include, but are not
limited to, used motor oil, oil -based paint, paint thinner,
automotive products and aerosol containers.
Contractor shall conduct yearly training programs for
its waste collection employees to instruct them in determining
what is hazardous waste, to advise them to be aware of and
locate, if possible, hazardous waste items when undertaking their
collection wastes in the City, to follow proper procedures by
tagging hazardous waste items as "hazardous - special handling
required" and to advise customers of the various legal
alternatives for disposal. Contractor shall keep a record of all
customers who have received a tag for depositing hazardous waste
items.
Contractor shall not be required to filter through and
thoroughly inspect the solid waste disposed of in trash cans or
trash bins by the City's residents and commercial establishments
in order to ensure it does not contain any hazardous waste.
Contractor, however, shall take all reasonable steps to avoid
collecting hazardous waste and shall refuse to collect and
dispose of any such waste of which it becomes aware.
3.18. Ownership of Solid waste and Recvclables.
Ownership and the right to possession of solid waste, green waste
and recyclables placed in containers or bundles for collection at
the usual place of collection, transfer directly from the
resident to Contractor, by Municipal Code Section 10 -7.7 and by
Public Resources Code Sections 41950 and 41951. Contractor shall
notify all service recipients, in a manner acceptable to the City
Manager, of the provisions of Public Resources Code
Sections 41950(c) and 41951, as well as Municipal Code Section
970318 57296 -00333 qmb 1093457.9 (1) - 18 -
response within a'shorter period of time, Contractor shall
correct the deficiencies to the satisfaction of the City Manager
and respond to the written Notification of Deficiencies within
thirty (30) days from the effective date of the Notice pursuant
to Section 1.2.3. Contractor may request additional time to
correct deficiencies; City shall not unreasonably deny any such
request.
5.2.2. Review by City Manager: Notice of Appeal.
(a) The City Manager shall review any
written response from Contractor and decide the matter {or refer
5.2.3 . If the City Manager's decision is adverse to Contractor,
the City Manager may order remedial actions to cure any
deficiencies, or invoke any other remedy in accordance with this
Agreement and, in the event the City Manager determines that
there has been a material breach and that termination is the
appropriate remedy, terminate the Agreement. The City Manager
shall promptly inform Contractor of the City Manager's decision.
In the event the decision is adverse to Contractor, the City
Manager shall inform Contractor, in writing, of the specific
facts found and evidence relied on, and legal basis in provisions
of the Agreement or other laws for the City Manager's decision
-and any remedial action taken or ordered. An adverse decision by
the City Manager shall be final and binding on Contractor unless
Contractor files a "Notice of Appeal" with the City Clerk (with
copies to the City Manager and City Attorney) within 30 days of
receipt of the notification of the adverse decision by the City
Manager.
(b) In any "Notice of Appeal" to the City
Council} Contractor shall state all its actual contentions and
include any relevant affidavits, documents, photographs and
videotapes which Contractor may choose to submit. In addition,
Contractor shall include all its legal contentions, citing
provisions of the Agreement or other laws to support its
contentions.
5.2.3. City Council Hearing. If a matter is
referred by the City Manager to the City Council, or an adverse
decision of the City Manager is appealed to the City Council by
Contractor, the City Council will set the matter for �
Lal hearing and act on the matter, or refer the
matter to a arbitrator as provided in Section 5.3. If the City
Council elects to hear the matter, the City Clerk shall give
Contractor thirty (30) days written notice of the time and place
of the hearing. At the hearing, the City
Council shall consider the administrative record, including the
following:
(a) A Staff Report by the City Manager,
summarizing the proceedings to date and outlining the City
Council's options;
970318 S7296 -00333 qmb 1093457.9 (1) - 28 -
ATTACHMENT "9W
Briggeman Disposal Services, Inc. ( "Briggeman ") collects refuse from residences and
commercial properties within the City. The rates charged by Briggeman are subject to
approval by the City. The current monthly rates for single family residences ($12.25) and
multi - fanny residences ($11.75) have not increased since 1990. Commercial refuse
collection charges currently range from $101 to $201, based on the number of pick -ups each
week. Briggeman is proposing to charge the rates set forth below, effective April 1, 1997.
The basis for the proposed rate is the rising costs of refuse collection and the desire to
recover such costs by the service provider. The reason for the collection of charges by the
City is to meet its contractual obligations to Briggeman.
A public hearing has been scheduled for 7 p.m., June 9, 1997 at City Hall, 211 8th
St., Seal Beach so that you may provide comments concerning the following proposed
maximum rates:
Single Family Residential:
$12.75 per residential unit
Multiple Family Residential:
$12.25 per residential unit
Commercial
Maximum Rate
(April 1, 1997 - March 31, 1998)
Pick ups /wk 1
2
3 4
5
6
2 cub yrd 67.50
104.65
127.58 150.50
174.73
202.34
3 cub yrd 101.00
157.30
190.35 225.40
262.45
303.51
4 cub yrd 134.00
209.30
253.80 300.30
350.18
404.68
Maximum Rate (April 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999)
Pick ups 1
2
3 4
5
6
2 cub yrd 75.88
120.12
150.51 191.51
209.79
253.75
3 cub yrd 106.05
160.17
205.25 250.19
299.19
349.04
4 cub yrd 141.23
214.77
257.28 302.98
369.84
422.37
Maximum Rate (April 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000)
Pick ups 1
2
3 4
5
6
2 cub yrd 84.25
135.58
173.45 233.00
244.85
305.15
3 cub yrd 111.10
163.03
220.15 274.99
335.94
394.56
4 cub yrd 147.95
220.23
260.75 305.65
389.50
440.05
Pull -out Service
Subterranean Garage
$15.00 per container per
pick up
Long Distance Pull -out
25 - 50 feet
$ 1.50 per container per
pick up
51 - 200 feet
$ 2.50 per container per
pick up
over 200 feet
$ 3.50 per container per
pick up
Roll -off Containers
40 cub yrd roll -off container $ 365.00 per load with 6 ton limit
12 cub yrd low side roll -off (concrete & dirt) $ 410.00 per load with 10 ton limit
$ 35.00 per each ton over limit
All of the above residential and commercial rates are subject to an annual increase,
commencing October 1, 1998, of up to 80% of the percentage increase in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers in the Los Angeles - Anaheim- Riverside area.
Such annual increase shall not exceed 5% in any one year.
970227 57296-00001 rdw /Ij 1101719 1
ATTACHMENT "N"
Q
C/S
W
�
O
�
2
�
�
W
O
Q
�
3
0
�
Con
a
03
ct
°
o
ct
c°
E
o
W
c°
o
O
3
�?
ct
un
cc
U
W
F-
z
x
w
w
O
Q
W
x
Q
i
0
3
LL]
w
w
0
U
w
U U
3`zZ
3 �
cn N
ca
N
bhp
U
L
SA
z
0
H
a
0
0
a�
a�
0
a�
cz
0
U
U
U
U
0
ct
0
O
3
s�
O
U
RA
N
z
C
C
a�
O
U
a)
bA
s..
V)
N
5-.
r�
U
0
N
3
Q.
1
U
U
U
U
ct
0
U
U
0
ct
O
N
C."
N
c�
z
0
0
3
I
bhp
U
U
U
A
RATES
1) $12.75 /month - Single Family Residential
$12.25 /month - Multi- Family Residential
(Same as recommended to Council in 1990)
2) Currently 23 surveyed cities in Orange County are
higher; Seal Beach will remain below average of
$12.83 /month.
3) a. 3 -year phase -in of new commercial rates.
b. No change in 1st year for weekly service.
c. Commercial rates will remain lower than Los
Alamitos, Cypress, Huntington Beach and
Fountain Valley.
4) Additional public comment at hearing in June.
W.
Em
0
c
O
�
�
z
N
+t
CA
0
t4
er
cn
4
•�
C/)
aj
ct
zt
a4
i
ct
.�
C)
C)
0
O
C)
C)
o
kn
o
n
n
yin
°
M
,--
M
--
00
lf)
M
64
69
EA
69
5A
6R
r"
W.
Em
NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL HAVE
RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING:
1. BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL WOULD PROVIDE THE CITY A
NON - REFUNDABLE CASH DEPOSIT OF $50,000 UPON
SIGNING OF A NEW REFUSE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
PROVIDING FOR RECYCLING IN OLD TOWN.
2. RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED
IN OLD TOWN WITH NO RATE INCREASE TO
CUSTOMERS BEYOND THOSE PRESENTED TO
COUNCIL IN 1993, BUT NEVER IMPLEMENTED.
NEW RATES - 4/1/97
$12.75/MO - RESIDENTIAL
$12.251MO - MULTI - FAMILY
EXISTING RATES
$12.25/MO
$11.75/MO
3. RATE CONTROLS WOULD BE STRENGTHENED ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER BY LIMITING ANY
FUTURE INCREASES TO AT LEAST 20% BELOW THE
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX ANNUALLY.
4. FREE DISPOSAL SERVICES WOULD BE PROVIDED AT
CITY AND SCHOOL FACILITIES IN SEAL BEACH.
5. BULK ITEM PICK -UP PROVISIONS WOULD BE
ENHANCED.
6. PERFORMANCE COMPLIANCE MEASURES WOULD BE
TIGHTENED.
7. THE CITY WOULD ASSUME CONTROL OVER WHERE
THE SOLID WASTE IS DEPOSITED (FLOW CONTROL).
8. RESPONSIBILITY FOR BILLING COMMERCIAL
ACCOUNTS WOULD BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE
CITY TO THE CONTRACTOR.
9. THERE WOULD BE A DISCOUNT FOR SENIOR
CITIZENS.
IN CONSIDERATION OF THESE SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS,
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL WOULD BE PROVIDED A
THREE -YEAR EXTENSION ON THE TERM OF THE EXISTING
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT% AND THE AGREEMENT WOULD
BE CONVERTED TO AN "EVERGREEN" BASIS
THE HAULER WOULD ALSO BENEFIT FROM ENFORCE-
MENT FOR THE EXCLUSIVITY CLAUSE PERTAINING TO
COMMERCIAL BIN SERVICE.
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL WOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED TO
PHASE IN COMMERCIAL RATE INCREASES FOR SPECIFIC
CUSTOMER GROUPS OVER A THREE -YEAR PERIOD.
ATTACHMENT "0"
I
City Rate Comparison
Placentia
Huntington Beach
Fountain Valley
Villa Park
Garden Grove
Costa M esa
Anaheim
Brea
Yorba Linda
Fullerton
Aliso Viejo ,
Stanton
Los Alamitos
Santa Ana
La Habra
Laguna Beach '
Laguna Niguel
Cypress
Seal Beach
Rancho Santa M argarita
San Juan Capistrano
$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 $20
ATTACHMENT "P"
JULY 2003 RATE SUMMARY RESIDENTIAL HAULER
20-AUg03
ALISO VIEJO
CRSR I SO-AG DISPOSAL
ANAHEIM
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
BREA
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
BUENA PARK
PARK DISPOSAL
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA SAN DIST
CYPRESS
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL
DANA POINT
CRSR I SOLAG DISPOSAL
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
RAINBOW DISPOSAL
FULLERTON
-M GDISPOSAL
GARDEN GROVE
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
HUNTINGTON BEACH
RAINBOW DISPOSAL
IRVINE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
LAGUNA BEACH
WASTE MANAGEMENT
LAGUNA HILLS
CRSR I SOLAG DISPOSAL
LAGUNA NIGUEL
CRSR I SOLAG DISPOSAL
LA HARBA
WASTE MANAGEMENT
LASE FOREST
WASTE MANAGEMENT
LAPAUMA
PARK DISPOSAL
LOS ALAMITOS
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL
MISSION VIEJO
WASTE MANAGEMENT
NEWPORT BEACH
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ORANGE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLACENTIA
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES,
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
WASTE MANAGEMENT
SAN CLEMENTE
CRSR I S0LAG DISPOSAL
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
CR6R I SGUD DISPOSAL
SANTAANA
WASTE MANAGEMENT
SEAL BEACH
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL
STANTON
CRAR I SOLAG OISPOBPL
'TUSTIN
FEDERIAL DISPOSAL
VILLA PARK
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
WESTMISTER
MIDWAY CITY SAN DIST
YCRBAUNDA
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
RESIDENTIAL RATE DATE OF LAST Cay.w
TTPE OF COLLECTION
a AND SIZE OF BARRELS
LANDFILL [I S22 Be
RATE CHANGE
T r
COMPOSTING
FOR TRASH COLLECTION
51520
07101103
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE - EO GAL BARREL
51600
WHIM
M15 Ye
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
51553
00101103
LG20Yn
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE - LOO GAL BARREL
$1251
92101102
ER IO Yr
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
31614
O1NIN3
bG 6 Y
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
S13&
09M1N3
EG 20 Yn
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE -I IS GAL BARREL HtW Elw4
51224
0701X3
lace
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE. WGAL BARREL
51666
07XIX3
M12 Ye
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
$1531
07OIM
2003
MANUALCOLLECTION
RESIDENTIAL - UNLIMITED
$1645
05O1OJ
2514
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$1744
0)10103
EU 15 Yn
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
SIDES
07X102
2007
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$1399
07X103
2005
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
51212
07101X3
20ce
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE- 60GALBARREL
513W
WO1O]
GO IY.
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE -SO GAL BARREL
51414
OTO1O3
EG 6Y.
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE - LOO GAL BARREL
$1195
0501X3
2003
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
ma $1265
OIDOIM
2 Oo
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
SM 35
OL ,03
209
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$1176
OVOUO3
lace
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE -00GAL BARREL
1. 00m
51e G—lil F.M
wA
MANUALCOLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
ln� 51064
01101103
2002
FULLY AURT ATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
51532
02101103
EG20Yn
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
51307
070103
2005
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$1292
07X1/03
2002
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE- WGALBARREL
$1307
0101X3
2007
FULLY ALIFOMATED
ONE- W0 BARREL
S14 27
07X103
20ce
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
513&
07101103
EJO TYn
FULLYAUIWATED
ME 100 GAL BARREL
$1448
9710103
EG 2Yn
FULLYAUTOMATED
WE 100 GAL BARREL
$1295
01X103
tam
FULLYAUTOMATED
ME 100 GAL BARREL
$1647
011O103
FA'i20Ye
FULLY AUTOMATED
ME 100 GAL BARREL
5675 Deed B111N Y Prapely vs
wA
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$1545
000103
EG20Yn
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -IN GAL BARREL
CHARGE FOR 2ND CAN
TYPE OF RECYCLING A
RESIDENTIAL
a AND SIZE OF BARRELS
TRASH- 'GREEN'
FORM OF PROCESSING
COMPOSTING
FOR COMPOST COLLECTION
$11 DO
ST 39
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
' CITY WIDE
ONE - 100 GAL BARREL
S6 OO
S4 50
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
' CITY WIDE'
ONE - 100 GAL BARREL
N/A
N/A
'DIRTY MRF- OF ALL TRASH
° NONE "
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
NIA
WA
'DIRTY MRF' OF ALLTRASH
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
SSW
N/A
LOO GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
5500
WA
W GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
"NONE ••
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
NIA
WA
'DIRTY MRF'OF ALLTRASH
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
NIA
NIA
'DIRTY MRF S YARD WASTE P/U
'CITYWIDE'
RESIDENT CANS - UNLIMITED
$T 55
5525
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
WA
WA
'DIRTY MRF- OF AL-TRASH
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
5240
$000
100 GAIL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$240
$000
100 GAL BARREL/ CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$226
$129
00 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - SO GAL BARREL
5333
WA
60 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
RESIDENT CARS - UNLIMITED
5000
NIA
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
" I'll •'
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
WA
5200
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - LOO GAL BARREL
WA
WA
-DIRTY MRF OF ML TRASH -
- NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
$1500
5000
100 GAL BARREL/ CLEAN MRF
CITY MME'
ONE- 65GA BARREL
$200
N/A
34 GAL BASKET I CIEMI MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -32 GAL BASKET
WA
MA
'DIRTY MRF OF ALL TRASH
-- NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
$240
SOW
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITY MOE'
ONE -1OO GAL BARREL
5571
$350
I DO GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$334
N/A
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
RESIDENT CARS - UNLIMITED
$345
WA
FX GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
5332
5332
60 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -60 GAL BARREL
$200
$0 DO
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
5500
SOW
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'VERY LIMITED'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$1252
WA
'DIRTY MRF- OF ALL TRASH
°NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
5000
5000
100 GAL BARREL /CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$635
$345
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$700
N/A
100 GAL BARREL I CLAM MRF
'• NONE "
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
S5I510
905
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
CITY WIDE
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
city'
Orange
Irvine
Mission Viejo
Lake Forest
Laguna Hills
Dana Point
La Palma
Buena Park
Tustin
San Clemente
Rancho Santa Margarita
San Juan Capistrano
Cypress
Seal Beach
Laguna Niguel
Laguna Beach
La Hama
Santa Ana
Los Alamitos
Stanton
AhSo i'fgo
Fullerton
Ydroa Lin6a
Brea
Ananeem
Costa Mesa
Garden Grove
Villa Park
Fcuntafn 'Valley
Huntington Beach
Piw.entra
Rate
10.64
10.66
11.76
11.95
12.12
12.24
12.6
12.81
12.95
12.97
13.07
13.07
13.84
13.84
13.50
13.99
14.14
14.27
14.35
14.48
15.2`0'
15.31
15.45
15.53
it3.LS
16.14
10. io
16.47
16.66
17.44
f8-32
MOM
ATTACHMENT "Q"
ORANGE COUNTY
Solid Waste Collection Rate Survey
TOTAL MONTHLY RATES IN EFFECT AS OF SEPTEMBER 1995
Sorted From Lowest to Highest
Revised Draft
January 12,1996
Residential,;,,
Rank City Total Monthly Rate
Commercial, Bin, One Pickup Per Week)
Rank City Total'Monthly Rate
1
Irvine
$10.56
1
Mission Viejo
$57.20
2
Orange
$11.48
2
Santa Ana
$73.57
3
Laguna Beach
$11.67
3
Orange
$74.50
4
Tustin
$12.25
4
Westminster
$77.00
5
Westminster
$12.50
5
Laguna Ni uel
$83.31
6
Los Alamitos
$12.56
6
San Juan Capistrano
$84.92
7
Buena Park
$12.75
7
Irvine
$86.00
8
Seal Beach
$12.75
8
Dana Point
$86.53
9
Mission Viejo
$13.29
9
Lake Forest
$89.70
'10
Brea
$13.42
10
Laguna Hills
$90.56
11
Fullerton
$13.45
11
Tustin
$93.35
12
Costa Mesa
$13.56
12
San Clemente
$97.48
13
Cypress
$13.93
13
Villa Park
$97.48
14
Laguna Niguel
$14.31
14
Los Alamitos
$99.93
15
Placentia
$14.36
15
Garden Grove
$100.30
16
San Clemente
$14.42
16
Laguna Beach
$101.00
17
La Habra
$14.47
17
Seal Beach
$101.00
18
Dana Point
$14.48
18
Placentia
$101.30
19
Santa Ana
$14.99
19
La Palma
$101.90
20
Anaheim
$15.06
20
Brea
$102.32
21
Lake Forest
$15.09
21
Yorba Linda
$104.38
22
Garden Grove
$15.20
22
Stanton
$108.36
23
La Palma
$15.35
23
Huntington Beach
$110.27
24
Stanton
$15.55
24
Anaheim
$111.34
25
Villa Park
$15.60
25
Fullerton
$113.60
26
Laguna Hills
$15.84
26
Cypress
$127.00
27
Fountain Valley
$16.46
n/a
Buena Park
Not Reported
28
Yorba Linda
$16.53
n/a
Fountain Valley
Not Reported
29
Huntington Beach
$16.55
n/a
La Habra
Not Reported
30
San Juan Capistrano
$17.00
n/a
Costa Mesa
O en Com etition
n/a
Newport Beach
n/a
n/a
Newport Beach
Open Competition
-t -
ATTACHMENT "R
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE RATE SURVEY - 2/97
RESIDENTIAL
RECYCLING SYSTEM
-
CUSTOMER
Co- mingled
Co- mingled
CITY
HAULER
WASTE RATE
MRF
2 Containers
3 Container
Other
Billing
Brea
CVT
Brea Disp.
$13.81
X
City
Buena Park
Park
Disposal
$11.79
X
City
Cypress
Briggeman
Disposal
$13.02
X
City
Dana Point
Solag
Voluntary
Disposal
$13.10
X
green waste
Hauler
Fountain Valley
Rainbow
Disposal
$16.00
X
City
Fullerton
MG Disposal
$12.90
X
City
Garden Grove
Taormina
(GG San Dist.)
GG Disposal
$14.35
-
X
District
Huntington Beach
Rainbow
Disposal
$16.55
X
City
Irvine
Waste
3 basket
on prop,
Management
$9.94
program
tax
Laguna Beach
Waste
3 basket
on prop.
Management
$11.00
program
tax
Laguna Hills
Solag
Disposal
$12.00
X
Hauler
Lake Forest
Waste
Management
$11.00
X
Hauler
La Palma
Park
Disposal
$11.26
X
City
Los Alamitos
Briggeman
Disposal
$12.56
X
City
Mission
Waste
Viejo
Management
$12.65
X
Hauler
Placentia
Taormina
Placentia
Disposal
$13.96
X
City
Santa Ana
Waste
Management
$14.02
X
City
Seal Beach
Briggeman
Disposal
$12.25
X
City
Averages
18 cities
$13.66
ATTACHMENT "S"
CITY
Anaheim
Brea
Buena Park
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Dana Point
Fountain Vly
Fullerton
Garden Grove
SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE SURVEY - ORANGE COUNTY
HOW WAS CURRENT
CONTRACT DETERMINED:
TYPE OF NO. OF RENEGOTIATED
FRANCHISE YEARS OR BID NOTES
Evergreen
Evergreen
Terminated
Evergreen
n /a*
Fixed
Evergreen
Evergreen
Evergreen
Evergreen
Huntington Bch Evergreen
Irvine
Terminated
Renegotiated
Evergreen
Laguna Beach
Evergreen
Laguna Hills
Terminated
Renegotiated
Evergreen
Laguna Niguel
Evergreen
Lake Forest
Terminated
Renegotiated
Evergreen
La Habra
Fixed
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Newport Beach
Orange
Placentia
San Juan Cap
San Clemente
Santa Ana
Seal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
Villa Park
Westminster
Yorba Linda
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
n /a*
Evergreen
Evergreen
Evergreen
Evergreen
Fixed
Fixed
Evergreen
Fixed
Evergreen
Terminated
Evergreen
Evergreen
15 yrs. Renegotiated
10 yrs. Renegotiated
10 yrs. Renegotiated
20 yrs. Renegotiated
5 yrs. Renegotiated
15
yrs.
Renegotiated
7
yrs.
Renegotiated
7_yrs.
Renegotiated
15
yrs.
Renegotiated
5
yrs.
Renegotiated
10
yrs.
Renegotiated
5
yrs.
County
negotiated
5
yrs.
Renegotiated
5
yrs.
County
negotiated
1
yr.
Renegotiated
10 yrs
7 yrs
5 yrs
5 yrs.
20 yrs.
5 yrs.
5 yrs.
5 yrs.
13 yrs.
7 yrs.
12 yrs.
20 yrs.
5 yrs.
20 yrs
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
Bid
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
Bid
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
Renegotiated
8 yrs. remaining
Operated /hauled
by C.M.San. Dist.
Council direction
terminate 4/96
Operated by G.G.
San. Dist, GGSD
agrmt w /GG Disp
Bidding 1999
Bidding 1996
Bidding 1996
Annual roll -over
from 1985 agreemt
Collected
by City
Bidding 2000
Midway City
San. Dist.
SUMMARY - Number of franchises by type and number of years:
Evergreen: 20 yr. -3, 15 yr. -3, 10 yr. -2, 7 yr. -3, 5 yr. -5
Terminated Evergreen: 10 yr. -1, 5 yr. -5
Fixed: 1 each: 20 yr., 13 yr., 12 yr., 10 yr., 7 yr., 5 yr., 1 yr.
* Other: No franchise - Newport Beach hauled by City, Costa Mesa hauled
by Costa Mesa Sanitation District
ATTACHMENT "T"
JULY 2003 RATE SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL HAULER
RESIDENTIAL RATE DATE OF LAST CmaM
TYPE OF COLLECTION
# AND SIZE OF BARRELS
CHARGE FOR 2ND CAN
TYPE OF RECYCLING 6
RESIDENTIAL
0 AND SIZE OF BARRELS
20-AUy 03
LANDFILL @52200
RATE CHANGE
Tm
FOR TRASH COLLECTION
'TRASH' 'GREEN'
FORM OF PROCESSHG
COMPOSTING
FOR COMPOST COLLECTION.
ALISO VIEJO
CHAR I SOLAG DISPOSAL
51520
07101103
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -60 GAL BARREL
ANAHEIM
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
$1603
07/0103
HG 15 Yn
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE 100 GAL BARREL
$1136
5139
IN GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE- 109GALBARREL
BREA
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
S15 53
07101103
F02G YO
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE IGO GAL BARREL
$6 DO
$4 S0
100 GAL BARREL' CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE
ONE- IOOGALBARREL
BUENA PARK
PARK DISPOSAL
$1281
070102
CG 1G Yt
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE UNLIMITED
NIA
NIA
-DIRTY MRF' OF ALLTRASH
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
COSTA MESA
COSTA MESA SAN DIST
51614
OVUM
FIG Gym
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
NIA
N/A
-DIRTY MRF OF ALLTRASH
"NONE—
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
CYPRESS
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL
51381
090103
EVc.I
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE - 110 GAL BARREL racy Owl,
SON
NIA
109 GAL BARREL CLEAN MRF
'• NONE —
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
DANA POINT
CRBR I $01-AG DISPOSAL
$1224
07MIM3
2008
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -60 GAL BARREL
$5 DO
NIA
60 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
•- NONE '•
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
RAINBOW DISPOSAL
51666
070103
mNYn
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
NIA
N/A
-DIRTY MRF -OF ALLTRASH
'• NINE "
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
FULLERTON
.M G DISPOSAL
$1531
07MVE3
20J9
MANUAL COLLECTION
RESIDENTIAL - UNLIMITED
WA
NIA
'DIRTY MRF- B YARD WASTE P/U
'CITYWIDE'
RESIDENT CANE - UNLIMITED
GARDEN GROVE
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
$1645
050103
204
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
$7W
$525
IN GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
•CITY WIDE '
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
HUNTINGTON BEACH
RAINBOW DISPOSAL
$17M
070103
Fh; is Yn
MANUALCOUIECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
NIA
NIA
-DIRTY MRF' OF ALL TRASH
— NONE •'
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
IRVINE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
$1066
07AM2
2001
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE- 100GALBARREL
$240
$0 GO
IDOGALBARRELICLEANMRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
LAGUNA BEACH
WASTE MANAGEMENT
$1399
070102
20M
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
5240
$000
IN GAL BARREL I CYAN MRF
CITY WIDE
ONE - LOO GAL BARREL
LAGUNA HILLS
CRBR /SOLAG DISPOSAL
51212
07A1O3
2m6
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE - GO GAL BARREL
$226
$129
60 GAL BARREL /CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - GO GAL BARREL
LAGUNA NIGUEL
CRSS I SCL4G DISPOSAL
51390
0701/03
HG Y.
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE- 60GALBARREL
$333
NIA
60 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
RESIDENT CANS - UNLIMITED
LA HANSA
WASTE MANAGEMENT
$1114
OTAMAM
.m Y.
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE - IOC GAL BARREL
SOW
NIA
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
LAKE FOREST
WASTE MANAGEMENT
$1195
090103
2009
MANUALCOLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
WA
5200
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - IOC GAL BARREL
UPRIMA
PARK DISPOSAL
ma $1265
07OIO3
2Wa
MANUAL COLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
NIA
NIA
- DIRTYMRFOFALLTRASH -
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
LOS ALAMITOS
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL
$1435
020103
tam
FULYAUTOMATEO
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
$1500
$000
WO GAL OARRELI CLEAN MRF
CITY WIDE
ONE - 68GALBARREL
MISSION VIEJO
WASTE MANAGEMENT
SIT 76
010103
2.
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE - 60GALBA2REL
5200
WA
24 GAL BASKET I CLEAN MRF
CITY WIDE
ONE -32 GAL BASKET
NEWPORT BEACH
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ir Iran
8la Ga al FUN
wA
MANUALCOLLECTION
NONE - UNLIMITED
N/A
NIA
-DIRTY MRF' OF ALL TRASH
"NONE °
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
ORANGE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
1vw $1064
010103
MI9
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -107 GAL BARREL
W40
SO OJ
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
PLACENTIA
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
51832
07MUM3
HG 2G Yn
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE - 100GALBAFEL
5571
$307
16G GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRK
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA WASTE MANAGEMENT
$1307
070103
Zoos
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$334
WA
IN GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
CITY WIDE
RESIDENT CANS - UNLIMITED
SAN CLEMENTE
CRBR I SOLAG DISPOSAL
$1297
070103
tom
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE - GGGALBARREL
5345
N/A
GO GAL BARREL /CLEAN MRF
"NONE"
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
CRBR I SOLID DISPOSAL
$1307
010103
tom
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -60 GAL BARREL
$332
5332
GO GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE -GO GAL BARREL
SANTAANA
WASTE MANAGEMENT
$1427
070103
2009
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE- 1DOGALBARREL
$2 GO
$O GO
IN GAL BARREL] CLEAN MRF
CITY WIDE
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
SEAL BEACH
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL
51361
07OM
E/G 7Ya
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
SBW
$000
107 GAL BARREL /CLEAN MRF
'VERY LIMITED'
ONE - IOC GAL BARREL
STANTON
CRBR I SOLAG DISPOSAL
$1448
070103
ElG 7Ya
FULLYAUTOMATED
ONE - TOO GAL BARREL,
$1257
WA
-DIRTY MRF OF ALL TRASH
^NONE• -
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
TUSTIN
FEOERIAL DISPOSAL
$1295
07RUM
2071
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE -100 GAL BARREL
$ON
$000
IN GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
VILLA PARK
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
$1647
0710103
6G ID Y.
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE - ISO GAL BARREL
$635
5345
100 GAL BARREL /CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - IOC GAL BARREL
WESTMISTER
MIDWAY CITY SAN DIST
$675 bred SON,. PIUPEM Na wA
FULLYAVTOMATEO
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
$700
NIA
IOC GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
•• NONE —
COLLECTED WITH TRASH
YORBA LINDA
TAORMINA INDUSTRIES
S1545
070103
GM WYn
FULLY AUTOMATED
ONE - AGO GAL BARREL
$5IS10
5405
100 GAL BARREL I CLEAN MRF
'CITYWIDE'
ONE - IN GAL BARREL
ATTACHMENT "U"
6 -10 -96
stated these antennas will have no impact on or interference
with the 800 MHz communication system. As to 'quiet enjoyment
of the premises' the City Attorney advised that is a legal term
meaning the lessee will be allowed to use the City facility.
Hastings moved, second by Campbell, to approve the Site Lease -
,_ Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and Cox California PCS,
Inc. for the installation and maintenance of mobile/ wireless
communications facilities on the City Hall clock tower for the
term of five years with the option of five five -year extensions.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fulton Motion carried
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL - AMENDMENT TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -
RECYCLING / GREENWASTE PROGRAMS
The City Manager presented the staff report, noted the
requirement of the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(AB 939) to reduce the tonnage of refuse to landfills by twenty-
five percent by 1995 and fifty percent by the year 2000, Seal
Beach having met the twenty -five percent reduction through its
recycling program however the fifty percent reduction will need
to be accomplished through a greenwaste program. He reported
that the refuse contractor has developed a greenwaste program
that is anticipated to be implemented by August for all areas of
the City except Leisure World and Old Town inasmuch as there is
insufficient greenwaste generated from the Old Town area,
however includes the area known as the Gold Coast, with the
understanding that the City, within sixty days, prepares a
comprehensive franchise renewal for an additional three years in
return for implementing the greenwaste program, including all
equipment, and without any rate increase to the customer or the
City. He explained that the program will involve a third trash
receptacle with pick -up on the regular refuse collection day, if
the greenwaste program does not accomplish the fifty percent
reduction then a recycling program will be implemented for Old
Town however recycling in the downtown area is difficult given
the narrow alleys, etc. Mr. Briggeman explained that the size
of the container will be one hundred gallons for those
residences that currently have that size and sixty gallons to
those having sixty gallon bins, -if a greenwaste container is not
desired it will be taken back. In addition he said a great
effort is being put forth to recycle construction and demolition
waste, wood as an example is collected and taken to a pallet
company, noting that the recycling of some goods is less
expensive than others, and brought attention to the tremendous
recycling effort of Rockwell International which is a large
portion of the City's waste stream, also, it is not felt that
greenwaste containers will be distributed to Riverbeach or the
Bridgeport area given the limited amount of space on those lots,
unless the property owner desires. It was pointed out that the
container color will be green. Councilmember Campbell said her
preference would be for smaller bins and a twice a week pickup,
citing the fact that the containers are difficult to store given
their size. Mr. Briggeman acknowledged that the size of bins is
a problem in every community. Councilman Brown suggested a cost
comparison of smaller containers and twice a week pickup. Mr.
Briggeman clarified that when the recycling program was tr
implemented the once per week collection was put into place in
order to keep the rates down, noted also that the life of a
container is about ten years. He confirmed that all properties
in the affected areas will be provided a bin however if not
wanted it will be removed, also, a smaller bin will be provided
if desired. He pointed out that this community made a
considerable adjustment when the refuse service changed from
twice to once a week, however Seal Beach has done very well with
reducing its waste stream. Mr. Briggeman confirmed that the
6 -10 -96
residents will be provided guidelines for the greenwaste program
and personnel will be available to respond to questions of
residents at his office. '
Brown moved, second by Hastings, to approve the amendment to the
Refuse Franchise with Briggeman Disposal, providing for a
greenwaste recycling program. The City Attorney requested that
the date of June ist be changed to August ist, clarified that
Riverbeach is excepted from the greenwaste program as is
Bridgeport, yet the area known as the Gold Coast is included.
The Manager suggested language to read 'the contractor shall
provide a container for greenwaste for each resident except for
those located in the Old Town, Bridgeport, Riverbeach areas and
Leisure World but including the area known as the Gold Coast.'
Those changes were accepted by the maker and second of the
motion.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fulton Motion carried
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
declare a recess at 8:48 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:56
p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order.
With consent of the Council, Councilman Brown reported that he
and others spoke with Supervisor Silva in an attempt to develop
a strategy to have the sound wall adjacent to Leisure World
placed back on the project list, which was approved some years
ago then removed due to the lack of funding, at this point it
appears that the sound wall has now been placed at the top of
the list of projects for this coming year, is to be forwarded to
the California Transportation Commission and at least
preliminarily there is a positive opinion that it may be
approved for construction.
PUBLIC HEARING J ORDINANCE NUMBER 1405 - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 95 -1 -
BANNER ADVERTISEMENTS
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider Zone
Text Amendment 95 -1 regarding banner advertisements. The City
Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been
advertised as required by law and reported no communications
received either for or against this item. The Director of
Development Services presented the staff report and
recommendation of the Planning Commission to adopt standards for
the utilization of temporary banners by businesses within the
commercial zones of the City, where current Code does not allow
the use of temporary banners on commercial property. He
reported the Planning Commission received considerable input
from business persons primarily located along Main Street and
Pacific Coast Highway, additional meetings were held between
City staff, the Business Association and Rossmoor Center, which
resulted in further recommendations to and revisions by the
Commission. The Director stated the basic provisions, as
recommended by the Commission, provides for definitions of a
_ banner and temporary sign, will allow the use of banners in all
.- commercial zones of the City subject to the regulations adopted,
�i requires a permit to be issued by the City prior to displaying a
4., banner on a- commercial property, allows only one banner per
building space that faces either a public street or parking lot,
will allow display of a banner for no more than ninety days in a
calendar year, restricts continuous display of 'a banner to
thirty days, will require a six day break between the display of
• banner, the size of a banner is restricted to the same size as
• building identification sign, thirty square feet on properties
that front a street with a speed limit of less than thirty -five
miles per hour and up to forty -five square feet of signage on a
City of Seal Beach
FILE REFERENCE FORM
DATE: It 1A.1 A.
Full file — Created New Folder:
Older file exists:
Related topic: see below
File contains records — NOT PUBLIC
Other:
Comments:
Initials:_
(Public Records Act)
Akow, 4.
ATTACHMENT "W"
2 -10 -97
consecutive months of June and -July. The Director explained
that the Commission currently meets only every other month, this
being an increase of their meeting times. It was suggested that
another month.be selected rather than June or July, that the
Department and Commission make that decision, therefore there is
no reason to bring the item back to the Council. Mayor Forsythe
again introduced the Director, Ms. Nancy Beard. Brown moved,
second by Fulton, to approve the revised meeting schedule for
the Parks and Recreation Commission, and that another month be
selected in lieu of either June or July.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
The City Manager presented the staff report, noted that the
California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB939) mandated that
all California cities reduce the solid waste deposited in
landfills by twenty -five percent by 1995 and fifty percent by
the year 2000. In Seal Beach this task started with a Council
appointed citizen committee that was involved in the development
of a Source Reduction /Recycling Element and Hazardous Waste Plan
which in turn resulted in the current recycling program for the
majority of the City with the exception of Old Town and the
areas of the City served by a different refuse contractor.
Source reduction was initiated in phases, first recycling which_
is being successful in meeting the diversion goals, then the
greenwaste program, the next phase is to initiate recycling in
Old Town, taking into consideration the problems of narrow
alleys, diverse types of housing, etc., and to do that the
expertise of the refuse collector was sought to determine how
such a ro ram could work, efficient) j.j
P g y, and without any rate E�
increase. The Manager explained that to accomplish the Old Town
recycling the contractor is being asked to make a capital
investment for equipment, systems, and labor for an entirely new
program therefore there needed to be some give and take in order
to avoid passing the costs on to the consumer also in fairness
to the contractor. As a result of negotiations, tentative
agreement has been reached that Briggeman Disposal will provide
the City a non - refundable deposit of $50,000; residential
recycling will be implemented in Old Town with no rate increase
to customers beyond rates previously authorized by the City
Council for a minimum of eighteen months from the effective date
of the franchise; future increases would be limited to at least
twenty percent below the Consumer Price Index annually; free
'disposal services provided at City and school facilities in Seal
Beach; bulk item pickup provisions would be enhanced;
performance compliance measures would the tightened; the City
would assume control over where refuse is deposited, this the
result of a County proposal to secure rates however would
require that trash from all Orange County cities go to landfills
within this County, the proposal part of the bankruptcy plan yet
provides some security to cities as to the availability of a
landfill site; transfer of the responsibility for commercial
billings from the City to the contractor; and a discount for
senior citizens. In consideration of establishing the recycling
program for Old Town, Briggeman Disposal would, in effect, l`�,
receive a three year extension of their franchise, that in turn
allows the contractor to secure better financing rates for their
investment in equipment, etc. required to implement the program,
given this extension and that granted with the greenwaste
program, the recommendation is that the agreement contain an
'evergreen' clause whereby the franchise will be extended an
additional year for a period of seven years,unless the Council
takes action at some point to terminate the 'evergreen'
provision. The Manager noted that current local commercial
2 -10 -97
rates have been held considerably below market rates countywide,
particularly those businesses requiring multiple pickups per
week, there is adequate justification for a commercial rate
adjustment and agreement has been reached that that be done over
a three year period. The hauler would also benefit from
enforcement provisions proposed, an example of that would be the
right of first refusal by the contractor for the removal of
construction site debris. He mentioned that amendments are
proposed to the existing refuse ordinance that will require the
removal of trash receptacles from the street after refuse
collection, at present there is only provision as a public
nuisance or obstruction of a public right -of -way, and should
more appropriately be added as an infraction. Council inquired
as to what is intended as a time frame, to which the Manager
responded that possibly cans not be placed at curbside prior to
twenty -four hours before pickup, removed by the end of
collection day, also that they be stored in an area not visible
from the public right -of -way, violation would result in
citation. The Manager stated there are provisions for persons
having some type of handicap, the contractor will implement
special accommodations for those having demonstrated an
inability to place their trash curbside. The Manager noted this
matter will come before the Council at the next meeting as a
public hearing item. With regard to the County landfill
proposal, he reported that will only be implemented if a certain
percentage of all solid waste generated in Orange County is
committed to the County landfill sites, if that occurs a
memorandum of understanding between the County and the
participating cities will commit that the hauler will transport
all solid waste to those sites for a period of ten years and in
return the City would realize a tipping fee of $22 as opposed to
the $27 being paid now, the Seal Beach site would be Brea, at
this point it is felt this would be a break even situation even
-. with the added transportation cost, especially if the rates are
raised at the Long Beach facility during the ten year period.
Councilman Brown made reference to a letter from the City of
Cypress suggesting that the tipping cost for cities on the
peripheral, such as Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach,
should be based on mileage given the distance from the landfill
sites, and suggested that be pursued. The Manager stated
uncertainty as to whether that could be accomplished however
offered to look into the suggestion, Seal Beach probably not a
large factor in the landfill program in that there are larger
cities such as Anaheim and Santa Ana that could move this
program forward and keep it running, and although there may be
an equity concern it may be too complex to develop a formula
based on mileage. With regard to establishing a procedure for
the removal of trash receptacles from the street after pickup,
Mayor Forsythe noted that most residents are conscientious in
removing them, stated she did not feel it will be the intent of
the City to arbitrarily issue citations, possibly a warning
issued first with citations to those who are chronic or repeat
offenders. Councilman Brown concurred that warnings should be
issued first, the Council suggesting possibly two, and
Councilman Fulton suggested the time frame between warnings be
taken into consideration as well. Councilmember Hastings
mentioned a recent magazine article regarding large landfill
areas established in the states of Maryland, Virginia and
Florida and now with recycling there is not enough refuse going
into those sites, that has resulted in an increase of the
tipping fee which is a hardship on the haulers, and now the
property tax is going to increase for the homeowner to
compensate for the difference. With reference to the flow
control of refuse, Councilmember Hastings cautioned that if the
City ties itself to the County for a period of ten years there
will be no control by the City as to where its solid waste will
go, there is no means of getting out of that arrangement.
2 -10 -97
Councilman Brown said the opposite side is that the City may
want to use the County facilities because Long Beach may close
or raise its rates. Councilmember Hastings asked if the senior
citizen discount would apply to Old Town only and 'how that would
be achieved. The Manager responded that it would not apply to
Old Town only, application for the discount would be made on a
form for that purpose, accompanied by proof of age. It was
suggested the same process could be used for those having
handicap disabilities. It was noted that a more detailed
explanation of performance compliance issues will be
forthcoming, with reference to a freeze of residential rates for
,a period of eighteen months, it was explained that the Council
will establish a maximum charge to the customer, of that a
certain amount is held by the City to cover the cost of the
billing, and the franchise fee, an example of that would be the
impact on City streets for their use of the public right -of -way,
the remainder goes to the refuse hauler, and noted that although
the Council authorized a certain rate several years ago it was
never imposed, therefore the suggestion is that the amount that
was previously authorized would be the actual charge for '
residential, after the eighteen month period then Briggeman
Disposal would be eligible for a rate increase based upon the
twenty percent below CPI formula. Councilmember Campbell said
she had asked the contractor what it would entail to replace the
existing one hundred gallon recycling bin with a sixty gallon
bin and collect them each week rather than every other week, the
response was a rate increase of about $5 per month, and even
though residents may prefer the sixty gallon she did not pursue
it because no one wants a rate increase. With regard to
collecting refuse in Old Town once a week versus twice, Mr.
Briggeman confirmed that to be true as far as the automated
system. He showed photographs of Old Town alleys on collection
77
days and comparable photos of Los Alamitos since the replacement
�=
of trash cans with automated carts some four years ago, to that
the greatest concern was whether the barrels would fit in the
alleys, after a couple of months the concerns were no longer,
and the advantage was aesthetics. He said comparisons were made
of multiple units in Los Alamitos and Seal Beach, as to the
larger multi -units he noted that if they do not have bins they
have numerous trash cans in the alley, the one hundred gallon
and sixty gallon carts will cut down the number of containers,
in Los Alamitos dwellings having five or more units are required
to have a commercial bin for solid waste, however some alleys in
Seal Beach do not have adequate space for a commercial bin., It
was noted that there will not be greenwaste containers in Old
Town as there is not adequate greenwaste to warrant. Mr.
Briggeman showed diagrams of the percentage of recovery from
1995/1996, the variations from twelve to nineteen percent,
actual diversion numbers which are impacted by the economy,
scavenging, etc., Seal Beach has exceeded the mandated twenty -
five percent diversion, the monthly average of total waste is
about fourteen to fifteen hundred tons, recycling averages one
hundred fifty tons per month, those numbers include commercial
and greenwaste programs and now Old Town recycling is basically
the final phase of the recycling program. The City Manager
stated that efforts will be made to keep scavenging from
becoming a greater problem.
-
Brown moved, second by Forsythe, to authorize a public hearing
to be scheduled for February 24th to consider this matter
further.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
ATTACHMENT "X"
4,
?K
Solid Waste Collection
System and Services
Review
April 19, 2004
C*NSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE
A Subsidiary of REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.
John Bahorski, City Manager
U)
m
0
O
z
m
0
O
z
U)
m
0
--I
70
z
Cn
m
0
0
z
a
U)
m
0
O
z
CA
m
0
-4
5
z
Z�
CGNSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE
A Subsidiary of %!.V REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.
April 15, 2004
12949 Telegraph Road
Mr. John Bahorski, City Manager Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
City of Seal Beach Telephone (562)6633400
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740 Facsimile (562) 906 -0251
Re: Consolidated /Briggeman - Summary of Services and Technical Report
Dear Mr. Bahorski:
I am pleased to present the attached report regarding Consolidated /Briggeman's record
of service in the City of Seal Beach. It is sometimes helpful to consolidate the reams of
technical data regarding recycling and solid waste management into a user - friendly
format for presentation purposes. When reformatting reports, however, one must be
diligent to assure that the new documents maintain the integrity of the original data. This
is what I have striven to do with the accompanying charts, graphs, spreadsheets, and
abbreviated narrative.
The long -term contractual agreement between Consolidated /Briggeman and the City of
Seal Beach has rendered one of the most successful public /private relationships in the
State of California. Charts and graphs do not adequately convey many of the
extraordinary contributions of Consolidated /Briggeman that -have had major, direct;
positive influence upon the success of the City's programs and services. Please
consider the following:
• In the mid- 1990's, the company implemented new programs to help the City
move toward compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(AB939). The company invested approximately $1,650,000.00 in new trucks and
equipment to establish the new services. Also at that time, in order to help with
City budget difficulties, the company gave the City a $50,000.00 non - refundable
deposit.
• The City formerly employed a consultant to complete the reporting and program
implementation requirements of AB939. Under the new contract, the company
has assumed the City's AB939 reporting and implementation responsibilities
thereby rendering a savings to the City's budget. Additionally; the company has
Pledged a $10,000.00 per year contribution to the City to help with continuing
AB939 efforts.
• Under the new contract, the company provides bulky item collection service at no
charge. Conservatively, the company's estimated actual cost for providing this
service is $20.450.00 per year.'
• In Seal Beach, Consolidated /Briggeman has one of the most outstanding service
records in the industry. The primary reason for this record is the continuity of
management and operations personnel over many, many years of service. As
the former General Manager for Briggeman Disposal, I am now President of
Consolidated Disposal Services with ultimate and final decision making
responsibility regarding the company's service in Seal Beach. Just as
importantly, the company has several drivers who have worked their entire
careers in the City. Of the six drivers currently serving exclusively in Seal Beach,
two have served in the City for over 15 years, another two have served in the
City for over 20 years, and one has served in the City for over 25 years. The
magnitude of management and service personnel continuity in Seal Beach is
incomparable.
• In the mid- 1990's, the company voluntarily entered into a flow control agreement
i with the City to guarantee tonnage for the Orange County Landfill System. This
cooperative effort was completed in order to support the City in its commitment to
the County of Orange as part of the bankruptcy recovery plan. The company had
formerly delivered all of the Seal Beach waste to the nearby SERRF plant
(waste -to- energy plant in Long Beach). As a result of the agreement, Seal Beach
wastes have been delivered to the Olinda -Alpha Landfill, In Brea. Seal Beach is
the farthest Orange County city that is required to deliver wastes to the landfill
under the County agreement. This agreement is still in place. The company has
never asked for, nor received compensation for this additional operating cost.
• The structure of the current contract has facilitated many of the positive aspects
of current service in the City. The contract renewal component contributes to the
company's ability to continuously update and improve services and equipment in
Seal Beach. The contract also contributes to long -term rate stabilization via the
rate adjustment provision — service, fees can only be adjusted by an amount
equal to the actual change in disposal costs, and by only 80% of the change in
the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI). The impact of these contractual
provisions are seen in the fact that Seal Beach residents pay one of Orange
County's lowest fees for comparable service.
The company provides free services to McGaw Elementary School. The actual
annual cost of providing the service is about $9,000.00.
Mr. Bahorski, I have cited only a few of the important historical elements in the
development of the current agreement between Consolidated /Briggeman and the City of
Seal Beach. We are honored to have been a vital participant in the development and
delivery of efficient services for the City, and we hope to extend our legacy of
extraordinary service, at fair market prices, for many years to come.
Tally,
Russell Dix
President
Consolidated /Briggeman & The City of Seal Beach
The Achievement of Municipal Goals in Recycling & Solid Waste Management
Executive Summary
California's municipal governments typically seek to achieve four primary goals in the
selection of a solid waste collection and recycling service contractor. They are:
• Excellent record of service delivery — minimal complaints
Fair fees for service
• Compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, regulations and
mandates
• A responsible corporate citizen — involved in the community beyond the
collection of trash
Through-its long -term relationship with Consolidated /Briggeman, the City of Seal Beach
has accomplished each of the primary municipal objectives. Please consider the
following:
• During an average month in Seal Beach, Consolidated /Briggeman
performs over 29,500 services. On average, the company receives 9
complaints monthly. 99.97% of the company's services are completed to
the customer's satisfaction. (Section III — Monthly Service History)
• In Seal Beach, Consolidated /Briggeman provides a fully automated, three
container (trash, yard waste, recycling) collection system for residents. For
comparable service, the $13.84 monthly service fee paid by Seal Beach
residents is one of the lowest in Orange County. (Section III — O.C. Rates)
• The cooperative efforts of the City and Consolidated /Briggeman have
impressively exceeded the mandates of AB939 (The California Integrated
Waste Management Act). With most of the State's municipalities
continuing to struggle toward AB939 compliance, Seal Beach met the
requirements of the costly mandate in 1995, and has surpassed the
diversion requirements in each succeeding year.
Through many years of service, Consolidated /Briggeman has remained a
steadfast supporter of community and youth organizations in the City. In
2003, via direct contributions, free services, and the payment of city
franchise fees, the company provided over $450,000.00 to the City.
Chart & Graph Summary
The percentages presented on the following charts represent consolidated data from
the four -year period — 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003. The data is presented in this fashion in
order to provide a broad view of contract performance over a long period of time.
Note: The Monthly Service History chart is supposed to be a "pie" chart. But, the
occurrence of complaints and /or missed collections has been so rare that it can only be
represented as a single, thin line.
Placentia
Huntington Beach
Fountain Valley
Villa Park
Garden Grove
Costa Mesa
Anaheim
Brea
Yorba Linda
Fullerton
Aliso Viejo
Stanton
Los Alamitos
Santa Ana
La Habra
Laguna Beach
Laguna Niguel
Cypress
Seal Beach
Rancho Santa Margarita
San Juan Capistrano
City Rate Comparison
$0 $2 $4 $6
$8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 $20
Landfilled Waste by Sector of Origin - 4 Yr Avg
Commercial
45
n teal
Recycled Material by Sector of Origin - 4 Yr Avg
Green Waste by Sector of Origin - 4 Yr Avg
Commercial
- 86%
T
Mixed Paper
21%
HDPELc
1%
IIDPE -c
0%
Gm(
Recycled Commodities - Residential - 4yr Avg
Aluminum Cans
Trash 0%
Newspaper
26
ene
Amber Glass
1%
rdboard
3%
GLvss
Metal
1%
Recycled Commodities - Commercial - 4yr Avg
Cardboard
7%
Green Waste
46%
Dirt, Rocks
18%
m km . am k � V � sus � o —
Monthly Service History
Complaints
No Call
99.971
Vehicle Service Hours
Out of Service
1.92%
In Service
98.08%
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ } M..rt.i .T.s G�1l vY ir.'1t: (Y �.•Y �Yk(- AgAxnYkd'i:+ ', '$tS
Employee Longeyity
Consolidated /Briggeman's long -time route supervisor, Barry Hale, directs the
work of five full -time employees serving the City of Seal. Additionally, the
company provides ancillary support staff for special services, bulky item
collection, bin deliveries, customer service and billing.
Consolidated's field service personnel have tallied a combined tenure of Seal
Beach service of 89 years. In today's job market, the following record of service
is almost unheard of in any industry — especially in the solid waste industry where
employees often move to other companies or other lines of work:
• Tomas Garcia 25 years of service in Seal Beach
Miguel Gonzalez - 24 years of service in Seal Beach
Ruben Gaona 22 years of service in Seal Beach
Salvador Marquez - 16 years of service in Seal Beach
Mark Ravencraft - 2 years of service in Seal Beach
In a service industry, this type of employee longevity is invaluable. Over the
years, these men have developed personal relationships with many of their
customers. They know the special needs of their customers and the nuances of
every nook and cranny of the City. This single factor is the greatest
contributor to the very low occurrence of missed pick -ups and complaints
in the City.
Fleet Vehicles in Seal Beach
• Automated Trucks (Residential)
- 2000 Peterbilt; Heil Automated Rapid Rail Body (2)
• Front Loader Trucks (Commercial /Residential)
- 2000 Peterbilt; Amrep Body
- 1999 Peterbilt; Amrep Body
• Roll Off Truck
- 2000 Peterbilt; Amrep Retrieving System
The renewal component of the current contract helps to assure the
continuous deployment of new services and the latest equipment
throughout the City.
Recycling & Disposal Data
2000 -2003
The following data represent the accomplishment of the City's recycling program
during the past four years.
The recycling and disposal tonnage is presented by sector of generation and by
material type.
FRE-CYCW SEAL BEACH 1 2000 1 All weights listed in ton
1 0 C C 1 NEWS 1 MIP 3 AID CAN I TIN CAN 1
FLINT
AMBER 13ER
GREEN PET S1 •
HOPE CL
HOPE CO
GEEENWST 1 NET RECY NET
TRASH
JAN
0.43, 298
-
070�
0731 0 74�
10
0.85!
30461
303.27
3853,
FEB
7,50 86291 886!1_,
- _038,. 2671:
0881
0.631
070, 0.67
1.33'
0.76
86,37 :
28762,
34.54'
MAR
i 7801 83651 92081
0.40� 237;
0.9C
065'7
0.731 0631
1,38
033;
3586
APR
710, 81631 83.51:
0 2 Q
0,831
0.53,
0.6? 0611
126
072
14203
322 3�
32.70
MAY
?m, 31611 34 30'
wtv
53�
-O0
- -_- 751 071�
142
0.81�
135.31,
34135'
3674i -
JUN
8.35, 35 931 5853,
0.4Z 2.37
__-
0.5?
__-_..-•__..
0.70,
0.78
148,
085
147.02
358.87
38.41
JUL
6.83i 75:2 81401
035• 2.45
0 60;
0.58r.
065. 0611
1.22
0.70
14274
317.64
3131
AUC
1102 W.?2! 84.53i
128: 1.28
S.631
1.65
4.56 2.20!
--
12&
3A2
154.34
36375
3786,
$E�
_. 94' 7631, 7 - 0.7 - I 1
1,071 107
-13L
3,81, - 1.83!
1.07
2.60, -
127.54
301,27,
31SO
',OCT
3.761 81271 i5311
1141
1.14;
5.04
146,
4,061 1.35,
114
277-
0,85
30488
33.55
1.251
5-T.C.
3619
DEC
103L__ 85.521
5M; 7950,_ �
1201 t�o
1,541
4.28 206,
120
2.92
86.6c
2BI 36
3542.
i' 105.37i 1048311 1034-13;
812; 25AT
32.83:
12.20,
15.01'
1538
2.0.05 .
.42S.03.--
i
0.0334 i 0.031 O.M4
It.9020! 0.0140
0.0046'
0-0033
0-0037 0.0035,
•
00070
0.0040
00000,
1-0000, - -
- -
A.9-33:
0.0526, 0.43321 0.4010
0.0061, 00 61
-0
0-0272
00073
0.0213. 0.0106
00061.
0.0150
NON PROGRAM DIVERSION BY TYPE
RESHIMIALL Mmmmrw
TRASH TO WASTE TRASH TO
INDI ISTRIA SEAL BrAr
WASTE TRASH TO WASTE TRASH TO WASTE
WOOD OCC ROCKS GRHWST DIRT PAPER LTet.1
LANDFILL GENERATED -LANDFILL
GENERATED LANDFILL
GENERATED LANDFILL G
GENERATED
82.88
8238
--
447.54
75081
653 �o
7313'14�
388 72
389.72
14.9642
1876i37
FEB -
4.7 8 -
10
14.173
2935
429.61,
71703
14214
111.69'
312,58,
31258•
1544.33
1861.N
MAR
275 10
21;_
6&32
100 -07
432.10
808 33
74448
844 W
449611.
443. 61,
168615,
2102 5 5
APR-
52.47
52.47
450.48
77287
64053
48123
481.2.3
1572.24'
1547.10
MAY
9.13,
6635
75-48
500.97
842.92
710.48
785.96
37041
370.41
1581.86
189929
!JUN
F b
W'43
432.68
IJS1.55
67148
752.81
390.34
-
390 34
-44736,
1554.50
W4.80
JUL
47.38
63.86
1 - 11.24
477.53
- 79517
594.88
t6.12
44736
,.__151977
-157836
194865
-2108.49
!AUG
40
4898 -
77A
166.38-
466.60'
830.35
63872
80510,
473.04
473.04
i S.-Elp
60.71,
60.71
496.03,
7.97.30
604,55
.665.26,
508.34
34
1608.82-.-
18,70.30
1 OCT-
8.5... 3011.-
2&79"
4414
11143
50656
611.44
840.17
44313•
1678.43
2094.74
1 NOV
0 20�
6 49:
3.31
23.80
572 93;
884.32
.72874
66386
693.66'
288 64
288.64
1525.43
1857.22
DEC
W
6 81
3 62
15-72:
501.75,
78371
658 57'
674 2%
383.33
389 39:
1549 71
1847.39
182 52 1000
- ------
602-82'
916.66
5834-78,
3646-46
8052-13
8368.85
5003.79;
5003.73,
18830-76
23613.10.
---
Diverted
PAR-Tcci-P-ATION YEAR TO DATE
JAN
1450.42�__
60.5%,
-7
'RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
- ----------
FEB
_.3774.33'_.
3774.33
1544.331
-----------
.....
53.1%
,
;TOTAL k
X WAST E
-------------
TOTAL
-- .
TRASH T1 TOTAL
- - - ---
X WASTE
- .
, -;MAR
-
3774.33:
'1686,18,
.
55.3%.
IRECYLAE LANDFILLWASTE
L AE
LAN FILLWASTE
D !RECYCLED
'APR
3774.33,
1572,24!
58.3/
_RECYCLED
3811.68� 5634,7& 9646.4p4-
n5%,;
.. .... qECY
916.6611-18-052.1-9i
10.2Y.
MAY
3, 774,33,
158186:1�
-
581%
-58
-
•
.
JU N
3774.33,
15 54.%
8�.
jo L
-
1519
55 7�.
------ - ---
INDUSTRIAL
SEAL BEACH TOTAL
AUG
.3774.33,
377 33,
4
- 1578.36,
582/,
TOTAL JRASHT(TOTAL
X WASTE
TOTAL
------- --
TRASHTC�TOTAL
WASTE
SEP
374T�3j
M6�'92
57 4x.:
RECYLA�-C4-N-DF-IL-�-WA-ST-E---RE--C-YC--LE-D----
RECYLAE
LANDFILL WASTE iRECYCLEO
OCT
3774 33
1678.43,
555%
-6 0' /. --- - --- --------
---
4728 34
18890 76 2361910
20 0%
NOV
3774 33
1525.43
596%
'DEC
3774 33'
1549.71
585Y
--- -----
'Total -- --- --
19871303
� 56,1/.'
L111iiiiiIIIII; � W1111111111 U11111111111
SEAL REACH RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE REC
- -_2001!
AMBER GREEN
GLASS
PET 01
--
C -C
-NEWS- -6-
-M -1P - -3 ... A
JAN
-19
�
-�9 R ---
Fff -7-
_1088_
56
4.97-
1.67�
4.781
0,00,
APR
9,801
67.71
53 81
_
MAY
10 87
7510
53 68'
JUN
172.--.-
105.67
57.38 -'
JUL
_1045,____72.20'
A.34
7143,
56 76'
RUG
1170-
0.001
64..22.
HP
10-5-9
82.37.
76.88'
OCT
13.42•
10514
37.42:1
272.90
3111
025',_
5.09,
DEC
'" "_240_
2 45�
246,
3.31
!JAN
FEB
1. -
MAR
APR
MAY
JUL
PROGRAM
LU CANTIN CAN METAL:
FLINT
AMBER GREEN
GLASS
PET 01
HDPEICL 1
HDPEICO
PVC
GREENWSTNETRECY !NETTRASH
0281
565i
_FLINT
0.00,
-;
272
2.73�
3.68.
000
2.28
1.67�
4.781
0,00,
3094
260.44
3519
021
4.25
000!
2.05
2.X
268
00:
172.--.-
105.67
360
000
222016
197.4.5
b
0 251
4.39:
0.001
10 33Y 13.39�
2 42!
3,25,
0 0&
202
.1-25,
1.47
4.22
000
123.07
272.90
3111
025',_
5.09,
0
'" "_240_
2 45�
246,
3.31
0 D&
206
1501
4,30,
0 60�
156.77
309.52
- .-
31.71
.- -
0.281
564
0.00:
2.72
2.73,
3.68
- ------
0.00
...
L8
t -
il§Ii: 4.77
•
-I.--.--
0.00
. --
16669
336.11
3517
0.27�
5 d-
1166;
2.61
2.63
3.53'
0.00
2.201
480 53
4.53'----
0.00
13333
296.22
3382
0.27
5,37
0.00i
2.53;
2.60i
3.50,
0.00
2,17'
1.58,
4.54
000
152.38
313-53
-- 33.4 - 6
03
7
0001
1896.07
0'
0
5.06
ZA-
Of-
si ------
536.53.
14768
-
330.00
30.26
116
6.016,
0001
STE
148
414,
.. ......
coo
199
1. 16!,
. -
2.83,:
ROW
-
11881
-
308-33 _
2736
1. , 4T
_ 147F
6.�O�
b5i'
186729
5 �5�
000,
2. - 53
1. 47
356!
0.00
126 36
366.51'
34.69
14�`
14f
abb:
-6-26
-1't-
1650-17-
0.66
-2-.40-
1.*
3.40
000,
.
105.10
332-68
32.98
145 -
-- 145 , , .
0.00
6.44 - i
1.86;_ - - -
5.18'
000
2.49
1.45
3.54
0 00
59.13
235-48
34.26
130.33 9-57.36 612.42 1-60 47.38 0-66 407 27.61
mdk bivtrisidN
47.22_ 0.60 26.61 , 18-61, 415.29 0.00 166.03 3619.18 386.54
TRASHTO
WASTE
TRASHTO WASTE TRASHTO
WASTE TRASHTO
WASTE
WOOD
METAL
OCC ROCKS GRNW5 DIRT PAPER Total
LANDFILL
GENERATED
LANDFILL - GENERATED LANDFILL
GENERATED LANDFILL
GENERATED
0
6
173
0'
7.76
20, 3 46. 3295
W 40
-
797841
663 50'
716A5;
105.67
705.0
196 77
222016
6
b
b
If
T
10 33Y 13.39�
438V
65 87
5�O 41
1303.60,
'
KS.F5
26SK
1294.6
1505 52
ul
1026 .
0 --- 5.0 . 5 - 19.42 -
49916
it-06
69.6j-'--
713.4f
47!JY
47733
196844
0
-0
0,
2 i 561
433.56
803.08
618.bf
674 ff
laiR
441H
153.18
131881
-
414
0
-
44.24
- -- t.0(3
20 4.08
480 53
8t.�4L
58H)
-6.59-W,
484,4�
49442
1561.�71-
1970S4
0
.0
0
- --
20 4§'
-0--- 63
4�2
78874
619.83
68Z.Sd-
424.50
424.50
153685
1896.07
0'
0
5.06
ib
2262
0; 15.22 52.9
536.53.
850.06
654.01,
706.91
463J6*
4133 76
154.32
202075
0
0
0
0
2.25
01 1168 1393
568.98
888 98L
828.11;
842.041
470.20
470.20
186729
2211.22
0
0
19.35,
10
1853
0 3,65' 5153
43260
740 93�
681,43:
732.961
536.14
536.14
1650-17-
2010.03
0
0
8,88i
0-
23 8'
01 7.81 40.49
512.82
873.33
784.2V
824.70�
643.V
-4
643.11
-70F
1940.14 - -
- 2347.14
b*
6:' -2-T ----4498
12b. 6-9
-74-6-017�
7-3-1-0--5-1:-
3 87 0-,-
438
1680.98
2058.64
0
0
337,
0
3
D. 5 4171
484 38:
86,71222
754 017�
337.15!
337.15.
1533.75
18,71.02
0
0
5477
50
232
90i 76.74i 503-54 Total
5373.05�
9592.23,
_8204.37:_
8707.91, _-
5698.61.
_5698-61:
19876-03
23398.75
Baseline
Dispqseq_
Diverted
PARTICIPATION YEAR
TO DATE
JAN
3774.331
192677,
490X
-
RESIDENTIAL
------ . .....
COMMERCIAL
FEB
377433;
1294.68-
657%,
'TOTAL :,TRASH
TO
TOTAL
WASTE
TOTAL TRASH TO TOTAL
-R�DKLANJOFILC
WASTE
--�MAR
3774.33;
1676.12
55.6Y.
RECYLABL
LANDFILL
WASTE' RECrfUff
!WASTE
RECYCLED
377433i --
1553. - I - 3
58 - 8/.
3619.18
5973.05'
9592.23.
37.7%
503.54, 8204 3T 67073t
58/
,APR -
3774. 31
1561.77
586%
JUN
1536.85
593%
JUL
3774331
165432'
56.2Y.
INDUSTRIAL
-,A-U-G--
L
-------
----
--
56 5y.
;Tbfk
TRASiif 6
TOTAL -;Y-.
WASTE; i
Y
'TOTAL TRASHTO 'TOTAL
:y. WASTE
'SEP
3774.331
1650.17
LANDFILL_
_STE
STE-',REU
WASTE
c r
Bj4VD 111L 1
-
--:7743Y
OCT
- --------
- ---
1946 1�,
.... ...
0 00
ff68'---q
--- �10-0�.7----
5§
41,2-2-72-1 13-87-603, 23838.75
17.2/.
T703!-..
...
1680 58�
.-- ---
55.5%
- -
--Mw-
3774.33:
1533.75
59.4%
Total
45291.96
19876.03'
561%
RECYC SEALBEACH(RE:_
2002!Alltreightslistedintons i^.
._- _.y__
__REST
____TOTAL----
---- __._.___
_
0 C C I
NEWS I
MIP S 1
ALU CAN TIN
CAN
FLINT I AMBER GREEN PET it !
HOPE !
HOPE CO : RESIDUAL I
Rcs Rec : GEEENVST 'TRASH__ ±NET RECTCLI NET TRASH
_..
037,
7.371
- - ^--
3.55 � 3.Si 4.80
2.98
_CL
6.24;
_
32.01
_
25334.
90.60
36.72, -,.__
311.87 �
- -- - - +___
68 i9:
_ .
_
FEB
__
- �
83.27 1
-- y
66.17
_
^,
0.31
- - -f
6.26 � 3011 3.031 4.08
-- -
2.53:
1.85 �
5.29 �
- _ ._ -.._ �.._
21.23
-. J_
21508
-
b7.67 ;
-. - -
-
31.0 �
- _ _. -__
255.52 •
-_ -
58 40 •
_
MAR
_ _ _12.05
1274 :
88.03
- - - - - -'
69 95
0.33 ;
6.62:
3.19 I 3.20 , 631
2.68
1.95 �
5.60 ;
2878 ,
-- 22L38 ,
8463 i
3295 !
283.23_.
__. 61.13
- - _ --
APR--- ��
13.06 __--
902b�
_____-
itni0.34.618
3.28 4.42'
3.27_- __._._
278
_200;_5.76;
2951.
233.09
11342, ..
_..__ 3378
31100'
._._- ._.
63.29;
--___---
- -
MAY
6916'
033'
6.541
3.15; 3.17; 6.26'
265,
1.93
553
2866 �
226.73 •�
12005 ,
32.58 -
_....316.38 ;
_ 6104_ _
-. -
JUN
__12.6_0
11.20
_67.03
Ti.39:
6150E
,- 0291
582
- _ . . -. .__...__
2.80, 282 319
_
2.35
_ __..
1.72
_. _ _..
492
2530
_-
19989'
^100.51
_ _
2697
27510
54271
JUL__ 13.13,
_9068;72_050_34_
681
3.28_._ 3.30J 4.44LL
2.76
2.01
537;
23.65
234.21
131.62
33.95.3
- 336.18.
6360
AUG
12.80
88.39 �_
7024
033
6.66
320 322 833
269
-_ .__ 196
562
28.90
22830
11745
3309 _
31685
6199:
SEP_
1232
8503
_67.61'_
0.32;
_ 6.39
3.08; 310 6.16_,
_259
_ 541_
-27:82
_ 219.17
114.69
_3185
306.66
_- _5361,
13353223
1
7323_'
034
336^ 451
280J
_1.89;
204
3016
23822
11650
3453
32656
6469,.
NOY
1342_
9267
7364.
_
0.35
_6_93
6.96
-_ _3.34 -
3.35 337 4.54
282
_
- - 205
_- -586'
589
3030
23936,
8800
3669.,
29706
64,99y
DEC
15.24
105 28
8366
0.39 ;
7.31
3.81 3.83 515
3.20 ,
- 2.33;
_ 6.69 `
3442
271.92 _•
75.26
39.61
312.76
7383
TOTALS:
156.11
1.078.36 ,
856.81
4.05
81.05
33 02 , 99.25 52 77
S2 79
29 90
68.56.! _ - ..
352.59
_.
2,785.35
1,220 40
.._._
405.69 i_.._
9,653.16
.....y_
156.28
--
JUL-07
_ _
5.60%
38.72X.
___..
- __-.__
30.11%
- -_
0.14kL
_ __.
291%
-
1.40% 1.41% 1.69%
1.18%
.__
0.86X'
2.46%,
1266%
100.00%
_
RON PROGRAM DIVERSION BY TYPE [COMMERCIAL]:
_ RESIDENTIAL
, _TRASH TO
F (' I
COMM R .IA
WASTE TRASH TO -'WASTE---
- INDUSTRIAL TOTAL SEAL RFACH
TRASH TO , WASTE TRASH TO WASTE
OCC CONIDIRTXTREE
_
GRNVST
_
PAPER 'Total LANDFILL
GENERATED LANDFILL GENERATED.
LANDFILL GENERATED LANDFILL GENERATED
_METAL
JAN
15.52
10,00
1546
26.86
_
2.62 70.46
54135
853.22 -
998.07_ _
1068.53
_-
385.71
385.71
1925.13
230746
FEB
3.14
30.23
_
1.73 33.10
40825
663.81.
74411.
779.21
354.93,
354.93
1507.33
179785
MAR
0.43
3.41
1.05
4706..
_
1.98 -3s
478.88
762_11._
838.28'- _
89221
_ 428.31_ _
- .,42831
1745.47
2082.63
APR
0.08
2.97
_._
2342
_ _53 _ _
11.67 38 -21
518.68
_
• 83568
799.93
838.20
306.22;
30622,
162483
1980.10
MAY
0.10
6.52
_0.13
0.31
16.49
_ _
3.95
523.27
839.65,
850.291
877.66
392.60. _
. 392.60
1766.16
210891
1JUN
022
326_
_
846
_
n6t
_ _21.31
1444
526.27
801.37
70683 _
736.78,
_307.95 _
307.95
_ 1541.05
1846.10
Jut
_
0.22
3.86
0.53
_
0.62
_25.35 _
2.02 7.25
574.04
_
910 22 _
820.84 ,
926_19
342 58
342.58
1837.56
2180.83
,AUG
0.31
361
087,
20.27
-
4.46:
_
543_35
_ _
860,20.
_. 84129, _
871.01
386._31,_386_31
- .1770.95.
- . 211752,
.
i SEP
1.68
3.56
14 55
- _- -,
_
41.75
_25.72 _ - _
2.90 64.54
498.35_
804 99'
_ - 783.35 ,. _.
84769
346.75
346 75 _
._ 1628 45.
1999, 43
lacy
141
413
1361
3099
_ _8.28, 58.48_
532.62
857,18;755.75,_
-
814.23_
_ _322.01
32201.1610.38
_ 199342
_
-__-
I Nov
1.41
4.19
_-
13.61
3099
_-
828. 58.48
544.88
841.94,
71936
778.44
274.80
27480,
1539.64
_ _.189518
'.DEC
1 32
3.97
3.81
_
26.44_
_
11.43_.._43_03
839_94'
748.301_
797,33'25683.256.83;___1532,31;
189410
TOTALS:
__..
1.18
...___
58.38
58.5T
15.46 ,
308.13
- ._...
73.66 s2zs8 ` _
„- _527,18
621716'
_
_ 9870 32
970.7 70 _10229 48_
_ 4105.00
- 4105.00'
-dispose
20029 26 _-
24PO4.80`
___ _, • _
- -
-
. _ -
- -
_
----
199 0 Baseline
.
d
'- - -_ - _ -. --
PARTICIPATION YEAR TO DATE
-. -- _
--
_ -- _ - -.
- -- _
_
49_0/;
RESIDENTIAL
- __ --
;COMMERCIAL
-- -_-
-- --- _---
- --- -- --;JAN
FEB_
_- _ - --
-3774.33'- ---
377433,
-- ,-_ -, -:_
_ .192513.
1507.33•
_
601%1
TOTAL
TRASHTO.TOTAL
_
Y. WASTE
_ _
TOTAL TRASHTCTOTAL
_
7. WASTE
,MAR
377433:
_
1745.47_
538'/._;,
_
WASTE !RECYCLED
_
RECYLAB'LANDFILLWASTE
RECYCLED_
APR
_ _
162483
_ _
____RECYLABLANDFILL
6217.16'
9870.32.
5K.38- 8707.10
10229 48
51 /.
MAY
.377433._ -__.
33_
_.
_176616
- _
- 532Y.
-.
JUN
_.
_3774
3774.33
1541.05,
_
-
592'/.'
JUL
377433
183756
_
SE_ALBERCHTOTAL_ _
'TRASHTCTOTAL
_
___
3774.33:
-_
1770.95'
,..-
_ _ -513%,
__.------
TOTAL
�-- -- -- --
TRASHTO,TOTAL ,/..WASTE
LWASTE
-------
--
-- --_ _
TOTAL
___'_
/. WASTE
- -- -'AUG
-
--
.-
3774.33!
- -
-
162845'
- - - --
-- ..._
56.9'/.'
_
RECYLAB
- _
_
LANDFILL
-_-
-
_ _ _
-, _-
--
. _ REC1 LAB, LANDFILL WASTE __..
RECYCLED_-_.-
,SEP
--- -- -
10CT
- -_
-_ - _
- - -- ------
3774.33'___
-- -...
- --- - -
1610.38
- - -- - ,__
-- -- -
_ 57.3/, -_
0.00
4105.00
_RECYCLED
4105.00;
0 D%
_
4175,54 20029.2&
24204 80
17.3'/. _
:NOV
_
3774 33
_
-_ 1539.64'
.-
58.2y.
377433,
1532.31',
59 4Z,
,DEC_
Total
_ -_
_
45291.96
19876.03
56.1%
RE CYCLE SEAL CH (IRESK Nj
003 !All weights listed intone
TOTAL i
OCC i
NEVS
MIP3 IALUCANi
TIN CANI FLINT i AF48ER
GREEN PET 81 1
HDPECL __HOPE
CO :RESIDUAL
RESIRECY !TRASH
GEEENWST I NET RECYCLE NET TRASH
JAN
1823
127.16
78.31.
0.46
811!
1.05 •
U)2
2521' 2.88,
1.99
47 0
41.46
-3
310 7-L..
A�4�
35980 :
i- !FEB
15.22
106
677
088
0.85
2104 2.24
166
393
4 a
259 05
34.60
85.16
303.61,
?4.60
MAR
15.87
110 68
6816
0.40
7.0
0.911
088 •
2194; 2.33
173
409
3608
27015
3608
90.16
32423
36,081
APR
17.62
12287
75.66
044
7.831
101
0.88
24.36 259
192
4.551
4006
4006
12014,
379,97
1MAY
17.43 ,
12158_
7487x_
044
7.75
100
0.97
2410 256
190
4.50
3964
28674
39.64
13002
38712
-4006.�-
_3964:
JUN 1
16.16
11266:
69.39
041
7.18
093
0.90
2234!_ 2.38
177
4.17
3674
275.03
36.74
130.22
--- 368.5%36.74-
JUL
1533
109.671
6754,•__
0.39
6991
0.90
088
2174 2.31
172
- _._406_ -_
35.75
26768
3575
13414
36607
35,75
AUG
1627
113:441
6986
041____
.
0,94
0.91
22.0 2.39
1.78,
36.98
276881
3698
it) 70,
353.60'.
36,38
4- - -
SEP
1656
11549
7112
0.42
_723
736
035
032
2283 244
1.81
4.27
3765
28189
37.66
14343
38767
37.66
1690
11784
751:_____097___
094
2336 248-
_____- __185.
-__ -_- „436__
3842
287.82
3842
10745
5
3 6.65_
__38 42
_IDCT
NOV
15.46
10785
__7257__
66.42
_042-' -__
-_
688
0 89
0.86
2L38 227
169
3,99
3516__.-
____26324
_.3516
9062
31870•_
35I6
DEC
1834,
127.91
7877-
_J.391
106
1.02
2535 270
200 -
473
4170
31219
4170,
5705
,32754-
4170
TOTALS:
199.78
1.393.30
858.00
-0.46:-
5.01
88.82
11.13:_
276.19 29.38
21.82"
51.54--, 45425
3.400.7-3- .-45-4z24
_1.292.98----.-4.239-46
--454.25
OCT-112�
5.87%
40 97%!
25.23%
0.15%
2.61x____0.34%_
033%
8.12% 0.96%
0.64x'
1.52%,
13.36%
100.00%
RESIBENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
111OUSTRIAL
TOTACSEALBEII66
NON PROGRAM DIVERSION BY TYPE [COMMERCIAL)
TRASH TO
WASTE
TRASH TO WASTE
TRASH TO WASTE
TRASH TO WASTE
:METAL
OCC CGNiDIRT
XTREE GRAVST�PAPER Total
--
LANDFILL
GENERATED
-W
LANDFILL GENERATED
-fi5 -Woo'
LANDFILL GENERATED
LANDFILL GENERATED
!JAN
1.94
7.78
455
9.35
- 4402 . -
- 2 . 75
- 70.39
56846
76'
61-
N619
246.19
166 T6
2040.95
VFEB
1.150.1
17,37
4.89
1933
289
49.59
45303
76264 -
65688
70687 -
21511
215.11
132502
168462
MAR
1.68
368
1371
,
8557
7.47
112.11
52481
84904'_
749.66
86171
327.80
32780
1602.21
203655.
APR
234
382
2729
621R
483
100.49
2:73
99170,
82729,
927.75
29812
29812
1738 14
221857
J1 MAY
2.18
3.55
1835,
3628
462
64.98
59546
982.58
781.88
846.86
298.97
298.97
1676.31
212841
]JUN
ZA-
2102
2722 ,
16.89,
75-49
56466
93317
793.94
86943
265.48 •
26548
1624.08
206808
!JUL
2.21
-8-26-
388
2350_;_
5230•-_ - _
3.28
85.17
-721.61
1087 08
817.48,
902 U5
264.36.-
264 30
1802.79
2254 03
]AUG
222
443
1377
6917
6.0
99.24
603.19
95679
748.83
84507
280.99.
-256
280.99,
1633.01
2082 - 85
�SEP
217
840
2543
62,87
307,
101.34
-600 38
98805
N5 6
646.95
4�-
_25944
____160483'_
209444
JOCT
2.32
4.32
2078 .
5959
379
90.80
58388
94053____76031
851.11
243.19
243,19,
1587.38
203483
INOV
088
813
9S9
4221
3.24
64-51
49452
813.22
679.30,
743.81
240 66,.
�240.66!
1414 48'
179769
IDEC
221
419
1633
4.11
4631
383
76.38
53634
863.88.__,-
77664•,
853.62,
20018_,_,
20018,
151316
191768
:TOTALS:
23.75
6467
212.09
I&H
907.10
93.31
929.06
6878.97
M18.43
9112.77 10101.83,
-
3140.
W6-
-
-31.40,43,
-_ -- 19132.17_
- -----
24360.69
7
Disposed
Diverted
YEAR TO DATE
I �JAN
3774.331
1610 76
573%
- --
,RESIDENTIAL -
- --- _?ARTICIPATION
-------
commak
_ _
FEB
__ __ _
_ _- -- --
3774 33
1325021
- -- -
649%
---
TRASH TO , TOTAL_
-
% WASTE
TOTAL :TRASHTO
TOTAL
% WASTE
!MAR
377433
1602.21
575%,
RECYLABLILANDFILL WASTE ;RECYCLED
RECYLABL
LANDFILL WASTE
]RECYCLED
APR
3774.33,
173814
539V
--�2i4i(3
6878 97
11118 43
38.1%,
989 06
9112.77 1010183:
98%.
�MAY
3774 337_
1676 31
55.6%
;
-
--- -------
. .... ..
JUN
3774 33L
624
57 0 %,_
4
JUL
3774.33
------
- - - -`-
1802.79!
522%w
INDUSTRIAL
rSEAL
BEACH TOTAL
AUG
377433,
163301.:_-..---
567 %,
TOTAL
fkiSk TO M
i STiF
TOTAL
TRASH TO TOTAL WASTE
SEP
.
1604 81
---'--
--
575%
RECYLABILLANDFLL
WASTE IRECYCLED
:RECYLABLIANDFILL WASTE
!RECYCLED
- - - - --
'OCT
- - -
___377433___
-
377433;
1587 38!
-- --
57.9%
6 -.0-0-
----
- -3-1 4-0-A 3-
-3-14- 0-4 3-
0- 0 % -
- - - -1 - -
- - -- -
�
-- - - - -
5228.52
- -- - - -_ - - -- --
1913217 24360.691
--- -- -
21.5%
- - ---
!NOV
-- - - --
3774.33
--
141448
62.5%�
------
---- ---
----------
- --
!DEC
3774.33,
151316,
599%
Total
45291.96
19876.03,
56.1%
Consolidated /Briweman Preventative Maintenance Program
By any comparison, Consolidated /Briggeman has experienced an incredible
record of vehicle service in the City of Seal Beach. This accomplishment is
attributable to three factors. First, we purchase the very best new equipment.
Second, we strictly adhere to a stringent, exhaustive preventive maintenance
program. And, third, we have long -term, seasoned employees who know the
City, and who know how to operate and care for the trucks.
In Seal Beach, the company has experienced less than 2% vehicle
downtime during the past five years. A copy of the Preventative Maintenance
Program is included as an Exhibit at the end of this report. Briefly, the program is
performed as follows:
Preventative Maintenance - "A" inspection
Performed at 150 hours or 90 days. This is an inspection of the complete vehicle
and all operating systems. It includes measuring and recording brake linings and
tire treads. All moving parts are lubricated.
Preventative Maintenance - "B" inspection
Performed at 300 hrs or 90 days. This inspection includes all items from the
P.M.A. inspection and adds the change of engine oil and oil and fuel filters. Oil
samples are taken from the engine, transmission and differentials and sent for
laboratory analysis.
Maintenance and repair items noted during these inspections are transferred to a
work order for correction. All safety related items are corrected before the vehicle
is returned to service.
The P.M. "B" inspection exceeds the annual inspection requirements of the DOT
(U.S. Department of Transportation) as well as the California Highway Patrol
B.I.T. (Biennial Inspection of Terminal) requirements.
Additional inspections are performed on the automatic transmissions and
hydraulic systems at six -month intervals.
All technicians assigned to perform P.M. inspections are certified and have
received specific training for the assigned service tasks.
Road -Call /Out -of- Service HistoN
Through the first quarter of 2004, there have been 14 instances requiring a
service truck to perform an on -route service for a Seal Beach vehicle.
Additionally, there have been five occasions requiring the return of a Seal Beach
truck to the shop for repair or adjustment.
By company policy, service vehicles are dispatched for on -route inspection (and
repair, if needed) at any time a driver reports issues related to the braking or
lighting systems.
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE
REPUBLIC
TRUCK PREVENTIVE
�� �!`
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION
&�i SERVICES, INC.
CHECK
Code
A B (CIRCLE ONE)
CAB if DRIVE
'A = AL L A ITEMS B = ALL A & B ITEMS
D = ANNUAL D.O.T. INSPECTION ITEMS
NOTE:
Use a ✓ In column to indicate serviced and no repair or
All applicable Lockout/
adjustment needs to be made.
Tagout procedures
Use an M in column to indicate adjustment made.
must be followed.
Use an X in column to-indicate a repair need to be made.
-
Use an N in column to indicate vehicle not equipped.
DATE _
UNIT NO
ODOMETER _
HOURMETER
LOCKOUT Y/N
RO. NO
CHECK
Code
In@
CHECK
Code Init
CHECK
Code
Init
CAB if DRIVE
Check & adjust tire pressure. Record PSI,
tread depth
,
PSI pSl
/32
PSI PSI PSI PSI
/32 — 132 —L31
PSI PSI PSI PSI
—� —� �i
2 PSI PSI 2 PSI PSI
� �
While under chassis inspect frame &
cross members for cracks or wear
AID
Obvious signs of leakage under engine,
transmission & rear axles
AID
2
X32
—1
Rear suspension system for damage,
cracks, or excessive wear
AID
Engine Oil & Coolant Level
A
Operation and adjustment of door, door
latches, and hinges; lubricate
B
DiHerenfial(s) pinion bearing for
loosens or leaks
AID
Differental(s) housing, bolts and gaskets
for looseness or leaks
A
Condition & operation of seats, seat
adjusters & seat belts; lubricate
A
Clutch pedal travel - top &bottom
AID
Replace differential filter, if applicable
B
Air pressure - holding and leaked off
AID
Differential(s) oil level
8
Air leaks on brake application, not to
exceed 3 psi in one minute
AID
Clean differential(s) breather vent
B
Inspect brakes, drums &wheel seals,
chambers, adjust brakes, as needed
record on attached chart
AID
/32
Bleed down air pressure, enter alarm
pressure setting psi
A/D
Registration /Insurance Papers in Cab
/vD
ENGINE
Enter air governor cut out pressure
psi
A
B
Code
InN
Raise cab or hood, check mounting,
pivot points, hinges & latches
A
Operation of dash gauges, interior lights,
and switches
Check PTO Overspeed Lubricate shaft
A
All exterior lights - including 4 -ways
directionals, back up & strobe light
AID
Replace engine oil & fuel filters
B
Enter engine oil pressure
Lo Idle _ # High idle q
9
A
Drain fuel /water separator, if applicable
B
License plates, mud (taps &mountings
A
Check engine for any unusual noise
A
Clean & inspect batteries box, mounting,
hold downs, terminals and cables
B
Service cooling system filter, if applicable
B
Operation of heater, defroster, etc.
A
Service power steering filter, change oil
D
Test back up alarm and cameras
rear motion
A
Test batteries and disconnect switch
8
Fill power steering reservoir
B
Test charging system and record output
Amps Volts
B
Service emission systems, if applicable
B
Operation of horn, air, and electric
A
Opacity Test
8
Operation of parking brake & PP valve
AID
Fuel tank- mounting, lines, vent & filter
cap/gasket
Body mounting and hold down
AID
BID
Coolant level. Add water or antifreeze as
required. Record Deg. protection
B
Operation of speedometer and
tachometer
BID
Test cooling system conditions; add as
required. Test pH
B
Operation of Tag or Pusher Axle
A
Drain air tanks and test one -way -
check valves
BID
Operation o/ windshield wipers and
washers
A/D
Check tie rod and and drag -link
Set toe -in to specifications as needed
B/D
B
All belts for condition & proper adjustment
P P I
Alternator mounting brackets & related
wiring
B
B
Inspect steering wheel free play
AID
i Condition of underdash wiring
A
All front brake lines & hoses
AID
Air compressor & mounting
B
Condition of windows, slides &
regulators; lubricate
B/D
Front springs, center bolts, & U -bolts
I AID
Water pump bearing for looseness
if applicable
B
Drain engine oil - inspect & dean
magnetic plug, take oil sample
B
Condition of exterior mirrors
A
Check fan blade and fan shroud for cracks
and condition, lubricate hub
B
Safety equipment, Fire Extinguisher
Decals/Triangles
A
Lubricate clutch release bearing and
check clutch return spring if applicable
B
Start engine; inspect filters, gaskets &
fuel lines for leakage
BID
Check Sun Visor /Check CA #
A
Bell housing bolts & engine mounting
A
WALKAROUND
Transmission oil level; inspect for
any signs of leakage
A
Pressure test radiator cap
B
Pressure test cooling system
B
Clean transmission breather vent
B
Wheels, nuts and studs for looseness
or cracks or wheel slippage
A/D
Clean transmission breather vent
B
Check for leaks & coolant hose condition
while under pressure
B
Wheel bearing reservoirs for correct
level and leaks if applicable
AID
Transmission rear bearing and retainer
for looseness or leakage
A
Check the air induction system for cracks
or leaks; check clamps
A
Oriveline slip yokes, flanges & midship
bearings and universal joints
AID
Axle flange nuts, gaskets &seals for
9 g
looseness or leakage
A/D
Air cleaner restriction - maximum 20
inches of vacuum
A
For irre ular tire wear or mismatched tires
9
A
Exhaust system, muffler, pipes,
brackets, etc.
BID
All visible bolts, engine mounting, hoses
and wiring harnesses
A
Record the pressure in pounds on tire
chart - correct pressures as needed
AID
Lubricate chassis drivelrain and body
replace missing or defective fittings
AID
Service air compressor filter, if applicable
P pP
B
Front wheel bearings and kingpins for
looseness - /root end raised
BID
While lubricating chess /s; check lines,
fittings, hoses, bolts, etc.
AID
Service au drier
D
Throttle linkage & return springs & lube
B
IW 4i A
CnnV Ism n�..�.....
CHECK
WALKAROUND
Code
Ind
CHECK ..,,
INSIDE BODY
Code
Ind
CHECK
FEL
Code
Im
1) Inspect body mounts and fasteners
A/D
1) Inspect access ladder and door for
damage, lubricate as n
necessary
ry
NAME AND ADDRESS OR
A
Lubricate and inspect Forks and Arms
for dame a and wear
URTI
A
2 Inspect entire body for holes 8 damages
IS MAINTAINED:
A
3) inspect rails, frame & bed for cracks
and damage it applicable
AID
2) Inspect floors and channels (tracks)
for wear
CONDUCTED IN
A
1) Lubricate and inspect Fork cross shaft
bearing
A
4) Inspect hydraulic tank mounts and
fasteners
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: X
A
3) Inspect wear blocks and fasteners
AVE CHECKEDALL OFTHE ABOVEAND NOTEDALLDEFECTS REALIZING MANY MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAFE OPERATIONS OF
A
2) Lubricate and inspect Fork Arm
cylinders, mounts pins
NATURE
A
4) Operate & inspect paddle, pushout
blade for damage
DATE
B
5) Check hydraulic tank, oil level and
breathor
A
5) Inspect and lubricate cylinder pivots,
anchors, pins & wear points as needed
A
3) Lubricate and inspect Lift arm
cross shaft
A
ROLL OFF
fi Inspect cylinders for signs of leakage
p y g 9
A
)Lift arm stop
4 p pads /decal valve
A
1) Lubricate and inspect rollers
A
7) Operate ejector system, lubricate all
Clevis' pins and control cables. Inspect
all steel lines, hoses, control valve and
cylinders for leaks
A
5) Inspect condition and mounting of
cab guard and hopper side door
A
2) Lubricate and inspect sheaves, pins,
and cable blocks/rail hooks, slots
AID
3) Inspect hoist cable for damage
AID
6) Lubricate and inspect for wear and
damage to hopper /top door
p
4) Inspect hoist reeving cylinders for signs
of leakin and lubricate if a licable
A
8) Lubricate inspect packer paddle
actuator, i ns, bushings, linkage
A
_
7) Operate forks and arms, check for play,
and Inspect cylinders, steel lines
and hoses for leaks, lubricate
control mechanisms
B
5) Operate and raise hoist or flatbed,
lubricate and inspect all control linkage
and iston ivot pints
B
TAILGATE INSPECTION
i) Inspect bottoms, sides, steps, channels
for damage
A
6) Inspect all steel hoes, hoses, cylinders
and control valves for leaks & clam, a
B
2) Inspect all cylinder mounts for
damage or wear
A
OVERHEAD HOIST
7) Lower hoist or set ramp body, ensure
square fit
A
3) Lubricate all cylinders, pivots, pins
and bushings
A
1) Inspect container latches and
mounts for for damage
q
8 p
Check operation & lubricate auto to er
B
4) In ec[ blades
P (if applicable) for
damage, wear, cracks, etc.
A
2) Inspect and lubricate sheaves, pulleys,
and pins
A
9) Check/replace winch gear oil
B�
TRACTORS
5) Operate cycle mechanisms if applicable,
lubricate and inspect all rollers, roller
tracks, linkages (rear loaders)
A
3) Inspect cable and hook for damage
p
4) Operate system, check valve.
cylinders, hoses and steel
for leaks
A
1) Inspect operation of Tractor Protectio
Valve
AID
6) Inspect all steel lines, hoses, cylinders,
and operating valves, for leaks and wea
(
B
2) Inspect operation of Trailer Hand
Brake Valve
A�
AUTO /ARM- TIPPERS
3) Inspect operation of Trailer Air Hoses
4) Inspect operation of Glad Hands
& Seals
AID
AID
7) tailgate seal ' inspect for leaks, check
8) Lubricate and inspect tailgate hinges,
pins, locking devices. Check welds
for cracks and defects
A
A
1) Inspect all hoistings and dumping
mechanisms
2) Lubricate all pivot points, pins
bushings and rollers
A
p
5) Inspect operation of Light Cord & Plug
AID
6) Lubricate & inspect 51h wheel, jaws,
latch, mounting, free play
AID
9) Lower tailgate, ensure square fit
B
3) Operate and inspect all hoses, steel
lines, operating valves and cylinders.
Check for wear and leaks.
B
10) Check Ilftgate anti -slip for wear
A
n�wwnna / LtIJChttYANC1ES:
DATE
AFTER COMPLETION OF INSPECTION, IF ALL D CODE COLUMN
ITEMS ARE IIl COMPLIANCE, THIS QUALIFIES AS THE FEDERAL
LINING SLACKS
HOSES ANNUAL INSPECTION FORM. COMPLETE THIS BOX FOR
CERTIFICATION -
DATE OF INSPECTION:
NAME AND ADDRESS OR
MOTOR CARRIER WHERE
URTI
THE INSPECTION REPORT
IS MAINTAINED:
THIS VEHICLE HAS PASSED
AN ANNUAL INSPECTION
CONDUCTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH 49
OPR, PART 396.17, FMCSR.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: X
ITE ALL REPAIRS ON REPAIR ORDER,
NOTIFY SUPERVISOR OF ANY MAJOR PROBLEMS IMMEDIATELY.
AVE CHECKEDALL OFTHE ABOVEAND NOTEDALLDEFECTS REALIZING MANY MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAFE OPERATIONS OF
THIS VEHICLE.
NATURE
DATE
DATE
ORANGE COUNTY
Solid Waste Survey - November 2002
_
Ci -
n, ..
.;._:.a
Papulatkbii as
1/2002
OVERVIEW OF SERVICE
.. :. - • - .. �� • � � • �+ •
,•V •. " .:'•;e
• I:esidetitiallle £ qse Cql eclat j'.,.'' <',. ::
;. ....
ARRANGEMENTS
- - -- -
' ' -Year tdnttdek'
" •'.'ve_ epn.`:;:. ,' ) sor'
igr _pile ._ _
Renewal use,
- SrgerETcigt
, �• r ` .' ' .' ..
•.,.. t6minercial,RefuseCollectdr% '
-
Yiokl OEE SaX
Included in
Omtttirri
rant i 5e;1.
naheim
334,700
Z eimDisposal(Rep. -)
Yes
15 years
Anaheltn Disposal ublic)
Yes
"ea
36,850
Brea Disposal (Republic)
Yes
20years
Brea Disposal (Republic)
Yes
iena Park
79,800
Park Disposal (ED CO)
Yes
10 years
Par Disposal (EDCO)
Yes
osta Mesa
110,700
osta aDisposal
Yes
6 years
Opencompetikion 13 haulers)
n/a
press
47,250
Briggeman(Republic)
es
20 years
Briggeman(Republic)
Yes
ana Point
36,000
CR&R Disposal -
No
2006
R Disposal -
Yes
)untain Valley
55,900
Rainb,ow Disposal
Yes
12 years
Rainbow Dispos
`
Yes
rllerton
129,300
MG Disposal (Republic)
No
2009
MC Disposal (Republic)
Yes
arden Grove
168,600
Taormina Disposal (Republic)
No
2014
Taormina Disposal (Republic)
Yes
untington Beach
194,600
Rainbow Disposal
Yes
15 years
Rainbow Disposal
Yes ,
vine
157,500
Waste Management
No
2
Ex usive - e aste_Mgmt 40°o); open
compe8tion(60 %) _
Excludes temp.
boxes
a Habra
60,700
Waste Management
Yes
5 years
Waste Management
Yes
a Palma
15,850
Park Disposal (EDCO)
No
2008
ark Disposal CO
Yes
aguna Beach
24,300
Waste Management ' _
No
2008
ante g=mant
Excludes temp.
boxes
aguna Hills
33,800
CR&RDisposal
No
2006
CR&RDispos
Yes
aguna Niguel
63,500
QidrR Dispos
Yes
7yeazs
CR&R Disposal
Yes
aguna Woods
18,300
C&N
Waste Management and CR &R Disposal.
No
ake Forest
76,600
Waste Maxagernent
o
2003
Waste Management
Yes
os Alamitos
11,700.
Briggeman (Republic)
No
2007.
Briggeman (Republic)
Yes
lission Viejo
, 98,300
Waste Management
No
2008 -
Waste Management
Yes
75,700
Municipal
n a
n/a
Non-exclusive franchise haulers)
Yes
Draft, 2/19103 Page 1 Hilton Farnkopf Hobson, LLC
. ORANGE COUNTY
Solid Waste Survey - November 2002 .
Cy.
Pop l aton as
A.�
i i
ResidentalKefusc Uakfa
R
3 b
Indt ded
Comp4e ;clal
Orange
132,906
Waste' Management
No
2009
Waste Management
Yes
Placentia
48,300
Taormina Disposal (Republic)
Yes
--ff-y—eus
Taomuna Disposal (Republic)
yes
Rancho Santa Marguerita
48,500
Waste Management
0
2005-
Waste Management
boxes
3ar �JuwjCapjs�tr�
34,700
CR&R Disposal
NO
2007
CR&R Dispo sal
Yes
-9m —Clemente
54,900
CR&R Disposal
No
20-07
CR&R Disposal
Yes
Santa Ana
343,700
Waste Management
No
2003--
wastamanagement
Yes
Seal Beach'
24,700
Briggeman (Republic3
—Yes
—7years
Briggman (Republic)
Yes
Stanton
39,100
CR&R Disposal
Yes
7years•
CR&RDisposal
Yes
Tustin
69,100
Fedffal Disposal
No
2007
Fedual Disposal
Yes
Villa Park
6,175
Taormina Disposal (Republic)
Yes
yean�
20 F4rus—
Taormina, Disposal (Republic)
Yes
Westminster
89,700
Mid -Way City Sardtation (Municipal)
No
Rainbow Disposal
Yes
Yorba Linda
F"'01
Taormina. Disposad (Republic)
es
--270 —years
Taormina Disposal (Republic)
Yes
- June 2000 survey data for the City of Seal Beach
A Companv Overview
Together, Consolidated /Briggeman and the City of Seal Beach have successfully
provided high quality, cost effective recycling and solid waste collection services.
Seal Beach has exceeded the stringent waste reduction and recycling
requirements mandated by the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(AB939) every year since 1995. This is an outstanding accomplishment and a
credit to the quality recycling programs that were approved by the City and
implemented by the company.
Herewith, we provide a brief general report regarding our company and the array
of services that we provide.
Form of Organization
Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC (CDS), is' a wholly owned subsidiary of
Republic Services, Inc. (NYSE: RSG). Consolidated is among Republic's largest
and most successful operating companies nationally.
Years in Business
The legal entity Consolidated Disposal Service, L.L.C. was organized on August
5, 1998, however, the various operating companies that make up the Company
have a service history in the Los Angeles County marketplace that extends well
over 50 years. Briggeman Disposal joined the Republic family of companies in
August of 1997. Since that date, the company has continued the strong tradition
of customer service established by Briggeman Disposal. Together, CDS and
Briggeman Disposal Services have served this community for over 40 years.
Consolidated Disposal Service
Consolidated Disposal Services, L.L.C. is an operating division of Republic
Services, the nation's third largest solid waste services provider. Now, the
Republic family of companies has fostered the environment for continuing the
excellent and long- standing reputations for superior service earned by such
companies as Consolidated Disposal Service, Briggeman Disposal, Zakaroff
Recycling Services, Rapidway Disposal, Cal Waste, Angeles- Hudson, Atlas
Transport, and Perdomo and Sons, as well as dozens of smaller entities, now
reside within CDS.
Consolidated has long -term, exclusive .solid waste contracts with twenty -eight
(28) municipalities in the Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Within these 28
exclusive contracts, Consolidated serves approximately 225,000 households (i.e.
curbside or backyard, can and cart customers) and approximately 18,000 regular
commercial accounts (excluding temporary_ accounts). In addition, Consolidated
has thirteen non - exclusive municipal contracts for residential and /or commercial
solid waste collection as well as over 25,000 additional commercial accounts in
LA County. The company owns and operates a materials recovery facility, three
(3) transfer stations and one of the largest landfills in the United States.
Financial Statements
With annual revenues over $2.3 billion, Republic is the only investment grade
rated company in the waste industry, as determined by Moody's and Standard
and Poors. Republic's strong financial base lends creditability and value to the
coverages; performance guarantees, indemnifications and other protections that
the company has extended to the City of Seal Beach.
Republic Services, Inc. is a publicly owned company whose shares are traded on
the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE symbol: RSG).
Financial Data (in millions)
Dun & Bradstreet Rating (DUNS Number: 02 -013 -8298)
On December 31, 2002, Republic Services, Inc. reported total assets of
$4,209,100,000. Republic Services has some 90 transfer stations, 56 landfills, 33
materials recovery/recycling facilities, and 142 collection operations in 22 states.
Summary- Experience and Financial Ability
Consolidated is one of the largest integrated waste management companies in
Southern California, and possesses the financial, technical and operational
wherewithal to meet and exceed all of the City's requirements. At the same time,
we maintain a local, personal, "hands on" approach to serving our municipal
customers. This approach has served to set us apart from our competitors, both
large and small. This, in part, is due to the fact that the large majority of our
employees have remained from the mergers and acquisitions of the past decade.
In Seal Beach, five (5) of the six (6) employees providing collection services were
brought aboard in the Briggeman acquisition. The retention of these employees
demonstrates the commitment CDS has to maintaining the tradition of excellence
established at Briggeman Disposal. In this vein, we strive to maintain the unique
iii
1999
1998
Revenue _
2002
$2,365.1
2001
$2,257.5
$2,103.3
$1,869.3
$1,375,0
Pro forma operating income
$459.5
$415.4
$440.7
$397.5
1 $284.3
.Pro forma net income
$239.6
$211.6
$225.1
$206.8'
$177.6
Total assets,
$4,209.1
$3,850.0.
$3,561.5
:$3,288.3 '
$2,812.1 -
Stockholder's equity ;
$1,881.1
$1,755.9'
$1,674.9 •
$1,502.7 =
$1,299.1
Dun & Bradstreet Rating (DUNS Number: 02 -013 -8298)
On December 31, 2002, Republic Services, Inc. reported total assets of
$4,209,100,000. Republic Services has some 90 transfer stations, 56 landfills, 33
materials recovery/recycling facilities, and 142 collection operations in 22 states.
Summary- Experience and Financial Ability
Consolidated is one of the largest integrated waste management companies in
Southern California, and possesses the financial, technical and operational
wherewithal to meet and exceed all of the City's requirements. At the same time,
we maintain a local, personal, "hands on" approach to serving our municipal
customers. This approach has served to set us apart from our competitors, both
large and small. This, in part, is due to the fact that the large majority of our
employees have remained from the mergers and acquisitions of the past decade.
In Seal Beach, five (5) of the six (6) employees providing collection services were
brought aboard in the Briggeman acquisition. The retention of these employees
demonstrates the commitment CDS has to maintaining the tradition of excellence
established at Briggeman Disposal. In this vein, we strive to maintain the unique
personality and spirit of the acquired companies and their employees, while
benefiting from their combined resources, knowledge and experience.
Municipal Franchise Experience
Through long -term franchise agreements, Consolidated is one of the largest
holder of exclusive solid waste franchises in California. Throughout the cities we
serve, Consolidated provides all manner of services suited to meet each
community's specific needs. At present, Consolidated provides exclusive solid
waste collection and /or recycling services to the following communities:
Artesia
Avalon
Bell
Cudahy
Cypress
El Segundo
Hawaiian Gardens
Huntington Park
La Mirada
Lawndale
Los Alamitos
Maywood
Norwalk
Rosemead
Santa Fe Springs
Seal Beach
West Hollywood
Whittier
Santa Clarita
County of LA (Walnut Park)
Bell Canyon (CSD)
County of LA (Athens)
Alhambra
County of LA (Mesa)
Hermosa Beach
County of LA (Belvedere)
Redondo Beach
Lynwood
Pasadena
El Monte
Santa Monica
Agoura Hills
Calabasas
Westlake Village
Description of General Services Offered by Consolidated
As a regional company, Consolidated is poised to offer the broadest selection of
waste services available. Consolidated specializes in municipal franchises and
has therefore expanded its scope of services to include all facets of municipal
waste handling.
Full Spectrum of Waste Services
• Residential Waste Collection
=> Automated
=> Semi - Automated
=> Manual
• Curbside Recycling
• Green Waste Recycling
• Special Pick -Up Programs
Bulky Item Pick -Up
=> City -Wide Clean -Up Campaigns
=> Christmas Tree Recycling
•
Community Education Programs
•
CommerciallIndustrial Waste Services
=> Standard Bin Service
Roll -Off and Compactor Service
=> Construction and Demolition Debris Removal
=> Commercial Recycling Programs
•
Materials Recovery Facility Services
•
Recycling Center Operations
•
Recyclables Commodity Marketing
•
Landfill Operations
•
Mixed Waste Composting
•
Municipal Street Sweeping
•
Consulting Services
Customer Service
All customer inquires and requests are processed through our "SoftPak"
Integrated Computerized Customer Call Log, Work Order, and Billing System.
This system eliminates the need for unnecessary manual paperwork and
storage, streamlines the flow of information from one department to another and
enables Consolidated to maintain a comprehensive file history for each
customer, including customer profile information, billing history, each customer
request or inquiry and follow -up resolution (work -order system), tonnage data,
routing data, etc. It also ensures that all customer inquiries are resolved and
work orders are completed.
Moreover, all chargeable (i.e. roll -off calls, extra bin pick -ups, wheel -out service
for non - eligible residents, etc.) and non - chargeable (i.e. missed pick -ups,
container exchange, bulky item pick -ups, etc.) customer requests are processed
through an automated work -order system that triggers, routes, tracks, monitors,
and maintains a permanent file history for all work orders and mandates
completion by a specific target date. Consolidated has extensive experience in
both residential and commercial billing. Consolidated has the infrastructure and
billing system for direct billing to any type of residential or commercial customer
along with any special detail or billing messages requested by our franchise
cities. Our billing statements are easy to understand, detailing service levels and
corresponding charges, and contain self- addressed envelopes for payment.
Key Elements of Consolidated's Customer Service Program
Highest Quality Personnel - We retain highly skilled and experienced
personnel and compensate them accordingly.
High Capacity - Adequate customer service staffing is critical and that is
why Consolidated, generally, has more CSRs in relation to its customer
base than any other major solid waste enterprise in the Los Angeles area.
Not only does this ensure easier access for the customer and quicker
response time by Consolidated, it also ensures that customers have as
much time as is necessary with our CSRs in order to resolve their inquiry.
Longer Operating Hours - Consolidated's customer service department
is open Monday through Friday 7:00 am to 5:30 pm and 7:00 am to 12:00
pm on Saturdays.
After Hours Calls -All calls received outside of these hours will be sent to
our voice messaging system for immediate follow -up the next business
day.
Fast complaint resolution - All customer inquiries are resolved
expeditiously by our Customer Service Department.
Computerized Customer Call Log and Work Order System - All
customer inquires and requests are processed through a Computerized
Customer Call Log and Work Order System. This system eliminates the
need for unnecessary manual paperwork and storage, streamlines the
flow of information from one department to another and enables
Consolidated to maintain a comprehensive file history for each customer
request or inquiry. It also ensures that all such inquiries are resolved and
work orders are completed.
Summary- Customer Service
A review of our phone records and customer files reveals an extremely low
number of service issues in Seal Beach. Our system shows 5,997 single - family
residents in the City of Seal Beach and 276 commercial customers. In the past
five (5) months our customer service center has averaged less than nine (9) calls
per month regarding service issues from this City. This is an extremely low
percentage and indicates a high level of customer satisfaction among our Seal
Beach customers. This statistic is tangible evidence of the strong commitment to
customer service established by George Briggeman and perpetuated by
Consolidated Disposal Services. We are proud of this tradition of excellence!
ATTACHMENT "Y"
6 -9 -97
regular adjourned meeting and the May 12th regular adjourned
and regular meetings.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fulton Motion carried
ITEM „R" - RESOLUTION NUMBER 4534 - DESTRUCTION - FINANCIAL
RECORDS
Councilmember Campbell read the list of financial records
proposed for destruction to which she expressed concern with
disposing of correspondence files as they may comprise a
paper trail, unless they are on computer disc or microfilmed.
The City Attorney explained that the Government Code sets
forth regulations and the Council has adopted resolutions
which allows the destruction of certain records after certain
periods of time, these records fall within those regulations,
with respect to the correspondence files they likely relate
to the other subject matters, however he was not
knowledgeable of the specifics of the correspondence,
therefore suggested that that category be pulled until they
are reviewed further. Campbell moved, second by Brown, to
adopt Resolution Number 4534 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL RECORDS" as
amended to delete the correspondence files pending further
review. By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution
Number 4534 was waived.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fulton Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - REFUSE RATE ADJUSTMENT
Acting Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to
consider refuse collection rates. The City Clerk certified
that notice of the public hearing had been advertised as
required by law, that notice had been made to the affected
customers, and reported no communications have been received
relating to this item. The City Manager emphasized that
notice had been given to all residential and commercial
accounts a minimum of forty -five days prior to this hearing.
The Manager reported this item is to consider implementation
of a rate regulation schedule establishing the maximum
allowable rates that can be charged by the refuse contractor
for residential and commercial service, this will allow the
contractor sufficient revenue to cover some of the new
programs such as greenwaste, weekly recycling citywide,
recycling in Old Town, and noted that current rates have not
been adjusted for seven to ten years.
The Acting Mayor invited members of the audience to come to
the microphone and state their name and address for the
record. ,Mr. Charles Antos, Seal Beach, recommended that
prior to the Council taking any action on this item the
Council meet with the City Attorney to review Statements of
Economic Interests and campaign contributions as to whether
certain Council members should be participating or voting on
6 -9 -97
this item. Ms. Dorothy Whyte, College Park East, asked if
all areas of the City are being charged the same rates and
receive the same number of pickups, if the downtown area
continues to have twice per week pickups, inquired as to the
formula for assessing the tree trimming charge that is
reflected on the water bill, is it based on front footage.
The Manager responded that residential and multi -unit
properties are the same rate, commercial is based on the
number of pickups. Mr. Gordon Shanks, Surf Place, pointed
out that the City does not communicate to the people the good
things that it does for the community, an example is that
residents were not aware of the once a week recycling pickups
as of June 1st. The Manager explained that notices of the
once a week recycling pickup had not been sent out by
Briggeman Disposal by June 1st. Councilmember Campbell
inquired if the letter from the contractor will also notify
of the requirement to remove the bins from the street and
store them out of sight. The Manager said he did not believe
the letter would contain that information however may be
accomplished by some other noticing means. At the request of
Council and for information of the public, he explained that
under the terms of the new refuse franchise agreement and
ordinance the bins are required to be removed from public
view by 10:00 p.m. on collection day, this a reactive effort
as a result of complaints from neighborhoods where the bins
are being left streetside for periods of time, and will be
enforced by means of warnings and subsequent citations, also
sixty gallon recycling bins are now available in lieu of the
one hundred gallon bins. There being no further comments,
Acting Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Campbell pointed out that the revised rates
were considered prior to implementing the weekly recycling
pickups therefore are not tied to one another. For the
record, the City Attorney stated that at the close of the
public hearing written protests were received by less than a
majority of the parcels subject to the increase. Hastings
moved, second by Brown, to approve the residential and
commercial rate structures as proposed.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fulton Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING - WATER RATE / WATER COMMODITY ADJUSTMENTS
Acting Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to
consider implementing the 1996 Water Rate Study
recommendation for a water rate adjustment and a water
commodity adjustment clause. The City Clerk certified that
notice of the public hearing had been advertised as required
by law, and certified that no communications have been
received relating to this item. The City Manager noted that
the upcoming proposed budget is based on and balanced upon
the refuse rates pursuant to the new franchise agreement and
the proposed water rate adjustments. He noted that the City
operates a full service water department and provides water
service to all residential and commercial properties in the
City, the water enterprise relies on revenues received
ATTACHMENT "Z"
B-11-97
side of the San Gabriel River between Pacific Coast Highway
and Westminster Avenue, it is currently oil field use and
vacant land, owned by the County of Los Angeles. Campbell
moved, second by Hastings, to receive'and file the staff
report, and requested staff to provide further reports as
appropriate.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried
ITEM "I" - STATUS REPORT - ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 96 -1
Mr. Reg Clewley, Catalina Avenue, asked who is going to pay
for the third mailed notice of ZTA 96 -1, the appellant should
be requested to pay the costs. The Director of Development
Services explained that notice will be made to properties
within three hundred feet of the boundaries of the area
impacted, the cost of the mailing is borne by the City as it
is a City proposal to change the Code, the area covering
about five lots from the north side of Crestview. Brown
moved, second by Hastings, to receive and file the status
report.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT:, Forsythe Motion carried
TRANSFER - BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL REFUSE FRANCHISE - REPUBLIC
INDUSTRIES
The City Manager noted this item is a proposed transfer of
the refuse collection franchise from Briggeman Disposal to
Republic Industries, the cities of Los Alamitos, Cypress, and
Seal Beach were notified of this proposed merger in July.
Under the Seal Beach franchise agreement a transfer is
contingent upon two things, that the company is currently
doing business in surrounding cities, and the new company
must demonstrate that it has the financial capabilities and
resources to provide adequate refuse collection services and
recycling. He noted that the Council had been provided a
list of seventeen requests for documentation made by the City
of the refuse hauler and the responses, reported that
Republic Industries is currently doing business in a number
of Orange County cities, an investigation of their service
levels in some of those cities revealed no negative
responses, it is the stated intent of Republic that this
merger will be transparent to Seal Beach customers, Mr.
Briggeman is to continue to be the manager and daily contact
for the City, continuing to operate the company for several
years. The Manager stated that based upon the documentation
provided and the fact that Republic Industries does meet the
conditions of the franchise for transfer, it would be the
recommendation to Council to approve the transfer of the
exclusive refuse franchise. Mayor Hastings asked how the
recently approved evergreen provision will be handled with
the new owner. Councilman Brown said initially he came close
to not approving the evergreen clause because he did not like
the concept, yet knowing what Mr. Briggeman has done for Seal
Beach and the other cities he felt comfortable with it, then
when it was learned that Republic was coming in he had
recommended to the Manager that the evergreen clause be
deleted, however the Manager suggested that it be left in the
agreement until the performance level of Republic is known,
possibly a review every six months for a period of time. As
to the evergreen clause, the City Manager explained that
basically the City entered into a seven year agreement with
8 -11 -97
Briggeman Disposal at the time the greenwaste program was
started, that allowed a financing mechanism for the equipment
for that program, since then there has been the recycling
program for Old Town and other provisions of the franchise
agreement, one of those provisions was that rather than
having a seven year agreement, each year the franchise would
automatically renew so that it would be an on -going seven
year franchise, that is the evergreen provision, yet that can
be terminated by the Council at any time desired. He noted
that by means of the responses to the questions, the City was
informed that Mr. Briggeman would operate the company for a
minimum of three years by contract with Republic Industries,
beyond that it would be between those two parties.
Brown moved, second by Hastings, to approve the transfer of
the exclusive refuse franchise agreement from Briggeman
Industries, Inc. to Republic Industries, Inc., subject to
final review by the City Attorney.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None
ABSENT: Forsythe Motion carried
BEACH PARKING SYSTEM ANALYSIS
The Assistant to the City Manager presented the staff report
relating to the analysis of the beach parking system. He
recalled that approximately a year ago the Council approved a
test period for a pay -as- you -enter graduated flat fee system
for the summer months and a pay -as- you -leave hourly rate
system during the winter months for the 8th and 10th Street
beach parking lots, the staff report reflects the results of
the data collected and tests performed during the following
ten months. He directed attention to the parking revenues
and vehicle occupancy rates over the past twenty -four months,
the flat rate standard throughout the day, then a graduated
flat fee "where during the evening hours the standard rate is
reduced, as an example $2 rather than $5 or $6 as an
incentive to use the lots, with the hourly rate the motorist
pays for the units of time that the vehicle is actually in
the lot. with specific attention to the flat rate that Seal
Beach has traditionally charged motorists, the revenues in
1995/96 were $303,508, the hybrid, or variable flat and
hourly system, generated $292,244 during fiscal year 1996/97,
which resulted in a revenue loss of $11,264 or four percent,
yet the vehicle occupancy in 1995/96 was 61,676 as compared
to 71,192 in 1996/97, an additional 9,516 vehicles, and even
though numerous variables must be taken into consideration,
the weather, surf conditions, etc., it is believed that the
hybrid system did result in an over fifteen percent increase
in the vehicle usage of the 8th and 10th,Street lots, and
actually, a minor loss of revenue during that period. What
is thought to be some explanation of the lower revenue, he
noted that as an experiment the Lifeguard Department decided
to use the hourly rate during the first part of July, 1996 to
see if it should be applied on a year -round basis, after ten
days on that system it was found that revenues were down
approximately $4,000, therefore they went back to the
traditional flat rate. In addition, a graduated fee was
charged those who used the lots between 5:00 and 8:00 a.m.,
that instead of charging the flat full daily rate in the
summer or an hourly rate in the winter, the charge was a $2
fiat fee to encourage use of the lots, the intent was to
accommodate those who swim, surf, or whatever in the early
hours before going to work, however a survey by the
Lifeguards of how long those persons were staying in the lots
ATTACHMENT "AA"
2 -24 -97
the Trailer Park. Ms. Sousa responded that she is neither heir
or owner of the Park. As a point of information, Councilmember
Hastings noted out that the criteria to determine the number of
parking spaces required for Old Town and Surfside'are based upon
the number of bedrooms. Councilmember Campbell offered that
when considering a variance the future use needs to be kept in
mind in that a variance runs with the land, expressed concern
with the reference to trends, there may be only a few cabanas
now however as needs increase so will density, and cited parking
as a very critical issue. To a prior comment she stated no one
has contempt for anyone who lives in the Trailer Park, her
concern is with people being,priced out, being denied the
opportunity to live in the Park. Mayor Forsythe mentioned that
history shows that initially the design of the Park was to
accommodate elderly people, primarily one occupant per trailer
on very small spaces, now there are one and two people per unit,
therefore if the tendency continues to allow fourteen hundred
foot homes the natural trend will be children, raising the
number of persons per space to three or four. She stated it is
very clear that low and moderate housing is what is trying to be
accommodated, however that will not be accomplished if the area
is developed to the extent requested, and suggested that to
compare the Park with Surfside and Old Town is unfair because in
those areas parking in most instances is underneath the units.
Mayor Forsythe expressed support for the idea of an advisory
committee to address Trailer Park issues that have been ongoing
for years. She expressed her feeling that the standards for two
story cabanas should remain unchanged, that taking into
consideration the issues of light, air, aesthetics, and the
overall density of the area should a two story cabana be allowed
on each space.
Mayor Forsythe moved to deny the appeal and sustain the decision
of the Planning Commission, making no changes to the current _
Code provisions for two -story cabanas, also that consideration
be given to forming an advisory committee to look into issues
relating to the Trailer Park. Councilmember Hastings said at
such time as a committee is formed she would request that a
valid survey of the spaces in the Park be a priority task for
the committee. The City Attorney advised that a committee can
be formed at the desire of the Council, and noted that a
resolution reflecting the action of the Council will be
presented for consideration at next meeting. Councilmember
Campbell seconded the motion.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: _ None Motion carried
Fz �
c
PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE SERVICES AGREEMENT - BRIGGEMAN
DISPOSAL - OLD TOWN RECYCLING /REFUSE ORDINANCE /COUNTYWIDE
LANDFILL AGREEMENT
Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider the
an Agreement for Solid Waste Collection Services with Briggeman
Disposal, a Countywide Waste Disposal Agreement, and a revised
Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance. The City Clerk certified
that notices of the public hearing had been advertised as —
required by law, and reported no communications received either
for or against this item. The City Manager recalled that the lsu
agreements were reviewed at the last meeting, the terms of which
tentatively agreed to by the refuse hauler, and explained the
actions necessary to implement recycling in Old Town, approval
of the agreements, and adoption of an amended Solid Waste and
Recycling Ordinance. Councilmember Campbell stated her intent
to request that this item be held over until the next meeting or
sometime thereafter for the reasons that she has found that
residents of College Park East, College Park West, and the Hill
have had problems with recycling, when initiated the people had
2 -24 -97
no input, many would like every week collection, changeout of
the containers, etc. Councilmember Hastings suggested that
those residents resolve their problems directly with the
contractor rather than postpone the implementation of recycling
for old Town." Councilmember Campbell acknowledged that although
this item relates primarily to recycling in old Town it also
involves a renewal agreement with the refuse contractor,
therefore she wished to take advantage of this opportunity to
seek public comments and resolve existing concerns, again, those
concerns relate to the size of the containers, their
maneuverability, removal of the bins from the street, etc.
Mayor Forsythe suggested that the size issue can be resolved by"
requesting a smaller container from the contractor.
Councilmember Campbell said if the recycling container size were
reduced that would likely require a weekly pickup for an
additional monthly cost of less than $4, this an issue that she
wished to explore before going forward with this program.
Councilmember Hastings asked if it is fair to impact the
residents who have a recycling,program now for the few persons
who find it difficult to comply, and where the majority would
not support an increase of the rates. Councilman Brown
concurred with the comments of Councilmember Hastings, noting
that no matter if it is now or years from now there will
continue to be people who want weekly pickups and smaller cans
however it is not foreseen that that will happen, the majority
of residents more interested in keeping the rate down, and
suggested that those residents having concerns meet with the
contractor to resolve them. Councilmember Campbell said she
initially felt that the residents would not accept a rate
increase however would like to give them an opportunity to
express their thoughts, one possibility would be a sixty gallon
recycling bin like the greenwaste container and a smaller size
refuse container, yet again if two smaller refuse containers are
desired there is a charge for the second. Mr. Briggeman
confirmed that there is a charge for the second bin however
there is no additional charge for the extra pickup. It was
pointed out that this is a noticed public hearing and suggested
that the hearing be opened and the proper procedure be followed.
Mayor Forsythe said she has not received complaints from Hill
residents since before the greenwaste program, if there
continues to be concerns she has not heard them, and it seems as
if the contractor is trying to meet the needs of the homeowners.
Councilmember Hastings added that the contractor seems to have
resolved the container size and handicapped concerns for certain
downtown residents as well.
As was done at the last meeting, the City Manager reviewed the
terms of the franchise agreement as tentatively agreed to by the
contractor, that Briggeman Disposal would provide the City with
a $50,000 non - refundable performance deposit; residential
recycling would be implemented in Old Town with no rate
increase, beyond the rate presented to Council in 1993, for a
period of eighteen months; future rate increases would be
limited to at least twenty percent below the Consumer Price
Index; provide free disposal services for City and school
facilities in Seal Beach; bulk item pick -up provisions would be
enhanced; performance compliance measures would be tightened;
the City would assume control of where solid waste is deposited;
billing of commercial accounts would be transferred from the
City to the contractor; the contractor would provide the City
with a $10,000 annual cash payment to offset _'AB939 compliance
costs; and a fifteen percent discount would be provided persons
of sixty -five years of age and over who meet federal income
guidelines. The Mayor suggested that the public needs to be
better informed as to availability of bulk item pick -up
services. The Manager explained that in consideration of those
terms the contractor would receive an extension of the term of
2 -24 -97
the current franchise agreement, as it was for three years when
the greenwaste program was initiated, with this amendment the
total extension would be seven years on a evergreen basis,
automatically renewed each year, also, the commercial rates
would be increased, specifically those businesses having multi
pick -ups a week and the rates are considerably below market.
With regard to the countywide Flow Control Agreement the Manager
explained it is a part of the County bankruptcy recovery plan.
Councilmember Hastings posed the question that if refuse to the
landfills continues to decrease what is the possibility of the
County raising rates to generate the necessary income, to which
he reported the cities collectively participated in an audit of
the County figures, and although the County had an overly
optimistic projection of anticipated tonnage, it was found that
the program could work at the $22 per ton rate, and the City
would have the security of having a landfill site, Brea olinda
for Seal Beach, for the next ten years at a secured rate, less
than the rate currently being paid. Councilmember Hastings
asked if anyone has tried to secure a rate with the disposal in
Long Beach for a similar period of time, to which the Manager
reported that the refuse contractor has although unsuccessfully.
Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience wishing to speak
to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and
address for the record. The refuse contractor, Mr. Briggeman,
stated that the waste energy plant in Long Beach is operated by
the City of Long Beach in a joint venture with the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts, and at this point in time he has
been unable to obtain any guarantee from the facility management
for a secured rate, the facility currently has long term
contracts with the cities of Signal Hill and Lakewood, similar
to what the County of Orange is proposing for a secured flow
rate. He said his last discussion resulted in an offer to ==
present a secured rate option to the Sanitation District Board
however there has been no response to date, thus the
recommendation to join the Orange County program. Mr. Gordon
Shanks, Surf Place, spoke in favor of implementing the recycling
program for Old Town, however for those on the Hill and in the
College Parks the bins often require wheeling for some distance,
there is a grade on the Hill, the recycling can is totally full
at the end of two weeks, heavy and difficult for some to roll,
the refuse bin which is-picked up once a week has almost nothing
in it, and the greenwaste container is either empty or
overflowing, to which he suggested that the program needs to be
seriously looked into, there is a problem with the one hundred
gallon recycling container, yet the program is working fairly
well. Mr. LeRoy Brown, Ocean Avenue, questioned whether anyone
has walked the alleys of Old Town to determine where the bins
will be placed, cited as an example the six unit building next
to his property where there is a three foot walkway into the
apartments, a three foot walkway on the opposite side where the
trash cans sit on stairs, Mr. Brown said his gate is at the end
of the stairs which makes other cans unaccessible, other multi-
unit dwellings have improvised various types of container areas,
most multi -units have four to five cans that are collected twice
weekly, it is inconceivable as to where enough cans are going to
be placed to accommodate recycling and refuse for a six unit
dwelling, unless one takes away parking to make room for the
bins. Mr. Brown asked when this program will commence and what
type of receptacle will there be. The Manager explained that he
and the contractor have discussed the anticipated problems
associated with recycling in Old Town, it is understood that
there may be areas where the program will simply not work, yet
the entire program should not be abandoned because of a few
difficult situations. Mr. Briggeman reminded that up until a
few years ago the City had twice weekly service, which was
unique throughout the County, and at the time recycling was
0
2 -24 -97
first implemented there would have been a significant rate
increase for twice a week service versus no increase,for once a
week like every other city in the County. Mr. Briggeman stated
their processing of recyclables is referred to as'clean MRF, as
compared to Huntington Beach as an example that utilizes a dirty
MRF process which led to the construction of an $8 million
facility to process the trash, and a rate of approximately $6
per month higher, per household, than Seal Beach. He said
almost every option possible has been offered the residents as
to their choice of container size, yet knowing that everyone can
not be pleased, they continue to strive to provide the highest
level of service at the best price possible, up to three
recycling containers are offered free of charge, that was done
to encourage source reduction. He noted it was not until 1984
that the landfill tipping fees were initiated and the landfills
have now become an integral part of the bankruptcy plan. Mr.
Briggeman said the alleys in Old Town are quite similar to those
in the City of Los Alamitos, makeshift trash can covers, sheds,
etc., stated he has been through the Seal Beach alleys and Seal
Way, offered that there will be some areas where it will be
impossible to place automated containers, the service to Old
Town will be somewhat different with the semi - automated truck
having a tipping machine on the front, confirmed that some .
people will need to remove the enclosures that have been placed
in the alleys, and reminded that by implementing the program,
the carts will improve the aesthetics of the alleys. He
acknowledged that when such a program is initiated there are a
number of calls the first couple of months, and to address those
calls telephones will manned until evening hours, an
informational brochure will be distributed, the recycling
coordinator is willing to work with the residents, and
handicapped services will be available. Mr. Brown inquired as
to how many containers will be provided the multi- units, what
type will they be. Mr. Briggeman responded that most multi -
units in the community are served by three yard commercial bins,
those are not a part of the semi - automated program, residences
receiving regular refuse services now will be converted to the
recycling program, provided with sixty gallon refuse and
recycling carts per unit, in Los Alamitos some units received
sixty, some one hundred gallons. Mr. Brown claimed that a sixty
gallon container per unit, collected once a week, will not
suffice, also, it is felt that the younger persons in the
apartments will welcome recycling. It was mentioned that once
recycling is in place it may be that less cans will be needed.
The Manager stated it is not yet known when the Old Town program
will commence.
Dr. Rosenman, 8th Street, said there may be some merit in
holding this hearing over until the next meeting as it is likely
many people may not be aware of the upcoming program, requested
an explanation of the rationale of the evergreen contract and
possible ramifications, and cited a worst case scenario that
Briggeman Disposal is acquired by another company or individual,
is the successor of the contract, then why at the end of the
seven year extension would the contract not be on a yearly basis
rather than an ongoing seven year cancel cycle. The Manager
explained that the evergreen clause was a negotiated item, quite
common in Orange County, a survey showed there are a number of _
agreements ranging from ten to twenty years, the average about
eight years, approximately half have evergreen clauses, and by
State law a five year notice to terminate a franchise is the
minimum requirement, inclusion of the evergreen clause
accomplished some of the benefits described, also placed the
contractor in a good position to obtain attractive terms and
financing for the recycling facility that he will build to
process Seal Beach recyclables as well as the containers.
Councilmember Campbell noted that the purchase of refuse
2 -24 -97
equipment is an on- going, expensive process, therefore there
needs to be adequate time for depreciation. In response to a
comment of Ms. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, it was explained that
there was a presentation relating to Old Town recycling on
February 10th,-not a public hearing. Ms. Morton complained that
the presentation was made without public input, the containers
were available then, not at this hearing, and claimed a decision
has already been made as to what is going to be done. She noted
that residents are currently paying $47 per month for four units
for trash to be collected twice a week, this will reduce
collection to once a week for refuse, every other week on the
recyclables, the same cost and a future increase, which she
claimed is a cutback on service, cited potential problems as a
result of having only three foot setbacks, the potential of
eight persons residing on one parcel of property, and inquired
as to what plans are being made for the collection of additional
trash and boxes as a result of persons moving in and out of
units. Ms. Morton expressed her opinion that every resident
should be noticed of this hearing, especially the out of.town
landlords. Ms. Donna McGuire, Dogwood Avenue, stated her
objective to seek continuance of this hearing given the
importance of the issue, offered to have petitions signed in
College Park East because of problems resulting from the
container size, limited sideyard space for storage also
containers too large to place in the garage, therefore options
should be looked into before a provision for citation is
enacted. Councilman Brown noted that this item relates to
recycling in Old Town, if the program for the College Parks is
not working then that should be resolved with the contractor,
and with regard to the extension of the franchise term he
pointed out that a working agreement already exists as to the
services in College Park East and West and the Hill. Ms.
McGuire asked for a clarification as to how this matter will
affect College Park East. The Manager stated this does not
really affect College Park East or other areas of the City other
than extending the term of the contract, and suggested that
possibly any problems should be posed to the contractor for
response and resolution. Councilmember Hastings clarified again
that this discussion is in regard to implementing a recycling
program for Old Town, it is understood that there will be
problems to work out, this program will not impact College Park
East or West or the Hill as those programs are already in place,
nor do the other aspects under consideration relate to those
areas as far as trash hauling, rather, the flow of refuse, where
it is disposed of, the cost, and whether an extended term of the
contract is desired, including an evergreen clause, therefore
this is not an occasion for discussion of refuse problems in the
other areas of the community. The Manager mentioned that
remedies already exist to resolve concerns in the other areas.
Councilmember Campbell stated that the ordinance does have an
impact, one being the removal of bins from the street within a
time period, however some residents leave them within sight
because they are unable to maneuver,_them into an area out of
view. Councilmember Hastings reminded that there are options,
if the container is too large a smaller size can requested,
twice a week collection can be requested as well however the
=
cost will increase, possibly these concerns should be addressed
by district. Ms. McGuire too said the ordinance as proposed
does affect the frequency of collection and the size of
container, therefore suggested that the ordinance address'only
the area in which recycling is being implemented, and College
Park East will address their concerns when the contract for that
area is renewed. Mr. Sim Curlette, Hill resident, stated he is
the owner of a twelve unit dwelling on Ocean Avenue and inquired
if there will now be thirty -six barrels to serve those units
instead of the dumpster that currently exists, made reference to
the cost involved, and spoke for the right to choose ones refuse
2 -24 -97
hauler, and in opposition to exclusive agreements. He was
informed that the units will continue to be served by the
dumpster. Ms. Morton read a provision from the proposed
ordinance requiring containers to be placed within two feet of
the rear property line when a property abuts an alley of a
minimum fifteen feet, to which she inquired if that means all of
the bins must be moved to the alley as opposed to current
practice where the hauler retrieves the barrel from the sideyard
and returns it once emptied. Mr. Dave Potter, Seal Way,
expressed concern as to where the bins can be stored, not in the
garage, not in the rear yard setback, and once a fence is built
and a gate is in place in the three foot sideyard setback there
is barely room for a thirty -three gallon container, asked how it
is expected that a sixty gallon will fit, questioning how this
program will work in Old Town. With regard to the placement of
refuse bins, Mr. Briggeman explained that the system is not much
different than it is now, the hauler will exit the truck, take
the bin to the truck where it will be dumped via a tipping
machine on the front of the vehicle. He recalled also that some
months back a publicized workshop was scheduled relating to this
subject however there was no one in attendance. With regard to
the twelve unit dwelling with the dumpster, Mr. Briggeman
advised that nothing will change, this program will apply to
multi -units that are currently on the barrel system, also cited
the example of Los Alamitos that adopted an ordinance requiring
dwellings of five or more units to have commercial bin service
rather than containers, many of the multi -units in Old Town
already have a three cubic yard bin. Mr. Briggeman inquired if
it would be a positive for the City if the recyclables were
collected once a week. Councilmember Campbell said that would
likely solve the problem for those persons who have difficulty
placing the bins behind their gate. Mr. Briggeman agreed the
once per week could be implemented, preferable to changing out
all of the recycling bins, and offered to notify the residents
that that service will be available. Councilmember Hastings
said through all of this discussion the Council and the
residents must not lose sight of the fact that the City is
mandated to reduce solid waste, there are no options, and
accepted the offer of Mr. Briggeman as a positive resolution.
In response to a Council comment, Mr. Briggeman stated the once
a week recycling pickup will be at no additional cost to the
customer. With regard to the suggestion that agreements be made
specific to the various areas of the City, he noted that the
franchise is citywide, also since implementing the automated .
system a bulky item collection service has been offered, without
a contractual agreement, recycling was meant to divert as much
as possible from the landfill, automation was to place a limit
on what could be put into the bins, keeping in mind the goal to
reduce the tonnage by twenty -five percent then fifty percent
otherwise the City would be subject to a $10,000 per day fine by
the State, to accomplish the automation the trucks had to be
retrofitted, new trucks were purchased as were containers, and
stated his desire is to see this program grow and prosper.
Councilman Fulton offered that if the recyclables are collected
once a week that may increase the amount of recycled materials
rather than the overflow being placed in the regular refuse.
Mr. Briggeman agreed that the recycling tonnage will quite
likely increase, noted also that additional recycling carts are
available at no additional cost, however it is also recognized
that no matter how many bins are offered the problem then
becomes their storage, question also arises as how and where
people stored their numerous trash cans prior to the larger
automated bins. Mr. Warren Morton, Seal Beach, requested that
this item be continued until the next meeting.
Councilmember Hastings moved to approve the franchise agreement
with Briggeman Disposal Services, that with the knowledge that
2 -24 -97
complaints will be forthcoming, problems will need to be
resolved, and unless the recycling program is implemented for
Old Town the City is not going to meet the State mandate for
landfill reduction. Councilman Brown seconded the motion,
expressing his opinion that the program should be put in place,
the problems then resolved as they arise, and recognized the
cooperation of Mr. Briggeman to collect recyclables each week.
Councilmember Campbell asked that this item be continued to the
next meeting. The City Attorney noted there are three items
that require action, the County Landfill Agreement had been the
most pressing however the deadline has now been extended until
the end of March, therefore there is no urgency to take action
on the Landfill Agreement or the Briggeman Agreement, the
recommendation of staff -was to hold the public hearing, receive
input, seek direction, hold first reading of the ordinance,
which he confirmed does have some implications citywide, then
defer action on the other items until the next meeting, if that
is the desire of the Council, which will in turn allow further
public comments on all of the items. Councilmember Hastings
withdrew the motion'on the floor.
Brown moved, second by Campbell, to approve the Waste Disposal
Agreement between the City of Seal Beach and the County of.
Orange for the term of ten years.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1414 - SOLID WASTE / RECYCLABLES - COLLECTION
Ordinance Number 1414 was presented to Council for first reading
entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO THE
COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES, AMENDING CHAPTER 10
OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Ordinance Number 1414 was waived. Brown moved,
second by Fulton, to approve the introduction of Ordinance
Number 1414 and that it be passed to second reading.
AYES: Brown, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: Campbell Motion carried
It was the consensus of the Council to continue the public
hearing until the March 10th meeting, and the City Attorney
advised that notice of the continued hearing will be published.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
There were no City Manager reports.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Dave
Potter, Seal Way, said he hoped there would be more interest in
the recycling matter at the next meeting, and suggested that the
notice contain the dimensions of the bins. To that suggestion
Councilmember Hastings requested Mr. Briggeman to provide
samples of the refuse containers for the March 10th meeting.
There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral
Communications closed.
COUNCIL CONCERNS
Councilman Brown reported a meeting was held with Supervisor
Silva and CalTrans relating to the freeway sound barrier wall,
and announced an open meeting to be held in Leisure World
regarding same within thirty to sixty days. Councilmember
Hastings commended the Seal Beach Womens Club for their luncheon
meeting this date during which Mayor Forsythe crowned fifty -two
presidents of local clubs and organizations.
t "t
,,J
ri
ATTACHMENT `BB"
3 -10 -97
-- BETWEEN TWO -STORY CABANAS AT A TRAILER PARK
(ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 96 -8)." By unanimous
consent, full reading of Resolution Number
4518 was waived.
Authorized the City Manager to contract for
recruitment services for the purpose of
identifying candidates for the position of
Police Chief.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings ..
NOES: None Motion carried
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE SERVICES AGREEMENT -
BRIGGEMAN DISPOSAL - OLD TOWN RECYCLING /REFUSE ORDINANCE
Mayor Forsythe declared the continued public hearing open. The
City Clerk certified that the notice of continued hearing had
been advertised for information of the public,, and reported the
receipt of one communication relating to the recycling issue,
copies of same provided the Council. The City Manager again
reported that this item relates to implementing a recycling
program for the Old Town area which in turn requires an
amendment of the franchise agreement with Briggeman Disposal as
well as the solid waste /recycling ordinance. The program will
provide uniform trash containers with wheels and lids, provides
for recycling as there is in other areas of the community, -
collection will be once per week, retains the current bin
service for apartments, there will be a customized collection
for portions of Seal Way and other areas where it is not
feasible to use the semi - automated system and in those cases the
current method will continue. He said the program was designed
primarily to continue.the waste reduction and recycling program
mandated by the State. Given the fact that the program requires
modification of the existing franchise that contract was also
looked at in terms of other areas of the City, option one is
basically that there would be no change, refuse and greenwaste
would continue to be collected weekly in the large containers,
and recycling would be bi- weekly, option two would allow one or
two sixty gallon recycling containers to be issued to all
residents requesting smaller containers, collected bi- weekly, or
option three, one new sixty gallon recycling container collected
weekly. With regard to option two Councilmember Hastings asked
if the second container is provided at no cost. The Manager
said his understanding is that either one or two recycling bins
may be obtained, however if the contractor makes the investment
for twice the number of containers then there would be an every
other week pickup. Mr. Briggeman said that up to three
recycling containers may be obtained by residents at no charge
on the bi- weekly program,, option one is the existing program
with recycling collected bi- weekly however if two smaller refuse
containers are desired there would be an additional $5 charge
for the second, some cities have a higher charge as the intent
is to promote recycling, under option three with weekly pickup
there would be a charge for additional containers, however if
the bi- weekly recycling program is retained their company will
assist the residents with getting the large containers through
their side gates and if that can not be done the resident will
be provided with two sixty gallon containers at no additional
charge. Councilmember Campbell reminded that the same would
hold true with the refuse container. The Manager offered that
option two retains the current system without increasing the
truck traffic and the number of collection days, the container
is smaller yet two would increase the capacity, once a week
collection with the smaller container was discussed at last
meeting also. It was noted that either size container could be
used for the once weekly option three. With regard to Old Town,
Councilmember Hastings noted that recycling collection is
3 -10 -97
proposed for'once weekly. Mr. Briggeman said the intent was to
develop a franchise agreement that would provide benefits to the
City, bulk item collection being one, then adopt a revised
ordinance, and design and implement a program for'Old Town,
always intended to be once per week collection as the area is so
different from others in the community, however at the last
meeting other issues surfaced and there has been an effort to
address those. Councilmember Hastings said it may be best to
keep Old Town separate in that there are circumstances that are
specifically applicable to the area as to collections,
recyclables, special problems due to the narrow alleys, etc. It
was suggested that Section 3.7.2 of the contract be amended to
reflect that certain portions of Old Town will not receive
automated containers. Mayor Forsythe pointed out a provision
that states that any type of oral agreement is not binding,
therefore possibly the areas that are not accessible for the
automated system should be set forth specifically, to which
Councilmember Hastings made reference to Sections 6.1 and 6.2
relating to assignment of agreement and transfer of stock or
interest where she suggested clarifying language be added. The
Manager suggested an annual report could be required to identify
any additional inaccessible areas. Mr. Briggeman noted that the
style of truck is virtually the same as is presently used with
the exception of the tipping machine in the front, and agreed to
work with staff to document the inaccessible areas once they are
known. In reference to Section 3.7.2, Councilmember Campbell
offered that if recyclables are to be collected once a week in
College Park East the one hundred gallon container is not
needed, the sixty gallon will be adequate, and suggested that
Old Town residents give due consideration to which size
container will fit their needs. Mr. Briggeman said some of the
multi -units that are not on commercial bin service, of which
there are few, will be provided a one hundred gallon refuse and
.- recycling container for every three units. The Mayor mentioned
that initially she did not feel her refuse would fit into the
one hundred container however she had not factored in the
recyclables that are separated out. In that there will not be
greenwaste separation in Old Town, Councilmember Hastings asked
where it is to be disposed of, the response was in the refuse
container, the only downtown area having greenwaste containers
is the Gold Coast, however Councilmember Hastings mentioned that
it should be kept in mind that there are some homes on larger
lots that do gardening.
The City Manager stated that the initial objective was to
determine if recycling could be accomplished in Old Town without
a rate increase, a comparison of other Orange County cities was
not realistic because of the varying types of programs, some
without greenwaste separation, etc. He said a historical review
of rates showed $12.25 approved in 1987, a discussion of an
increase to $12.75 in 1990 and 1993, yet rates have actually not
been increased, therefore that amount was designated as a target
rate, the additional monies would come to the City to offset
some of the cost of maintaining the streets used by the refuse
trucks, billing, etc., multi - family residential in Old Town
would be $12.25 monthly per billed unit, $6 per'year more than
the current charge. He noted that twenty -three of the surveyed
cities have higher rates, Seal Beach would remain below the
average which is about $12.83 per month. As to commercial
rates, they have been found to be considerably below the market
rate therefore discussion commenced as to how to generate a fair
return to the contractor for commercial service without undue
burden on the businesses, the result was agreement that any rate
increases would be phased in over a three year period, no change
to the once per week service for one year, and even after the
phased increases the rates would still be lower than Los
Alamitos, Cypress, Huntington Beach, and Fountain Valley, and
3-10 -97
reported that notices are being sent for a June public hearing
to allow further comments. The Manager noted that no cost
collection services for the City and school facilities have been
agreed to, that an approximate $30,000 saving, an 'additional
$15,000 of franchise revenue to the City annually over the next
three years, $30,000 by implementing the billing rate proposed
in 1993, and $10,000 that the contractor has agreed to pay the ;
City for recovery of AB939 compliance administration, the total+
cost savings and additional revenues estimated to be $85,000,
plus a one -time payment of $50,000 in the form of a cash bond at
the time of execution of the franchise, for a total first year
revenue of $135,000.
Mayor Forsythe declared the continued public hearing open. Mr.
Bill Ayres, Old Town, asked if the contract has been let as yet,
the response was that there is an existing seven year franchise
agreement with Briggeman Disposal; asked if competitive bidding -
is required to amend the contract under State law, the response
was no; comment was that this may be a good contract however -
competitive bids from the major trash haulers may be
advantageous for the City, taking advantage of the purchasing
power when a contract is let. Mr. Ayres stated his opinion and
that of people across the nation that recycling is a bad law,
voluntary recycling is just as effective and less expensive, the
problem with a recycling contract that is too long is that the
law may be rescinded in a few years yet the City would be bound
by contract. He stated that the trash hauling business is very
competitive, there is an over - abundance of disposal sites, in
many instances the recycled waste ends up in the landfill as
well, the reason is that there is no market for the recyclable
goods, and is more convenient for trash pickers. Mr. Ayres r...�
provided copies of Wall Street Journal articles relating to his ;
comments to the Council. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, said the
containers have nothing to do with a recycling program, claimed
that Long Beach does not have special cans, suggesting that the
recycling program should be segregated out from the proposal of
the contractor. He said some years back he brought a news
article to the attention of the Council showing that Seal Beach
refuse rates were the highest in the County, at that time the
City was getting two collections per week where other cities had
one, now there will be one collection and the rates are going
up. He stated he could find five areas where this will be
advantageous to the contractor yet there is nothing that will
benefit the residents of Old Town, one is the saving realized by
using one employee on a truck rather than two, the length of the
contract binds future Councils as well, the contractor will
benefit from the enforcement provisions for the exclusivity
clause pertaining to the commercial construction bin service,
and will realize more attractive financing. Mr. Stark claimed
that the City of Long Beach still uses regular trash cans with a
separate collection for recyclables, those placed for pickup in
a box or separate can, but that would not happen in Seal Beach
because the contractor wants an automated system which the
residents are paying for. He questioned how tagging can be
enforced and how the bins can be removed from sight in Old Town,
particularly the Gold Coast. He complained that the large bins
at his residence blocked his back door, they were replaced with
smaller cans that were inadequate, now he has no containers k;J
because the prior cans can not be used. He questioned why the
contractor would be reporting to the Los Angeles County Fire
Protection District as set forth in Section 3.17 of the
Agreement, and to Section 3.2.1, providing that seven percent of
the contractor's gross receipts from commercial, industrial and
residential premises is to generate to the City, asked if that
is not a tax under Proposition 218 requiring a vote of the
people. Mr. Stark suggested that the contractor take his cans
and automated system elsewhere and that the residents keep their
3 -10 -97
old trash cans and that recyclables just be held for separate
pickup. Question was raised with regard to the reference to
trash containers in Long Beach. Ms. Barbara Antoci, Seal Beach,
asked why the.refuse truck is in her area collecting trash in
the early hours six days a week if pickup is going to be reduced
to once a week. She recalled that sometime back a recycling
'committee was formed to develop a program that would work well
for the City, excepting the areas of Surfside, Oakwood, the
eyn, Trailer Park, and Leisure World that have their own programs, in
an effort to comply with State law. After considerable
discussion the recommendation of the committee was that a MRF
program was the only feasible solution for the Old Town area
where curbside could be implemented in the other areas. Ms.
Antoci stated the reason that tipping and landfill fees have
increased so much is that people are recycling, less is going to
the landfill, therefore the fees have increased. In that her
business is recycling, she reported buying three million pounds
of cans per year before recycling, that translates into money at
$1.05 per pound, forty cents a pound for plastic, and five cents
a pound for glass, and claimed that the more recycling
containers the contractor provides the more recycling money he
makes. Ms. Antoci said she had provided the City Manager with a
packet of information that the waste hauler in Santa Ana
attached to each refuse bin as public information, that at the
cost of the hauler. She asked if it can be presumed the refuse
from the beach will be MRF'd, why then is a MRF program for Old
Town not being considered as was recommended by the committee as
the best, most economical, and efficient program. Councilmember
Hastings responded that it is understood that a MRF program is
more expensive, the dirty MRF program in Huntington Beach about
$4 more per month than Seal Beach. Mr. Briggeman advised that
the Huntington Beach rate is $16.50 per month. Mr. Walt Miller,
Seal Beach Boulevard, said for the most part trash containers in
Old Town are located outside property fences due to the small
lots, in the alleys or sideyards, and claimed that visitors to
the community will toss their trash into the cans not knowing
whether they are recyclables or not. Mr. Miller noted his
concern with the rates, also stated his belief that there is an
existing provision whereby if the contractor damages City
property, curb, gutter and sidewalk in this case, the property
owner that fronts the City property that was damaged is
responsible for the repairs, in his case an $8,000 personal cost
to repair the damage caused by Briggeman Disposal in order to
obtain a building permit, damage they have denied, therefore his
only recourse is to take a legal action against,Briggeman. Mr.
Miller asked that a provision be added to the agreement so that
when the contractor causes damage the contractor, not the
property owner, will need to make amends with the City or that
the City determine it was not the fault of the contractor. Mr.
Miller said although he has a letter from Briggeman denying that
their trucks ever passed over his property, he and neighbors
have observed the trucks using the property to exit the alley
onto Seal Beach Boulevard for ten years, and their insurance
should cover the repairs. Ms. Gail Ayres, Central Avenue,
confirmed that the rate for multi -units is $12.25 per unit per
month, her monthly cost would be $47, then questioned if one bin
would be provided for each unit or one bin for all four, which
would be inadequate, whether she would be charged extra for
additional bins, claimed her rates are going up as there will be
only once a week pickup rather than twice, and stated her
properties already recycle. She asked if someone has measured
the areas where the bins will be stored, she could accommodate
three bins, no more, and maybe a small box, suggesting that
maybe the answer is to stay with the present program with the
existing cans and merely add a recyclable box. Mr. Ace Yeam,
College Park East, requested Council support for Option 3, once
a week pickup of all three smaller containers. Mr. Tom Greeley,
3 -10 -97
old Town, pointed out that for years the City allowed four units
on twenty -five foot lots, leaving three feet on either side, his
concern is with liability in the event emergency access is
needed. He questioned where these bins are going"to be kept, it
may be necessary for them to be in the public right -of -way as
many properties abut an alley, and inquired if the Police and
Fire Departments have looked at this issue. Councilmember
Hastings noted that some of the properties on Seal Way have only
+�
one setback, one side of the dwelling built to the property
line, that being one of the reasons this program will not work
for that area. Mr. Greeley questioned how this program will
work with absentee landowners, confirmed that the tenants will
not put the containers out for pickup, and cited access and
parking for emergency vehicles as an existing problem.
,
Councilmember Campbell responded that the issue of the Fire
Department is hazardous materials, not accessibility. Dr.
Rosenman, 8th Street, asked for an explanation as to what '
happens when out -of -town visitors put things in the trash bins,
the recycle particularly, which is an on -going problem, deemed
the Fire Department response to Councilmember Campbell as a non -
answer, pointed out access problems that currently exist in the
alley between Main and 8th Street with delivery trucks, etc. and
questioned the additional impact of the large bins. Mr. Dave
Potter, Seal Way, inquired as to what the customized collection
will be for Seal Way. He said his gate measures less than
twenty -five inches yet the bin is twenty -seven inches, upon
measuring the sideyards of three Seal way properties none net
the three foot setback. He too questioned where the containers
are to be placed, acknowledged the agreement by the contractor
at the last meeting that placing the bins within two feet of the
property line was unnecessary, however Mr. Potter suggested that
clarifying language be added to the agreement for this and other
verbal agreements. Mr. Potter said while the staff has
presented this item in a positive light to the City, Mr.
Briggeman's percentage is income minus cost divided by his
investment times a hundred, if one looks at the costs, which are
the franchise fees, the free things, etc., the reality is that
the only way he holds his percent of profit without juggling
cost or investment is in the income area, therefore it would
seem that if those were not included the income would rise and
the rates would drop, and in reality it is the customer who is
actually paying for them. He concluded that rather than using
the assessors parcel book to determine the number of units there
be a count of the actual number of trash cans, that could point
to the number of illegal units there are. Mr. Ayres, Central
Avenue, stated if one can is provided for four units, that
spells windfall. Mr. Sandler, College Park East, pointed out
that the large cans scrape across the block walls and gates, his
preference would be to have two recycling and one refuse
container of the smaller size, also encouraged the residents to
put their containers away once collected. Mr. Bob Cullins, Main
Street, said it is a business principal and more profitable for
the contractor to use the same system throughout. He stated
there are a number of elderly people in Old Town that can not
move the larger bins, to an earlier comment relating to the City
of Long Beach he said the City uses the automated system, the
unincorporated area does not, and people do not like the bins,
there are a lot of issues that relate to the size and weight of
the containers, and explained that Main Street businesses need
twice a week pickups. He mentioned also having to use Briggeman
Disposal for construction site debris removal a number of times
even though other companies were less expensive, also agreed
with prior comments relating to emergency access. Ms. Fran
Johnson noted that her property is on a slight hill, the bins
have tipped several times and one must be cautious of the lids
falling as well, and reported she recycled cans and newspapers
before the recycling program ever started. Mr. Roger West,
3 -10 -97
Electric Avenue, made reference to a statement in the staff
report that 'adding a full route is likely to lead to future
rate increases' to which he asked if there is weekly recyclable
collection will the rates be increased. The response was that
that did not apply to Old Town, followed by the comment that it
would not apply to College Park East either pursuant to Section
4:3.2. Mr. West said a system exists now that is working, the
attempt is to change that, however as a resident of Old town it
u., appears to primarily benefit the contractor, benefit those in
the City government, with no benefit to the residents. He said
he understood it would be about a year and a half before the
rates are raised, yet the service is being cut in half and
containers are being imposed on the residents that do not fit in
Old Town, the garages take the full width of the property, and
stated he did not believe that people realize how difficult this
program is going to be and that old Town should be considered
separately. Ms. Ann New, College Park East, referred to the
areas of the community that are served by other haulers and
asked why this City has not gone to competitive bids. Ms. Gail
Ayres, Central Avenue, asked if the multi -unit dwellings will be
required to roll the containers to a certain place in the
alleys, which in her case would block the garages. There being
no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing
closed.
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
declare a recess at 9:07 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:25
p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order.
A suggestion was made that Mr. Briggeman be first to respond to
the questions raised, the liability and hold harmless issue and
how the program will be instituted should also be points of
response. Mr. Briggeman explained that when the curbside
recycling program was implemented some three years ago the Old
Town area was set aside given the knowledge that it would need
to be dealt with separately, a dirty MRF program was not a
consideration as that would have caused a rate increase of three
to four dollars, recycling baskets too were not a consideration
as they are difficult to carry and encourage scavenging, all of
which led to an automated system, which is utilized in the
majority of Orange County cities, however it is understood that
the fully automated system can not be used in Old Town given the
narrowness of the alleys, etc. He confirmed that the residents
will not need to move their containers to the alley, the truck
personnel will move the bin to the truck which is then emptied
by means of a tipping machine mounted on the front of the truck,
and clarified that there are two persons working each of the
refuse trucks. Mr. Briggeman pointed out that recycling is not
mandatory, never has been, therefore if someone chooses to not
participate they can request that their recycling bin be
removed, on the other hand a number of Old Town residents have
requested a recycling program, some people have indicated they
like the bins because they improve the appearance of the
neighborhood, especially in the alleys, in addition if someone
wishes to keep their old trash can that will be acceptable as
well. It was clarified that if a resident does not wish to
participate in the recycling program they may advise the
contractor, return the bin and retain their existing trash cans,
however, pickup will change to once per week., a problem too,
should residents choose to not participate and keep their
present cans, is the absence of trash can lids. To a comment
from the audience insisting on the need for twice per week
pickup for multi- units, Mr. Briggeman expressed his opinion that
the owners of apartments and multi -units in Seal Beach are quite
likely getting the best in all of Orange County, in some cities
it is mandatory that complexes of more than four units have a
three yard commercial bin, a complex such as Oakwood Garden
Apartments has twenty -eight commercial bins, collected three
3 -10 -97
times a week. Comments from the audience objected to once a
week pickups, the increase of rates, claimed that the bins can
not be accommodated because of limited space, and that revenues
are being generated to the contractor from the redyclables. Mr. ,
Briggeman stated again it mattered not to him whether or not
there is a recycling program in Old Town, reported there are
only four cities in Orange County that have dirty MRF programs, t{,
which carry a greater cost, and explained the obligation of his Ali
company is that the City divert fifty percent of its waste
stream, based upon the 1990 tonnage, by the year 2000 whether
there is a market for recyclables or not, as an example it is .
presently a cost to dispose of mixed waste paper given the
current market. It was again clarified that it will be at the
option of the resident as to whether they choose to recycle or
not, possibly by means of signing a waiver. To the question
regarding soliciting bids, Mr. Briggeman responded that in about
twenty years there will be no more George Briggemans because of
the capital investment and liability for this type of business,
by then there may be five choices of companies, the County
landfills will be privatized as well, and explained that the
franchise was not up for bid as seven years remain on that
contract, it was felt it would be of benefit to the community
and his company if a longer term could be obtained which in turn
supports more attractive financing and helps to keep rates down,
at that point he noted there has been no increase for nine
years. Councilmember Campbell pointed out that refuse hauling
is a very capital investment business and it would be unfair to
not have some assurance of financial recovery. Mr. Briggeman
stated his company has served Seal Beach, their newest
community, since 1969, mentioned how much easier business was
prior to AB939 when rate increases were based on the CPI to
cover payroll and gate fees, reported that they indemnify the
City for AB939 compliance, and explained that liability is j
causing there to be fewer independent companies. As to comments 6;4
relating,to the City of Long Beach, Mr. Briggeman offered that a
part of that City is recycling, they receive one one hundred
gallon can and baskets for commingled recycling, his company is
an independent hauler, there are no options in Long Beach as the
City provides the service, their recycling program was bid
separately when the price for paper was high, is now suffering
as the contractor can not survive on the revenue from the
materials alone. He reported that although the Stark residence
does not have bins the trash is being collected each week in
bags. With regard to trucks being in the community six days a
week, he explained that the commercial accounts and apartment
complexes schedule when they want their bins collected;
explained that the expenditure to development the AB939 program,
the SRE and Household Hazardous Waste Element, were required to
be filed with the State pursuant to State law; as to trash being
placed in the recycling bin it was explained that will be no
problem as it will go through the residual line and ultimately
go to the landfill. The customized program for Seal Way means
there will be no changes; special service is provided the
elderly and handicapped who can not transport their bins to the
street; with regard to bins for construction and demolition Mr.
Briggeman acknowledged that there may be small companies who
charge less for those services however it is Briggeman that is
required to track the waste stream and file tonnage reports with Fy.y
the State each year otherwise there is a $10,000 per day fine
for which Briggeman has indemnified the City, for hazardous
waste compliance as well. It was again clarified that bins will
be available for each multi - dwelling unit if desired, and it
will not be necessary for the resident to wheel the bin to
within two feet of the property line.
Making reference to Section 7.6 of the Agreement with regard to
No Oral Modifications, Councilmember Hastings asked how
3 -10 -97
amendments and modifications will be incorporated that have been
determined necessary, the recycling option, the two foot from
the property line issue, etc. The City Attorney advised that
Section 10 -8.5 of the proposed ordinance relates to the two foot
issue and that sentence could be deleted, the recycling option
has always been part of the ordinance therefore no change would
be required. A member of the audience inquired as to what is to
be done with quantities of boxes and paper when tenants move in
and out, the contractor advised that they should be placed next
to the recycling container for pickup, and the City Attorney
made reference to Section 10 -6.1, Residential Householder .
Exclusion, to confirm that that section would include multi-
family units. Councilmember Campbell referred to Section 3.7.3
of the Agreement, Frequency of Collection - Residential
Premises, requested that the word 'other' be deleted from a
sentence to read "Collection of recyclables shall take place
every week...." and that the third sentence of Section 10 -8.2 of
the Ordinance be amended to read "...Unless otherwise approved
by the City Council, collection of solid waste, recyclables, and
greenwaste shall take place no less than once each calendar
week... ", the last sentence then deleted. The City Attorney
clarified that the intent of the Council was to.collect
recyclables once per week throughout the City. Councilmember
Campbell then made reference to Section 1e -8.5, Residential
Collection - Placement and Removal of Containers, objected to the
first violation being an infraction carrying a fine of $100 and
the second violation a misdemeanor, suggesting rather an amount
around $15. Mayor Forsythe said she felt the intent was a means
for citation of those who leave their bins streetside on a
regular basis. At the conclusion of discussion the Council
agreed that a warning would be issued for a first violation, a
second violation would be an infraction in the amount of $20, a
third and further violations would be $40 in any twelve month
period, also that the provision for misdemeanor be deleted.
Mr. Briggeman confirmed again that the recycle bins will be
collected each week at no additional cost however if a resident
wishes to replace their one hundred gallon bin with two sixties
there will be a $5 additional charge per month, also, if it can
be proven that a one hundred gallon bin can not fit through the
gate a replacement with two six gallon bins will be made at no
charge, after June 1st.
The City Attorney clarified that the definition of "residential"
does include multi - family units therefore the ordinance allows
any residential person to recycle on their own if they choose to
do so except when placed curbside where it falls under the
recycling program. It was confirmed that College Park West and
the Hill, like College Park East, consists of single family
residential units. The City Attorney referred to Section 10 -8.2
of the ordinance, the first sentence amended to read "... '
collection in compliance with this Article from each occupied
residential premises once a week and in accordance with...
confirmed that the third sentence was amended to read
"...collection of solid waste, recyclables, and green waste..."
then deleting the last sentence. The first sentence of this
Section was further amended to delete the word "occupied" to
read "...from each residential premises...", the intent of that
word was to not require the contractor to place bins at vacant
lots. Section 10 -8.5 was amended to delete the second sentence
relating to the two foot requirement, and the last sentence
amended to delete reference to a misdemeanor to read
..Violation of this section is an infraction. For the first
infraction the City shall give a warning to the residential
householder, for the second infraction the residential
householder shall be subject to a $20 fine, and thereafter
violation shall be $40 within a one year period." It was agreed
that such violation would not be implemented until after June
1st.
3 -10 -97
Brown moved, second by Fulton, to adopt Ordinance Number 1414,
as amended, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES,
AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE." By
unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1414 was
waived.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
With regard to the Agreement for Solid Waste Services the City
Attorney referred to Section 3.7.2, the last sentence of
paragraph one amended to read ..Certain portions of "Old Town"
will not receive automated containers due to
inaccessibility...", a previous suggestion to require the
contractor to supply the City with a list of such areas was
dropped. He agreed that language could be added to the
Agreement, in addition to the Ordinance, to clarify that
recycling is by choice. A requirement to provide written waiver
from the program was requested to be included as well, however a
suggestion was made that the program be implemented, thereafter
anyone choosing to not recycle may request that the bin be
removed. The City Attorney suggested that the second paragraph
of Section 3.7.2 be amended to include language that "...any
residential service customer may request to be excluded from
recycling, in writing, as provided for in the solid waste
ordinance... 60 Question was raised as to whether the residents
of the areas of the community that are presently recycling could
likewise request to be excluded. The City Attorney suggested
that the language of Section 3.7.2 be reworked entirely, offered
to do so, and suggested adoption of the Agreement be held over
until next meeting. With regard to Section 3.7.3, the third
sentence was amended to read "...All residential solid waste,
recyclables, and green waste shall be collected once each
week..." and the next two sentences deleted, Section 3.17
amended to reflect the Orange County Fire Authority.
Brown moved, second by Campbell, to continue the Solid Waste
Services Agreement until the next meeting.
AYES: Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
NOES: None Motion carried
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager noted a recent report to Council relating to
the bids to construct the WestCOmm Dispatch Center, those bids
higher than anticipated due to the specialized equipment in the
Center, and he reported that due to the fact this is a model
program where three governmental agencies have joined together,
to consolidate services for a financial savings to the three
agencies as well as the State, a grant application was made and
this afternoon notice was received that $95,000 had been
approved for that project.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilman Brown noted the selection of Brandi Whitaker as Miss
Seal Beach this past Saturday evening and offered to invite the
1997 Miss Seal Beach and her princesses to an upcoming City
Council meeting for introduction. Councilmember Campbell
thanked Mr. Briggeman for his willingness to work with the City,
also reported a call from Waste Clews Magazine relating to the
Seal Beach refuse issue, and stated she would be informing them
of the Council action after this meeting. Councilman Fulton
reported that he and Councilmember Campbell recently attended a
c.1
k'J
T.v
ATTACHMENT "CC"
ORDINANCE NO. A/4-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE AND
RECYCLABLES, AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE SEAL,
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Articles I and III of Chapter 10 of the
Code of the City of Seal Beach are hereby redesignated Articles I
and II, and revised to read as follows:
"Article I
SOLID WASTE HANDLING AND RECYCLING SERVICES
10 -1. Title
This Article shall be known and may be cited as the
"Solid Waste Handling and Recycling Services Ordinance" of the
City of Seal Beach.
10 -1.1. Findings and Intent
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
1. In order to meet the requirements of the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 [Public
Resources Code Section 40000, et seq.], including source
reduction of the solid waste stream, diversion of solid waste
from landfills, and conservation of natural resources, it is
necessary to regulate the collection of solid waste from
commercial /industrial and residential premises, and to encourage
recycling of solid waste materials.
2. The mandates of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Southern California Air quality Management District,
and other regulatory agencies, concerning air pollution and
traffic congestion management, require the regulation and, where
possible, reduction in the number, of waste collection vehicles
and vehicle trips which cause the discharge of air contaminants
and create air pollution.
3. A reduction in the number of waste collection
vehicles using the City streets daily will reduce traffic hazards
and congestion and promote safety.
4. The storage, accumulation, collection and
disposal of solid waste, including without limitation garbage,
trash, debris and other discarded materials is a matter of
substantial public concern in that improper control of these
matters may create a public nuisance, air pollution, fire hazard,
rat and insect infestation and other problems adversely affecting
the public health, safety and welfare.
5. Regulation of the collection of garbage,
refuse and other discarded materials from all residential, com-
mercial and industrial properties within the City will provide
the most orderly and efficient solution to these problems and
will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
6. The regulation of solid waste handling
services in the City will also promote the public health, safety
and welfare by requiring the use of newer and safer vehicles, the
regular maintenance of those vehicles, and the reduction of
spillage and litter on the public streets, by establishing
responsibility for the cleaning of refuse bins and containers,
and by providing for accountability to the public.
7. The public health, safety and welfare will
best be served by providing for one or more exclusive contracts
for residential refuse collection services, and for commercial
and industrial refuse collection services, subject to the limited
rights of state facilities to use a collector other than the
collector with an exclusive contract.
B. This Article is enacted by the City Council
pursuant to, inter alia, the following statutory authorization
and in order to accomplish the objectives set forth in this
section:
1. Public Resources Code Section 40059
authorizes the City to determine (i) all aspects of solid waste
handling which are of local concern, including, but not limited
to, frequency of collection, means of collection and transporta-
tion, level of services, charges and fees, and nature, location
and extent of providing solid waste handling services; and (ii)
whether the services are to be provided by means of nonexclusive
contract, contract, license, permit, or otherwise, either with or
without competitive bidding, or if, in the opinion of its
governing body, the public health, safety and well -being so
require, by partially exclusive or wholly exclusive contract,
contract, license,,permit, or otherwise, either with or without
competitive bidding.
2. Public Resources Code Section 49300 provides
that the City may, pursuant to terms and conditions as may be
prescribed by its legislative body, contract for the collection
or disposal, or both, of garbage, waste, refuse, offal,
trimmings, or other refuse matter.
3. Public Resources Code Section 49501 provides
that the City may take action, whether by franchise, contract,
license, permit, or otherwise, whereby the City itself, or one or
more other local agencies or solid waste enterprises is
authorized or permitted to have the exclusive right to provide
solid waste handling services of any class or type within all or
any part of the territory of the City.
4. It is the intent of this Article to set forth
terms and conditions pursuant to which authorization may be
granted by the City Council to provide solid waste handling
services, and to promote the public health, welfare and safety of
the community by establishing reasonable regulations relating to
the storage, accumulation, collection and disposal of garbage,
trash, rubbish, debris and other discarded matter, goods and
material.
PART 1 Definitions
10 -2.1. .Definitions.
A. For the purposes of this Article, the words, terms
and phrases as defined in this section shall be construed as
hereinafter set forth, unless it is apparent from the context
that a different meaning is intended:
1. Authorized Collector. "Authorized Collector"
shall mean a solid waste enterprise operating under the
provisions of an exclusive contract awarded by the City Council.
2. Bulky Goods. "Bulky Goods" shall mean
oversized or overweight household articles placed curbside by a
residential householder or owner, which oversized or overweight
household articles have weights, volumes or dimensions which
cannot be accommodated by solid waste containers for residential
premises, such as stoves, refrigerators, water heaters, washing
machines, furniture, sofas, mattresses, box springs, and large
rugs.
3. City Manager. "City Manager" shall mean the
City Manager of the City of Seal Beach or the City Manager's
designee. _
4. Collection. "Collection" shall mean the
operation of gathering together within the City, and transporting
by means of a motor vehicle to the point of disposal or
processing, any solid waste or recyclables.
5. Collector. "Collector" shall mean any person
(a) who has been awarded an exclusive contract to provide
residential or commercial /industrial solid waste or recyclables
collection services in the City, or (b) who has been issued a
permit or nonexclusive contract to provide solid waste handling
services to state facilities.
6. Commercial /Industrial Business Owner.
"Commercial /industrial business owner" shall mean any person,
firm, corporation or other enterprise or organization holding or
occupying, alone or with others, commercial /industrial premises,
whether or not it is the holder of the title or the owner of
record of the commercial /industrial premises.
7. Commercial /Industrial Collector.
"Commercial /industrial collector" shall mean a Collector which
collects solid waste and recyclables from commercial /industrial
premises.
8. Commercial /Industrial Premises. "Commer-
cial /industrial premises" shall mean all occupied real property
in the City, except property occupied by federal, state or local
governmental agencies which do not consent to their inclusion,
and except residential premises as defined in subsection 27
hereof, and shall include, without limitation, wholesale and
retail establishments, restaurants and other food establishments,
bars, stores, shops, offices, industrial establishments,
manufacturing establishments, service stations, repair, research
and development establishments, professional, services, sports or
recreational facilities, construction and demolition sites, a
multiple dwelling that is not a residential premises, and any
other commercial or industrial business facilities, structures,
sites, or establishments in the City.
9. Construction Site or Demolition Site.
"Construction site or Demolition site" shall mean any real
property in the City in, on or from which a building or structure
is being fabricated, assembled, erected or demolished, and which
produces construction or demolition solid waste which must be
removed from the property, and requires the use of commercial
refuse containers.
10. Construction or Demolition Waste.
"Construction or Demolition waste" shall mean any solid waste or
debris generated as the result of construction or demolition,
including without limitation, discarded packaging or containers
and waste construction materials, whether brought on site for
fabrication or used in construction or resulting from demolition,
excluding liquid waste and hazardous waste.
11. Disposal. "Disposal" shall mean the complete
operation of treating and disposing of solid waste after the
collection thereof.
12. Exclusive Solid Waste Handling Services.
"Exclusive solid waste handling services" shall mean any action
by the City Council, whether by franchise, contract, license,
permit, or otherwise, whereby the City itself, or one or more
other local agencies or solid waste enterprises, has the
exclusive right to provide solid waste handling services of any
class or type within all or any part of the territory of the
City.
13. Green Waste or Yard Waste. "Green Waste" or
"Yard Waste" shall mean leaves, grass clippings, brush, branches
and other forms of organic materials generated from landscapes or
gardens, separated from other solid waste. "Compostable
Materials" does not include stumps or branches exceeding four (4)
inches in diameter or four (4) feet in length.
14. Hazardous waste. "Hazardous waste" shall
mean and include waste defined as hazardous by Public Resources
Code Section 40101 as it now exists or may subsequently be
amended, namely, a waste or combination of wastes, which because
of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or
infectious characteristics, may do either of the following:
(i) cause or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortal-
ity or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness; (ii) pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
"Hazardous waste" includes extremely hazardous waste and acutely
hazardous waste, and any other waste as may hereafter from time
to time be designated as hazardous by the Environmental
Protection Agency ( "EPA ") or other agency of the United States
Government, or by the California Legislature or any agency of the
State of California empowered by law to classify or designate
waste as hazardous, extremely hazardous or acutely hazardous.
15. Holiday. "Holiday" shall mean:
New Year's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
"Holiday" shall also mean any other day designated
as such in a contract between a Collector and the labor union
serving as the exclusive representative of that Collector's
employees, provided the holiday is established or recognized by
resolution of the City Council.
16. In the City or Within the City. "In the
City" or "Within the City" shall mean within the limits of the
City as such limits exist on the effective date of this Article
or may thereafter exist by virtue of the annexation of territory
to or detachment of territory from the limits of the City.
17. Manure. "Manure" shall mean the waste
droppings from any animal.
18. Person. "Person" shall mean any individual,
association, firm, partnership, corporation, or any other group
or combination thereof acting as a unit.
19. Processing. "Processing" shall mean the
reduction, separation, recovery and conversion of solid waste.
20. Public Agency. "Public agency" shall mean
any governmental agency or department thereof, whether federal,
state, or local.
21. Recyclables. "Recyclables" shall mean the
following materials generated on or emanating from residential or
commercial /industrial premises and no longer useful or wanted
thereon: glass bottles and jars - any food or beverage container
(excluding ceramics and chemical containers); aluminum - cans,
foil, pie tins and similar items (excluding dirt or organic
material); steel or bi -metal cans not to exceed one (1) gallon
size; PET - plastic soda bottles or other bottles with the
designated "PET" symbol; HDPE -- plastic milk and water bottles
with the designated "HDPE" symbol (excluding detergent or bleach
bottles and other plastic products); newspaper; cardboard -
separated and not having waxed surfaces; computer print out
(excluding carbon); and white ledger - white bond paper, office
paper, white envelopes (excluding coated paper); and such
additional materials as the City Council may designate from time
to time.
22. Recycling. "Recycling" shall mean the
process of collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and
reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste,
and returning them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw
material for new, reused, or reconstituted products which meet
the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace.
Recycling does not include transformation as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 40201.
23. Recycling Container. "Recycling container"
shall mean a container which is provided to residential premises
for use in collecting and moving recyclables to curbside for col-
lection by the Collector, or a container which is provided to
commercial /industrial premises for use by the Collector in
collecting and moving recyclables.
24. Residential Collector. "Residential
Collector" shall mean a Collector which collects solid waste and
recyclables from residential premises.
25. Residential Householder. "Residential
householder" shall mean any person or persons holding or
occupying residential premises in the City, whether or not the
owner of the residential premises.
26. Residential owner. "Residential owner"
shall mean the owner of any residential premises within the City.
27. Residential Premises. "Residential
premises" shall mean any residential dwelling unit within the
City, including, without limitation, multiple unit residential
complexes, such as rental housing projects, condominiums,
apartment houses, mixed condominiums and rental housing, and
mobilehome parks, except any multiple dwelling which, with the
prior written approval of the City Manager or designee, receives
commercial bin service.
28. Resource Recovery. "Resource recovery"
shall mean any use of solid waste collected pursuant to this
Article, except for landfill disposal or transfer for landfill
disposal. "Resource recovery" shall include, but is not limited
to, transformation, composting, and multi - material recycling.
29. Solid Waste. "Solid waste" shall mean all
putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes,
generated in or upon, related to the occupancy of, remaining in
or emanating from residential premises or commercial /industrial
premises, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish,
ashes, industrial wastes, demolition and construction wastes,
discarded home and industrial appliances, manure, vegetable or
animal solid or semisolid wastes, and other solid and semisolid
wastes, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 49503,
excluding liquid wastes and abandoned vehicles; provided,
however, that "solid waste" shall not include hazardous waste.
30. Solid Waste Container. "Solid waste
container" shall mean any vessel, tank, receptacle, box or bin
permitted to be used for the purpose of holding solid waste for
collection.
31. Solid Waste Enterprise. "Solid waste
enterprise" shall mean any individual, partnership, joint
venture, unincorporated private organization, or private
corporation regularly engaged in the business of providing solid
waste handling services.
32. Solid Waste Handling Services. "Solid waste
handling services" shall mean the collection, transportation,
storage, transfer, or processing of solid wastes for residential
or commercial /industrial users or customers.
33. Standard Commercial /Industrial Solid Waste
Container. "Standard commercial /industrial solid waste
container" shall mean a state -of- the -art bin or solid waste
container used in connection with commercial /industrial premises
with a 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8 cubic yard capacity, designed for mechan-
ical pick -up by collection vehicles and equipped with a lid, or
where appropriate for the commercial /industrial premises being
served, a 15, 25, 30, 40 or 50 cubic yard roll -off box or
compactor, and shall include other types of containers suitable
for the storage and collection of commercial /industrial solid
waste if approved in writing by the City- Manager.
34. Standard Residential Solid Waste Container.
"Standard residential solid waste container" shall mean a
standardized roll -away container with a locking lid, made of
metal, hard rubber or plastic and having an approximate capacity
of 90 gallons, and of a design, color and durability as approved
by the City Manager.
B. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed
to preclude the City and any solid waste enterprise from
incorporating into any agreement for exclusive solid waste
handling services definitions relating to their respective
contractual rights and obligations which may differ from or
augment those set forth herein.
PART 2 Collector Agreement
10 -3.1. Authorization by City Council Contract
Requirement
The City council may authorize, by contract, a
solid waste enterprise to provide solid waste handling services
for residential, commercial /industrial users or customers. In
the sole discretion of the City Council, the solid waste handling
services may be authorized on an exclusive or non - exclusive
basis, and with or without competitive bidding, and may relate to
any class or type of solid waste within all or any part of the
territory of the City.
No person shall collect or dispose of solid waste
or recyclables in the City unless that person has entered into a
contract (the "Collector Agreement ") with the City, except as
otherwise specifically provided in this Article. Any such
contract shall be in addition to any business license or permit
otherwise required by this Code. No permit issued by any other
governmental agency authorizing collection.of solid waste or
recyclables shall be valid in the City. Collectors operating in
the city on the effective date of this Article under a permit or
a nonexclusive Collector Agreement may continue to operate only
until the rights thereunder are terminated or revoked, or until
such rights expire pursuant to the provisions of Section 49520 of
the Public Resources Code.
10 -3.2. Contents.
The terms and provisions of any Collector
Agreement for solid waste handling services may relate to or
include, without limitation, the following subject matters:
1. The nature, scope and duration of the
Agreement.
2. The collection schedule, including the
frequency, days and hours of collection.
3. The applicable franchise fee, including the
amount, method of computation, and time for payment.
4. The applicable rates, fees and charges for
regular, special and emergency collection services, including the
method of setting and adjusting same, and the responsibility for
billing and collecting same. -
5. Collection vehicles, including the
permissible size and color, and any required identification,
safety equipment, maintenance, inspection, and operational
requirements.
6. The receipt, processing and reporting of
customer inquiries and complaints.
7. The collection of solid waste from publicly -
owned property and facilities.
8. Performance standards for the Collector's
personnel and equipment.
9. solid waste and recycling containers,
including size, repair or replacement, handling, placement,
obligations of the Collector to provide, and permissible charges
therefor. -
10. Standards and procedures for periodic
performance reviews by the City.
11. Noise attenuation policies and procedures.
12. The maintenance by the Collector of an office
for the conduct of business.
13. Policies and procedures relating to the
noncollection of solid waste, the composting of green waste, the
collection of recyclables, and resource recovery.
- 14. Requirements relating to comprehensive
liability insurance and workers' compensation insurance.
15. Requirements relating to the dissemination of
information to the public concerning regular and special solid
waste collection and recycling services.
16. Actions or omissions constituting breaches or
defaults, and the imposition of applicable penalties, liquidated
damages, and other remedies, including suspension, revocation or
termination.
17. Requirements relating to performance bonds
and to indemnification.
18. Requirements relating to affirmative action
programs..
19. Requirements relating to recordkeeping,
accounting procedures, reporting, periodic audits, and inspection
of records.
20. Requirements relating to the assignment,
transfer and renewal of the Agreement.
21. Requirements relating to compliance with and
implementation of state and federal laws, rules or regulations
pertaining to solid waste handling services, and to the
implementation by the City of state - mandated programs, including,
without limitation, the City's "Source Reduction and Recycling
Element" and the City's "Household Hazardous Waste Element."
22. Such additional requirements, conditions,
policies and procedures as may be mutually agreed upon by the
parties to the Collector Agreement and which will, in the
judgment and discretion of the City Council, best serve the
public interest and protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
10 10-33. Collector Franchise Fee. Each Collector
shall pay a franchise fee in an amount determined by resolution
of the City Council or established in the Collector Agreement
authorizing the collection of solid waste or recyclables.
I�,• 10 -3. Resolution of Conflicts. In the event of any
conflict betwee the provisions of a Collector Agreement which is
authorized and approved by the City Council and the provisions of
this Article, the provisions of the Collector Agreement shall
control.
° 10 -3.4. Permits and Licenses. Every Collector shall
obtain and maintain at all times during the Collector's opera-
,, tions a business license issued by the City, and all applicable
permits and licenses required by any public,agency having
jurisdiction.
10 -3.�. Transfer of Collector Agreement. No permit
r Collector Agreement which is authorized by, subject to, or
qXissued under the provisions of this Article shall be transferred,
delegated, sublet, subcontracted to or assigned to another person
without the prior approval of the City Council. This restriction
includes the transfer of ownership or the majority of the
ownership or control in the Collector, and the transfer of a
majority of stock. in Collector to another person.
���° 10 -3.1. Revocation of Permit or Collector Agreement.
After a hearing as provided in this Article, the City Manager may
revoke or suspend any collection permit or Collector Agreement
for violation of'a provision of this Article or any other
applicable law, ordinance, or regulation of any public agency.
(1c8t 10 -3.F. Interim Suspension. The City Manager,
Vvw \ithout a hearing, may suspend a Collector Agreement or a permit
for not more than 60 days, if the City Manager finds that
continued operation by the Collector will constitute a threat to
the public health, safety, or general welfare.
10 -3.i�. Notice of Hearing; Revocation. The City
anager shall mail notice of a hearing to revoke a collection
permit or Collector Agreement to the Collector not less than 15
days prior to such hearing. In the event of the revocation of a
Collector Agreement or a permit, the City Manager shall notify
the Collector in writing of the reasons therefor. Notification
may be made in person or by mail.
���� 10 -3.10. Appeals. Within fifteen (15) calendar days
fter notice by the City Manager of revocation of a collection
permit or Collector Agreement has been sent to the Collector, the
Collector may file with the City Clerk an appeal of such decision
to the City Council.
10 -3.kl. Council Action. The City Council may either
a firm the action of the City Manager, send the matter back to
the City Manager for further consideration, or set the matter for
hearing by the City Council. If the City Council sets the matter
for hearing, it shall base its action upon the standards deline-
ated in Section 10 -3.8. Notice of such hearing shall be sent to
the Collector not less than 15 days prior to the hearing.
PART 3 Rates
10 -4.1. Rates. The City Council may, by resolution
or an approved Collector Agreement, place a limit on the rates
Collector's may charge to residential householders or owners and
to commercial/ industrial business owners for the collection of
solid waste and recyclables.
No Collector shall charge any rate or fee which is
greater than the maximum rate permitted by the City Council,
unless otherwise authorized in this Article. Every
commercial /industrial business owner and residential householder
or owner shall pay the rates for collection services rendered
pursuant to this Article in the manner set forth in Section 10-
4.2. The City council may establish such rate categories as may
be appropriate for collection services provided by any
commercial /industrial Collector.
10 -4.2. Billing and Collection of Rates Fees and
Charges.
A. The billing and collection of the rates, fees and
charges imposed by the Collectors for solid waste handling
services to commercial /industrial premises shall be the
responsibility of the Collector, and the City shall have no
liability or responsibility therefor.
B. The billing and collection of the rates, fees and
charges imposed by the Collectors for solid waste handling
services to residential premises shall be the responsibility of
the City. The City may collect fees for residential solid waste
collection services by causing fees to be placed on the Orange
County Tax rolls through procedures established by the orange
County Tax Collector. No charge shall be made directly to a
residential householder by the residential Collector, except as
otherwise specifically authorized by the City Council.
PART 4 Vehicles
10 -5.1. Vehicle Identification. No person may
operate any vehicle for the collection of solid waste or
recyclables other than a Collector who has a valid business
license and solid waste collection Collector Agreement or permit
and who has paid all required license, Collector Agreement,
permit or other City charges. Each vehicle used by the Collector
shall have an identification number printed or painted in legible
numbers not less than five (511) inches in height in plain sight
from four directions.
10 -5.2. Vehicle Standards. Any vehicle utilized for
the collection, transportation or disposal of solid waste and /or
recyclables shall comply with the following standards:
A. Each vehicle shall be constructed and used so that
no solid waste, oil, grease, or other substance will blow, fall
or leak out of the vehicle.
A broom and shovel shall be carried on each vehicle
at all times.
C. Each vehicle shall comply with all applicable
statutes, laws, or ordinances of any public agency.
D. Each vehicle must be under seven (7) years of age
unless specifically authorized in writing by the City Manager.
E. Routine inspections by the California Highway
Patrol shall be conducted annually and certificates for the
inspection shall be filed annually with the City Manager.
F. All vehicles shall at all times be kept clean and
sanitary, in good repair and well and uniformly painted to the
satisfaction of the City Manager.
G. Each vehicle shall be equipped with watertight
bodies fitted with close- fitting metal covers.
H. The Collector's name or firm name and telephone
number shall be printed or painted in legible letters not less
than five (511) inches in height on both sides of all of
Collector's vehicles used in the City.
I. High intensity fog lamps shall be maintained on
any vehicle eighty (8011) inches or wider, which shall consist of
two (2) red tail lamps in addition to the standard tail lamps.
The fog lamps shall be used when visibility is less than fifty
(501) feet.
J. All equipment shall be maintained at all times in
a manner to prevent unnecessary noise during its operation.
K. As the Collector replaces existing equipment, the
type and make of the new equipment shall he subject to prior
approval by the City Manager.
10 -5.3. Operation of Equipment. All persons
operating solid waste collection and transportation equipment
shall do so in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and
local laws and ordinances. Such vehicles shall not be operated
in a manner which results in undue interference with normal
traffic flows. No such vehicle shall be parked or left
unattended on the public streets. No such vehicle shall be
parked overnight on a public street or thoroughfare in the City.
10 -5.4. Compliance with vehicle standards. Any
vehicle used in the collection or transportation of solid waste
in the City shall, at all times, be maintained in accordance with
all the standards set forth in Section 10 -5.2 of this Article.
The use of a vehicle which fails to comply with each of the
standards set forth in Section 10 -5.2 is prohibited. A Collector
shall immediately remove any vehicle from collection service
which fails, at any time, to conform to any of the standards
recited in section 10 -5.2 and shall not use that vehicle until it
is repaired. Should the City Manager give notification at any
time to a Collector that any of the Collector's vehicles is not
in compliance with the standards of this Article, the vehicle
shall be immediately removed from service by the Collector. The
vehicle shall not again be utilized in the City until it has been
inspected and approved by the City Manager. The Collector shall
maintain its regular collection schedule regardless of the repair
of any vehicle.
PART 5 Exclusions
10 -6.1. Residential Householder Exclusion. No provi-
sion of this Article shall prevent residential householders from
collecting and disposing of occasional loads of solid waste
generated in or on their residential premises, or from composting
green waste, or from selling or disposing of recyclables
generated in or on their residential premises; provided, however,
that no residential householder shall employ or engage any solid
waste enterprise, other than the residential Collector with a
Collector Agreement, to haul or transport such materials to a
transfer station or landfill.
10 -6.2. Gardener's Exclusion. No provisions of this
Article shall prevent a gardener, tree trimmer or person engaged
in a similar trade from collecting and disposing of grass
cuttings, prunings, and similar material not containing other
solid waste when incidental to providing such gardening, tree
trimming or similar services.
10 -6.3. Commercial /Industrial Exclusions.
A. Source Separated Recyclables.
1. No provision of this Article shall prevent a
commercial /industrial business owner from selling to a buyer, for
a monetary or other valuable consideration, any source separated
recyclables, including without limitation, any saleable scrap,
discard, reject, by- product, ferrous or non - ferrous metal, worn -
out or defective part, junk, pallet, packaging material, paper or
other similar item generated in, on or by a commercial /industrial
premises or business, and no longer useful to such commercial/
industrial business but having market value, whether such buyer
is a recycler, junk dealer, or other enterprise engaged in the
business of buying and marketing such materials in the stream of
commerce; provided, however, that such buyer is not engaged in
the business of collecting solid waste for a fee or other charge
or consideration, and that no such materials are transported for
disposition to a landfill or transfer station (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 40200). Source separated
recyclables within the meaning of this section shall mean
recyclables separated on the commercial /industrial premises from
solid waste for the purpose of sale, not mixed with or containing
more than incidental or minimal solid waste, and having a market
value.
` 2. No provision of this Article shall prevent a
recycler, junk dealer or other enterprise engaged in the business
of buying and marketing such materials in the stream of commerce
and which is not engaged in the business of collecting solid
waste or providing solid waste collection services for a fee or
other charge, or consideration, from buying any materials
referenced in this paragraph A for a monetary or other valuable
consideration, and which buys such materials for marketing and
not for disposition in a landfill or transfer station (as defined
in Public Resources Code section 40200); nor shall any provision
of this Article prevent such recycler, junk dealer or enterprise
which buys such materials from removing and transporting such
materials to a destination for marketing in the stream of
commerce. No such buyer shall buy or transport such materials
without prior authorization from the City, as required by this
Code, whether in the form of a business license, a business
permit, or a nonexclusive Collector Agreement.,
B. Renovation. Rebuilding Repairs.
No provision of this Article shall prevent a
commercial /industrial business owner from arranging for any worn,
spent, or defective equipment, or part thereof, used in such
commercial /industrial business and requiring renovation,
rebuilding, recharging, regeneration or repair, to be picked up,
renovated, rebuilt, recharged, regenerated or otherwise restored
and repaired and returned to such commercial /industrial business
owner; nor shall any provision of this Article prevent any person
engaged in the business of renovating, rebuilding, recharging,
regenerating, or otherwise restoring or repairing such equipment
or part thereof, from transporting the same from or returning it
to the commercial /industrial business, or from removing,
transporting or disposing of any such equipment, or part thereof,
replaced in connection with an equipment repair or service
contract.
10 -6.4. Contractors, Exclusions. No provision of
this Article shall prevent a licensed contractor having a
contract for the demolition or reconstruction of a building,
structure, pavement, or concrete installation from marketing any
saleable items salvaged from such demolition or reconstruction,
or from causing such salvageable items or demolition waste to be
removed and transported from the premises on which such waste is
generated, pursuant to the provisions of the demolition or
construction contract. If a subcontractor is to be engaged to
remove such demolition waste, the Authorized Collector shall have
the right of first refusal to provide such services. If the
Authorized Collector cannot guarantee that such services will be
provided within a period of twenty -four (24) hours, for a per bin
charge that does not exceed the maximum permitted by the
Collector Agreement, the City Manager may authorize the licensed
contractor or the owner of the premises to utilize the services
of another duly authorized solid waste enterprise.
10 -6.5. Document Destruction Service. No provision
of this Article shall prevent any person engaged in the business
of destroying or disposing of secret, confidential or sensitive
documents from transporting or disposing of such documents by
shredding, lumping, incinerating, or other means, as a part of
such document destruction or disposal service.
10 -6.6. Self -Haul Exclusion. Notwithstanding
Paragraph C of Section 10 -7.1, and in addition to the authority
granted by Section 10 -6.1, nothing in this Article shall prevent
a commercial /industrial business owner or residential householder
from, on a regular basis, collecting and disposing of solid waste
generated in or on their premises, in lieu of availing themselves
of the services of the Authorized Collector. No residential
householder or commercial /industrial business owner shall employ
or engage any solid waste enterprise, other than an Authorized
Collector, to haul or transport such materials to a transfer
station or landfill. Provided, however, that any residential
householder or commercial /industrial business owner who, pursuant
to this section 10 -6.6 seeks to on a regular basis collect and
dispose of solid waste generated in or on their premises, must
first obtain a self -haul permit from the City, and must comply
with procedures for self - hauling to be adopted by the City
Council by resolution.
PART 6 General Reouirements
10-7.1. Mandatory Service.
A. All solid waste collected from residential or
commercial /industrial premises for a fee, service charge, or
other consideration, shall be collected by an Authorized
'Collector, subject only to Paragraph D below.
B. No person, firm, corporation or solid waste
enterprise, other than those referenced in paragraph A above,
shall negotiate or contract for, undertake to receive, collect or
transport solid waste from within the City for -a fee, service
charge or other consideration therefor, except as specifically
provided herein.
C. Except as otherwise provided in this Article, each
residential owner and commercial /industrial business owner shall
utilize the services of the Authorized Collector for the
collection of solid waste from the residential or commercial/
industrial premises held or occupied by such owner and shall pay
for such services the fees approved by the City Council. No
residential or commercial /industrial business owner shall enter
into an agreement for solid waste handling services with any
person, firm, or corporation other than the Authorized Collector,
except as otherwise provided in this Article.
D. Nothing in this Article shall prevent a commer-
cial /industrial business which has its own recycling or resource
recovery program for recyclables generated by such business and
not utilizing a solid waste enterprise which provides collection
services for a fee, service charge, or other consideration, from
continuing such recycling or resource recovery program, and the
recyclables included in such program are excepted from the exclu-
sive contract between the City and the Authorized Collector.
10 -7.2. Litter. Any person who deposits or causes to
be deposited any solid waste or recyclables on the public right -
of -way or on private property within public view, except in a
container provided therefor as herein specified, shall
immediately clean up; contain, collect and remove same.
Violation of this section is an infraction; the second violation
within a one year period is a misdemeanor.
10 -7.3. Transfer of Loads on Public Streets. No
person shall transfer solid waste or recyclables from one
collection vehicle to another on any public street or road unless
such transfer is essential to the method of operation and is
approved by the City Manager, or is necessary owing to mechanical
failure or accidental damage to a vehicle.
10 -7.4. Unauthorized Removal from Containers. No
person other than the Authorized Collector shall remove or tamper
with, or remove any solid waste or recyclable material from, any
solid waste container or recyclables container, other than the
owner or occupant of the property served by such bin, receptacle
or recyclable container, or an authorized employee of the City.
10 -7.5. Hours of Collection
(a) In residential areas and commercial /industrial
areas that are contiguous to residential premises, no collection
or delivery /removal of containers shall be made.between the hours
of 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday or at any time on
Sunday.
(b) In commercial /industrial areas that are not
contiguous to residential premises, no collection or
delivery /removal of containers shall be made between the hours of
6 p.m. and 5 a.m. Monday through Saturday or at any time on
Sunday.
(c) The City Manager may waive the requirements of
this section when necessitated by conditions beyond the control
of the collector.
10 -7.6. Resource Recovery. Every Collector shall, at
all times, comply with City policies and programs with regard to
solid waste recovery, reduction of solid waste and recycling of
solid waste.
10 -7.7. Ownership. At such time as the solid waste
or recyclables are placed for collection at the usual place of
collection, the solid waste or recyclables are the property of
the Collector.
10 -7.8. Disposal.
(a) It shall be unlawful at any time for any person,
including Collectors, to burn any solid waste or recyclables
within the City.
(b) It shall be unlawful at any time for any person,
including Collectors, to bury or dump any solid waste or
recyclables within the City.
10 -7.9. Trespass. No person authorized to collect or
transport solid waste or recyclables shall enter on private
property beyond the extent necessary to collect the solid waste
or recyclables, properly placed for collection, or beyond the
extent necessary to provide any agreed upon special collection
service.
10 -7.10. Required Monthly Reports.
(a) Each Collector shall provide the City with monthly
tonnage reports which include the following:
1. Total amount of solid waste removed from the City
for the respective reporting month.
2. The name address and telephone number of each solid
waste disposal and /or recycling facility used by the Collector
during the reporting month.
3. In the event that a Collector adds and /or deletes a,
collection service customer(s), the Collector must submit a
revised collection service identification list with the monthly
report for the reporting month.
5. The complaint log described in Section 10- 7.10(B).
(b) Each report shall be signed by an officer of the
Collector. If the Collector has more than one collection route,
it shall submit a separate report for each collection route.
Each report shall be submitted to the City on the last day of
each month following each reporting month. Reports must be
received by the City Engineer by 5:00 p.m.
(c) The Collector shall maintain, but is not required
to submit monthly, copies of waste disposal facility weight
tickets /invoices which indicate the net amount of all waste
disposed, transferred and /or recycled during each month that
collection services are provided.
10 -7.11. Annual Report. Every Collector shall furnish
an annual report to the City detailing the quantity and nature of
all solid waste or recyclables removed from the City. Reports
shall be delivered to the City on or before July 31 of each year,
for the immediately preceding period of July 1 through June 30
period. This report shall also include permitted waste disposal
facilities where the Collector has disposed and /or transferred
all solid waste removed from the City. This report is to also
include a compilation of monthly tonnage reports and /or copies of
tipping receipts. The report shall include a customer service
identification list which identifies the name and address of each
customer receiving collection service from the Collector. The
timely filing of a complete annual report is,a condition of any
permit or Collector Agreement awarded by the City.
10 -7.12. Worker's Compensation Insurance. Each
Collector shall at all times provide, at its own expense,
Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage for all employees. Each
Collector shall file and maintain certificates with the Manager
showing the insurance to be in full force and effect at all times
the Collector shall have a permit issued by the City.
10 -7.13. Collector's Liability Insurance. Each
Collector shall furnish the City a policy or certificate of
comprehensive general and automobile liability insurance insuring
the Collector against bodily injury, property damage and
automobile liability in the sum of $1,000,000 combined single
limits. These limits shall be subject to annual review by the
City for the purpose of reasonably adjusting to current insurance
conditions and requirements. A greater amount may be required in
the Collector Agreement. The insurance shall provide that the
coverage is primary and that any insurance maintained by the City
shall be excess insurance, shall be procured from an insurer
authorized to do business in the State of California, shall name
the City of Seal Beach and its officers; employees and agents as
additional insureds and shall not be canceled or modified without
first giving to City thirty (30) days' prior written notice.
10 -7.14. City To Be Free From Liability. Any
Collector or person who collects, transports, or disposes of
solid waste or recyclables within the City shall indemnify,
defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, employees,
and agents against any and all claims, demands, losses, costs,
expenses, obligations, liabilities, damages, recoveries, and
deficiencies, including interest, penalties and reasonable
attorneys fees, that the city shall incur or suffer, which arise,
result from or relate to the collection, transportation, or
disposal of solid waste or recyclables by that person.
10 -7.15. office for Inquiries and Complaints.
A. Any Collector with a Collector Agreement shall
maintain an office at some fixed location and shall maintain a
telephone at the office, listed in the current telephone
directory in the firm name by which it conducts business in the
City, and shall at all times during the hours between 7 a.m. and
6 p.m. of each weekday and between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday,
have an employee or agent at that office to answer inquiries and
receive complaints. The telephone number shall be a toll -free
number from all portions of the City.
B. The Collector shall maintain at the office a
written log of all complaints /inquiries received. Such log shall
contain the date of inquiry /complaint, the callers name, address
and telephone number, the nature of the complaint /inquiry, the
action taken or the reason for non - action, and the date such
action was taken. All inquiries and complaints shall be promptly
answered or responded to and /or dealt with to the satisfaction of
the City. Such log of complaints and other records pertaining to
solid waste and recyclable collection and disposal shall be open
to the inspection of the City at all reasonable times and shall
be maintained for a period of one year. Compliance with the
requirements of this section are conditions to any permit or
Collector Agreement which is awarded by the City.
10 -7.16. Building Contractors to Leave Area Clean.
All owners, contractors and builders of structures shall, upon
the completion of any such structure, gather up and haul away, at
their sole cost and expense, all refuse of every nature,
description or kind, which has resulted from the building of such
structure, including all lumber scraps, shingles, plaster, brick,
stone, concrete and other building material, and shall place the
lot and all nearby premises utilized in such construction in a
- sightly condition, and it shall be unlawful not to do so.
10 -7.17. Accumulation of Garbage etc.. Declared
Nuisance. The accumulation of garbage and rubbish by any person
beyond the period of one week or in any manner other than
specified in Article I of this Chapter is hereby declared to be a
nuisance pursuant to Section 38771 of Government Code of the
State. The City Council, pursuant to Section 38773 of the
Government Code of the State, shall, by separate ordinance,
provide for the summary abatement of such nuisances.
PART 7 Residential Collection and Recycling
10 -8.1. Residential Collection - Disposal.
All solid waste collected by a- Collector shall be
disposed of by the Collector in accordance with all applicable
federal, state and local laws and regulations and the controlling
permit or Collector Agreement.
10 -8.2. Residential Collection - Frequency.
The residential Collector shall collect all solid waste
and recyclables placed for collection in compliance with this
Article from each residential premises once a week in accordance
with a schedule which has been approved by the City Manager. The
schedule shall identify the routes and days of pick up for each
collection district established within the City. Unless
otherwise approved by the City Council, collection of solid
waste, recyclables and green waste shall take place no less than
once each calendar week, on the same day of the week..
10 -8.3. Residential Collection -Solid Waste
Containers.
Subject to the prior approval of the City Manager, the
Collector shall provide standard residential solid waste con-
tainers to each residential householder and may include the costs
thereof in the monthly collection rate. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, a residential householder may provide additional solid
waste containers sufficient to accommodate the amount of solid
waste generated by the residential premises; provided, however,
that such containers shall be compatible with the Collector's
collection equipment. Such additional containers shall be the
property of the residential householder. No cardboard box or
paper bag may be used as a container for solid waste.
10 -8.4. Residential Collection - Recycling Containers.
The Collector shall provide each residential premises with at
least one recycling container. If one recycling container is
inadequate, the Collector shall provide one or more additional
recycling containers upon request, and at no charge to the
residential householder.
10 -8.5. Residential Collection - Placement and Removal
of Containers. Every residential householder shall place each
solid waste container and recycling container for collection at
the curb in front of the premises, or at the curb at the side of
the premises where the premises are adjacent to more than one
street. No person shall place any such container for collection
more than twenty -four hours before collection is scheduled to
commence in the district, or leave any such container at the
place of collection after 10:00 p.m. on the day of collection, or
more than two hours after actual collection, whichever is later.
Such containers shall be removed to a storage location which is
not visible from any public right -of -way, excluding alleys.
Violation of this section is an infraction. For the first
infraction, the City shall give a warning to the violator; for
the second infraction, the City shall impose a $20.00 fine
against the violator; for each subsequent infraction within one
year of the first violation, the City shall impose a $40.00 fine
against the violator.
10 -8.6. Residential Collection -Care of Containers.
Upon collection, all solid waste containers shall be replaced, by
the Collector, upright, where found, with the lids replaced, and
all recycling containers shall be replaced in an upright or
upside down position, at the location where found by the
Collector.
10 -8.7. Residential Collection - Special Collection
Services. The residential Collector shall provide, upon request
from a residential householder, special collection of solid
waste, at such rates as may be approved by the City and at such
times as may be agreed upon by the Collector and the person
requesting the service. If no agreement is reached, such special
collections shall be provided as determined by the City Manager.
Such special collection may include carryout service, or any
other service beyond that required by this Article or the
applicable Collector Agreement.
PART 8 Commercial /Industrial Collection
10 -9.1. Commercial /Industrial - Disposal and Status of
Solid Waste. The commercial /industrial Collector shall collect
and dispose of all solid waste generated and presented for
collection at each commercial /industrial premises in conformity
with the provisions of this Article, except as otherwise provided
in this Article. Any such collection and disposal shall be in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations and any controlling permit or Collector Agreement
between the Collector and the City. All solid waste collected by
a commercial /industrial Collector shall be the exclusive property
of the Collector.
10 -9.2. Commercial /Industrial- Freauencv of
Collection. The commercial /industrial Collector shall collect
solid waste from commercial /industrial premises on a schedule
which is agreed upon between the commercial /industrial business
owner and the Collector. In no event shall such collection
schedule permit the accumulation of solid waste in quantities
detrimental to public health or safety.
10 -9.3. Commercial /Industrial- Containers.
A. Every commercial /industrial business served by a
Collector shall have the option to:
1. Provide the necessary container or containers
to accommodate solid waste generated from the commercial/
industrial business, for collection by the commercial /industrial
Collector; or
2. Use the standard commercial /industrial solid
waste container or containers provided by the Collector, which
containers are compatible with the Collector's collection
equipment. Where a commercial /industrial business owner is
served by an excepted Collector, such excepted Collector and
business owner shall determine by private agreement who is to
provide the container.
B. Every Collector which provides any container or
other equipment used for the storage of commercial /industrial
solid waste shall:
1. Place and maintain on the outside of such
container, bin or other equipment, in legible letters and
numerals not less than one inch in height, the Collector's
business name and telephone number, in a color contrasting with
the background color of the container; and
2. Provide containers on casters or hasps or
locks upon request by the commercial /industrial business owner.
10 -9.4. Commercial /Industrial- Maintenance and
Placement of Containers. Solid waste containers provided by the
Collector shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition
by the Collector. Solid waste containers which are not provided
by the Collector shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary
condition by the commercial /industrial business owner. Every
commercial /industrial business owner shall provide a solid waste
container location on the commercial /industrial premises and
shall keep the area in good repair, clean and free of refuse
outside of the container. Every Collector shall remove any solid
waste or litter that is spilled or deposited on the ground as a
result of the Collector's emptying of the container or other
activities of the Collector.
10 -9.5. Commercial /Industrial -Care of Containers.
Upon collection of solid waste by the Collector, all containers
shall be replaced, upright, where found, with the lids closed.
No person, other than the owner thereof, shall in any manner,
break, damage, roughly handle or destroy containers placed on the
premises of a commercial /industrial business owner.
10 -9.6. Commercial /Industrial- Unauthorized
Containers. Except as expressly authorized by this Chapter 10,
Article I of the Municipal Code, no person other than a Collector
may place a'solid waste or recycling container within the Service
Area. Any container placed in violation of this Section 10 -9.5
is hereby declared to be a nuisance, and is subject to abatement
pursuant to Chapter 14 of this Code.
10 -9.7. Commercial /Industrial - Special Circumstances.
I£ particular commercial /industrial business premises require
collections at times, frequencies or in a manner such that the
Collector is unable to perform the collection in the normal
course of business, or where unusual quantities of solid waste or
special types of material are to be collected and disposed of, or
where special methods of handling are required, or where the
quantity of solid waste requires the use of multiple (more than
three) containers, the Collector and the commercial /industrial
business owner may make arrangements for such collection on
mutually agreeable terms. If the business owner and the
Collector do not agree as to the methods for the service provided
for in this section, the City Manager shall determine the method
of service. If the Collector is unable or unwilling to provide
such service, the City Manager may authorize the business owner
to use another solid waste enterprise far such special service
until the Collector can provide such service in its normal course
of business."
Section 2. Article IV of Chapter 10 of the Seal Beach
Municipal Code is hereby redesignated Article III.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance to
be published or posted as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this /Z�7 day of
1997.
E T:
CITi CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Ss
CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I, Joanne M. Yee, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoi g ordinance
is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file
in the office of he City Clerk, ntroduced at a meeting
held on the o7 -i day of 199 1
and passed proved and adopt by the ty ouncil ofe
City of Se each t meeting thereof he d on the
day of , 199 , by the following vote:
AYES: Counci
NOES: Counc
ABSENT: Councilmember
and do hereby further certify
has been published pursuant to
and Resolution Number 2836. \/
-it y Clerk
that Ordinance Number y{/
the Seal Beach City Charter