HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-5521 - PSA for Evaluation of Residential Solid Waste Collection Services ProposalsAMENDMENT NO. THREE TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR
EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
PROPOSALS
THIS AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT ("Amendment No. Three") is made and entered into as of this 27th day of
November, 2013 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a
California municipal corporation and charter city ("City'), and HF&H CONSULTANTS,
LLC, a California limited liability company ("Consultant"), whose address is 19200 Von
Karman Ave, Suite 360, Irvine CA 92612, and is made with reference to the following.
RECITALS
A. On June 28, 2013, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services
Agreement ("Agreement") to conduct an evaluation of residential solid waste
collection services proposals ("Project").
B. On August 12, 2013, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. One to
the Agreement ("Amendment No. One") to reflect additional Services not
included in the Agreement and to increase the total compensation.
C. On September 25, 2013, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Two
to the Agreement ("Amendment No. Two") to reflect additional Services not
included in the Agreement or any prior amendments and to increase the total
compensation.
D. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. Three to reflect additional Services
not included in the Agreement or any prior amendments, to extend the term of
the Agreement to March 31, 2015 and to increase the total compensation.
E. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement, as provided below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
1. TERM
Section 1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety and replaced with the
following: "The term of this Agreement shall commence on June 28, 2013, and shall
terminate on March 31, 2015, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. At the City's
sole discretion, the term of the Agreement may be extended up to three (3) times for an
additional one (1) year per extension by written amendment to the Agreement."
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Exhibit A to the Agreement shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Work
to Provide Transition and Contract Management Services, attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference ("Services" or 'Work"). Exhibit A of the
Agreement, Exhibit A of Amendment No. One, Exhibit A of Amendment No. Two and
Exhibit A of Amendment No. Three shall collectively be known as "Exhibit A". The City
may elect to delete certain Services within the Scope of Services at its sole discretion.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
Section 4.1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety and replaced with the
following: "City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not -to -
exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred
Ninety -Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars and 00/100 ($197,800.00) during the
term of this Agreement as amended herein, without prior written authorization from City.
No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the
prior written approval of City."
The total amended compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation
for additional Services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. Three,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed
Seventy -Nine Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($79,000.00).
Should the City exercise its option to extend the Agreement as provided for in
Section 1 of the Agreement, as amended, compensation during the extended Term or
Terms shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibit B to Amendment No. Three.
4. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. Three to
be executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Date: � � ) -
By: C�
Aaron C. rp
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Date: J
m r�g
Leilani I. Brown
City ClerkR,
Attachments
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
Date:
By: A4k
Keith D. Cu
Mayor
CONSULTANT: HF&H Consultants, LLC,
a California limited liability company
Date: / (.- 2
By
La' Ezzet ,
Senior Vice President
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Exhibit A - Scope of Work to Provide
Management Services
Exhibit B - Schedule of Billing Rates
Transition and Contract
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work to Provide Transition and Contract Management Services
Background
At the City Council meeting on November 12, 2013, the City of Newport Beach City
Council voted to outsource residential solid waste collection and awarded an agreement
(Hauler Agreement) to CR&R. The term of the negotiated Hauler Agreement is seven
(7) years, beginning March 31, 2014, with a City option to extend the Hauler Agreement
for up to three (3) additional years.
Four (4) communities in the City receive residential service under other exclusive
collection agreements with private haulers:
Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights, which are serviced by CR&R; and,
Bonita Canyon SubdivisionlBelcourt and Newport Terrace, which are serviced by
Waste Management,
The City also has separate contracts with:
• Ware Disposal for City facilities collection;
• Rainbow Environmental Services for collection of beach containers;
• Robert's Disposal for collection of street and park containers; and,
• Athens Services for street sweeping.
Proiect Obiective
The City has requested HF&H to assist in monitoring the transition from City solid waste
collection service to CR&R's service, and to subsequently provide contract
management and oversight to ensure CR&R complies with the terms of the Hauler
Agreement for the services areas previously served by City crews.
Scope of Work
Task 1: Transition Assistance (to be completed by the date CR&R begins
residential solid waste collection service except as noted**)
The City is transitioning to a private waste collector and transitioning from unlimited,
once per week, manual trash collection in customer—provided containers, to a two -cart
automated collection system. Under the new two -cart system, each residential customer
will be provided one or more refuse containers and, at the customer's option, a recycling
container (recycling container is optional) (size selected by customer). Use of the
recycling container by residents is optional. A portion of the refuse container material
will be processed at a material recovery facility to recover recyclables and green waste.
The City and CR&R will need to undertake numerous tasks in order to ensure a smooth
transition. HF&H has assisted cities through this process to minimize disruption to
customers and to ensure programs are properly implemented in a timely manner.
HF&H Consultants, LLC rage A-1
HF&H will review the detailed transition plan to be developed by CR&R and monitor it
for consistency with the Hauler Agreement requirements. CR&R's transition plan will
need to address, among other items, the following:
• Cart and container design requirements
• Container delivery plan
+ Solid waste vehicle requirements
Employment of former City employees
+ List of drivers, including documentation of appropriate class licenses
• Routing schedule and coordination with street sweeping services
+ Procedures for identifying, removing and recycling of residents' existing cans
+ Public education and outreach during the transition period
o Cart selection mailing
o Initial transition mailing(s) prior to the start of collection services
o Website
o Semi-annual notice/Newsletter—schedule
o Quarterly notice/Newsletter — schedule
o Corrective action notices
+ Notification to City of dedicated Route Supervisor, and Contract and Service
Liaisons
• Purchase of City collection vehicles within thirty (34) days of Hauler Agreement
execution
• Customer service surveys at completion of six (6) months of service*
The following tasks proposed by HF&H are for the transition assistance and ongoing
contract management assistance associated with the Hauler Agreement between the
City and CR&R and do not include performance of these tasks for other agreements
executed by the City.
HF&H will assist with the following services:
Task 9A: Develop and Monitor detailed Transition Calendar and Hauler Requirements
Checklist
During the transition, it is critical that key tasks are completed by certain dates.
Examples include obtaining equipment, receiving and testing route data, public
education, and community workshops.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-2
Challenge:
Many of the transition tasks are successive and dependent upon the successful
completion of previous tasks. If tasks are missed or delayed there is the
potential for equipment delivery delays, inadequate public education and
outreach, insufficient driver familiarity with route challenges, and other issues.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will develop a comprehensive Transition Schedule and CR&R
Requirements Checklist to guide the transition process. HF&H will monitor
transition progress and compliance in meeting deadlines by meeting with CR&R
and City staff on a periodic basis during the transition period. This task will also
include interim telephone conversations between HF&H staff, CR&R, and/or City
staff.
Task 18: Review and Revision of Public Outreach Materials
The City's residents have historically received service from municipal crews and
have used resident- provided containers and bags for mixed solid waste. Under
the new Hauler Agreement, residents will receive CR&R-provided refuse and
recycling carts (the later if desired), and will be allowed to place additional solid
waste in their own containers and bags for collection. There are also new
services included in the new Hauler Agreement such as a Sharps collection
program, enhanced bulky item collection, and door-to-door household hazardous
waste collection.
Challenge:
Residents must be made aware of and understand the new collection and
enhanced program options available under the new Hauler Agreement. A
successful transition will require thoughtful and accurate public education and
outreach. Exhibit B, Section B.7 of the Hauler Agreement requires CR&R to
develop printed public education materials, a dedicated web site page for City -
specific information, and classroom education curriculum.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will review public education and outreach materials developed by CR&R
for accuracy and consistency with the provisions of the Hauler Agreement. It is
HF&H's understanding that CR&R will be conducting a series of public meetings
to provide residents with information on the new services; HF&H will review the
meeting -content developed by CR&R for these meetings.
Task 1 C: Review Reporting Forms
The Hauler Agreement requires CR&R to submit monthly and quarterly reports.
Challenge:
Under AB 939,
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-3
jurisdictions are required to submit information to CalRecycle on solid waste
diversion programs including descriptions of the programs, and tonnage diverted
by material for each program.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will review the hauler reporting forms for consistency with the Hauler
Agreement requirements.
Task 2: Ongoing Contract Management Assistance
Task 2A: Develop CR&R Compliance Matrix and Hauler Agreement Summary Sheet
Challenge:
Ensure CR&R compliance with new Hauler Agreement. The City's new Hauler
Agreement includes reporting, minimum diversion, compensation adjustment,
public education, and additional service and facility use requirements. CR&R's
negotiated rates include performance of these requirements and it is important
that the City is confident that these requirements are being met in their entirety.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will develop a CR&R compliance matrix which will be reviewed at each
meeting with CR&R and the City to ensure compliance with all contractual
requirements. Additionally, HF&H will develop a Hauler Agreement summary for
the City which categorizes requirements such as new services (e.g., bulky item,
household hazardous waste, sharps, and abandoned item collection). This
document will allow the City to easily provide information to residents and City
staff regarding new and enhanced programs and assist in CR&R compliance.
Task 2B: Review of Hauler Reports
Challenge:
The City is required to meet certain diversion requirements.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will review CR&R's reports submitted to the City to ensure that the
information is consistent with the Hauler Agreement requirements.
In addition, HF&H will perform trend analyses on tonnage data submitted by
CR&R to the City and present our findings during regular meetings. These
analyses allow real-time tracking of new solid waste programs by measuring the
generation of different types of waste (such as refuse disposed, and recyclables
recovered) over an extended period of time.
Task 2C: Meetings with CR&R and City
Challenge:
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-4
Address CR&R compliance diversion, or reporting issues before they become
problems. If CR&R reports are not reviewed on a monthly basis, issues can be
overlooked, and these issues that may have been easily resolved can tum into
compliance issues for the City.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H has developed strategies to ensure CR&R compliance, assess program
issues/concerns, and expedite program data and information collection. HF&H
understands that City staff time is valuable, and these strategies have evolved
over the course of our engagements in order to maximize the effectiveness of
our meetings and to ensure efficient use of resources.
The items contained in our meeting documents will include, but are not limited to:
o Trend analyses of tonnage in order to track progress and discern anomalies.
o A matrix of CR&R responsibilities based on requirements contained in the
Hauler Agreement.
o New regulatory developments that may impact the provision of residential
solid waste services.
Meeting documents will be forwarded to all stakeholders prior to the meeting in
order to allow each participant adequate time to prepare for the meeting. HF&H
will take the minutes of the meeting and, subsequently, distribute the meeting
summary, which includes tasks discussed at the meeting, parties responsible
for completing these tasks, and dates for which tasks are due.
Task 2D: Review of Public Outreach Materials
Challenge:
The new two -cart collection system will encourage residents to separate trash (if
residents choose to do so) and recyclables and will require ongoing efforts to educate
the public.
HF&H Solution:
Based on our experience reviewing public outreach strategies and materials in
dozens of local communities, HF&H will coordinate with CR&R to ensure that ongoing
public outreach efforts are effective.
Task 2E: Verify Achievement of Diversion Requirement
Challenge:
The contract requires CR&R to divert 45% of the waste collected and contains
financial penalties assessed on a per ton basis if the diversion target is not
achieved.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-5
HF&H will monitor CR&R's diversion on a monthly basis for compliance with terms
of the Hauler Agreement and calculate penalties if the required diversion is not
achieved. HF&H will track year-to-date performance of diversion to monitor
compliance.
Task 2F: Review Annual Compensation Adjustment Calculation
Challenge:
The contract provides for an annual compensation adjustment using a formula
components and the cost of disposal at the Change County landfill system. The
rate adjustment formula contains a variety of caps and limits on future rate
adjustments.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will verify the accuracy of the indices and supporting computations used in
CR&R's compensation adjustment request and confirm that it is consistent with the
terms of the Hauler Agreement.
HF&H Consultants, CI_C Page A-6
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES
Fees
HF&H will provide our services based on time and materials.
The estimated cost for Task 1 *: Transition Assistance: $29,500.00
The estimated cost for Task 2*: Ongoing Contract Management Assistance is $49,500.00
for a twelve-month period.
The total cost for Tasks 1 and 2 is estimated not -to -exceed $79,000.00
*The cost estimate is based on performing the specific contract management tasks
described above under the "Scope of Work" and assumes that City staff will perform
other tasks not included in the Scope of Work such as day-to-day coordination with
CR&R's field personnel or residential customers regarding service requests, missed
pickups, customer complaints, or other routine operations matters. If HF&H is requested
to participate in additional activities, HF&H will participate for an additional fee based on
time and materials.
HF&H will bill the City once per month based on the number of hours worked multiplied
by our hourly billing rates, plus expenses incurred. Payment is due within thirty (30) days
of approval of invoice. Hourly rates for our consultants during the initial term of the
Agreement are as follows:
Position Hourly Rate
President/Senior Vice President:
$259
Vice President:
$235
Director/Sr. Project Manager:
$219
Project Manager:
$199 to $215
Senior Associate:
$145 to $165
Associate Analyst:
$135
Assistant Analyst:
$105
Administrative Staff:
$95
Intern Consultant:
$45
Expenses
Mileage: $0.555 per mile*
Document reproduction (black and white): $0.15 per page**
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page B-1
Color document reproduction: $0.75 cents per page**
Outside document reproduction/couriers/postage Actual
Public conveyances and parking: Actual
All other out-of-pocket expenses: Actual
*Or as adjusted by IRS allowance
** Over 20 pages per run
Adjusted Position Hourly Rates
In the event the City opts to extend the Agreement, pursuant to Section 1 of the
Agreement as amended, the rates and compensation for the Ongoing Contract
Management Assistance Task (Task 2) shall be adjusted each year beginning April 1,
2015, based on an annual CPI adjustment as further detailed below.
Upon the first anniversary of April 1, 2014 and upon each anniversary thereafter, the
rates and compensation set forth in Exhibit B ('Billing Rates") shall be adjusted in
proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index, subject to the maximum adjustment
set forth below. Such adjustment shall be made by multiplying the Billing Rates in
Exhibit B by a fraction, the numerator of which is the value of the Consumer Price Index
for the calendar month three (3) months preceding the calendar month for which such
adjustment is to be made, and the denominator of which is the value of the Consumer
Price Index for the same calendar month immediately prior to April 1, 2014. The
Consumer Price Index to be used in such calculation is the "Consumer Price Index, All
Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U)", for the Los Angeles -Riverside -
Orange County Metropolitan Area, published by the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. If both an official index and one or more unofficial indices are
published, the official index shall be used. If said Consumer Price Index is no longer
published at the adjustment date, it shall be constructed by conversion tables included
in such new index. In no event, however, shall the amount payable under this
Agreement be reduced below the Billing Rates in effect immediately preceding such
adjustment. The maximum adjustment increase to the Billing Rates, for any year where
an adjustment is made pursuant to this Section, shall not exceed 2.5% of the Billing
Rates in effect immediately preceding such adjustment.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page B-2
�E.wvoRT
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
Cq<!FORt,P City Council Staff Report
Agenda. Item No. 21
November 26, 2013
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Dave Kiff, City Manager
949-644-3001, dkiff(a)newportbeachca.gov
Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Department Director
949 644-3055, mharmon(onewportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Department Director
APPROVED:
TITLE: Contract Amendment No. Three Between City and HF&H
Consultants, LLC (HF&H) for Residential Solid Waste
Transition and Contract Management Services
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor Curry to sign the Contract Amendment (Attachment A) between City
and HF&H for Residential Solid Waste Transition and Contract Management Services.
FINANCIAL:
The not to exceed (NTE) compensation of the scope of services outlined in Exhibit A of
Attachment A is $79,000.00 The current adopted budget includes sufficient funding in
the Refuse Division Account 3150-8250 for this work.
�7FYd�b�9[�7DF
At the April 23, 2013 meeting, City Council approved a Request for Proposal document
for residential solid waste services and transfer station operations. In June 2013, the
City entered into a contract with HF&H to work with staff to evaluate the seven (7)
proposals received for these services. The evaluation was completed in August of
2013. Two amendments to the Contract were entered into, and entailed the following
scope of services:
1) Amendment No. One - Evaluation/Assistance with the proposal by the City
employees' representative, Newport Beach Employees League (N.B.E.L.).
2) Amendment No. Two - Evaluation and negotiation with three firms selected by
City Council for further review: CR&R Incorporated, Rainbow Environmental and
Ware Disposal Co.
Contract Amendment #3 between City and HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) for
Residential Solid Waste Transition and Contract Management Services
November 26, 2013
Page 2
At the November 12, 2013 meeting, City Council approved an agreement with CR&R
Incorporated to provide residential solid waste services and transfer station operations
for the City. It is anticipated that these services will begin in late March of 2014. Staff is
recommending that the City enter into a third and final amendment with HF&H for work
in two areas. The first area consists of assistance with the transition from City provided
services to expanded services with CR&R Incorporated. In the second area, HF&H will
provide ongoing contract management assistance for the first year of operation with
CR&R Incorporated. This work is outlined in Exhibit A of Amendment No. Three.
The first year of operations with CR&R Incorporated will be critical to the long term
success of the Agreement. Assistance from HF&H will provide for a smooth, successful
transition.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will
not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378)
of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it
has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or
indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
Submitted
Mark Harmon
Director
Attachment A: Amendment No. Three to Professional Services Agreement With
HF&H Consultants, LLC for Evaluation of Residential Solid Waste
Collection Services Proposals
AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR
EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
PROPOSALS
THIS AMENDMENT NO. THREE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT ("Amendment No. Three") is made and entered into as of this 27th day of
November, 2013 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a
California municipal corporation and charter city ("City"), and HF&H CONSULTANTS,
LLC, a California limited liability company ("Consultant"), whose address is 19200 Von
Karman Ave, Suite 360, Irvine CA 92612, and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. On June 28, 2013, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services
Agreement ("Agreement") to conduct an evaluation of residential solid waste
collection services proposals ("Project").
B. On August 12, 2013, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. One to
the Agreement ("Amendment No. One") to reflect additional Services not
included in the Agreement and to increase the total compensation.
C. On September 25, 2013, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. Two
to the Agreement ("Amendment No. Two") to reflect additional Services not
included in the Agreement or any prior amendments and to increase the total
compensation.
D. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. Three to reflect additional Services
not included in the Agreement or any prior amendments, to extend the term of
the Agreement to March 31, 2015 and to increase the total compensation.
E. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement, as provided below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
1. TERM
Section 1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety and replaced with the
following: "The term of this Agreement shall commence on June 28, 2013, and shall
terminate on March 31, 2015, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. At the City's
sole discretion, the term of the Agreement may be extended up to three (3) times for an
additional one (1) year per extension by written amendment to the Agreement."
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Exhibit A to the Agreement shall be supplemented to include the Scope of Work
to Provide Transition and Contract Management Services, attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference ("Services" or "Work"). Exhibit A of the
Agreement, Exhibit A of Amendment No. One, Exhibit A of Amendment No. Two and
Exhibit A of Amendment No. Three shall collectively be known as "Exhibit A". The City
may elect to delete certain Services within the Scope of Services at its sole discretion.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
Section 4.1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety and replaced with the
following: "City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not -to -
exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred
Ninety -Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars and 00/100 ($197,800.00) during the
term of this Agreement as amended herein, without prior written authorization from City.
No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the
prior written approval of City."
The total amended compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation
for additional Services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. Three,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed
Seventy -Nine Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($79,000.00).
Should the City exercise its option to extend the Agreement as provided for in
Section 1 of the Agreement, as amended, compensation during the extended Term or
Terms shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibit B to Amendment No. Three.
4. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. Three to
be executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Date: I -FV I �
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
By: �U A , � By:
Aaron C. I arp Keith D. Curry
City Attorney Mayor
ATTEST:
Date:
CONSULTANT: HF&H Consultants, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: By:
Leilani I. Brown Laith Ezzet
City Clerk Senior Vice President
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Work to Provide Transition and Contract
Management Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 3
I N..ifTon-I
Scope of Work to Provide Transition and Contract Management Services
Background
At the City Council meeting on November 12, 2013, the City of Newport Beach City
Council voted to outsource residential solid waste collection and awarded an agreement
(Hauler Agreement) to CR&R. The term of the negotiated Hauler Agreement is seven
(7) years, beginning March 31, 2014, with a City option to extend the Hauler Agreement
for up to three (3) additional years.
Four (4) communities in the City receive residential service under other exclusive
collection agreements with private haulers:
• Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights, which are serviced by CR&R; and,
• Bonita Canyon Subdivision/Belcourt and Newport Terrace, which are serviced by
Waste Management.
The City also has separate contracts with:
• Ware Disposal for City facilities collection;
• Rainbow Environmental Services for collection of beach containers;
• Robert's Disposal for collection of street and park containers; and,
• Athens Services for street sweeping.
Project Objective
The City has requested HF&H to assist in monitoring the transition from City solid waste
collection service to CR&R's service, and to subsequently provide contract
management and oversight to ensure CR&R complies with the terms of the Hauler
Agreement for the services areas previously served by City crews.
Scope of Work
Task 1: Transition Assistance (to be completed by the date CR&R begins
residential solid waste collection service except as noted**)
The City is transitioning to a private waste collector and transitioning from unlimited,
once per week, manual trash collection in customer—provided containers, to a two -cart
automated collection system. Under the new two -cart system, each residential customer
will be provided one or more refuse containers and, at the customer's option, a recycling
container (recycling container is optional) (size selected by customer). Use of the
recycling container by residents is optional. A portion of the refuse container material
will be processed at a material recovery facility to recover recyclables and green waste.
The City and CR&R will need to undertake numerous tasks in order to ensure a smooth
transition. HF&H has assisted cities through this process to minimize disruption to
customers and to ensure programs are properly implemented in a timely manner.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-1
HF&H will review the detailed transition plan to be developed by CR&R and monitor it
for consistency with the Hauler Agreement requirements. CR&R's transition plan will
need to address, among other items, the following:
Cart and container design requirements
Container delivery plan
• Solid waste vehicle requirements
• Employment of former City employees
• List of drivers, including documentation of appropriate class licenses
• Routing schedule and coordination with street sweeping services
• Procedures for identifying, removing and recycling of residents' existing cans
• Public education and outreach during the transition period
o Cart selection mailing
o Initial transition mailing(s) prior to the start of collection services
o Website
o Semi-annual notice/Newsletter—schedule
o Quarterly notice/Newsletter — schedule
o Corrective action notices
• Notification to City of dedicated Route Supervisor, and Contract and Service
Liaisons
• Purchase of City collection vehicles within thirty (30) days of Hauler Agreement
execution
• Customer service surveys at completion of six (6) months of service*
The following tasks proposed by HF&H are for the transition assistance and ongoing
contract management assistance associated with the Hauler Agreement between the
City and CR&R and do not include performance of these tasks for other agreements
executed by the City.
HF&H will assist with the following services:
Task 1A: Develop and Monitor Detailed Transition Calendar and Hauler Requirements
Checklist
During the transition, it is critical that key tasks are completed by certain dates.
Examples include obtaining equipment, receiving and testing route data, public
education, and community workshops.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-2
Challenge:
Many of the transition tasks are successive and dependent upon the successful
completion of previous tasks. If tasks are missed or delayed there is the
potential for equipment delivery delays, inadequate public education and
outreach, insufficient driver familiarity with route challenges, and other issues.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will develop a comprehensive Transition Schedule and CR&R
Requirements Checklist to guide the transition process. HF&H will monitor
transition progress and compliance in meeting deadlines by meeting with CR&R
and City staff on a periodic basis during the transition period. This task will also
include interim telephone conversations between HF&H staff, CR&R, and/or City
staff.
Task 18: Review and Revision of Public Outreach Materials
The City's residents have historically received service from municipal crews and
have used resident- provided containers and bags for mixed solid waste. Under
the new Hauler Agreement, residents will receive CR&R-provided refuse and
recycling carts (the later if desired), and will be allowed to place additional solid
waste in their own containers and bags for collection. There are also new
services included in the new Hauler Agreement such as a Sharps collection
program, enhanced bulky item collection, and door-to-door household hazardous
waste collection.
Challenge:
Residents must be made aware of and understand the new collection and
enhanced program options available under the new Hauler Agreement. A
successful transition will require thoughtful and accurate public education and
outreach. Exhibit B, Section B.7 of the Hauler Agreement requires CR&R to
develop printed public education materials, a dedicated web site page for City -
specific information, and classroom education curriculum.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will review public education and outreach materials developed by CR&R
for accuracy and consistency with the provisions of the Hauler Agreement. It is
HF&H's understanding that CR&R will be conducting a series of public meetings
to provide residents with information on the new services; HF&H will review the
meeting -content developed by CR&R for these meetings.
Task 1C: Review Reporting Forms
The Hauler Agreement requires CR&R to submit monthly and quarterly reports.
Challenge:
Accurate and comprehensive reporting by CR&R is imperative to ensure that the
City is in compliance with State diversion requirements. Under AB 939,
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-3
jurisdictions are required to submit information to CalRecycle on solid waste
diversion programs including descriptions of the programs, and tonnage diverted
by material for each program.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will review the hauler reporting forms for consistency with the Hauler
Agreement requirements.
Task 2: Ongoing Contract Management Assistance
Task 2A: Develop CR&R Compliance Matrix and Hauler Agreement Summary Sheet
Challenge:
Ensure CR&R compliance with new Hauler Agreement. The City's new Hauler
Agreement includes reporting, minimum diversion, compensation adjustment,
public education, and additional service and facility use requirements. CR&R's
negotiated rates include performance of these requirements and it is important
that the City is confident that these requirements are being met in their entirety.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will develop a CR&R compliance matrix which will be reviewed at each
meeting with CR&R and the City to ensure compliance with all contractual
requirements. Additionally, HF&H will develop a Hauler Agreement summary for
the City which categorizes requirements such as new services (e.g., bulky item,
household hazardous waste, sharps, and abandoned item collection). This
document will allow the City to easily provide information to residents and City
staff regarding new and enhanced programs and assist in CR&R compliance.
Task 28: Review of Hauler Reports
Challenge:
The City is required to meet certain diversion requirements.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will review CR&R's reports submitted to the City to ensure that the
information is consistent with the Hauler Agreement requirements.
In addition, HF&H will perform trend analyses on tonnage data submitted by
CR&R to the City and present our findings during regular meetings. These
analyses allow real-time tracking of new solid waste programs by measuring the
generation of different types of waste (such as refuse disposed, and recyclables
recovered) over an extended period of time.
Task 2C: Meetings with CR&R and City
Challenge:
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-4
Address CR&R compliance, diversion, or reporting issues before they become
problems. If CR&R reports are not reviewed on a monthly basis, issues can be
overlooked, and these issues that may have been easily resolved can turn into
compliance issues for the City.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H has developed strategies to ensure CR&R compliance, assess program
issues/concerns, and expedite program data and information collection. HF&H
understands that City staff time is valuable, and these strategies have evolved
over the course of our engagements in order to maximize the effectiveness of
our meetings and to ensure efficient use of resources.
The items contained in our meeting documents will include, but are not limited to:
o Trend analyses of tonnage in order to track progress and discern anomalies.
o A matrix of CR&R responsibilities based on requirements contained in the
Hauler Agreement.
o New regulatory developments that may impact the provision of residential
solid waste services.
Meeting documents will be forwarded to all stakeholders prior to the meeting in
order to allow each participant adequate time to prepare for the meeting. HF&H
will take the minutes of the meeting and, subsequently, distribute the meeting
summary, which includes tasks discussed at the meeting, parties responsible
for completing these tasks, and dates for which tasks are due.
Task 2D: Review of Public Outreach Materials
Challenge:
The new two -cart collection system will encourage residents to separate trash (if
residents choose to do so) and recyclables and will require ongoing efforts to educate
the public.
HF&H Solution:
Based on our experience reviewing public outreach strategies and materials in
dozens of local communities, HF&H will coordinate with CR&R to ensure that ongoing
public outreach efforts are effective.
Task 2E: Verify Achievement of Diversion Requirement
Challenge:
The contract requires CR&R to divert 45% of the waste collected and contains
financial penalties assessed on a per ton basis if the diversion target is not
achieved.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-5
HF&H will monitor CR&R's diversion on a monthly basis for compliance with terms
of the Hauler Agreement and calculate penalties if the required diversion is not
achieved. HF&H will track year-to-date performance of diversion to monitor
compliance.
Task 2F: Review Annual Compensation Adiustment Calculation
Challenge:
The contract provides for an annual compensation adjustment using a formula
defined in the Hauler Agreement based on published price indices for various cost
components and the cost of disposal at the Orange County landfill system. The
rate adjustment formula contains a variety of caps and limits on future rate
adjustments.
HF&H Solution:
HF&H will verify the accuracy of the indices and supporting computations used in
CR&R's compensation adjustment request and confirm that it is consistent with the
terms of the Hauler Agreement.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page A-6
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES
Fees
HF&H will provide our services based on time and materials.
The estimated cost for Task 1 *: Transition Assistance: $29,500.00
The estimated cost for Task 2*: Ongoing Contract Management Assistance is $49,500.00
for a twelve-month period.
The total cost for Tasks 1 and 2 is estimated not -to -exceed $79,000.00
*The cost estimate is based on performing the specific contract management tasks
described above under the "Scope of Work" and assumes that City staff will perform
other tasks not included in the Scope of Work such as day-to-day coordination with
CR&R's field personnel or residential customers regarding service requests, missed
pickups, customer complaints, or other routine operations matters. If HF&H is requested
to participate in additional activities, HF&H will participate for an additional fee based on
time and materials.
HF&H will bill the City once per month based on the number of hours worked multiplied
by our hourly billing rates, plus expenses incurred. Payment is due within thirty (30) days
of approval of invoice. Hourly rates for our consultants during the initial term of the
Agreement are as follows:
Position Hourly Rate
President/Senior Vice President: $259
Vice President: $235
Director/Sr. Project Manager: $219
Project Manager: $199 to $215
Senior Associate: $145 to $165
Associate Analyst:
$135
Assistant Analyst:
$105
Administrative Staff:
$95
Intern Consultant:
$45
Expenses
Mileage: $0.555 per mile*
Document reproduction (black and white): $0.15 per page**
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page B-1
Color document reproduction: $0.75 cents per page**
Outside document reproduction/couriers/postage Actual
Public conveyances and parking: Actual
All other out-of-pocket expenses: Actual
*Or as adjusted by IRS allowance
** Over 20 pages per run
Adjusted Position Hourly Rates
In the event the City opts to extend the Agreement, pursuant to Section 1 of the
Agreement as amended, the rates and compensation for the Ongoing Contract
Management Assistance Task (Task 2) shall be adjusted each year beginning April 1,
2015, based on an annual CPI adjustment as further detailed below.
Upon the first anniversary of April 1, 2014 and upon each anniversary thereafter, the
rates and compensation set forth in Exhibit B ('Billing Rates") shall be adjusted in
proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index, subject to the maximum adjustment
set forth below. Such adjustment shall be made by multiplying the Billing Rates in
Exhibit B by a fraction, the numerator of which is the value of the Consumer Price Index
for the calendar month three (3) months preceding the calendar month for which such
adjustment is to be made, and the denominator of which is the value of the Consumer
Price Index for the same calendar month immediately prior to April 1, 2014. The
Consumer Price Index to be used in such calculation is the "Consumer Price Index, All
Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U)", for the Los Angeles -Riverside -
Orange County Metropolitan Area, published by the United States Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. If both an official index and one or more unofficial indices are
published, the official index shall be used. If said Consumer Price Index is no longer
published at the adjustment date, it shall be constructed by conversion tables included
in such new index. In no event, however, shall the amount payable under this
Agreement be reduced below the Billing Rates in effect immediately preceding such
adjustment. The maximum adjustment increase to the Billing Rates, for any year where
an adjustment is made pursuant to this Section, shall not exceed 2.5% of the Billing
Rates in effect immediately preceding such adjustment.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page B-2
N
c1�
AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO
j PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
r WITH HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR
�J EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
PROPOSALS
THIS AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
("Amendment No. Two") is made and entered into as of this 25th day of September,
2013 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California
municipal corporation and charter city ("City"), and HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC, a
California limited liability company ("Consultant"), whose address is 19200 Von Karman
Ave, Suite 360, Irvine, CA 92612, and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. On June 28, 2013, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services
Agreement ("Agreement") to conduct an evaluation of residential solid waste
collection services proposals ("Project").
B. On August 12, 2013, City and Consultant entered into Amendment No. One to
the Agreement ("Amendment No. One") to reflect additional services not included
in the Agreement and to increase the total compensation.
C. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. Two to reflect additional Services
not included in the Agreement, or any prior amendments, and to increase the
total compensation.
D. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement, as provided below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Exhibit A to the Agreement shall be supplemented to include the Scope Of Work
to Update Evaluation and Assist in Negotiation of The City's Residential Solid Waste
Collection Agreement, dated September 12, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference ("Services" or "Work"). Exhibit A of the Agreement,
Exhibit A of Amendment No. One and Exhibit A of Amendment No. Two shall
collectively be known as "Exhibit A." The City may elect to delete certain Services
within the Scope of Services at its sole discretion.
2. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
Section 4.1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety and replaced with the
following: "City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not -to -
exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred
Eighteen Thousand and Eight Hundred Dollars and 001100 ($118,800.00), without
prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the
term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City."
The total amended compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation
for additional Services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. One,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed
Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars and 001100 ($35,900.00).
3. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE)
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. Two to
be executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORN Y' OFFICE
Date: ��� �� 3
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Date: "� I
r
By:
Ail—
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
Date: 5\'trt�x'3
By:
DaveK-ifr
City Manager
CONSULTANT: HF&H Consultants, LLC,
a California lipiteo liability company
Date: ,g11R1 i3
By:
7417
L ' h Ezzet v
Senior Vice Pres
Date:
ent
By:" Y
Joh arnk
Sec etary
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Attachments: Exhibit A – Scope of Work to Update Evaluation and Assist in
Negotiation of The City's Residential Solid Waste Collection
Agreement, September 12, 2013
Exhibit B – Schedule of Billing Rates
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 3
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
SCOPE OF WORK TO UPDATE EVALUATION AND ASSIST IN NEGOTIATON OF
THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AGREEMENT
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
The City of Newport Beach issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) dated May 13, 2013
for residential solid waste collection services. Proposals were received on June 28,
2013 from seven (7) proposers, including six (6) private haulers and one (1) from the
Newport Beach Employee League. At the September 10, 2013 City Council meeting,
the Newport Beach City Council voted to authorize City staff to negotiate a contract for
residential trash collection that would bring semi -automated collection to the City. Staff
was instructed to negotiate with either CR&R, Ware Disposal, or Rainbow Disposal,
considering customer satisfaction surveys and program quality as well as cost. The
agreement negotiated with the selected proposer will then be presented to the City
Council for consideration. The City has requested HF&H Consultants to assist with
updating the evaluation for the three selected proposers (CR&R, Ware, Rainbow), and
drafting and negotiating the final agreement with one proposer to be selected by the
City.
Scope of Work
Our specific scope of work will include:
Task A: Update Evaluation
HF&H will update its evaluation for the three selected proposers: CR&R, Rainbow and
Ware. Updates will address the following:
1. Unique Services and Other Features Proposed — HF&H will compare special
programs proposed by the haulers, including related costs, if any. HF&H will work with
the City to determine if there are additional services that may be added through
negotiations.
2. Satisfaction Survev — HF&H will assist the City in developing questions for a
survey to be conducted by a polling company, and determining cities to be polled.
HF&H will meet, in person or on a conference call, with the City and a polling company
to review survey questions and other survey details.
3. Reference Checks — HF&H will interview contract managers at additional
municipal customers for the three selected proposers.
4. Compensation Summary — HF&H will summarize proposed compensation for
each of the three selected proposers, both for core services and for the total
compensation requirement assuming all optional service enhancements are subscribed
to by the City.
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page A-1
5. Review of Sloan -Vasquez Material — HF&H will review, and address as
applicable, information to be submitted to the City by Sloan -Vasquez.
6. Prepare Report Addendum — HF&H will draft a report incorporating the results
of this Task A. HF&H will submit the report to City staff for comment and make one set
of revisions based on staff feedback.
Task B: Finalization of Collection Agreement
1) Revise Agreement — HF&H will revise the draft agreement included in the
RFP, addressing the following:
a. Automation of Services — HF&H will revise agreement to reflect the transition
to automated collection services.
b. Performance Standards — HF&H will review performance standards in the draft
agreement, including service requirements, events of default and causes for
assessment of liquidated damages, and may include additional standards if
enhancements are identified.
c. Hauler -Specific Terms — HF&H will update the agreement to reflect the
selected hauler's name, proposed compensation rates, specific service arrangements
identified in the proposal, and proposed service enhancements, if any.
d. Optional Services — HF&H will include the hauler's proposed programs for the
optional services requested by the City in the RFP. Proposed compensation by program
will be included as an attachment to the agreement, providing the City Council the
opportunity to subscribe to any or all of the optional services.
2) Draft Agreement Review — HF&H will submit the revised draft agreement to
the City for review by staff and City Attorney. City staff should compile all comments into
one redline, making changes directly in the electronic agreement file. We will make one
round of revisions based on comments.
3) Submittal of Draft Agreement to Proposer — HF&H will submit the agreement
to the selected hauler for review, after updating based on City review. We will instruct
the selected hauler to indicate acceptance of the agreement or to submit all comments
in writing by a set deadline. Only the redline changes will be subject to negotiation, as
the proposer did not take any exceptions to the basic agreement.
4) Negotiations Meeting - After receiving and reviewing comments submitted by
the hauler, HF&H will meet up to two times with City staff and the selected hauler to
discuss and finalize contract terms and language.
5) Final Agreement Revisions — HF&H will revise the agreement after the
negotiations meeting and submit the draft to the City for Council approval and signature.
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page A-2
6) City Staff Report — HF&H will review and comment on City's staff report
submitting the negotiated agreement and recommendation to the City Council for
consideration.
7) _City Council Meeting Attendance — HF&H will attend one City Council meeting
at which the agreement is presented for approval.
Limitations
The estimated cost assumes that the City Attorney will:
1) Finalize any attachments;
2) Obtain the labor and performance bond;
3) Draft the City refuse vehicle purchase agreement;
4) Draft the transfer station lease agreement (HF&H will review and provide
comments); and,
5) Obtain agreement signatures.
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page A-3
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES
Fees
We will perform the scope of work based on time and materials. The estimated
cost is $35,900 and could be higher or lower than this amount depending on the number
of meetings and the complexity of negotiations. We will bill you once per month based
on the number of hours worked and expenses incurred. Payment is due within 30 days
of invoicing.
Hourly rates for professional and administrative personnel through December 31,
2013 are listed below.
Position Rate
Senior Vice President $255
Director $215
Manager $189-$209
Senior Associate $189
Associate Analyst $125-$135
Administrative Staff $80
Intern $45
Expenses will be billed as follows:
Mileage $0.565 per mile (or as adjusted by IRS allowance)
Document Reproduction (over 15 page run) $0.15 per page (black & white), $0.75 per
page (color)
Outside document reproduction/couriers/postage Actual
Public conveyances and parking Actual
All other out-of-pocket expenses Actual
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page B-1
Workplan
September 12, 2013 Page 4
1. Update Evaluation
_.
A. Unique Services and Other Features Proposed
4
_ 4
8
B. Satisfaction Survey .....
_ 4
8
-
_.
12
C. Reference Checks
2
8
-
10
D.,Compensation Summary
2
_.. 8
-
10
E. ReNew of Sloan -Vasquez Submittal
2
4
_ -
__. 6
F. Report Addendum
_...
8
._
16
6
30
22
48
6
76
Subtotal: Task 1 Hours
Subtotal: Task 1 Fees
$
5,610
$ 10,032
$
1,140
$.
16,782
2. Finalization of Collection Agreement
A Retise Agreement_ pre -negotiation
4
20
-
24
B Revise Agreement for City feedback, submit to hauler
2
_ 4
-
6
C. Two Negotiation Meetings - prepare for and attend
_ 8
_ 1018
18
D Finalize Agreement Based on Negotiations
3
6
-
9
_
E. Review and Comment on City Staff Report _- _
1
F. RWew and Comment on Transfer Station Lease Agreement
2
4
G Prepare Presentation Slides
1
_. 3
4
H. Prepare for and Attend City Council Meeting for
Consideration of Agreement
8
8
-
_
_16
Subtotal: Task 2 Hours
29
56
-
85
Subtotal: Task Fees
$
7,395
$ .11,704
$
$_._.
19,099
Total Hours51
.....255
104
6
161
Hourly Rate._ ....
$
$ _... 209
$ _
190
Subtotal$
13,005
$ 21,736
$
1,140
$
35,881
Expenses—._ _.... -_.. ...._.. ._...__
--..
$-
19
Total Fees and Expenses ._-.
$
35,900
September 12, 2013 Page 4
TO:
FROM
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 20
September 10, 2013
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Dave Kiff, City Manager
949-644-3001
Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Department Director
949 644-3055, mharmon(o)newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Department Director
APPROVED:
TITLE: Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and review the attached Consultants Report (Report) regarding proposals for
residential solid waste services, and direct staff to negotiate with up to two service
providers to prepare and finalize a contract that reflects either Path #1 or Path #2, and
return to the City Council with a final contract for consideration and/or approval.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no funding requirement for Council to consider the proposals received in
response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the City. Based on the
responsive proposals received, the current cost to provide this service could be reduced
by $14M to $17M over the initial seven (7) year term, depending on the collection
method selected.
DISCUSSION:
Background. In Newport Beach, residents and businesses can receive trash collection
in several different ways. If you live in a single family home (and some duplexes,
triplexes, and other multi -family) in Corona del Mar, the Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle,
Linda Isle, Dover Shores, Balboa Island, Eastbluff, Westcliff, Newport Heights, Harbor
View Hills, the Port Streets, Spyglass, Cameo Shores and Highlands, and several other
communities, the city's employees pick up your trash manually.
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 2
At any residence in Santa Ana Heights (east and west), Bayknolls, Belcourt, Newport
Ridge, Newport Coast, Crystal Cove, Bonita Canyon and other areas, a private
company picks up your trash using an automated cart -based collection system.
If you live in a larger multi -family apartment or condo complex, interspersed across town
but including areas like Park Newport, the Colony, Coronado, and more, in many cases
a private sector collection company picks up your trash via bin or automated service. In
some cases, like in Newport Crest, the City staff members pick up the trash.
Recycling is done via a mixed -waste "Materials Recovery Facility" or MRF, whereby
recyclables and waste are mixed together in transfer trucks, then taken to the MRF and
placed on a conveyor belt where recyclables are removed from the waste stream via a
semi -automated system.
The City's 2010 Citizens Satisfaction Survey found that residents in all parts of town
(private or public) were "very satisfied" with residential trash collection service.
LEGEND
.n a s.polne w
=101E
. 3.2.E
26-34
Q12a Satisfaction with residential trash collection services
jd 344.2 A13M1ed
_ 4 2 S.0 Vary Wilheo
>
her (no responses) 2010 Cily of NcNporl Beach Commuoily Survey
Even while satisfaction is high, it is fairly unique that a community like ours has city
workers picking up trash in many parts of town. We are the only Orange County city
2
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 3
that uses municipal workers to collect residential trash (Midway City Sanitary District, a
special district in central Orange County, uses public employees to collect trash). We
know of no other Orange County city that is considering moving to an in-house model
like our own.
As the Council is aware, the Council has directed the City Manager to aggressively
examine opportunities to outsource services to the private sector where:
• Customer service levels can be maintained or exceeded; and
• Cost savings can be achieved — including long-term cost savings associated with
pension and benefit costs that continue to rise beyond the rate of inflation.
As a result, the City has contracted with the private sector (or other agencies) to provide
services to the community like tree trimming, street sweeping, parking lot operation,
parking meter operation, inspection services, construction management services,
airborne law enforcement, park maintenance, facility maintenance, beach trash
collection, economic development services, and more.
The City's full-time equivalent staffing levels have gone from about 833 positions in
Fiscal Year 2009-10 to about 736 FTEs upon the adoption of the FY 2013-14 budget
this past June. A majority of these reductions we accomplished with attrition rather than
layoff, although about a dozen full-time employees have been laid off with about 20
more part-time employees laid off. Wherever possible, the City has sought to buffer the
impact of reductions by offering early retirement incentives, voluntary separation
incentives, and kept jobs open and promotional for persons in positions subject to layoff.
About the Refuse Division. The City's Refuse Division within the Municipal
Operations Department (MOD) collects refuse manually from about 26,500 residential
accounts. Unlike in most other communities, the collection, transfer, and disposal of
refuse in most of Newport Beach is funded solely through the 1% Basic Levy" of
property taxes that residents pay. This is a requirement of Measure Q, a voter -
approved amendment to the City's municipal code that said that most Newport Beach
single family homes would only pay for trash collection using proceeds from property
taxes, not via a special fee or add-on to the property tax bill. Readers can look at
Newport Beach Municipal Code §6.04.170 to see Measure Q. Only the voters can
change Measure Q.
As such, in most of Newport Beach, the cost of trash collection service (and any
increases thereto, regardless of who is providing the service) must be paid for by the
City within the 1 % Basic Levy. In other parts of Newport Beach, residents pay the 1 %
Basic Levy and pay roughly $220-$240/year for trash collection. Newport Beach does
levy a recycling charge per household — this charge is about $3 per month, intended to
cover the Materials Recycling Facility's costs.
7
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 4
The budget for the Refuse Division as adopted in FY 2013-14 is $5,697,446. This
includes salaries and benefits, vehicle replacement allotments, fuel, truck service,
certain contracts (like the CR&R Contract in the Newport Coast), tipping fees paid to
dispose of trash in the landfills, the MRF's operational expense, and more.
In the Refuse Division of the Municipal Operations Department, positions have
changed/reduced since FY 2008-09 as shown below, such that sixteen (16) positions
now collect the trash (incumbents in two of these are out on worker's comp leave):
Position Title
FY OS -09
FY 13-14
Refuse Wartier 1
11
5
Refuse Worker 11
14
11
Superintendent
1
i
Transfer Station Crew Chief
1
10
Refuse Supervisor
1
1
Maintenance Aide
0.5
10
Total FTl=s
28.5
18
Request for Proposals Process. At the November 27, 2012 City Council meeting,
Council directed staff to negotiate a contract with HF&H Consultants (HF&H) to develop
an RFP to solicit proposals for providing residential refuse collection services for the
areas of the City currently serviced by municipal employees.
HF&H is a firm that has provided solid waste consulting services to multiple
municipalities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and also has evaluated the
proposals received. This work included reviewing each proposal for completeness and
accuracy, preparing follow-up questions for proposers, clarifying unresolved issues,
comparing proposed costs to current City services, conducting reference checks for
lowest responsive proposals and preparing the final evaluation report.
The Council asked HF&H to invite proposals for trash collection services in two paths,
as follows:
• Path #1 — Mirror the same service provided today. Use hardware store purchased
cans, customers can put out any amount of cans, no recycling at home, staff will pick
up extra trash and trash placed in bags, and more.
• Path #2 — A semi -automated system whereby customers could have any number of
wheeled carts, any of three cart sizes (from small to medium to large — or a mix of
these), recycling at home would be voluntary and available only if someone
requested a mixed recyclables cart, and staff would still pick up extra trash not in the
a
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 5
carts, and more. In some parts of town, full automation may not be feasible, so a
semi -automated model (roll cans to the back of the truck and flip them in with an
automated lift) could be proposed there.
In both paths, the respondents would have to interview and offer jobs to all qualified city
employees in the refuse division.
Proposals. On May 13, 2013, the RFP was released and on June 28, 2013, seven (7)
proposals were received. The following firms submitted proposals:
• Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., dba Athens Services
• CR&R Inc.
• Newport Beach Employee League or NBEL (representing the City's existing solid
waste employees).
• Newport Recycles, JV
• Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc.
• Republic Services of Southern California, LLC
• Ware Disposal Co., Inc.
HF&H submitted the attached Report to the City (see Attachment A). The Report
included detailed analysis of the following:
• The proposers and their experience providing municipal residential refuse
collection.
• Proposal information for Path 1 (Manual Collection) and Path 2 (Two -Cart
Automated Collection). Path 2 Automated collection includes a voluntary option
for residents if they want to separate their recyclables.
• Core Services to be provided, including the unlimited weekly collection of solid
waste including bulky item.
• Optional Services, including household hazardous waste collection and container
pull-out service for disabled residents.
• Requirement that proposals include the hiring of any displaced City solid waste
collection staff.
• Proposed seven (7) year cost and required revenue.
Proposed Cost. Please review Attachment A in detail in addition to this cost summary
provided here. Two firms, Ware Disposal and CR&R, offer the lowest cost proposals
under both the Path 1 method of collection, and the Path 2 method of collection. The
lowest proposal for Path 1 (Ware) would save the City approximately $14M over the
seven (7) year term, and the lowest proposal for Path 2 (CR&R) would save the City
approximately $17M over the same 7 -year term.
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 6
Per the RFP, and the proposals submitted by the firms, the cost proposed for services
will be fixed for the term of the agreement, and can only increase by no more than 2.5%
annually based on CPI percentages. This is consistent with the City's large contracts.
Regarding fuel cost and landfill fees, those costs are direct pass-through to the City. If
the County of Orange raises "tipping" or landfill fees, and/or if the compressed natural
gas (CNG) supplier raises fuel costs, those two increases are independent of the
contract and are passed directly through to the City at the increased rate. These costs
are passed directly to the City today, and are expenses that are not controllable by
either City provided services or outside contractors.
A contract can limit cost volatility better than the City can, in part because of California's
employment rules and our own personnel regulations. For example, the costs of
pensions (via Cal -PERS rates, actuarial assumptions, and investment return), health
care, negotiated wage increases and special pays, insurance, worker's compensation
costs, and even equipment costs (replacement and maintenance) are not tied down if
the City continues a service like trash collection.
In addition to a fixed cost contract, the payment for residential refuse collection services
will continue as it is today; refuse fees are paid from the 1% Basic Levy, and NOT
charged separately to individual residents. If the costs of a contract agreement
increase, that must be covered by the City's use of the 1 % Basic Levy and cannot be
passed on to residents.
About Quality and Current Services. This is perhaps the most -asked question we
have gotten as this process has moved along: How can we be assured that the quality
before contracting is the same or better than the quality after contracting? It's not easy,
but it is clear.
• Contract Terms. The best way to ensure quality services is via an effective
agreement with specific customer service standards. Our maintenance standards
within contracts for some services, like parks, are extensive and detailed. The
proposed refuse contract is 46 pages long, with an additional 15 pages describing
Service Scope requirements. Readers can see it attached to the Refuse RFP on the
City's website.
• Contract Management. In line with a good contract is good contract management,
and the City's staff is familiar with and has expertise in this area, given the multiple
contracts we manage throughout multiple departments.
Staffing. Due to retirements and transfers, the crew of refuse collectors was reduced
from 25 refuse haulers in the FY 2008-09 Operating Budget to 16 refuse collectors in
the current year (FY13/14 Operating Budget). Currently, two refuse collectors are on
workers compensation leave, leaving a crew of 14 collectors to perform the work. This
reduction in personnel has resulted in a significant increase in overtime (OT) costs.
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 7
In FY12/13, the 22 member refuse collection crew had a total of 167 hours in
unscheduled OT costs for the 12 months. Yet through the first five pay periods since
July 1, 2013, the 14 members of the refuse crew have worked 515 hours of
unscheduled OT. This is not sustainable, either physically or financially. To help with
the demand on the reduced number of staff and the long hours of heavy work, in August
the City hired four temporary workers to assist with the collection of residential refuse. If
refuse collection is retained in-house, staff would have to seek Council approval to hire
additional refuse collectors.
It makes less and less fiscal and practical sense for a California city to hire new public
employees to work in an outdated manual collection system. There are two main
reasons why: (1) manually lifting trash is injury -prone work; and (2) California's workers
compensation system is among the most beneficial in the nation on the employee side.
About Workers Compensation, Injuries, and Wages. In the past three years (July 2010
through July 2013) there have been 23 workers compensation cases for the refuse
collectors, resulting in 678 hours of lost time. The manual collection method is very
strenuous work for our collectors, with injuries to legs, shoulders, back and abdomen
comprising the majority of the injuries over the past three years. It is understandable
that residents appreciate the hard work that these individual do every day, however, it is
not a safe method for collecting heavy containers full of trash. Reducing workers
compensation claims is cited as one of the benefits of an automated collection method,
regardless if it is a municipal or contractor provided service.
The HF&H Report discusses salary and benefit costs in more detail, comparing the
public sector wagers to the private. Generally, a refuse worker earning about $27/hour
with the City could be earning about $22/hour with a private company. The RFP
requires that the proposers interview and make job offers to qualified city employees.
Page 10 of the RFP reads:
Hire Qualified City Employees — the proposal shall interview City employees displaced
by privatization that submit an application and make employment offers to applicants
qualified for positions with the employer.
We fully expect many if not all of our current refuse workers to either successfully
secure other City jobs (there are four vacancies in MOD as we write this staff report) or
transition to a new company, in a few cases being able to retire from City employment,
secure a pension benefit, and keep working in Newport Beach on similar trash routes
with the private company.
About Equipment Replacement. The City currently has a fleet of 15 collection trucks
to service the City. City Council Policy F-9 requires the replacement of refuse collection
trucks following 8 years of service. Ten of the current collection trucks exceed the 8
year life expectancy; one truck has been in service 18 years, four at 16 years, one at 13
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 8
years, and 4 at 11 years of service. Although several of these trucks have had the body
of the truck replaced, the overall replacement of collection vehicles must be scheduled if
the service continues to be performed by City staff and equipment.
The current cost of CNG refuse collection equipment is approximately $250,000 per
truck, resulting in a $2.5 million pending cost for the City if this service stays in house.
The City has about $4.3 million in reserves specifically for this purpose, but these are
general fund dollars that could be used for other one-time projects, including new
community facilities, neighborhood beautification, and more. The proposals from the
private companies all include the cost of CNG vehicles and vehicle maintenance, yet
they still provide significant savings operationally over the current system.
About our Employees' Proposal. Working with the Orange County Employees
Association (OCEA), the Newport Beach Employee League (a labor association
representing the maintenance employee group in Newport Beach) submitted a proposal
on behalf of the current refuse collection employees. Please see the proposal's full
evaluation by HF&H in the attached Report. A few issues are worth addressing here:
o Recycling Fee Revenue. NBEL reduced proposed annual compensation by what
the City receives from residents to fund materials recovery ($3/month/household).
No other proposer did this, nor should they have done this. It is revenue. Revenue
is not a cost. It is used to offset collection costs in all outcomes — in-house,
outsourced, Path 1, or Path 2. As a result, the NBEL proposal is understated by
nearly $940,000. An "apples to apples" comparison would rectify this by adding the
materials recovery cost back in to the NBEL proposal, and that is what HF&H did
(this was rejected by the NBEL/OCEA representatives).
o Current personnel costs may be understated. The NBEL proposal for Path 1
Collection maintains a staff of 18 collectors (see Staffing above). However, they did
not include any additional costs for overtime, temporary workers, worker's comp, nor
"one man packer pay," which is currently a requirement of the NBEL memorandum
of understanding.
o Cost Volatility. While this is not a detriment to the NBEL proposal, it is something
that has been brought up in public meetings. An "in-house" system — even a very
efficient one - does not have the same ability as a private sector proposal does to
limit the City's exposure to certain variable costs — these include:
1. PERS rate changes
2. Negotiated salary increases via labor agreements
3. Worker's compensation costs;
4. Changes in workers' comp laws; and more.
I
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 9
Importantly, the State still does not allow the City to offer new hires a defined
contribution retirement plan, so any new hires still have to be in defined benefit
plans, which have significant cost and cost volatility even as employees contribute
more towards them.
Conclusion. We conclude this report with these thoughts to the Council, the public,
and our colleagues who work with us. Trash collection is a service that has been
mastered by the private sector, both in quality and efficiency. The communities around
us — from our own Newport Coast and Crystal Cove to Laguna Beach to Irvine's Shady
Canyon — would not tolerate less than stellar service. No city today is considering
bringing the service in-house.
Many in the community love this service and their refuse worker. Please know that we
completely recognize why that is. We like them too. But this still is a service even in
Newport Beach that eventually is likely to be outsourced. The City should not hire new
municipal employees to do this injury -prone work, for their benefit and for the benefit of
the community's long-term liabilities and pension/benefit costs.
If there is a time to change who provides the service — not what quality service is
provided - that time may be now. The proposers here are top-notch, and know how to
provide a quality product with specific experience locally. With the relatively small
number of employees affected, and with jobs available to them (some in the City, others
with a new company), it makes sense to strongly consider this today. We are convinced
that a quality company will hire our staff and/or that we can accommodate them in other
MOD jobs, and that our staff members will remain working in our community at jobs that
they like.
The City has had to lay off hard-working employees since the recession in 2008. Each
one of them has a face, a name, and a family. None of the employees we have let go to
date have had the same advantage that our refuse workers have today. Other jobs
await them - other good jobs. If the City is to effectively navigate a pension and fiscal
challenge that lies ahead of any city, anywhere (especially in California), it should take
this opportunity now and move to contract this service out.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will
not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378)
of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it
has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or
indirectly.
9
Residential Solid Waste Service Proposals
September 10, 2013
Page 10
i1ramrNIJRc
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
Submitted by:
marK Marmon
Director
Attachment: A. August 28, 2013- HF&H Consultants Report, Evaluation of
Residential Solid Waste Services Proposals
1161
September 3, 2013
Mr. Mark Harmon
General Services Director
City of Newport Beach
592 Superior Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92663
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Evaluation of Residential Solid Waste Services Proposals
Dear Mr. Harmon:
Attached please find our evaluation report for the residential solid waste services proposals for
the City of Newport Beach. A summary of the proposed compensation is provided in Attachment
2 to the report.
Please call me at (949) 251-8902 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Laith Ezzet, CMC
Senior Vice President
Enclosure — As stated
11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE SERVICES PROPOSALS
This memorandum summarizes the results of the solid waste proposal review performed by
HF&H Consultants, LLC ("HF&H") for the City of Newport Beach ("City").
BACKGROUND
Current Service Arrangements
The City of Newport Beach provides residential solid waste collection service to most of the City
using municipal crews. Four communities in the City receive residential service under exclusive
collection agreements with private haulers, and are unaffected by the City's RFP process. These
communities are Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights, which are serviced by CR&R, and
Bonita Canyon Subdivision/Belcourt and Newport Terrace, which are serviced by Waste
Management. The following report exclusively addresses services for customers currently
serviced by City crews.
Residential customers serviced by City crews receive unlimited, once per week manual trash
collection from customer -provided containers. Select areas of the City receive additional
collection on Saturday during the summer. City crews deliver collected residential waste to the
City's transfer station. The material is then loaded into transfer trailers for transport to a
privately -owned materials recovery facility, or "MRF;' where it is sorted to recover recyclables
before landfilling. Transport from the City yard, material processing, and subsequent landfilling
are provided under contract with CR&R.
Current City operations result in 130 to 140 tons per day being transferred through the City's
transfer station. The facility is permitted to receive up to 300 tons per day, and the City is
considering options to generate additional City revenue by leasing out the excess capacity.
The City's existing residential solid waste services are partially funded through a recycling fee
the City collects from residents (approximately $941,000 per year); the City's General Fund pays
for the remaining residential solid waste costs.
The City allows multiple private haulers to compete to provide service to its commercial
establishments under a non-exclusive franchise system. Commercial hauling arrangements
were not part of this RFP process.
Request for Proposals
On May 13, 2013, the City of Newport Beach released a Request for Proposals for Residential
Solid Waste Services ("RFP"), withholding its determination as to whether to privatize
residential collection until after consideration of competitive proposals. On May 29, 2013, the
12
City received seven proposals, six from private companies and one from the Newport Beach
Employee League. HF&H performed a preliminary review of the proposals and prepared a
summary of each proposal. Written questions clarifying the proposals were sent to each
proposer on July 18, 2013, and each proposer was also provided an opportunity to review and
comment on the accuracy of the written proposal summary. Responses were due August 2,
2013, and subsequent written correspondence was sent during August 2013 to clarify any
remaining unclear responses. Ware increased its proposed Path 1 cost in response to a request
for clarification.
PROPOSALS REVIEWED
HF&H reviewed proposals submitted by the following entities:
• Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., dba Athens Services ("Athens"), a family-owned business
with significant operations in Los Angeles County, as well as surrounding counties.
• CR&R Inc. ("CR&R"), a privately -owned business with collection services throughout
Southern California, and in Arizona and Colorado. CR&R services Newport Coast and
Santa Ana Heights within the City.
• Newport Beach Employee League ("N.B.E.L."), which is representing the City's existing
solid waste hauling employees.
• Newport Recycles, JV ("Newport Recycles"), a joint venture between Roberts Waste &
Recycling Inc., a local hauler that collects waste from the City's parks and beaches, and
Waste Resources, Inc., which operates in Los Angeles County.
• Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc., dba Rainbow Environmental Services ("Rainbow") is a 100%
employee -owned corporation providing services in Orange County, including collection
of trash carts from the City's beaches.
• Republic Services of Southern California, LLC ("Republic") is a subsidiary of Republic
Services, Inc., the second largest solid waste hauling company in North America.
• Ware Disposal Co. Inc. ("Ware") is a privately -owned company providing collection
services in Orange and Los Angeles counties.
A summary of proposed compensation and cost benefits to the City is provided in Attachment
2. A further summary of the evaluated proposals is contained in Attachment 3.
13
KEY TERMS OF THE RFP
The term of the agreement is seven years, with a City option to extend the agreement for up to
three additional years. The start of service date is to be determined, and proposers were
instructed to indicate the transition period needed after award of the agreement to complete a
smooth transition. A summary of the key services and contract terms requested by the City in
its RFP is provided in Attachment 1.
The City's RFP included the draft franchise agreement that the successful proposer would be
expected to execute. The agreement identifies in significant detail the various solid waste
collection and recycling services to be provided. The scope of services contained in the
agreement is comprehensive, specific, and tailored to meet the needs of the customers within
the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, unless significant exceptions were proposed or
significant enhancements added to the City's desired terms, all of the proposals would offer
similar core services.
Residential Proposal Paths
Proposers were provided the opportunity to propose on either or both of two residential
collection methods:
Path 1: Existing System (Manual Collection) — Combined collection of refuse and recyclables in
customer -provided containers, with solid waste to be processed at a material recovery facility
to recover the recyclables prior to landfilling.
Path 2: Two -Cart Automated Collection System — Separate collection of refuse and recyclables
in hauler -provided carts. Customers may select cart sizes of either 32, 64 or 96 -gallons.
Participation in the recycling program would be optional to the customers. At least a portion of
the refuse cart would need to be processed at a material recovery facility to recover the
recyclables prior to landfilling in order to meet the minimum diversion goal.
Core Services
Proposers were instructed to submit annual costs to provide solid waste collection, processing
and disposal services similar to currently provided services in order to better facilitate a
comparison to current City costs. The "core services" required under both collection paths
include:
• Unlimited weekly residential solid waste collection.
• Unlimited collection of bulky items that will fit in a standard collection vehicle and may
be landfilled. Special event collection for 4`h of July and Corona del Mar 5K events.
• Natural gas collection vehicles.
• Alley collection and two-man crews for challenging areas.
• Summer Saturday collection in select portions of the City (high rental areas).
14
• Christmas tree collection.
• Processing and disposal of solid waste currently delivered to the City's transfer station
(including abandoned items and street/park litter container waste).
Optional Services
The City is considering certain service enhancements and requested that proposers separately
propose costs for these "optional services." The City retains the option to add these services on
an item -by -item basis, considering individual proposed costs. These optional services are:
• Enhanced bulky item collection, including large appliances and electronic waste.
• Container pull-out for physically disabled customers.
• Sharps collection program.
• Household Hazardous Waste ("HHW") door-to-door collection program.
• Hauler -sponsored Annual Community Shred -It Day.
Transfer Station Lease
The successful hauler is permitted to use the City's transfer station for residential waste
collected in the City at no charge.
The City's transfer station is permitted to transfer 300 tons per day. Material currently
delivered to the transfer station includes residential waste, abandoned item waste, and
street/park litter container waste; this material accounts for approximately 130 to 140 tons per
day. Proposers were provided the option to lease the transfer station, staffing it with company
employees, and use the remaining capacity for the transfer of additional waste.
Processing Contract
The City agrees to assign its processing contract with CR&R to the successful proposer if
requested, though this contract may be terminated at any time by either party with 180 days'
notice. The contract includes transportation from the City transfer station, processing of waste
for more than 40% diversion, and disposal of residual waste after processing. Proposers may
propose to use the contract, or to use alternative arrangements.
DETAILED PROPOSAL MATRIX
In order to compare the proposals, we prepared a matrix (Attachment 3) that summarizes the
following information obtained from the proposals:
1. "Proposer Overview," including the company's corporate headquarters, guaranteeing
entity, if any, and contract revenue as a percentage of total company revenues.
2. "Experience," including a summary of each proposer's experience in other jurisdictions.
15
3. "Facilities," describing the proposed transfer station, processing facilities, customer
service office, and operations yard.
4. "Equipment," describing the vehicles and carts (for Path 2).
S. "Diversion and Programs," including proposed minimum overall diversion rate, whether
or not use of the City's processing contract is proposed, descriptions of the optional
Sharps and Household Hazardous Waste ("HHW") programs proposed, and the cost for
other optional programs.
6. "Other Operational Information," including the proposed transition period, operating
assumptions made for Path 2, and any intended routing changes.
7. "Proposer Exceptions to Franchise Agreement," identifying any terms in the City's
franchise agreement that proposers desire to negotiate.
8. "Legal Disclosures," indicating any legal issues that the RFP required the proposer to
disclose.
9. "Unique Proposal Features," identifying proposed terms that the proposer believes
exceed the minimum requirements of the RFP.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSERS' RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION EXPERIENCE
Experience for all proposers is summarized starting on page 3-1 of Attachment 3. All proposers
have experience providing exclusive residential collection services to at least one municipality.
• Athens provides residential collection services to 22 cities in Los Angeles County.
• CR&R provides residential collection to 11 cities in Orange County and 16 other Southern
California cities.
• The Newport Beach Employee League currently services most of the City of Newport Beach.
• One of Newport Recycles' joint venture partners, Waste Resources, provides residential
collection service in the City of Gardena.
• Rainbow provides residential services to the cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach,
and the Sunset Beach Sanitary District.
16
• Republic provides residential services to seven Orange County cities through the proposing
division. Other parent company divisions service three additional Orange County cities and
numerous additional cities outside of Orange County.
• Ware provides residential services to the City of Laguna Woods and unincorporated areas of
Orange and Los Angeles counties.
PROPOSED COMPENSATION
Proposed compensation represents all payments to be received by the proposer in exchange
for services provided. Compensation figures were proposed as annual costs to the City, and the
City, not the residents, will remit compensation directly to the collection company, if the City
privatizes service. The City's cost may be offset by transfer station lease payments and other
one-time benefits to the City.
Compensation Adiustment Limitations
Proposers provided a fixed annual cost that would be adjusted annually by a compensation
adjustment formula based on publicly available price indices. The disposal component of
compensation shall adjust based on the actual change in the landfill gate rate under the City's
waste disposal agreement with the County of Orange. The fuel component will adjust based on
changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics index for natural gas. The "all other" component of
compensation shall adjust by the change in the Consumer Price Index, All Items less Food and
Energy, capped at no more than a 2.5% increase in any one year. The annual increase in the
total rate may be no more than 5% in any one year.
If the hauler requests an extraordinary rate increase, Section 3.5 of the agreement states that
the City may use its "sole judgment and absolute discretion" to determine whether an
adjustment may be made, and prohibits extraordinary increases for a number of items such as
employee costs, processing costs, and inaccurate proposal assumptions.
Proposed 7 -Year Costs and Revenue
Table 1 reflects the impact to the City of the above described costs and benefits over the seven-
year term for each proposal. See Attachment 2 for supporting calculations.
17
(1) Excludes optional service costs. See Table 2 for optional service costs.
(2) Annual increase assumed to be 2.5% per year.
(3) One-time benefits include purchase of City vehicles, "signing bonus" (Ware only), and release of $4.3 million City equipment reserve to
General Fund (except for City operations).
(4) Ware increased its proposed annual compensation under Path 1 from $3,493,000 per year to $3,790,000 in response to an inquiry.
(5) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed costs with City's recycling fee added back. Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker and
other costs. See Attachment 6.
18
Proposer
Path
7 -Year Compensation (2)
Core Services Cost Transfer Station
to City Lease Payments
Net
Compensation
Less One -Time
Cost Benefits to
City (3)
7 -year Net Cost
to City
Difference from Current
City Operations
$ °
1.
CR&R
2
$
27,556,000
$
(3,174,000)
$ 24,382,000
$
(5,800,000)
$ 18,582,000
$
(17,013,000)
-48%
2.
Ware (4)
1
$
28,608,000
$
(1,886,000)
$ 26,722,000
$
(5,300,000)
$ 21,422,000
$
(14,173,000)
-40°%
3.
CR&R
1
$
31,013,000
$
(3,174,000)
$ 27,839,000
$
(5,800,000)
$ 22,039,000
$
(13,556,000)
-38%
4.
Ware
2
$
30,612,000
$
(1,886,000)
$ 28,726,000
$
(5,300,000)
$ 23,426,000
$
(12,169,000)
-34%
5.
Rainbow
2
$
43,502,000
$
(11,318,000)
$ 32,184,000
$
(4,933,000)
$ 27,251,000
$
(8,344,000)
-23%
6.
Republic
1
$
41,218,000
$
(7,606,000)
$ 33,612,000
$
(5,036,000)
$ 28,576,000
$
(7,019,000)
-20%
7.
Republic
2
$
41,218,000
$
(7,606,000)
$ 33,612,000
$
(5,036,000)
$ 28,576,000
$
(7,019,000)
-20%
8.
Athens
1
$
39,459,000
$
(3,534,000)
$ 35,925,000
$
(5,800,000)
$ 30,125,000
$
(5,470,000)
-15%
9.
N.B.E.L. (5)
2
$
32,099,000
$
-
$ 32,099,000
$
-
$ 32,099,000
$
(3,496,000)
-10%
10.
Athens
2
$
42,486,000
$
(3,534,000)
$ 38,952,000
$
(5,800,000)
$ 33,152,000
$
(2,443,000)
-7%
11.
Rainbow
1
$
49,886,000
$
(11,318,000)
$ 38,568,000
$
(4,933,000)
$ 33,635,000
$
(1,960,000)
-6%
12.
N.B.E.L. (5)
1
$
34,153,000
$
-
$ 34,153,000
$
-
$ 34,153,000
$
(1,442,000)
4%
13.
Current City Operations
1
$
35,595,000
$
-
$ 35,595,000
$
-
$ 35,595,000
$
-
-
14.
Newport Recycles
1
$
55,110,000
($329,000)
$ 54,781,000
$
(4,900,000)
$ 49,881,000
$
14,286,000
40%
15,
Newport Recycles
2
Not proposed
(1) Excludes optional service costs. See Table 2 for optional service costs.
(2) Annual increase assumed to be 2.5% per year.
(3) One-time benefits include purchase of City vehicles, "signing bonus" (Ware only), and release of $4.3 million City equipment reserve to
General Fund (except for City operations).
(4) Ware increased its proposed annual compensation under Path 1 from $3,493,000 per year to $3,790,000 in response to an inquiry.
(5) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed costs with City's recycling fee added back. Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker and
other costs. See Attachment 6.
18
Core Services Compensation
Proposed annual compensation is for "core services," which reflect the current services
provided by City crews without enhancements, to best facilitate a comparison between current
City costs and proposed costs. See pages 2-2 and 2-3 for proposed annual Path 1 and Path 2
compensation.
Transfer Station Lease
All proposers (with the exception of the N.B.E.L.) proposed to lease the transfer station to
accept additional waste from City commercial customers or non -City waste, providing
additional revenue to the City. See page 3-5 for proposed annual lease payments and
anticipated additional tonnage.
Although the N.B.E.L. proposed "to utilize the transfer station as we have in the past" and did
not provide a value for leasing the excess transfer station capacity, the City may be able to
obtain some value from leasing out the excess capacity under continued City operations.
However, unlike private proposers, the City does not control additional tonnage which it may
redirect through the transfer station to generate revenue. The additional tonnage and net
revenue, if any, that may be generated from continued City residential collection operations
with the City operating the transfer station and leasing out excess capacity to interested haulers
is unknown.
If the City were to continue to provide municipal residential collection service and to contract
out the excess capacity, the City may need to obtain a transport, processing and/or disposal
contract for newly received commercial waste, as the existing agreement with CR&R is for the
City's residential waste.
City Vehicle Purchase and City Vehicle Replacement Fund
Proposers were requested to propose a price to purchase the City's current collection vehicles.
This would be a one-time cost benefit to the City. See pages 2-4, 2-5 and 3-7 for proposed
purchase prices.
The City currently funds a Vehicle Replacement Fund on an on-going basis, and vehicle
replacement purchases are paid from this fund. If the City were to privatize solid waste
collection, this fund would become available to the City for other purposes. The current fund
balance is approximately $4.3 million. If the City were to continue municipal operations and
were to finance its equipment purchases, a portion of this reserve fund may be released under
continued City operations, although the annual cost of service would increase to reflect
equipment financing cost.
19
Alternative Proposals
CR&R proposed two alternative collection methods:
1. Automated Single -Stream Collection: Automated carts would be distributed for single -
stream collection of mixed waste, and all waste would be processed as it is now. The
proposed annual compensation for core services is $3,969,000 ($140,000/year lower than
CR&R's Path 1 manual collection, and $318,000 higher than CR&R's Path 2 automated
refuse and recycling collection).
2. Automated Refuse/Recycling and Organics Collection: Mixed refuse and recyclables would
be collected in one cart and sorted to remove recyclables, as is currently done. A second
cart would be provided for the collection of green waste and food waste, which would be
sent CR&R's anaerobic digestor in the City of Perris, located in Riverside County. The
proposed annual compensation for core services is $4,576,000 ($467,000/year higher than
CR&R's Path 1 manual collection, and $925,000 higher than CR&R's Path 2 automated
refuse and recycling collection).
CR&R guaranteed a minimum diversion rate of 40% under all of its proposals. See page 3-17 for
additional information regarding CR&R's alternative proposals.
Newport Beach Employee League's Compensation Proposal and City Collection Costs
N.B.E.L.'s proposed compensation included certain inaccuracies and therefore could not be
supported as presented. The N.B.E.L. was notified of the cost issues identified and provided an
opportunity to update its cost proposal in correspondence dated August 20, 2013 and declined
to do so in a response dated August 22, 2013. See Attachment 6 for further information on the
N.B.E.L. compensation proposal.
The City collects approximately $941,000 per year as a recycling fee from residents. N.B.E.L.
reduced its proposed annual costs by this amount. As this fee funds the recycling portion of the
City's services whether or not the City privatizes service, this fee has been added back to allow
for comparison to other proposals on a consistent basis in Tables 1 and 8, and the tables in
Attachment 2. The N.B.E.L. costs used for comparison have not been adjusted to account for
additional employee costs and other items discussed in Attachment 6.
The City has estimated its annual cost savings if it were to privatize solid waste collection based
on the estimated cost of existing City operations. See Attachment 5 for further detail.
Optional Services Compensation
Proposers offered a wide range of costs for "optional services," and the method of providing
some of these services varied as well. The City has not yet determined which services it will
purchase, and the services that are cost effective depend on the proposer selected. Therefore,
20
such costs are not included in Table 1. See Table 2 below for a summary of proposed optional
costs by proposer and program.
Table 2: Proposed Annual Cost Per Service
Proposer
Sharps
Collection
HHW Door-
to -Door
Collection (1)
Enhanced
Bulky Item
Collection
Container
Pull -Out for
Disabled
Annual
Shred -It Day
Athens
$80,269
$127,200
$25,459
$24,000
$3,262
CR&R
$25,000
$125,000
$6,000
$0
$0
N. B. E. L.
n/a
n/a
No charge(2)
No charge(2)
No charge(2)
Newport Recycles
No charge
n/a
No charge
No charge
No charge
Rainbow
No charge
No charge
No charge
No charge
No charge
Republic
No charge
(3)
No charge
No charge
No charge
Ware
$100,000
$100,000
$216,000
$30,000
No charge
(1)Customer call-in program to collect Household Hazardous Waste ("HHW") from resident's porch or
other agreed -to location.
(2)See page 3-11 regarding N.B.E.L.'s proposed optional costs.
(3) Republic proposed a customer -funded program.
CNG Facility
Use of the City's compressed natural gas ("CNG") fueling station was not required under the
RFP, but can provide a source of additional revenue for the City if the waste hauler utilizes the
City's fueling station. This potential revenue is not included in this report's cost evaluation.
Proposers were asked to indicate whether they intended to use the facility. Responses are
included on page 3-7.
TOTAL COMPANY REVENUES
The proposed Newport Beach first-year rate revenues as a percentage of total company
revenues are shown in the table below. This is an indicator of the size of the Newport Beach
contract relative to each company's other operations.
21
Table 3: First -Year Rate Revenues as Percentage of Annual Company Revenue
Proposer
Newport Beach First -Year Rate Revenue as % of
Annual Company Revenue
Athens
3%
CR&R
2%
N. B. E. L.
n/a
Newport Recycles
36%(1)
Rainbow
10%
Republic (2)
<1%
Ware
13%
(1) Combined Waste Resources Inc. and Roberts Waste & Recycling Inc. revenue from California
operations.
(2) Based on revenue for parent company that proposed performance guaranty.
UNIQUE PROPOSAL FEATURES
Proposers were requested to tailor their proposal for core services to closely align with current
services to provide a reasonable comparison between current and proposed costs. However, if
proposers believed that they were offering contract enhancements over and above RFP and
contract requirements, they were to identify such enhancements in their proposal. Additionally,
some proposers included offers and requests to negotiate additional and alternative services
not requested in the RFP. These are summarized on pages 3-17 to 3-19 (unique proposal
features).
The various enhancements proposed generally involve community support and minor recycling
program enhancements, and the results of the latter would be reflected in the guaranteed
diversion rates. Ware proposed a $125,000 up -front "signing bonus," which has been
incorporated in the seven-year cost calculation.
EMPLOYMENT
Under the RFP, the selected proposer must interview all employees displaced due to the
privatization of the City's solid waste collection operations, and to offer employment to
displaced workers. Hourly wages and union status are listed below:
22
Table 4: Average Hourly Driver Wage(i)
Cost Category
Athens
CR&R
City (2)
Rainbow
Republic
Ware
Average Hourly Wage
$21.75
$20.35
$27.73
$22.55
$25.89
$20.35
(1) Requested from proposers submitting compensation proposals below City's current costs. Excludes
payroll taxes and employee benefits.
(2) Based on the average of N.B.E.L.'s submitted annual base salaries excluding overtime and incentive
pay for Refuse Worker I and Refuse Worker II positions, divided by 2,080 annual work hours. See
Table 5-3 in Attachment 5.
WASTE DIVERSION
City -Wide and Hauler -Collected Diversion - The City of Newport Beach has a city-wide diversion
rate of approximately 70% for 2011 based on CalRecycle data. This diversion percentage is used
for AB 939 compliance purposes and includes source reduction and other recycling activities
performed by not only the City collection crews and commercial haulers, but also independent
recyclers and self -haulers. The diversion rates for hauler -collected material are generally far
lower than citywide diversion rates. The City of Newport Beach's 2012 diversion rate for
residential collection was 41%.
Existing Processing Contract Terms and Minimum Diversion Requirement - The City currently
contracts with CR&R for the processing of mixed waste delivered to the City transfer station.
City crews load waste into CR&R transfer vehicles, and CR&R processes the material at its
facility in Stanton for minimum diversion of over 40%. Proposers were required, under Path 1
and Path 2, to propose a guaranteed diversion of at least 40% or better. Under Path 1, all waste
is required to be processed, in accordance with current practice. Under Path 2, the minimum
diversion requirement may be reached by processing only a portion of the waste collected in
the refuse cart due to residents sorting recyclables into the separate recycling cart. If the
guaranteed diversion amount is not achieved, the agreement provides for liquidated damages
of $25 per ton for each ton that the contractor falls short of the guarantee each year.
Processing Facility Options — Proposers were instructed to indicate which facility they would
use for the processing of mixed residential waste, and whether or not they intend to use the
City's existing processing agreement with CR&R. The City instructed proposers that it would
assign the existing CR&R mixed waste processing agreement to the selected proposer if
requested. This agreement expires in June 2018 and has an automatic extension provision, but
may be terminated upon 180 days' notice at any time by either party. Were this agreement to
terminate, the selected hauler would be responsible for establishing new processing
arrangements.
CR&R, Rainbow and Republic each own and operate facilities in Orange County that could
process the City's mixed residential waste. Residual waste that remains after processing must
23
be disposed in the Orange County Landfill System in accordance with the City's disposal
agreement with the County. Athens proposed to use its own processing facility in the City of
Industry and confirmed it would return the residual waste to Orange County.
Table 5: Diversion and Processing Facilities
(1)The City currently operates under the CR&R contract, which guarantees a diversion rate over 40%.
This agreement was competitively procured and began in 2008. N.B.E.L. proposes that the City
conduct another competitive procurement for processing services and suggests that the City would
receive a 50% diversion guarantee at the current price.
Proposers were also asked to indicate which facility they would use for the processing of source
separated recyclables under Path 2. See page 3-6 for details.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
Proposers were instructed to indicate all items they would request to negotiate if selected.
Otherwise, the City could assume that the proposer was willing to sign the collection
agreement as drafted. The only company to take any exceptions to the draft franchise
agreement included in the RFP was Athens, which took one exception, requesting deletion of
draft agreement language that the issuance of four or more citations in a 12 -month period shall
be deemed a breach. See page 3-13.
LEGAL DISCLOSURES
The RFP required the proposers to describe certain legal actions meeting the disclosure
requirements that occurred in the past ten years against the entity submitting the proposal, its
key personnel, or affiliated companies in the State of California. See pages 3-14 through 3-16
for details.
24
Proposed to
Guaranteed Minimum
Proposed Facility for
Use City
Diversion Rate
Proposer
Processing Mixed
Processing
Contract?
Waste
Path 1
Path 2
Athens
No
Athens (in Industry)
42%
42%
CR&R
n/a
CR Transfer (CR&R)
40%
40%
N. B. E. L.
(1)
To be determined (1)
40% existing
50%(1)
50% proposed (1)
Newport Recycles
Yes
CR Transfer (CR&R)
41%
n/a
Rainbow
No
Rainbow
41%
41%
Republic
Yes
CR Transfer (CR&R)
41%
44%
Ware
Yes
CR Transfer (CR&R)
43%
43%
(1)The City currently operates under the CR&R contract, which guarantees a diversion rate over 40%.
This agreement was competitively procured and began in 2008. N.B.E.L. proposes that the City
conduct another competitive procurement for processing services and suggests that the City would
receive a 50% diversion guarantee at the current price.
Proposers were also asked to indicate which facility they would use for the processing of source
separated recyclables under Path 2. See page 3-6 for details.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
Proposers were instructed to indicate all items they would request to negotiate if selected.
Otherwise, the City could assume that the proposer was willing to sign the collection
agreement as drafted. The only company to take any exceptions to the draft franchise
agreement included in the RFP was Athens, which took one exception, requesting deletion of
draft agreement language that the issuance of four or more citations in a 12 -month period shall
be deemed a breach. See page 3-13.
LEGAL DISCLOSURES
The RFP required the proposers to describe certain legal actions meeting the disclosure
requirements that occurred in the past ten years against the entity submitting the proposal, its
key personnel, or affiliated companies in the State of California. See pages 3-14 through 3-16
for details.
24
REFERENCE CHECKS
At the City's request, HF&H conducted reference checks for the two lowest cost proposers.
HF&H contacted the primary contract manager in other jurisdictions to inquire about the
proposer's performance in the areas of customer service, program implementation, and
working with the public agency. HF&H then solicited an overall rating reflecting each agency's
satisfaction with their hauler. Neither hauler received an overall rating from a customer below
a "satisfactory" rating.
Table 6: Reference Check Summary
Proposer
# of References
Average Rating by
Municipal References (1)
CR&R
9
4.2
Ware
3
3.7
(1) 1= Unsatisfactory, 2 = Below Expectations, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Above
Expectations, 5 = Exceptional Performance
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS ON CR&R AND WARE PROPOSALS
1. CR&R and Ware offer the lowest cost proposals under both Path 1 and Path 2, as shown in
the table below. CR&R's Path 2 proposal is the least costly option. The next lowest cost
proposal (Ware's Path 1) is approximately 15% higher over the term.
Table 7: Core Services Including One -Time Benefits,
Net of Transfer Station Lease Payments Over 7 -Year Termly
(1) Excluding optional services.
2. The lowest cost proposal would save the City approximately $17.0 million over seven years
compared to current City operations under Path 2 and $14.2 million under Path 1, as shown
in Table 7 including one-time benefits.
3. If transfer station lease payments and one-time cost benefits are excluded, and only the
annual cost for core services is considered, CR&R and Ware are again the lowest cost
25
Savings vs. Current City
7 -Year
Difference vs.
Proposal
Operations Over
Projection
Low Bid
7 -Year Term
1.
CR&R -Path 2
$
18,582,000
-
$
17,013,000
2.
Ware -Path 1
$
21,422,000
15%
$
14,173,000
3.
CR&R -Path 1
$
22,039,000
19%
$
13,556,000
4.
Ware -Path 2
$
23,426,000
26%
$
12,169,000
Current City Operations
$
35,595,000
92%
(1) Excluding optional services.
2. The lowest cost proposal would save the City approximately $17.0 million over seven years
compared to current City operations under Path 2 and $14.2 million under Path 1, as shown
in Table 7 including one-time benefits.
3. If transfer station lease payments and one-time cost benefits are excluded, and only the
annual cost for core services is considered, CR&R and Ware are again the lowest cost
25
proposers. Table 8 compares the CR&R and Ware annual core service costs to existing City
operations and the N.B.E.L. proposed costs.
Table 8: First -Year Core Service Costs
(1) Includes the recycling fee of $941,000 added back. Excludes overtime, "one-man" incentive
pay, temporary workers and other costs. See Attachment 6 for further detail.
4. Both CR&R and Ware received positive reference checks from jurisdictions they service,
with CR&R's references slightly more favorable.
5. CR&R owns and operates a facility that processes mixed residential waste. Ware proposed
to use the City's existing processing contract with CR&R. If CR&R terminates the processing
contract, or does not extend the processing term, Ware would need to renegotiate the
processing agreement with CR&R or arrange for processing services with another facility.
6. CR&R and Ware currently contract with the City to provide other solid waste services:
• CR&R services the communities of Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights, and provides
the transport and processing services for the City.
• Ware provides collection from City facilities.
7. CR&R and Ware have residential collection experience, with CR&R serving a larger number
of communities:
• Ware services the City of Laguna Woods and county unincorporated areas.
• CR&R services 27 cities in Southern California.
Attachments
1. Summary of Key Services and Contract Terms Requested in RFP
2. Summary of Compensation Proposals
3. Detailed Proposal Matrix
4. Diversion Plan Comparison — Projected Diversion of Hauler -Collected Solid Waste
5. Estimated Annual Cost of City Refuse Operations
6. Newport Beach Employee League Cost Proposal
26
Proposal
Proposed First -Year Core
Service Costs
Annual Savings vs. Current
City Operations
1.
CR&R - Path 2
$
3,651,000
$
1,065,000
2.
Ware - Path 1
$
3,790,000
$
926,000
3.
Ware - Path 2
$
4,056,000
$
660,000
4.
CR&R - Path 1
$
4,109,000
$
607,000
5.
N.B.E.L. - Path 2 (1)
$
4,253,000
$
463,000
6.
N.B.E.L. - Path 1 (1)
$
4,525,000
$
191,000
Current City Operations
$
4,716,000
(1) Includes the recycling fee of $941,000 added back. Excludes overtime, "one-man" incentive
pay, temporary workers and other costs. See Attachment 6 for further detail.
4. Both CR&R and Ware received positive reference checks from jurisdictions they service,
with CR&R's references slightly more favorable.
5. CR&R owns and operates a facility that processes mixed residential waste. Ware proposed
to use the City's existing processing contract with CR&R. If CR&R terminates the processing
contract, or does not extend the processing term, Ware would need to renegotiate the
processing agreement with CR&R or arrange for processing services with another facility.
6. CR&R and Ware currently contract with the City to provide other solid waste services:
• CR&R services the communities of Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights, and provides
the transport and processing services for the City.
• Ware provides collection from City facilities.
7. CR&R and Ware have residential collection experience, with CR&R serving a larger number
of communities:
• Ware services the City of Laguna Woods and county unincorporated areas.
• CR&R services 27 cities in Southern California.
Attachments
1. Summary of Key Services and Contract Terms Requested in RFP
2. Summary of Compensation Proposals
3. Detailed Proposal Matrix
4. Diversion Plan Comparison — Projected Diversion of Hauler -Collected Solid Waste
5. Estimated Annual Cost of City Refuse Operations
6. Newport Beach Employee League Cost Proposal
26
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SUMMARY OF KEY SERVICES AND CONTRACT TERMS
REQUESTED IN RFP
I. RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SERVICES
A. Collection Method — Proposers may propose on one or both options
Path 1: Existing System (Manual Collection)
• Unlimited manual co -collection of all waste.
• Customer -provided containers.
• Processing of all waste to recover recyclables.
Path 2: Two -Cart Automated System
• Unlimited automated collection of refuse and recyclables in separate containers.
• Hauler -provided refuse and recycling carts (customer selects sizes: 96, 64 or 32 -gallon).
• Processing of refuse as needed to meet minimum diversion requirements.
B. Core Services Included In Both Paths 1 and 2
• Continuation of basic bulky item collection on a call-in basis.
• Saturday collection of select areas during summer, in addition to regular collection day.
• Alley collection and two-man crews for challenging areas.
• Special event collection for 4 1 of July and Corona del Mar 5K events.
• Natural gas collection vehicles.
• Hiring of displaced City refuse collection services employees.
• Christmas tree collection.
• Collection and processing/disposal from City yard of abandoned items.
C. Optional Services for both Paths land 2 —Compensation to be proposed, with services to be
included at City's option
• Enhanced bulky item collection, including large appliances and electronic waste.
• Container pull-out for physically disabled customers.
• Sharps collection program
• Household Hazardous Waste door-to-door collection program.
• Hauler -sponsored Annual Community Shred -It Day.
II. CONTRACT TERMS
A. Term of Contract
Seven-year term, with a City option to extend the agreement for up to three additional years. Proposers
were instructed to indicate the transition period needed after award of the agreement to complete a
smooth transition.
27
B. Minimum Diversion Requirements
Minimum diversion rate for hauler -collected waste to be proposed. Minimum to be at least as high as
the current rate of over 40%. Liquidated damages of $25 per ton for failure to achieve guaranteed
diversion.
C. Purchase of City Solid Waste Collection Vehicles
Proposers were to propose a payment to purchase all of the City's collection vehicles.
D. Faithful Performance Bond/Letter of Credit
Hauler will provide $1,000,000 in performance surety and was permitted to propose whether it would
be in the form of a performance bond, letter of credit, or combination of the two.
E. Vehicles
All route collection vehicles will be powered by natural gas within 12 months of the start of service, or
sooner if required by law.
F. Rate Adjustment
Rate adjustment is based on weighted changes in published indices for disposal (based on actual
change in the disposal gate rate), fuel (based on the change in the natural gas index), and all other
(based on the change in (CPI).
G. Compensation
Compensation shall be an annual total cost to service the City, paid by the City to the hauler 1/12`h
each month.
111111. OPTIONS FOR PROPOSERS
A. Lease of City's Transfer Station
Proposers were given the option to lease the City's transfer station to take advantage of the excess
permitted capacity available. Proposers were to propose a total annual lease payment.
B. Assumption of City's Processing Agreement with CR&R
City holds an agreement with CR&R for the collection and processing of all City waste delivered to the
City yard. This agreement includes a minimum guaranteed diversion rate of over 40%, and may be
cancelled by either party upon 180 days' notice. The City instructed proposers to indicate whether they
would request the City to assign this agreement to them.
Table 2-1: 7 -Year Compensation/Cost Projections - Path 1 and Path 2 (sorted low to high)
(1) Assumes 2.5% per year adjustments.
(2) One-time benefits include purchase of City vehicles, "signing bonus" (Ware only), and release of $4.3 million City equipment reserve to General Fund (except for
current City operations and under the N.B.E.L. proposal).
(3) Ware increased its proposed annual compensation under Path 1 from $3,493,000 per year to $3,790,000 in response to an inquiry
(4) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed costs with City's recycling fee added back. Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, temporary worker and other costs. See
Attachment 6.
29
Proposer
Path
7 -Year (
Compensation 1)
p
Less One -Time
Cost Benefits to
Cit 2
y ()
7 -Year Net Cost
to City
Difference from Current
City Operations
Core Services Cost
to City
Transfer Station
Lease Payments
Net
Compensation
$
°
1.
CR&R
2
$
27,556,000
$
(3,174,000)
$
24,382,000
$
(5,800,000)
$
18,582,000
$
(17,013,000)
-48%
2.
Ware (3)
1
$
28,608,000
$
(1,886,000)
$
26,722,000
$
(5,300,000)
$
21,422,000
$
(14,173,000)
-40%
3.
CR&R
1
$
31,013,000
$
(3,174,000)
$
27,839,000
$
(5,800,000)
$
22,039,000
$
(13,556,000)
-38%
4.
Ware
2
$
30,612,000
$
(1,886,000)
$
28,726,000
$
(5,300,000)
$
23,426,000
$
(12,169,000)
-34%
5.
Rainbow
2
$
43,502,000
$
(11,318,000)
$
32,184,000
$
(4,933,000)
$
27,251,000
$
(8,344,000)
-23%
6.
Republic
1
$
41,218,000
$
(7,606,000)
$
33,612,000
$
(5,036,000)
$
28,576,000
$
(7,019,000)
-20%
7.
Republic
2
$
41,218,000
$
(7,606,000)
$
33,612,000
$
(5,036,000)
$
28,576,000
$
(7,019,000)
-20%
8.
Athens
1
$
39,459,000
$
(3,534,000)
$
35,925,000
$
(5,800,000)
$
30,125,000
$
(5,470,000)
-15%
9.
N.B.E.L. (4)
2
$
32,099,000
$
-
$
32,099,000
$
-
$
32,099,000
$
(3,496,000)
-10%
10.
Athens
2
$
42,486,000
$
(3,534,000)
$
38,952,000
$
(5,800,000)
$
33,152,000
$
(2,443,000)
-7%
11.
Rainbow
1
$
49,886,000
$
(11,318,000)
$
38,568,000
$
(4,933,000)
$
33,635,000
$
(1,960,000)
-6%
12.
N.B.E.L. (4)
1
$
34,153,000
$
$
34,153,000
$
$
34,153,000
$
(1,442,000)
-4%
13.
Current City Operations
1 1
1 $
35,595,000
1 $
-
$
35,595,000
1 $
-
$
35,595,000
$
-
-
14.
Newport Recycles
1
$
55,110,000
($329,000)
$
54,781,000
1 $
(4,900,000)
$
49,881,000
$
14,286,000
1 40%
15.
Newport Recycles
2
Not proposed
(1) Assumes 2.5% per year adjustments.
(2) One-time benefits include purchase of City vehicles, "signing bonus" (Ware only), and release of $4.3 million City equipment reserve to General Fund (except for
current City operations and under the N.B.E.L. proposal).
(3) Ware increased its proposed annual compensation under Path 1 from $3,493,000 per year to $3,790,000 in response to an inquiry
(4) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed costs with City's recycling fee added back. Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, temporary worker and other costs. See
Attachment 6.
29
Table 2-2: Core Services (sorted low to high)
Table 2-3: City Transfer Station Lease (sorted high to low)
Proposer
Annual
Compensation
1.
Amount Above Low -Cost Proposer
Amount Percent
$
1.
Ware
$
3,790,000
1,008,000
3.
Athens
2.
CR&R
$
4,109,000
$
319,000
8%
3.
N.B.E.L. (1)
$
4,525,000
$
735,000
19%
7.
Current City Operations
$
4,716,000
$
926,000
24%
4.
Athens
$
5,228,000
$
1,438,000
38%
5.
Republic
$
5,461,000
$
1,671,000
44%
6.
Rainbow
$
6,610,000
$
2,820,000
74%
7.
Newport Recycles
$
7,301,000
$
3,511,000
93%
Table 2-3: City Transfer Station Lease (sorted high to low)
Table 2-4: Core Services Net of Transfer Station Payment (sorted low to high)
Proposer
Annual Lease
Payment
1.
Rainbow
$
1,500,000
2.
Republic (2)
$
1,008,000
3.
Athens
$
468,000
4.
CR&R
$
420,000
5.
Ware
$
250,000
6.
Newport Recycles
$
44,000
7.
N.B. E. L.
$
$
985,000
Current City Operations
$
Current City Operations
Table 2-4: Core Services Net of Transfer Station Payment (sorted low to high)
(1) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,584,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back.
Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay and temporary worker costs. See Attachment 6.
(2) Includes $1,000,000/year fixed payment, plus host fee of $1.00 per non-residential agreement ton, based on 27 tons per
day.
30
Proposer
Net Annual
Compensation
Amount Above Low -Cost Proposer
Amount Percent
1.
Ware
$
3,540,000
2.
CR&R
$
3,689,000
$
149,000
4%
3.
Republic
$
4,453,000
$
913,000
26%
4.
N.B.E.L.(1)
$
4,525,000
$
985,000
28%
Current City Operations
$
4,716,000
$
1,176,000
33%
5.
Athens
$
4,760,000
$
1,220,000
34%
6.
Rainbow
$
5,110,000
$
1,570,000
44%
7.
Newport Recycles
$
7,257,000
$
3,717,000
105%
(1) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,584,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back.
Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay and temporary worker costs. See Attachment 6.
(2) Includes $1,000,000/year fixed payment, plus host fee of $1.00 per non-residential agreement ton, based on 27 tons per
day.
30
Table 2-5: Core Services (sorted low to high)
Table 2-6: City Transfer Station Lease (sorted high to low)
Proposer
Annual
Compensation
1.
Amount Above Low -Cost Proposer
$
Amount Percent
2.
1.
CR&R
$
3,651,000
Athens
$
468,000
2.
Ware
$
4,056,000
$
405,000
11%
3.
N.B.E.L. (1)
$
4,253,000
$
602,000
16%
$
Current City Operations
$
4,716,000
$
1,065,000
29%
4.
Republic
$
5,461,000
$
1,810,000
50%
5.
Athens
$
5,629,000
$
1,978,000
54%
6.
Rainbow
$
5,764,000
$
2,113,000
58%
7.
Newport Recycles
Not Proposed
n/a n/a
Table 2-6: City Transfer Station Lease (sorted high to low)
Table 2-7: Core Services Net of Transfer Station Payment (sorted low to high)
Proposer
Annual Lease
Payment
1.
Rainbow
$
1,500,000
2.
Republic (2)
$
1,008,000
3.
Athens
$
468,000
4.
CR&R
$
420,000
5.
Ware
$
250,000
6.
N. B. E. L.
$
$
1,022,000
Current City Operations
$
Rainbow
7.
Newport Recycles
$
Not Proposed
Table 2-7: Core Services Net of Transfer Station Payment (sorted low to high)
(1) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,312,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back.
Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker and other costs. See Attachment 6.
(2) Includes $1,000,000/year fixed payment, plus host fee of $1.00 per non-residential agreement ton, based on 27 tons per
day.
31
Proposer
Net Annual
Compensation
Amount Above Low -Cost Proposer
Amount Percent
1.
CR&R
$
3,231,000
2.
Ware
$
3,806,000
$
575,000
18%
3.
N.B.E.L. (1)
$
4,253,000
$
1,022,000
32%
4.
Rainbow
$
4,264,000
$
1,033,000
32%
5.
Republic
$
4,453,000
$
1,222,000
38%
Current City Operations
$
4,716,000
$
1,485,000
46%
6.
Athens
$
5,161,000
$
1,930,000
60%
7.
Newport Recycles
Not Proposed
n/a n/a
(1) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,312,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back.
Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker and other costs. See Attachment 6.
(2) Includes $1,000,000/year fixed payment, plus host fee of $1.00 per non-residential agreement ton, based on 27 tons per
day.
31
Table 2-8: Annual Core Service Costs less Transfer Station Lease and One -Time Cost Benefits
YearCurrent
City I
Operations
Lfhens CR&R N.B.E.L. (1)
Newport
Rec cles
Rainbow Republic
Ware
Core Service Costs
1 $4,716,000
$5,228,000
$4,109,000 $4,525,000
$7,301,000
$6,610,000
$5,461,000
$3,790,000
2 $4,834,000
$5,359,000
$4,212,000 $4,638,000
$7,484,000
$6,775,000
$5,598,000
$3,885,000
3 $4,955,000
$5,493,000
$4,317,000 $4,754,000
$7,671,000
$6,944,000
$5,738,000
$3,982,000
4 $5,079,000
$5,630,000
$4,425,000 $4,873,000
$7,863,000
$7,118,000
$5,881,000
$4,082,000
5 $5,206,000
$5,771,000
$4,536,000 $4,995,000
$8,060,000
$7,296,000
$6,028,000
$4,184,000
6 $5,336,000
$5,915,000
$4,649,000 $5,120,000
$8,262,000
$7,478,000
$6,179,000
$4,289,000
7 $5,469,000
$6,063,000
$4,765,000 $5,248,000
$8,469,000
$7,665,000
$6,333,000
4 396 000
Sub -Total - Core Services $35,595,000
$39,459,000
$31,013,000 $34,153,000
$55,110,000
$49,886,000
$41,218,000
$28,608,000
Transfer Station Lease Payments
1 ($468,000) ($420,000) ($44,000) ($1,500,000) ($1,008,000) (2) ($250,000)
2 ($480,000) ($431,000) ($45,000) ($1,538,000) ($1,033,000) ($256,000)
3 ($492,000) ($442,000) ($46,000) ($1,576,000) ($1,059,000) ($262,000)
4 ($504,000) ($453,000) ($47,000) ($1,615,000) ($1,085,000) ($269,000)
5 ($517,000) ($464,000) ($48,000) ($1,655,000) ($1,112,000) ($276,000)
6 ($530,000) ($476,000) ($49,000) ($1,696,000) ($1,140,000) ($283,000)
7 J12Ai 000488 000 ($50,000) ($1,738,000) ($1,169,000)290 000
Sub -Total - Lease Payments ($3,534,000) ($3,174,000) ($329,000) ($11,318,000) ($7,606,000) ($1,886,000)
7 -Year Net Compensation Before
One -Time Benefits $35,595,000 $35,925,000 $27,839,000 $34,153,000 $54,781,000 $38,568,000 $33,612,000 $26,722,000
One -Time Cost Benefits to City
Purchase of City Vehicles
$ (1,500,000)
$ (1,500,000)
$ (600,000)
$ (633,000)
$ (736,000)
$ (875,000)
"Signing Bonus"
$ (125,000)
Release of Equipment Fund to
General Fund
(3)
$ (4,300,000)
$ (4,300,000)
(3)
$ (4,300,000)
$ (4,300,000)
$ (4,300,000)
$ (4,300,000)
Sub -Total: One -Time Adjustments
$ (518001000)
$ (5,800,000)
$ (4,900,000)
$ (4,933,000)
$ (5,036,000)
$ (5,300,000)
Net 7 -Year Costs
(3)
$ 30,125,000
$ 22,039,000
(3)
$ 49,881,000
$ 33,635,000
$ 28,576,000
$ 21,422,000
Annual Compensation Increase Assumption: 2.5%
(1) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,584,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back. Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay and temporary worker costs. See Attachment 6.
(2) Includes $1,000,000/year fixed payment, plus host fee of $1.00 per non-residential agreement ton, based on 27 tons per day. Assumes host fee adjusts annually.
(3) If the current $4.3 million reserve is maintained or replenished during the term, then there would be no release to the General Fund under the N.B.E.L. proposal or City operations.
32
Table 2-9: Annual Core Service Costs less Transfer Station Lease and One -Time Cost Benefits
Year
Athens
CR&R
N.B.E.L. (1)
Newport Recycles
Rainbow
Republic
Ware
Core Service Costs
1 $5,629,000
$3,651,000 $4,253,000 Not Proposed
$5,764,000
$5,461,000
$4,056,000
2 $5,770,000
$3,742,000 $4,359,000
$5,908,000
$5,598,000
$4,157,000
3 $5,914,000
$3,836,000 $4,468,000
$6,056,000
$5,738,000
$4,261,000
4 $6,062,000
$3,932,000 $4,580,000
$6,207,000
$5,881,000
$4,368,000
5 $6,214,000
$4,030,000 $4,695,000
$6,362,000
$6,028,000
$4,477,000
6 $6,369,000
$4,131,000 $4,812,000
$6,521,000
$6,179,000
$4,589,000
7 $6,528,000$4,234,000
4 932 000
$6,684,000
6 333 0004
704 000
Sub -Total - Core Services $42,486,000
$27,556,000 $32,099,000
$43,502,000
$41,218,000
$30,612,000
Transfer Station Lease Payments
1 (468,000) (420,000) (1,500,000) (1,008,000) (2) (250,000)
2 (480,000) (431,000) (1,538,000) (1,033,000) (256,000)
3 (492,000) (442,000) (1,576,000) (1,059,000) (262,000)
4 (504,000) (453,000) (1,615,000) (1,085,000) (269,000)
5 (517,000) (464,000) (1,655,000) (1,112,000) (276,000)
6 (530,000) (476,000) (1,696,000) (1,140,000) (283,000)
7 (543,000) 488 000 LLM 000 1 169000 290 000
Sub -Total - Lease Payments ($3,534,000) ($3,174,000) ($11,318,000) ($7,606,000) ($1,886,000)
7 -Year Net Compensation Before One
Time Benefits $38,952,000 $24,382,000 $32,099,000 $32,184,000 $33,612,000 $28,726,000
One -Time Cost Benefits to City
Purchase of City Vehicles
$ (1,500,000)
$ (1,500,000)
$ (633,000)
$ (736,000)
$ (875,000)
"Signing Bonus"
$ (125,000)
Release of Equipment Fund to General
Fund
$ (4,300,000)
$ (4,300,000)
(3)
$ (4,300,000)
$ (4,300,000)
$ (4,300,000)
Sub -Total: One -Time Adjustments
$ (5,800,000)
$ (5,800,000)
$ (4,933,000)
$ (5,036,000)
$ (5,300,000)
Net 7 -Year Costs
$ 33,152,000
$ 18,582,000
(3)
$ 27,251,000
$ 28,576,000
$ 23,426,000
Annual Compensation Increase Assumption: 2.5%
(1) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,312,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back. Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker and other costs. See
Attachment 6.
(2) Includes $1,000,000/year fixed payment, plus host fee of $1.00 per non-residential agreement ton, based on 27 tons per day. Assumes host fee adjusts annually.
(3) If the current $4.3 million reserve is maintained or replenished during the term, then there would be no release to the General Fund under the N.B.E.L. proposal or City operations.
33
Table 2-10: Path 1
Calculation of Core Services Net of Transfer Station Payment in Table 2-4
(sorted low to high based on Net Annual Compensation)
(1) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,584,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back.
Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker costs. See Attachment 6.
Table 2-11: Path 2
Calculation of Core Services Net of Transfer Station Payment in Table 2-7
(sorted low to high based on Net Annual Compensation)
Proposer
Core Services Annual
Com ensatic
Less Transfer Station
I Pa ment
I
Net Annual
Compensation
1.
Ware
$
3,790,000
$
250,000
$
3,540,000
2.
CR&R
$
4,109,000
$
420,000
$
3,689,000
4.
Republic
$
5,461,000
$
1,008,000
$
4,453,000
3.
N.B.E.L. (1)
$
4,525,000
$
1,500,000
$
4,525,000
5.
Current City Operations
$
4,716,000
$
1,008,000
$
4,716,000
5.
Athens
$
5,228,000
$
468,000
$
4,760,000
6.
Rainbow
$
6,610,000
$
1,500,000
$
5,110,000
7.
Newport Recycles
$
7,301,000
$
44,000
$
7,257,000
(1) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,584,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back.
Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker costs. See Attachment 6.
Table 2-11: Path 2
Calculation of Core Services Net of Transfer Station Payment in Table 2-7
(sorted low to high based on Net Annual Compensation)
(2) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,312,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back.
Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker and other costs. See Attachment 6.
34
Proposer
Core Services Annual
Com ensatic
Less Transfer Station
I Payment
I
Net Annual
Compensation
1.
CR&R
$
3,651,000
$
420,000
$
3,231,000
2.
Ware
$
4,056,000
$
250,000
$
3,806,000
3.
N.B.E.L. (2)
$
4,253,000
$
4,253,000
4.
Rainbow
$
5,764,000
$
1,500,000
$
4,264,000
5.
Republic
$
5,461,000
$
1,008,000
$
4,453,000
Current City Operations
$
4,716,000
$
4,716,000
6.
Athens
$
5,629,000
$
468,000
$
5,161,000
7.
Newport Recycles
Not Proposed
Not Proposed
n/a
(2) Includes N.B.E.L. proposed annual cost of $3,312,000 with the City's recycling fee of $941,000 per year added back.
Excludes overtime, one-man incentive pay, and temporary worker and other costs. See Attachment 6.
34
Attachment 3
City of Newport Beach
Detailed Proposal Matrix
September 3, 2013
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Proposer Overview p. 3-1
Experience p. 3-1
Facilities p. 3-5
Equipment p. 3-7
Diversion and Programs p. 3-9
Other Operational Information p. 3-11
Proposed Exceptions to Franchise Agreement p. 3-13
Legal Disclosures p. 3-14
Unique Proposal Features p. 3-17
35
Proposer Overview
PROPOSER
CORPORATE (CITY) HEADQUARTERS
GUARANTOR (PARENT COMPANY)
LABOR FORCE
Athens
City of Industry, CA
n/a
Non -Union
CR&R
Stanton, CA
n/a
Non -Union
N.B.E.L.
Newport Beach, CA
n/a
Union
Newport
Recycles
Santa Ana, CA
Waste Resources Inc. and
Roberts Waste & Recycling Inc.
Non -Union
Rainbow
Huntington Beach, CA
n/a
Union
(Employee -Owned)
Republic
Phoenix, AZ
Republic Services, Inc.
Union
Ware
Santa Ana, CA
n/a
Union
Experience
PROPOSER
Athens
Overview
Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., dba Athens Services ("Athens"), is a family-owned business, operating for over 55 years.
Athens provides collection services in Southern California, primarily in Los Angeles County. Athens owns and
operates the Athens Material Recovery Facility in the City of Industry, American Waste Industries in Sun Valley, and
American Organics in Victorville, and operates the San Bernardino Disposal System under contract with San
Bernardino County. Athens is the City of Newport Beach's current street sweeper.
Orange County Residential Collection Experience
None reported.
Other Experience
Athens cites the following residential services in Los Angeles County: 16 cities with automated collection, three with
manual collection, and three with backyard manual collection.
Athens also cites bin and/or roll -off service experience in over 40 cities and areas throughout Los Angeles County,
and in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Transition Experience
Athens cites recent hauler transitions including the cities of Redondo Beach (2011), Irwindale (2011), Hermosa
Beach (2013), and the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles of Altadena (2011). Athens cites transitions
in a total of 20 jurisdictions.
36
Experience (continued)
PROPOSER
CR&R
CR&R Incorporated ("CR&R") is a privately -owned company, established in 1963. CR&R provides collection services
throughout Southern California, and in Arizona and Colorado. CR&R owns and operates two transfer/processing
facilities in Stanton, a facility in Perris, and a landfill in Arizona.
Orange County Residential Collection Experience
CR&R is the current service provider for the Newport Coast and Santa Ana Heights districts in the City of Newport
Beach.
CR&R cites manual residential collection service in unincorporated areas of Orange County and automated
collection service in the Orange County cities of Stanton, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Orange, San Juan Capistrano, San
Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita.
Other Experience
CR&R cites manual collection service in unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County and portions of the City of
Avalon, and automated residential collection experience in 15 additional Southern California cities.
CR&R has bin and roll -off box collection experience in multiple jurisdictions inside and out of Orange County
through exclusive and non-exclusive arrangements.
Transition Experience
CR&R cited transitioning the City of Hemet from municipal collection, hiring the City's employees and purchasing
City equipment. CR&R cited transition experience in the following Orange County cities from another hauler:
Orange in 2010, Rancho Santa Margarita in 2005, and Tustin in 2007. CR&R listed additional transition experience in
six other cities.
N. B. E. L.
Newport Beach Employee League ("N.B.E.L.") is the proposing entity for the City of Newport Beach solid waste
hauling employees.
Orange County Residential Collection Experience
N.B.E.L. currently provides collection service to the majority of Newport Beach residents.
Other Experience
None.
Transition Experience
N/A
37
Experience (continued)
PROPOSER
Newport
Newport Recycles, JV is a joint venture between Waste Resources Inc. ("WRI") and Roberts Waste and Recycling
Recycles
Inc. ("RWRI"). Both WRI and RWRI are privately -owned corporations. WRI was incorporated in 2002. WRI was
founded by the founder of Western Waste Industries, the 4" largest solid waste management company in the
nation prior to its sale and merger with USA Waste in 1996 (now Waste Management, Inc.). RWRI is a small,
minority-owned business that incorporated in 2004.
Orange County Residential Collection Experience
None reported.
Other Experience
WRI cites automated residential collection and commercial collection in the City of Gardena. WRI also provides
open market commercial/industrial/recycling services to cities throughout Los Angeles County.
RWR collects refuse for the City of Newport Beach at the City's parks and beaches, and provides bin and roll -off box
services in the City of Newport Beach.
Transition Experience
Newport Recycles cites Waste Resource's experience in transitioning from another hauler in the City of Gardena in
2003.
Rainbow
Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. dba Rainbow Environmental Services ("Rainbow") is a 100% employee -owned
corporation, incorporated in 1970, and operating since 1957. Rainbow provides solid waste collection services in
Orange County. Rainbow owns and operates a transfer station/processing facility in Huntington Beach, CA.
Orange County Residential Collection Experience
Rainbow is the exclusive service provider for Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, and Sunset Beach Sanitary District.
Other Experience
Rainbow provides exclusive commercial service in two unincorporated areas in the County of Orange and exclusive
commercial service for Midway City Sanitary District (City of Westminster).
Rainbow provides the collection of 160 trash carts off of the City's beaches using four-wheel drive automated
collection trucks.
Transition Experience
Rainbow assumed beach -front trash collection in Newport Beach in 2011. Rainbow transitioned Huntington Beach,
Fountain Valley and Sunset Beach from manual to automated collection in 2007.
Experience (continued)
PROPOSER
Republic
Republic Services of Southern California, LLC ('Republic') is a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc., the second
largest solid waste service provider in North America with two landfills and numerous material recovery facilities
and transfer stations in Southern California. Republic operates a large material recovery facility in Anaheim.
Orange County Residential Collection Experience
Republic cites residential automated collection service in the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton, Garden Grove,
Placentia, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda for the division that will service Newport Beach. Another division of the
parent company services the cities of Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach.
Other Experience
Republic provides bin and roll -off services in the above mentioned cities, and notes providing residential and
commercial services in the City of Chino Hills. Additional divisions of the parent company provide residential, bin
and roll -off collection service throughout Southern California.
Transition Experience
Republic cites transitioning from another hauler through mergers in the following cities: Anaheim (1997), Chino
Hills (2001), Brea (1988)., Fullerton (1996), Placentia (1988), Villa Park (1992), and Yorba Linda (1988).
Ware
Ware Disposal Co. Inc. ("Ware") is a privately -owned company established in 1968. Ware provides collection
services in Orange and Los Angeles counties. Ware's sister company Madison Materials operates a
transfer/processing facility in Santa Ana.
Orange County Residential Collection Experience
Ware provides residential automated cart collection in the City of Laguna Woods, and two unincorporated areas of
Orange County.
Other Experience
Ware cites automated residential collection experience in two unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Ware
has bin and roll -off collection experience in several Orange County school districts, the City of Laguna Woods,
unincorporated Orange County permit areas, and other non-exclusive areas.
Transition Experience
Ware cites transition experience in the following areas from another hauler: the City of Laguna Woods in 2005,
Orange County permit areas in 1999 and 2007, and Los Angeles County permit areas in 2008.
39
Facilities
40
TRANSFER FACILITY
LEASE OF CIN TRANSFER STATION FOR NON -AGREEMENT SOLID
PROPOSER
TRANSFER STATION FOR
WASTE
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE
ANNUAL
PAYMENT
NON -AGREEMENT TONNAGE PROJERED TO BE DELIVERED
Athens
Newport Beach Transfer Station
$468,000
169 tons per day
CR&R
Newport Beach Transfer Station
$420,000
169 tons per day
N. B. E. L.
Newport Beach Transfer Station
n/a
Lease of facility not proposed.
Newport
Newport Beach Transfer Station
$43,940
50 tons per day
Recycles
Rainbow
Rainbow Environmental Services
$1,500,000
169 tons per day
17121 Nichols Lanes
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach Transfer Station
Republic
Newport Beach Transfer Station
$1,000,000
27 tons per day
+B+ 000
$1,008,000
Republic also offers a $1.00 per ton host fee on non -
Newport Beach waste transferred through facility.
(Additional revenue assumed 307 operating days per year
at 27 tons per day, rounded to nearest thousand.)
Ware
Newport Beach Transfer Station
$250,000
100 tons per day
40
Facilities (continued)
PROPOSER
PROCESSING FACILITIES
PROPOSER
5353 Vincent Avenue, Irwindale
CR&R11292
Western Avenue, Stanton
MIXED WASTE
SOURCE SEPARATED RECYCLABLES
Athens
Athens MRF
Potential Industries
17121 Nichols Lane, Huntington Beach
14046 Valley Blvd., City of Industry
922 East E Street, Wilmington
Ware
Commerce Refuse -to -Energy
American Organics
5926 Sheila Street, Commerce
20055 Shay Road, Victorville
Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF)
120 Pier SAve., Long Beach
CR&R
CR Transfer (CRT) MRF
CR&R Western Ave. MRF
11232 Knott Ave., Stanton
11292 Western Ave., Stanton
Owned/operated by CR&R
Owned/operated by CR&R
N.B.E.L.
CR Transfer (CRT) MRF
Proposes to bid out processing service.
11232 Knott Ave., Stanton
Currently operating under City's contract, but
proposes to bid out this service, which may result in a
facility change.
Newport
CR Transfer (CRT) MRF
N/A
Recycles
11232 Knott Ave., Stanton
Under City's contract
Rainbow
Rainbow Environmental Services
Rainbow Environmental Services
17121 Nichols Lanes
17121 Nichols Lanes
Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach
Republic
CR Transfer (CRT) MRF
CVT Regional Material Recovery Facility and TS
1131 N. Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA
11232 Knott Ave., Stanton
Under City's contract
Owned/operated by Republic
(CR&R Transfer to be used initially)
Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF)
120 Pier S Ave., Long Beach
Ware
CR Transfer(CRT) MRF
Madison Materials
11232 Knott Ave., Stanton
1035 East 4" Street, Santa Ana
Under City's contract
Sister company to Ware
PROPOSER
CUSTOMER SERVICE OFFICE
Athens
5353 Vincent Avenue, Irwindale
CR&R11292
Western Avenue, Stanton
N.B.E. L.
100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach (City Hall)
Newport Recycles
930 Walnut Street, Santa Ana
Rainbow
17121 Nichols Lane, Huntington Beach
Republic
1131 N. Blue Gum Street, Anaheim
Ware
1035 East 4`h Street, Santa Ana
41
Equipment
42
PROPOSED PAYMENT TO
PROPOSER
COLLECTION VEHICLES
PURCHASE EXISTING CITY
COLLECTION VEHICLES
Athens
Continued use of two CNG rear loaders and two CNG front loaders from City
$1,500,000
fleet under Path 1.
Continued use of two CNG rear loaders from City fleet under Path 2.
Plus purchase of four new CNG rear loaders and four new CNG front loaders.
CR&R
11 new CNG AutoCar/Volvo chassis with McNeilus body.
$1,500,000
Will continue to use four compliant rear and front loaders to be purchased
from the City.
N. B. E. L.
Continued use of existing collection vehicles under Path 1. Purchase of five
N/A
new CNG vehicles in 2013, and three more through 2016 under Path 2.
Newport
Continued use of existing City fleet initially. Purchase new, or good as new,
$600,000
Recycles
refurbished alternative fuel replacement vehicles over the first four years of
the term.
Rainbow
Continue to use four existing CNG City vehicles. Purchase ten new Crane
$633,000
Carrier (one NUWay and nine Amrep bodies) under Path 1 and seven new
Crane Carrier/Amrep trucks under Path 2.
All collection vehicles CNG.
Republic
Continued use of existing collection vehicles forfirst six to 12 months. New
$736,000
CNG vehicles will be purchased to replace existing vehicles during the first
year under Path 1. Under Path 2, vehicles would be replaced with new CNG
vehicles as automated service is phased in between 12 and 18 months after
start of service.
Ware
Five new Peterbilt trucks with Cummins CNG engines, plus nine trucks in
$875,000
Ware's fleet to be refitted with residential truck bodies.
42
Equipment (continued)
PROPOSER
CARTS (NEW CARTS REQUIRED)
FUELING STATION
Athens
Manufacturer: Rehrig Pacific Company
Athens will use the City's fueling station.
Proposes black refuse and blue recycling carts.
CR&R
Manufacturer: Toter
CR&R will use the City's fueling station for vehicles used
Proposes black and blue lids to signify refuse and
in -City and in neighboring cities.
recycling carts, with the same granite look for each
cart body.
N. B. E. L.
Manufacturer: Toter.
N.B.E.L. will continue to use the City's fueling station.
Newport
N/A. Did not propose Path 2 option.
Newport Recycles will use the City's fueling station.
Recycles
Rainbow
Manufacturer: Rehrig Pacific Company
Rainbow will use the City's fueling station. Would like to
Proposes brown for refuse/trash cart and blue for
discuss allowing the vehicles to use the fueling facility
recycle cart.
on holidays if the need arises.
Republic
Manufacturer: SSI Schaefer
Republic will use the City's fueling station for CNG
(colors not proposed— City may select colors)
vehicles purchased for Path 2.
Ware
Manufacturer: Rehrig Pacific
Ware does not propose to use the City's fueling station.
Proposes black refuse and blue recycling carts.
43
Diversion and Programs
PROPOSER
PROPOSED USE OF CITY
PROCESSING CONTRACT (1)
MINIMUM GUARANTEED DIVERSION RATES
PATH 1
PATH 2
Athens
No
42%
42%
CR&R
N/A
40%
40%
N.B.E.L.
Proposes to re -bid contract.
40% Existing
50% Proposed (2)
50%(3)
Newport
Recycles
Yes
41%
N/A
Rainbow
No
41%
41%
Republic
Yes
41%
44%
Ware
Yes
43%
43%
(1) City holds a contract with CR&R for processing of solid waste collected from the City yard. Contract may be cancelled on 180 days'
notice.
(2) Assumes that the City can re -bid the mixed waste processing contract to receive higher diversion at current costs.
(3) Proposes that the City conduct competitive procurements for a new mixed waste processing contract and for a processing
agreement for the source separated recyclables.
PROPOSER
ANNUAL
SHARPS(4)
COST
Athens
$80,269
Proposes a call-in program, whereby residents will be sent a pre -paid mail -back container to collect
used Sharps and send Sharps for proper disposal.
CR&R
$25,000
Proposes customers call in to receive pre -paid mail -back Sharps containers or pharmaceutical
envelopes. Customers may choose whether to obtain these containers at a central pickup location or
receive them by mail.
N.B.E.L.
N/A
Not proposed.
Newport
$0
Proposes a call-in program, whereby residents will be sent one free pre -paid, mail -back Sharps
Recycles
container each year. A second and third Sharps Kit would be available for $7.00 co -pay each.
Rainbow
$0
Customer can order a mail -back biohazard container for sharps either by ordering online on
Rainbow's or the City's website, or by picking one up at the City yard (to be staffed by Rainbow) and
other locations such as the Oasis Senior Center.
Republic
$0
Customers can order pre -paid, mail -back Sharps containers through Republic's website. Containers
will be mailed to customers.
Ware
$100,000
Proposes a call-in program, in which customers are delivered pre -paid mail -back Sharps containers.
(4) Services provided at no additional charge to residents unless otherwise noted.
44
Diversion and Programs (continued)
(1) The requested Household Hazardous Waste, or "HHW;' program permits residents to call in for the hauler (or hauler's properly
permitted subcontractor) to collect HHW from the resident's porch or other agreed -to location. This arrangement is typically
referred to as door-to-door" collection.
45
HHW PROGRAM (1)
PROPOSER
PROGRAM
COST
Athens
HHW will be collected on two designated days per week. Residents
$127,200 for door-to-door program
will call in 48 hour in advance to schedule the collection of HHW,
$80,000 forthe drop-off event option
and place the material at the curb on one of the two weekly
collection days.
Alternatively, Athens proposes to provide a monthly drop-off
event for HHW collection and disposal.
Athens may subcontract HHW services to a qualified 3rd party
HHW contractor, such as Veolia Environmental Services.
CR&R
Call-in program. CR&R will collect and deliver HHW to its Garden
$125,000 per year
Grove facility for consolidation and transfer to Clean Harbors.
N.B.E.L.
Not proposed.
N/A
Newport
Not proposed.
N/A
Recycles
Rainbow
Customers call in for curbside collection on regular collection day
$0 for two pickups per year for each
by Rainbow or qualified vendor.
residence. $75 for each additional pickup.
Republic
Proposed a customer -funded program.
Approximately $10 per pickup billed to
customer.
Ware
Call-in program for door-to-door collection.
$100,000 per year.
Will use Clean Harbors, Veolia Environmental or Curbside, Inc. for
Ware indicates it will share savings with
processing.
City if participation results in costs below
expectations.
(1) The requested Household Hazardous Waste, or "HHW;' program permits residents to call in for the hauler (or hauler's properly
permitted subcontractor) to collect HHW from the resident's porch or other agreed -to location. This arrangement is typically
referred to as door-to-door" collection.
45
Diversion and Programs (continued)
PROPOSER
OTHER OPTIONAL SERVICE COSTS
Athens
ENHANCED BULKY ITEM COLLECTION
CONTAINER PULL-OUT FOR DISABLED
ANNUAL COMMUNITY SHRED -IT DAY
Athens
$25,459
$24,000
$3,262
CR&R
$6,000
$0
$0
N.B.E.L.
(1)
(2)
(3)
Newport
Recycles
$0
$0
$0
Rainbow
$0
$0
$0
Republic
$0
$0
$0
Ware
$216,000
$30,000
$0
(1) N.B.E.L. proposed that a vendor "Orange E -Waste' would provide this service for free.
(2) N.B.E.L. responded in correspondence dated August 2, 2013 that the City is already providing this service. At the meeting with
N.B.E.L., representative stated that there would be no additional cost/time to service the additional customers signing up for this
service when it is advertised.
(3) N.B.E.L. responded in correspondence dated August 2, 2013 that vendors are interested in providing this service at no cost. At
meeting with N.B.E.L., representative stated the cost may be $1,000/event.
Other Operational Information
PROPOSER
PROPOSED TRANSITION PERIOD FROM AWARD OF CONTRACT TO START OF SERVICE
Athens
Six months.
CR&R
Three to six months, depending on whether the SCAQMD permits the use of existing vehicles pending delivery
of new compliant vehicles.
N. B. E. L.
No transition period, as current service provider. Under Path 2, N.B.E.L. proposes to phase in automation over
an 18 to 24 -month period.
Newport
Three months for Path 1. Path 2 not proposed.
Recycles
Rainbow
Six months. Rainbow will be able to convert 500 homes per day over a ten week period.
Republic
One to two months.
Ware
Six months under Path 1. Seven months under Path 2.
46
Other Operational Information (continued)
PROPOSER
PATH 2 OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS
Athens
• 60% of the City serviced with fully -automated side loaders with carts set out in front of single family
residences.
. 25% of the City serviced with semi -automated rear -loader with tipper for residences with limited vehicle
clearance but with room to handle automated carts.
• 15% of the City serviced with manual collection with rear loader for residences that have limited space to
store automated containers.
CR&R
CR&R notes that 15% of collection may need to remain manual. Refuse cart waste shall be sent for
processing only to the extent needed to reach 40% diversion, with the rest transferred from the City yard to
the landfill.
For recyclable "overage" that may not fit in the recycling cart, CR&R will collect and process recyclables
placed in clear plastic bags, in addition to collecting recyclables placed in the recycling cart. (If material is
not in a clear plastic bag or recycling cart, it will be collected as refuse.)
N.B.E. L.
N.B.E.L. proposes to automate refuse service by 4`" quarter 2014, and to phase in separate recycling service
through Spring 2017. N.B.E.L. notes about 25% of the City may continue manual service.
Newport
Not proposed.
Recycles
Rainbow
Rainbow anticipates using front loaders with automated arms, automated side loaders and semi -
automated rear loaders. Rainbow suggests that the City survey denser areas as to whether the areas want
dual -collection, with two truck passes. If an area, or an individual, does not want recycling carts, Rainbow
would provide blue bags in which to place recyclables. These bags would be collected with refuse and
recovered during processing.
Republic
Republic proposes to phase in automated collection 13 months after the start of service. Estimates 81% of
the City can be serviced using automated side loaders. 19% may require smaller, rear -load two-man trucks.
Ware
Ware listed specific areas of the City in which manual and semi -automated will be required, versus fully
automated collection, and that such areas will require two-man crews.
47
Other Operational Information (continued)
PROPOSER
ROUTING
Athens
No changes proposed initially during the start-up period.
CR&R
No changes proposed initially. Proposes reviewing routing efficiencies after the start of service.
N. B. E. L.
N.B.E.L. included alternative collection schedules under Path 2.
Newport
No changes proposed initially. However, proposes option to make changes to the current routes, if changes
Recycles
create greater efficiency in collection hours. City to approve any route changes.
Rainbow
No changes proposed during the first six months. Route changes on a small scale may be required in the future.
Republic
No changes proposed, until Path 2 automation is implemented 13 months into agreement.
Ware
No changes proposed initially. Anticipates proposing any routing changes after six months of service under Path
2 to rebalance routes.
Proposed Exceptions to Franchise Agreement
48
NUMBEROF
PROPOSER
SUMMARY OF EXCEPTIONS
EXCEPTIONS
Athens
1
Article 5, Section 5.1.3 K— Requested that this sentence be removed. "In performance of this
Agreement, the issuance of four (4) or more vehicle, driver/operator or other citation that relate
in any way to this Agreement within a twelve (12) month period shall be deemed to be a breach
of this Agreement."
CR&R
0
N. B. E. L.
0
Not applicable.
Newport
0
Recycles
Rainbow
0
Republic
0
Ware
0
48
Legal Disclosures
PROPOSER
#OF LEGAL
DISCLOSURES
SUMMARY OF LEGAL DISCLOSURES
Athens
13
Civil Proceedings:
1. Riad Abboud v. Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC. 2013 —Alleged that Athens wrongfully
charged fees for services provided to certain customers who allegedly should have received such
services from other companies for free. Athens dismissed.
2. Key Disposal v. Combined Properties, Inc., 2013—Alleged that Athens wrongly assisted the
customer in switching waste management companies. Settled.
3. Mike Torres v. City of Montebello, currently under appeal - City is accused of improperly awarding
a waste hauling contract to Athens. The ruling in the case to invalidate the agreement is on
appeal. Athens is not a defendant, but a Real Party in interest.
4. City of Montebello v. Rosemarie Vasquez —The City of Montebello is suing various former city
council members and a former city manager for allegedly accepting improper payments and/or
favors. Athens is not a defendant, but a Real Party in interest.
5. Julie Enamorad v. Athens Services, 2013—Athens is accused of wrongful termination. Recent
filing.
6. Mr. Franco v. Athens Services, currently under review — This action is a wage and hour claim
against Athens. The plaintiff is attempting to form a class action. The California Supreme Court is
to review the case to determine whether the plaintiff is precluded from representing a class by
virtue of his arbitration agreement with Athens.
7. John L. Flores v Athens. 2009 —Class action by a driver. Settled 2009.
Administrative Proceedings:
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA facility inspections:
# Facility Citation Date Settlement
S. 125918953 Valley Blvd. 9/27/07 $1,150
9. 310196019 Sun Valley 6/29/07 $1,685
10. 309149268 Sun Valley 6/28/07 Contested. No further inquiries
11. Air Resource Board (ARB) - Athens entered into a settlement agreement in 2009 with the Air
Resources Board; ARB asserted that Athens failed to properly inspect diesel vehicles in 2005 and
2006 and to install emission -reduction devices from 2004 to 2008.
12. South Coast Air Quality Management District — Reached settlement 1/2009 forfacility
improvements, costs and fines regarding ongoing odor issues at its City of Industry facility
(Athens MRF).
13. City of Los Angeles v. American Waste Industries (2006) —Athens purchased American Waste
Ind. Inc. in November 2006. American's Sun Valley MRF had a number of legal and regulatory
issues. Athens negotiated an agreement with the City of Los Angeles and the local enforcement
agency to allow on-going operations. Indicates facility is in full compliance at this time.
49
Legal Disclosures (continued)
PROPOSER
N OF LEGAL
SUMMARY OF LEGAL DISCLOSURES
DISCLOSURES
CR&R
2
1. OSHA, July 5. 2007 — Facility inspection write-ups for a circuit breaker box cover missing, a
,mid rail missing, An improper lock out tag out, the improper storage of respirator, the
unguarded conveyor belt nip points, and an overhead hoist with bent safety latch.
2. OSHA, March 3, 2008 — During construction of South County MRF, an industrial truck
improperly moved an I-beam, causing an accident.
N. B. E. L.
0
None cited.
Newport
0
None cited.
Recycles
Rainbow
10
Civil Proceedings:
1. Duarte, et al v. Rainbow. 2012 - Four employees claimed that they were not permitted to
take meal and lunch breaks, which Rainbow denied. Settled 2012.
2. Rainbow Disposal v. CR&R, 2008—California Unfair Practices Act relating to CR&R's proposal
to the City of Newport Beach to pay the City for each load transferred to the CR&R MRF in
Stanton. Settled 2012.
3. CR&R v. Rainbow Disoosal - CR&R contended that Rainbow underpaid CR&R for profits
under an agreement with Midway City Sanitary District. Settled 2012.
4. Albrick v. Rainbow Disposal — Involved an allegation of "repudiation of partnership/joint
venture agreement." Allegations were disputed by Rainbow. Settled 2012.
5. Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. v. Arnold & Porter. LLP, In Arbitration - Rainbow alleging
malpractice, breach of contract and over -billing. Filed April 13, 2013.
6. REDF-Organic Recovery, LLC v. Rainbow Disposal Co., Inc. (State of New York), 2013—REDF
alleges breach of the Confidentiality Agreement.
Administrative Proceedings:
7. & 8. CAL OSHA: Two cases were cited, 11/30/07 and 5/22/07 relating to minor equipment
infractions, such as labeling, guards and eye wash stations. In both cases, appeals and
mitigation measures were taken, and citations were reduced and eliminated.
9. & 10. SCACIM D: Notices of Violations (NOV) during the past nine years: one in 2001 and in
2007. The NOVs were for violation of Rule 402 — nuisance odors, operating a transfer
station and discharging odors.
Republic
3
Disclosures for proposing division:
1. Casmalia Disposal Site/BFI, et al, 1998—EPA seeking settlements from multiple parent
company divisions related to a hazardous waste facility operated in Santa Barbara County
from 1973 to 1989. Cash settlement with the proposing entity in 2011.
2. Republic v. City of Placentia, 2010— Dispute over calculation of Franchise Fee paid to City.
Settled and new franchise agreement signed.
3. City of Oxnard v. Republic Services, 2007 - City sued for declaratory relief on termination
provisions in Republic's MRF operating agreement. Amendment to agreement negotiated.
50
Legal Disclosures (continued)
PROPOSER
N OF LEGAL
DISCLOSURES
SUMMARY OF LEGAL DISCLOSURES
Ware
7
1. Air Resources Board ("ARB"), 7/24/2007—Settlement related to allegations of violations
of the ARB's solid waste collection vehicle rule, and smoke inspection program.
2. & 3. Cal/OSHA, 5/10/2007 and Cal/OSHA, 9/13/2007—Citations for missing pulley cover, out
of date air tank permit, missing eyewash station, failure to give employee a form, storing
files overhead and missing electrical outlet plate.
4. & 5. CIWMB. 8/18/2008 and CIWMB. 8/20/2008—Violations related to incomplete waste tire
manifests.
6. Lopez v. Ware Disposal Inc., 2012/12 —Allegations related to wage and hour claims,
failure to pay wages and failure to provide meal and rest periods. Settled.
7. Ware Disposal Inc. v. State of California. 3/23/12 - Writ of Mandate regarding issues
surrounding the Department of Conservation.
51
Unique Proposal Features
Proposers included the following extra items in their proposals at no additional cost unless otherwise stated,
which they consider enhancements:
Athens
1. Free Compost and Mulch Events -Athens will provide two 40 -cubic yard containers of nutrient -rich compost from Athens' American
Organics compost facility for distribution to residents on a first -come -first-served basis, using customers' own bags twice per year.
Athens would staff the event at the City yard or other City -owned location.
2. Job Fair Participation —Athens will participate in the City's job fairs and will offer internships to City residents.
3. Event boxes —Athens will provide the City with up to 500 event boxes per year as temporary waste receptacles for special City events.
4. Recycling speakers —Athens will provide speakers for school assemblies, sciences classes, and other City events, and provide assistance
to the City in drafting recycling and composting materials.
S. Twitter handle — Athens will engage the @AthensServices Twitter handle, which covers environmental and local community news.
6. MRF tours—Athens will provide educational tours of the City of Industry MRF and/or video lectures of the facilities and Victorville
compost site.
Alternative Proposals
1. Athens would like to discuss leasing service bay space at the City yard for vehicle maintenance. (Otherwise, major maintenance
services will take place at Athens' yard.)
CR&R
1. Free Mulch Give -A -Way Events — CR&R will conduct annual mulch give -a -way events at no additional cost.
2. Free Compost and Wood Chips to City —CR&R will provide compost and wood chips to the City at no additional cost.
3. Free Residential Trash Cart Tagging Program —CR&R will place instructional tags on trash carts to educate residents to place more
recyclables in the recycling cart.
4. Free Residential "Newsletter" —CR&R generates a quarterly Orange County newsletter. CR&R will provide copies for the City to place in
mailers.
5. City Council Power -Point Presentations— CR&R will provide two Power -Point presentations to update the City Council regarding
program implementation.
6. Classroom Education Curriculum —CR&R will offer the school district relevant curriculum.
7. SMART Vehicles—Collection vehicles are equipped with GPS, video with time stamping, and communication devices.
Alternative Pronosals
1. Automated Co -Collection —CR&R proposes an option to have all waste collected in one cart and processed. CR&R notes some
customers will still require manual collection. The proposed annual cost for core services under this option is $3,968,640.
2. Refuse and Organics Cart Collection —CR&R proposes an option to have all refuse and recyclables collected in one cart and sent for
processing. Green and food waste would be placed in the second cart and sent to CR&R's Perris Anaerobic Digestion facility for
conversion to energy and compost. CR&R notes some customers will still require manual collection. The proposed annual cost for core
services under this option is $4,576,020.
3. Multi -Family HHW Collection — If the City choses to extend the optional HHW collection program to multi -family bin customers, CR&R
offers to provide the program for a monthly charge equal to the number of cubic yards collected per week.
52
Unique Proposal Features (continued)
N.B.E.L.
1. Battery Drop— N.B.E.L. proposed a battery drop-off program. The current program is provided through a third -party vendor at a cost of
approximately $1,000 per year.
Alternative Proposal
N.B.E.L. suggests that the City automate a portion of the City under Path 1.
Newport Recycles
1. Public Outreach -Customer Education and Awareness programs to be linked to YouTube through the City and WRI websites, in
addition to local workshops and mail marketing.
Rainbow
1. Blue Baa Program — Rainbow will offer blue bags to residents under Path 1, and residents under Path 2 that do not want a separate
recycling cart. Recyclables may be placed in the bag which is collected with the refuse and recovered at the processing facility.
2. Visually Impaired Assistance - Rainbow developed a tactile system for visually impaired customers to be able to identify the type of
cart. Rainbow has had a Visually Impaired Program in Fountain Valley since 2007. Rainbow also provides the rollout instruction in
Braille.
3. Outreach to Schools— Rainbow provides teachers with state standard based lesson plans, curriculum and student activity pages.
Rainbow would make this program available to Newport Beach City schools.
4. Community Gardens—Rainbow will support school and community garden programs.
Republic
1. Community Health -Care Donation—Republic will donate $5,000 per year to a health care -directed community program selected by
City Council.
2. Battery Recycling Collection — Under Path 2, Republic will collect household batteries placed in clear zip -lock bags on top of recycling
carts each week at no additional cost.
3. Republic Rewards Program — Republic offers a program whereby residents can enroll, gain points, and access discounts at local
Newport Beach retail locations by recycling material at the curb.
4. Special Events — In addition to servicing the required special events at no additional charge as required, Republic will provide service at
'reasonable community events that the City would elect to sponsor in the future."
Alternative Proposal
Backyard Collection Service by Subscription - In addition to providing backyard collection service to disabled residents at no additional
cost, Republic will provide backyard service to seniors for $12.00/month and to other residents for $25.00/month.
53
Unique Proposal Features (continued)
Ware
1. $125,000 Signing Bonus — Ware will provide a $125,000 payment within six months of the execution of the agreement.
2. Free Annual Disposal Day— Ware will host a free disposal day each year at Madison Materials for residents.
3. Reduced Gate Fee— Ware will offer City residents a $47.00 per ton disposal fee at Madison Materials, instead of the currently posted
$62.00 per ton rate.
4. Used Oil Collection — Ware will provide used oil collection containers for curbside collection at no additional cost.
Alternative Proposal
Exclusive C&D Disposal — Ware requests that the City consider requiring self -haulers to deliver all construction and demolition debris to
Madison Materials in Santa Ana in exchange for a $5.00 per ton fee payment to the City.
54
City of Newport Beach
Table 4-1: Diversion Plan Comparison - Proiected Diversion of Hauler -Collected Solid Waste
Diversion Program
Athens
CR&R
N.B.E.L.
Newport Recycles
Rainbow
Republic
Ware
2012 Actual
Tonnage %
Tonnage %
Tonnage %
Tonnage %
Tonnage %
Tonnage %
Tonnage %
Tonnage %
Path 1
MMP- Reryclables Diverted
10,780
31.6%
9,831
28.9%
14,000
41.1%
10,620
31.2%
11,793
34.6%
10,217
30.0%
9,686
28.4%
10,612 31.1%
MWP- Green Waste Diverted
3,530
10.4%
3,882
11.4%
3,000
8.8%
3,552
10.4%
3,033
8.9%
3,866
11.3%
5,048
14.8%
3,514 10.3%
MWP - Other Diverted
0.0%
0.0%
-
0.0%
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Projected Annual Tons Diverted
14,310
42.0%
13,713
40.2%
17,000
49.9%
14,172
41.6%
14,826
43.5%
14,083
41.3%
14,734
43.2%
14,126 41.5%
Total Projected Annual Tons Collected
34.071
34,071
34.071
34.071
34,071
34,071
34.071
34 071
Planned Diversion Percentage
42%
40%
50%
(1)
42%
44%
41%
43%
41%
Guaranteed Hauler Diversion Percentage
42%
40%
50%(1)
41%
41%
41%
43%
Path 2
MMP- Reryclables Diverted
51405
15.9%
4,205
12.3%
(2)
(3)
10,393
30.5%
1,136
3.3%
2,240
6.6%
MWP- Green Waste Diverted
3,530
10.4%
1,755
5.2%
2,583
7.6%
725
2.1%
5,048
14.8%
MWP - Other Diverted
-
0.0%
-
0.0%
-
0.0%
4,261
12.5%
-
0.0%
Source Separated Recycling
5,248
15.4%
7,666
22.5%
3,964
11.6%
8,868
26.0%
7,240
21.2%
Total Projected Annual Tons Diverted
14,183
41.6%
13,626
40.0%
16,940
49.7%
14,990
44.0%
14,528
42.6%
Total Projected Annual Tons Collected
34 071
34 071
34 071
34,071
34 071
Planned Diversion Percentage
42%
40%
50%
44%
43%
Guaranteed Hauler Diversion Percentage
42%
40%
41%
44%
43%
Amount Processed (M WP of Refuse)
Amount Recovered
Diversion Rate for Path 2 Processing
27,733
8,572
31%
14,500
5,800
1 40%
1 1
1 1
28,703
12,342
1 43%
5,137
1,592
1 31%
20,288
7,288
36%
(1) Newport Beach Emloyee League's (N.B.E.L.) 50%diverison rate depends on results of a yet -to -be conducted procurement of new processing services. Existing processing arrangements, competitively procured in 2008, provide for at least 40%
diversion.
(2) N.M.L. did not include tonnage projections for a source separated recyclables program required under Path 2.
(3) Newport Recycles did not propose under Path 2.
55
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF CITY REFUSE OPERATIONS
In 2012, the City of Newport Beach retained HF&H Consultants, LLC ("HF&H") to determine which
existing City costs would be eliminated and which overhead costs would be retained if the City were
to privatize residential solid waste operations. Costs that would be eliminated if operations are
privatized include salaries and benefits for City employees engaged in solid waste operations, costs
under CR&R's processing agreement (these would be shifted to the contractor), vehicle and
equipment acquisition and maintenance, insurance and other direct operating costs. The annual
City costs that would cease, based on FY 2012 costs, were determined to be $4,949,000, with labor
costs representing 50% of this amount at $2,488,000 per year. Two adjustments were made to this
figure in order to use it for comparison to annual compensation proposals submitted through this
RFP process: one for a reduction in solid waste employees; and another for transfer -related
equipment.
Employee Cost Reductions — Since the 2012 study, the City has determined it can sustain a
reduction in solid waste collection labor from 23 to 18 employees. This staff reduction has been
achieved through routing efficiencies, additional overtime, and use of temporary workers.
Previously, the City's collection crew members were often able to complete collection routes in less
than eight hours. Requiring employees to work the full eight hours achieves routing efficiencies
without additional labor costs. However, fewer employees working longer days to accomplish the
same tasks results in less scheduling flexibility and requires additional expenses for overtime and
temporary workers. The projected net annual employee cost savings from FY 2012 to FY 2014 is
$218,000.
Table 5-1: FY 2014 Employee Cost Savings
Category
Amount
FY 2014 Budgeted Labor (permanent workers base salary
including budgeted overtime and one-man incentive pay) (1)
$2,135,000
Temporary Worker Costs (2)
$60,000
Unbudgeted Overtime Expenses (2)$75,000
Total Projected FY 2014 Labor Cost
$2,270,000
FY 2012 Labor Cost (3)
$2,488,000
Net Labor Savings in 2014 versus 2012
$218,000
(1) From FY 13-14 Refuse Division budget "Requested Position Worksheet," page 199. Budgeted
overtime is approximately $150,000/year and one-man incentive pay is $100,000/year.
(2) Estimated by City staff.
(3) October 4, 2012 Residential Solid Waste & Recycling Study, Page 11, Table 3, row 1.
Based on the labor cost savings and a minor equipment cost adjustment, the estimated annual cost
of current City operations is approximately $4.7 million as shown in Table 5-2 below.
32
Table 5-2: Projected FY 2014 City Municipal Solid Waste Operating Costs
Category
Amount
2012 Study Incremental City Costs (1)
$4,949,000
Labor Cost Savings Adjustment
($218,000)
Equipment Adjustment (2)
15 000
Estimated Annual Cost for City Operations
$4I—,000
(1) October 4, 2012 Residential Solid Waste & Recycling Study, Page 11, Table 3, row 13.
(2) October 4, 2012 Residential Solid Waste & Recycling Study, Exhibit 4 included depreciation of
$15,000/year for three pieces of non -collection equipment.
Table 4 of the report lists hourly wages for the average hourly driver. The City's average hourly
wage for drivers was calculated based on the following base salary schedule as provided by N.B.E.L.
and confirmed by the City:
Table 5-3: Newport Beach Employee League -Provided Salary List(l)
Position
Base Salary
Refuse Worker
$
54,454.40
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
Refuse Worker 11
58,562.05
Refuse Worker 11
58,562.05
Average
1 $
57,677.21
Hours/Year
1
2,080
Average Wage/Hour
1 $
27.73
(1) Excluding benefits, and supervisor and superintendent costs.
57
NEWPORT BEACH EMPLOYEE LEAGUE COST PROPOSAL
The City's solid waste employees submitted a proposal prepared by the Orange County Employee
League as the Newport Beach Employee League (N.B.E.L). The N.B.E.L.'s submittal of a responsive
proposal is not necessary to allow the City to choose to continue providing municipal service. The
City's cost to continue under the current arrangements has been estimated (see Attachment 5).
Submitting a proposal provided the N.B.E.L. an opportunity to present innovative methods to
improve service and/or reduce costs.
If a private company underestimates the cost to provide service to the City, the financial risk would
be the company's, and the City would be under no obligation to share the loss. Regardless of
assumptions made by the N.B.E.L. in developing its proposal, the City is fully responsible for all costs
actually incurred. Therefore, a comparison has been made between the City's budgeted costs and
the Employee League's proposed costs.
Recycling Fee — The N.B.E.L. reduced its proposed annual compensation by the amount of the City's
residential recycling fee revenue, approximately $941,000 per year. This recycling fee is one of the
City's funding sources for solid waste services, but was not part of the RFP process. As this recycling
fee would be used to offset collection costs under all possible outcomes, this fee adjustment was
added back to the Employee League's proposed costs to allow a comparison to the other proposals
on a consistent basis.
Employee Cost Savings — The N.B.E.L. proposal excludes certain employee costs. Under Path 1,
N.B.E.L. indicated it included base salaries for 20 positions (18 Refuse Workers I and ll, Supervisor
and Superintendent - approximately $1,902,000 per year). N.B.E.L. submitted the list of proposed
worker salaries in support of its proposed employee costs as shown in Table 6-2. This cost figure
does not include overtime pay and "one-man incentive pay." As described in Attachment 5, the City
reduced its budgeted full-time employee base from 23 to 18 employees effective July 1, 2013. After
evaluating operations since the start of the fiscal year, City Staff projected the additional overtime
and temporary worker costs the City would incur for FY 2014. These costs were not included in the
N.B.E.L. proposal. This salary information, including the FY 2014 projected employee costs of
$2,270,000, was shared with N.B.E.L. on August 9 and August 20, 2013. The City is obligated to pay
its employees for overtime worked, even if the N.B.E.L. does not request it in the proposal.
-M
Table 6-1: Newport Beach Employee League Response, August 21, 2013
59
Proposed Staff
Compensation
Benefits
Total
1.
Refuse Supervisor
$ 89,609.60
$
37,336.79
$
126,946.39
2.
Refuse Worker 1
54,454.40
31,357.28
85,811.68
3.
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
31,357.28
85,811.68
4.
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
31,357.28
85,811.68
5.
Refuse Worker 1
54,454.40
31,567.36
86,021.76
6.
Refuse Worker 1
54,454.40
31,657.32
86,111.72
7.
Refuse Worker
54,454.40
31,567.36
86,021.76
8.
Refuse Worker 1
54,454.40
31,177.36
85,631.76
9.
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
31,193.27
91,180.47
10.
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
31,193.27
91,180.47
11.
Refuse Worker II
59,987.20
33,203.33
93,190.53
12.
Refuse Worker II
59,987.20
31,193.27
91,180.47
13.
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
31,193.27
91,180.47
14.
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
31,193.27
91,180.47
15.
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
30,315.02
90,302.22
16.
Refuse Worker 11
59,987.20
31,193.27
91,180.47
17.
Refuse Worker II
59,987.20
31,193.27
91,180.47
18.
Refuse Worker 11
58,562.05
32,057.80
90,619.85
19.
Refuse Worker 11
58,562.05
30,887.80
89,449.85
20.
Refuse Superintendent
126,779.20
45,288.09
172,067.29
Total
1 $
1,902,061.46
59
Path 1 Cost Proposal Adjustments
Adjusting for the Recycling Fee and employee labor costs as described above results in estimated
annual costs of $4,893,000 as shown in Table 6-2. This is close (within 4%) to the $4,716,000
estimated cost of current City operations as described in Attachment 5.
Table 6-2: Key Proposal Cost Adjustments — Path 1
Category
Total
N.B.E.L. Proposed Annual Cost, net of Recycling Fee Funding
$3,584,000
Recycling Fee Add Back
la4li 000
Total N.B.E.L. Proposed Annual Cost with Recycling Fee Add Back
$4,525,000
Employee Cost Adjustment
FY 2014 Projected City Employee Costs
$2,270,000
N.B.E.L. Proposed Employee Costs
L,2 02 000
Employee Cost Adjustment
$368,000368
000
Adjusted Annual Cost
1 $4,893,000
Proposed Diversion Rate and Mixed Refuse Processing Cost — Under Path 1, N.B.E.L. has included
current transport, mixed waste processing, and disposal costs based on the existing processing
agreement with CR&R which yielded a 41% diversion rate last year. N.B.E.L. proposes that the City
conduct a competitive procurement of this transport and processing service, and projects achieving
a 50% diversion rate at the current cost. It is reasonable to project a 40% diversion rate at current
costs. However, the actual cost and diversion rate to be obtained through a new transport and
processing services procurement cannot be confirmed in advance of an RFP process for such
services.
Path 2 Cost Proposal
N.B.E.L. proposed a $272,000 per year lower cost under Path 2 than Path 1 (an 8% reduction from
$3,584,000 to $3,312,000). The N.B.E.L.'s Path 2 proposal lacked sufficient support to confirm the
proposed cost. At a minimum, the recycling fee of $941,000 would need to be added back to the
proposed cost for Path 2, similar to Path 1, and other adjustments may be required, as described
below.
Under Path 2, certain categories of costs would increase compared to Path 1 due to the added cost
of purchasing containers, purchasing automated trucks, and making two truck passes by each home
instead of one. These additional costs may or may not be fully offset by automated collection
efficiencies in much of the City. Proposals received from the private haulers include two proposers
assuming net cost savings from Path 2 compared to Path 1, two assuming net cost increases, and
one proposing no difference in costs as shown in Table 6-3.
60
Table 6-3: Cost Comparison Between Path 1 and Path 2 —
Core Services net of Transfer Station Payment
(1) N.B.E.L.'s annual cost/compensation as proposed with $941,000 recycling fee added back, without
additional cost adjustments for employee costs or other costs.
Other Cost Proposal Issues
N.B.E.L.'s proposal and subsequent responses to requests for clarification did not include all of the
information necessary to verify the reasonableness of the proposed cost. Key issues include the
following:
Processing Cost for Source Separated Recvclables — N.B.E.L. suggested in its proposal that the City
conduct a competitive proposal process to seek costs for the processing of the materials collected in
the recyclables cart under Path 2. This cost is not available for the N.B.E.L. proposal.
Tonnage/Diversion Projections — N.B.E.L. did not include the tonnage collection and diversion
assumptions for source separated recyclables collection under Path 2 required in the RFP
Attachment 4-C2.
Route Hours — N.B.E.L.'s proposed route hours under Path 2 did not separately identify refuse and
recycling routes. Therefore, the reasonableness of the assumptions could not be determined.
Under Path 2, N.B.E.L. proposed a 35% reduction in total annual route hours versus revised Path 1
route hours. (In response to the first inquiry regarding N.B.E.L.'s proposed routes, N.B.E.L.
submitted revised Path 1 hours.) N.B.E.L. attributed the 35% reduction from Path 1 hours to its
assumption that it could operate with 11% fewer employees (a reduction from 18 to 16 workers).
The 11% employee reduction appears inconsistent with the 35% route hour reduction. N.B.E.L. and
other proposers noted that portions of the City would need to continue manual service; those areas
would therefore not benefit from efficiencies due to automation, and the entire City would require
a second route for recyclables collection.
61
Proposer
Path 1
Path 2
Incremental Path 2
Costs (Savings)
(Path 2 - Path 1)
1.
Athens
$
4,760,000
$
5,161,000
$
401,000
2.
CR&R
$
3,689,000
$
3,231,000
$
(458,000)
3.
N.B.E.L. - as proposed with
recycling fee added back (1)
$
4,525,000
$
4,253,000
$
(272,000)
4.
Newport Recycles
$
7,257,000
Not proposed
n/a
5.
Rainbow
$
5,110,000
$
4,264,000
$
(846,000)
6
Republic
$
4,453,000
$
4,453,000
$
-
7.
Ware
$
3,540,000
$
3,806,000
$
266,000
(1) N.B.E.L.'s annual cost/compensation as proposed with $941,000 recycling fee added back, without
additional cost adjustments for employee costs or other costs.
Other Cost Proposal Issues
N.B.E.L.'s proposal and subsequent responses to requests for clarification did not include all of the
information necessary to verify the reasonableness of the proposed cost. Key issues include the
following:
Processing Cost for Source Separated Recvclables — N.B.E.L. suggested in its proposal that the City
conduct a competitive proposal process to seek costs for the processing of the materials collected in
the recyclables cart under Path 2. This cost is not available for the N.B.E.L. proposal.
Tonnage/Diversion Projections — N.B.E.L. did not include the tonnage collection and diversion
assumptions for source separated recyclables collection under Path 2 required in the RFP
Attachment 4-C2.
Route Hours — N.B.E.L.'s proposed route hours under Path 2 did not separately identify refuse and
recycling routes. Therefore, the reasonableness of the assumptions could not be determined.
Under Path 2, N.B.E.L. proposed a 35% reduction in total annual route hours versus revised Path 1
route hours. (In response to the first inquiry regarding N.B.E.L.'s proposed routes, N.B.E.L.
submitted revised Path 1 hours.) N.B.E.L. attributed the 35% reduction from Path 1 hours to its
assumption that it could operate with 11% fewer employees (a reduction from 18 to 16 workers).
The 11% employee reduction appears inconsistent with the 35% route hour reduction. N.B.E.L. and
other proposers noted that portions of the City would need to continue manual service; those areas
would therefore not benefit from efficiencies due to automation, and the entire City would require
a second route for recyclables collection.
61
Container Costs Under Path 2 — N.B.E.L. amortized the container costs over a longer period than
most carts will remain in use. N.B.E.L. indicated it assumed the carts were amortized over 20 years,
though they have a 10 -year warranty. N.B.E.L.'s submitted cost information indicated a cost of
$39.45 per container that included the cost of labeling and delivery. However, the quotation
N.B.E.L. provided from the cart manufacturer appears to indicate these costs are options provided
for an additional cost, and we confirmed this with a call to the cart vendor.
Table 6-4: Automated Cart Costs
Cart Cost
N.B.EF.L. mptionsCart Cost
Assu
Estimated Cart Cost
Based on Updated
Assumptions
Per Cart Cost
$39.45
$39.45
Labeling
Included
$2.45
Delivery
Included
$1.50
Per Cart Costs
$39.45
$45.40
# of Carts
50,000
50,000
Cart Cost
$1,972,500
$2,270,000
Amortization Period
20 years
10 years
Annualized Cart Cost
$98,625
$227,000
Difference
$128,375
Annual Compensation Adjustments
Projected seven-year net City costs in Table 1 (earlier in this report) assume 2.5% annual increases
for all proposals, including the City's costs under municipal operations. The draft agreement in the
RFP limits contractor compensation adjustment to all but the fuel and disposal components to
increases in the Consumer Price Index less food and energy or 2.5%, whichever is lower. Total
annual compensation increases are capped at no more than 5% per year. The City remains fully
responsible for all costs actually incurred under municipal service, and costs under the municipal
option may increase at a greater rate than permitted under a private hauling agreement.
62
Letter of Understanding
Between the City of Newport Beach and the Newport Beach Employees League
Pertaining to the Potential Outsourcing of Refuse ServiceslFunction
September 9, 2013
v The existing Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Newport Beach and
the Newport Beach Employees League is in effect from July 1, 2012 through June 30,
2015. Within the MOU is contained a reference to the City retaining the sole authority to
decide whether or not to contract out work, including work that is currently being
performed by Association members. However, in conformance with current law, the
City agreed to Meet and Confer with Association to discuss the impacts of such a
decision, if for reasons of efficiency/cost savings, it decides to move forward with
outsourcing. Further, this obligation is one that affords Association the opportunity to
discuss how City will transition employment for those employees currently occupying
City positions and providing high quality service to the community in the event that the
City elects to contract out refuse services. This letter is the mutual agreement regarding
the topic of outsourcing Refuse Services between the City and the NBEL as of
September 9, 2013.
Whereas the City of Newport Beach ("City") and the Newport Beach Employees League
("The League") have met and conferred in good faith recently regarding the impacts of
the City's desire to outsource the City's Refuse Division. In the event the City decides
to move forward and contract out said work, the parties agree to following terms and
conditions:
1. The League will commit to the City a willingness to continue to provide
their top-rated level of customer service until final implementation of the proposed new
refuse contract.
2. The League will engage positively in the process with the selected
contractor and City staff to ensure that the community continues to be satisfied with the
service provided with the least amount of disruption to all parties and the public.
3. The League will commit to the City a willingness to encourage, assist and
ensure that employees who may be impacted by outsourcing will apply for every career
opportunity/recruitment opened, if qualified, that is provided by the City.
4. The League will work cooperatively with the City to ensure that employees
seek all training opportunities that may arise and possibly suggest, through a Labor -
Management subcommittee, some training that would assist employees prepare for
additional employment opportunities within the City.
5. The League will identify and encourage members to utilize City resources
that will allow them to continue to remain a part of the Newport Beach family/workforce.
6. The League will jointly establish with the City several future targeted
meeting dates to evaluate progress toward a successful transition for affected Refuse
Division employees.
During the City's tentative transition plan from approximately September 2013 through
November 2014:
1. The City will open recruitments for five (5) future positions that current
refuse workers will be encouraged to apply for. If a current refuse worker is
promoted/assigned into one of the positions, that individual will be given the appropriate
position rate of pay, even though their work assignment will remain in refuse during the
transition period. Placement in these positions will not be unreasonably withheld from
current refuse workers competing for these positions.
2. The City agrees to also open three (3) Parks Division positions for which
current refuse workers are encouraged to apply. This is based upon that fact that with
the Sunset Ridge and Marina Park and other future projects, workload will necessitate
additional qualified staff. Each current refuse worker who is promoted/assigned into
one of the positions will be given the appropriate position rate of pay, even though their
work assignment will remain in refuse during the transition. Placement in these
positions will not be unreasonably withheld from current refuse workers competing for
these positions. These positions may be considered limited term of two (2) years from
July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. This is subject to review of the needs of the
City/budget at the end of the period. Any employee who is displaced should these
positions be eliminated with have the right to three (3) years of re-employment rights to
the City. This is an additional 18 months beyond what is granted in the event of a layoff
per the current MOU.
3. The City will continue to provide every current refuse worker employment
within the Refuse Division through approximately July 1, 2014. The City will maintain 5-
8 current refuse workers to assist in the transition to the refuse contractor until
approximately December 31, 2014. The City and The League agree to meet and
discuss the particulars of this transition as details of the contract become finalized.
4, At the time in which the City determines the entire crew is no longer
needed to perform their refuse duties (approximately July 1, 2014) and at the time in
which the City determines that the transition phase is complete (approximately
December 31, 2014), all current employees will be offered the following three (3)
options for their individual consideration if they have not previously moved to other
employment within the City:
2
a. Voluntary separation from the City, with no incentive provided from
the City. Any refuse employee selecting this option will be provided
with three (3) years of re-employment rights to the City. This is an
additional 18 months beyond what is granted in the event of a layoff
per the current MOU in effect.
b. Voluntary separation from the City with a flat dollar monetary
compensation package similar to that offered employees through
the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) in the spring of
2013. This included a 6 month cash incentive of $7500 to be
utilized for payment of medical insurance premiums, regardless of
the base pay of the employee that determined the monetary
compensation amount.
c. Any impacted employee who has not separated from City
employment or been placed in a City position pursuant to the
process described above by November 2014, shall be placed in a
Y -rated City position for a period of not to exceed 18 months.
the 18 month period, employee shall remain continuously
employed by the City and not involuntarily removed from that
position except for reasonable cause. City policies and practices
with regard to discipline, workers' compensation, leaves and any
other provision outlined in the current MOU or other documents will
remain in full force and effect. Should it become necessary to
address individual issues, the City and League agree to discuss
these in a collaborative and respectful manner as has been done in
the past. Any employee who is displaced at the 18 month mark,
should these positions be eliminated, will be granted three (3) years
of re-employment rights. This is an additional 18 months beyond
what is granted in the event of a layoff per the current MOU.
This agreement shall not be precedent setting for any purpose and shall not be
enforceable if and when the City encounters a catastrophic fiscal emergency. A
"catastrophic fiscal emergency" shall be defined as a decline in the City's fiscal year
general fund revenue of greater than five percent (5%), using fiscal year 2012-13 as a
baseline. 4, 'yi A l s g
This agreement is entered into in by the parties in order to outline a fair and predictable
process for the dedicated employees who have served in their positions in the Refuse
Division. If there are aspects of the above that require refinement, the City and The
League agree to re -open discussions to reach an agreement. The parties acknowledge
and agree that the City is currently in the process of reviewing proposals and has not
3
reached an agreement with any refuse service provider, If the City Council decides not
to enter into an agreement with a refuse services provider, this Letter of Understanding
shall be null and void.
For the Newport Beach Employees League:
Chris Auger,
For the City of Newport Beach:
Keith Curr)l/Mayor
r( r" -
Art Mi ell, refuse Worker II Dav"iff, City Manager
Jam Newton
Or ang County Employees Association
(OCEA)
t�
Cha es Barfield
Orange County Employees Association
(OCEA)
Date: �- ° �.? 01,5
0
/p
AttestL*� W
City jerk
Brown, Le]lani
From: Karen Clark [karen-clark@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 5:24 PM RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani; info@cdmra.org
Subject: Trash Outsourcing PRINTED:" a®
Follow Up Flag: Follow Up
Due By: Saturday, September 07, 2013 8:27 AM
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council: I am concerned with outsourcing for several reasons. I think the current service is fine and don't
think we pay too much. But my biggest concern is for our good, long -serving city employees who will be displaced,
presumably with workers who are paid less and have few if any benefits. As a wealthy city, I think we should be
embarrassed, even ashamed, to try to save a few nickels if it will result (as I expect it will) in making the less affluent of
our citizens even poorer, even to the point that they can no longer support their families, so we wealthier people have a
slightly larger share of the pie.
Karen H. Clark
2701 Ebbtide Rd.
Corona del Mar
Ka ren-cla rk@cox. net
Brown, Leilani
From:
bobnmel2@aol.com
Sent:
Saturday, September 07, 2013 8:12 AM
To:
Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani; info@cdmra.org
Subject:
Trash Outsourcing
Follow Up Flag:
Follow Up
Due By:
Saturday, September 07, 2013 8:27 AM
Flag Status:
Flagged
We have lived in Corona del Mar for over 25 yrs and would like to keep the current trash pick up the way it is with the city
workers. They are friendly, efficient and always do a good job and I believe that it is worth the extra cost of maintaining
the city workers versus contracting out the service. We know what we are getting and feel it is money well spent from the
city budget. I have noticed there are contracted workers picking up trash along Coast highway and the level of service is
just not the same, I think you get what you pay for. In this economy everyone needs their job and I think the city workers
have proven their worth, they are a part of the community. I would urge you to vote to keep the trash service with the city
workers.
Thank you,
Bob and Melinda Keeler
2690 Point del Mar
Corona del Mar
Brown, Leilani
From:
Barbara Everson [beversonl@gmail.com]
Sent:
Saturday, September 07, 2013 8:53 AM
To:
Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani; info@cdmra.org
Subject:
Trash Outsourcing
Follow Up Flag:
Flag for follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Please keep our current system of trash pick-up even if it means increasing our bills.
Barbara Everson
Brown, Le[lani
From:
Michael Pilsitz [mpilsitz@sbcglobal.net]
Sent:
Saturday, September 07, 2013 11:27 PM
To:
Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani; Corona del Mar Residents Association
Subject:
Trash Outsourcing
Follow Up Flag:
Follow Up
Due By:
Saturday, September 07, 2013 11:42 PM
Flag Status:
Flagged
The following is a copy of a message previously sent to Nancy Gardner
No outsourcing of trash pickup! As a longtime resident I've noticed outsourced city services - tree trimming
and street sweeping - have resulted in downgraded service and mediocre results. All city employees are trained
in customer service; I know, my wife (now retired) was a 20 -year employee of NB, working in the library.
These out-of-town businesses just work as fast as they can with crews of indifferent, often unskilled, laborers. 1
have had to call some city offices to have followup work done properly. Can't take the place of caring, careful,
efficient city workers.
Our refuse collectors are professionals and Newport Beach residents will suffer if they are replaced.
Sincerely,
Mike Pilsitz
As a followup, I ask you to consider how much you could save by outsourcing all city services, not that I
recommend that measure. This has to stop. What are we, Costa Mesa?
Brown, Leilani
From: Steve Prough [steveprough@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:30 AM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani; info@cdmra.org
Subject: Trash Outsourcing
Dear Ladies and Gentleman,
One of the great resources for the City has been the team that works within the Trash Collection
Group.
They are extremely helpful, personable and hard working.
In measuring compatible costs the discussion continues to be the cost of new equipment.
Please remember that proper accounting has the cost amortized and spread out over the life of the
equipment.
That is what the bidders have done or will do to arrive at their price.
A proper comparison and analysis needs to consider those assumptions.
The City has in place a capital improvement budget that I understand is fully funded to cover the cost
of the new equipment as needed.
The City manager and Council has the responsibility to disclose how they plan to spend the money
already in the City Treasury designated for trash collection.
Will this money be used to cover the cost of expansion and high cost furniture in our new City Hall?
Will this money to be used to fund the proposed exorbitant salary increases for the senior members of
the staff as we fire City employees who provide a great service to our community?
One discussion point that keeps be mentioned is that the current staff will be offered jobs by the
bidder.
Common sense would tell you that will never happened.
It would be interesting to see an accounting of how many former City employees are hired and how
many City employees are fired with families to feed.
Last studies showed the acceptance rating of this department at 95%.
The amount of savings measured against the number of households of the City that this Department
serves does not justified the decision.
Thank you for listening.
Stephen W Prough
3rd generation resident of Newport Beach.
Brown, Leilani
From: bobpastore [bobpastore1@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:51 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani; info@Cameohoa.org
Subject: Letter of Support for Current Refuse System
Honorable Council Members,
I am contacting you to express my support for the current refuse collection service provided by
Newport Beach city employees. As a resident, I am concerned that the City Council is considering
outsourcing this service.
The current effort provided by the City refuse workers not only meets the needs of the community—
their work enhances our life style. These workers provide professional and courteous work in our
neighborhoods and allow for the residents to have clean and safe neighborhoods. As a resident, I
support keeping this service operated by the City,
As a taxpayer, I appreciate that the current collection service is delivered at a cost that is one of the
lowest in Orange County and lower than any of the neighboring cities. The competitive cost of our
current traditional service means we, as residents, receive the same excellent service at a low cost.
As a Corona del Mar homeowner I am expressing my support to keep Newport Beach refuse
collection services in-house.
Thank you,
Robert A. Pastore
4727 Surrey Drive
Corona del Mar
Rieff, Kim
From:
Mulvey, Jennifer
Sent:
Monday, September 09, 2013 4:31 PM
To:
Rieff, Kim
Subject:
Refuse Issue
Gentleman in Spyglass (no name) who does not want to change because he feels our workers are excellent people and
we should not do this to them.
Jiznni fizr Mulvizy
Administrative Assistant
City Clerk's Office
100 Civic Center Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-644-3005
Rieff, Kim
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:51 AM
To: McDonald, Cristal; Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Input for today's Council meeting
Attachments: PROFITIZATION OF TRASH COLLECTION.docx
From: Jamshed Dastur
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:50:43 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Input for today's Council meeting
Attached are my comments on the issue of Privatizing Trash Collection in Newport Beach, which is on the agenda for
today's City Council meeting.
Thank you for distributing it to the Council Members and some copies for the public.
Jamshed Dastur
Balboa Island
949-673-4078
PROFITIZATION OF TRASH COLLECTION
Sitting on your $20,000,000 thrones (the new City Hall cost per Council Member) looking down on your
loyal subjects, do you really want us to believe that elimination thru PROFITIZATION of an efficient, and
well liked public service is to save some money? You spent almost $100,000 to hire a consultant to
develop a lengthy and complex report with all kinds of gibberish, concocting a fairy tale regarding
millions of dollars in savings. The savings are contrived by selling off city property, by leasing out our
transfer facility along with its excess unused capacity, like an entity going broke. The figures are further
contrived by using half the inflation rate guaranteed under the proposed seven year contract. And finally
you achieve your real goal — have the current hard-working, loyal employees take a 27% cut in basic
wages and an unknown larger reduction in benefits; if they are able and willing to go to work for the
new operator. Their current base wage is $27.73 an hour whereas the two operators currently under
consideration pay $20.35 an hour.
Using the City's own numbers, here are the facts. Under Plant (the primary basis for comparison) which
maintains the current level of service, the calculated reduction in cost is $14,000,000 and not the much
bandied around number of $17,000,000. Without the one-time revenue from selling trucks and the
associated reserve funds, the savings under Plan 1 are reduced to $8,000,000 over seven years. The full
capacity of the transfer station is 300 tons per day of which less than 50% is currently used. An
adjustment for this false saving of $3,000,000, allowing the new operator access to this additional
unused capacity would bring down the projected savings to $5,000,000. If inflation related cost
adjustment is calculated at the maximum permitted under the contract (5%) instead of the arbitrary
2.5% used in the calculations, the savings would be further reduced to less than $3,000,000 over seven
years. Furthermore, the contract allows for cost adjustments above 5% for extra -ordinary circumstances
which has not been factored into the analyses. If history is any guide, extra -ordinary circumstances over
seven years will wipe out the remaining projected savings. So the end result is that the current City
employees will be forced into working at 27% reduced wages (if at all) and with considerably reduced
benefits whereas the citizens of Newport Beach will lose what they consider to be part of their beloved
extended family. The City Manager pompously proclaims, "The City Council is COMPASSIONATE when it
privatizes". What utter arrogance! Does the City Council consider City Employees to be welfare
recipients or indigents in need of charity? Would any of you Council members consider dissociating
yourself from this comment and offer an apology to the City workers? Or is this the norm when you sit
on a $20,000,000 throne?
I urge the City Council to digest these phony numbers and reject this course of action. Privatization
makes sense in some instances. In others, like in this case, it is a heartless ploy to drive down the wages
and benefits of loyal diligent workers.
Jamshed Dastur
Balboa Island
949-673-4078
Refuse Proposal Calls
Calls to the Mayor prior to 9.10.13
Lori and Evelyn Leonelli are against the refuse proposals
Gentleman said he would like to keep what they have
Mrs. Weber said she would like the Mayor to look at the budget and make a decision on the savings
Diane Fullen said she enjoys service and thinks it should be put to a vote.
9.10.13
John P. Strahl and his wife are against privatizing the refuse collection. They think are refuse collectors
do a great job.
Brenda & Frank Wilfert love the current refuse service.
Gordon said he really appreciates the service he has now. He said it is good PR for the City because the
refuse service is well liked. He said it is all positive.
Gary Dial said leave trash collection alone. Works perfectly.
Rachel Maguire said she supports the refuse pick as is and that it should be put to a vote.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
We have been residents of Newport Beach since 1963. It is a wonderful city to live in, and we appreciate your
hard work on our behalf.
However, it has become a concern for us that the City is preparing to outsource the Sanitation Department.
The hard-working men who have collected our trash for years are doing a great job, and as pointed out,
Newport Beach currently has the lowest cost per household of any city in the area. It seems unlikely that the
projected "cost savings" will save our city money in the long run, but such a change could well diminish the
level of service.
Sincerely,
Elisabeth and David Cook
420 Vista Roma
Newport Beach, CA
September 10, 2013
Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Solid Waste Proposals
"IF IT'S TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE - IT'S PROBABLY NOT TRUE!"
The above proverb correctly sums up the proposals from CR&R and Ware Disposal for the City of
Newport Beach. Having twenty-nine years' experience in the solid waste industry and as a 37 year
resident of the City of Newport Beach, I can, without any hesitation, share with you my strong belief
that this current recommendation from HF&H is not only incomplete, but flawed.
The analysis of the proposals (52 pages of information) was conspicuously missing information that was
submitted by all the responding firms. This information would have clearly reflected that anticipated
"Employee and Truck Operating Cost Detail". Instead, the report you received, omitted this critical chart
- which would show the anticipated expenses by the haulers to give our community the service "equal to
or better than the current service levels". There is no "magic" when it comes to the expenses for fuel,
Insurance, landfill disposal and the vehicle capital expense. These costs are the same for all the haulers,
in fact we are all required by the Flow Control agreements the County of Orange to landfill all our waste
within the County system at the same rate.
That begs the question —
How can CR&R be $13,556,000 less than the actual costs of the current operation? (Path 1)
The only answer is a massive reduction in the wages and benefits paid to their drivers, the anticipated
level of service to the residents and the quality and extent of preventative maintenance to the vehicles
operating within Newport Beach. There are no other areas to make such dramatic cost reductions.
To further support the fact that the council is not being given the entire back-up information, note that
on page 12 Table 4 "Average Hourly Driver Wage" the figures only reflect the basic hourly wage. All the
haulers were required to not only submit this information, but also the Healthcare, Retirement and
other Employee Benefits. This information was somehow deleted from your council analysis.
HF&H is quality firm that is capable of exceptional analysis, but one has to question why so much
relevant information was omitted. Nowhere in the analysis was the annual net expense compared to a
Newport Beach City Council - 2 - September 10, 2013
monthly cost per unit. This should have been a critical point of evaluation for the council to consider.
Based on the estimated number of residential units and the proposed operating costs, CR&R's net
residential rate for Path 2 is approximately $10.16 per month. When compared with a number of cities
served by CR&R in Orange County — that rate is half the cost! In almost every RFP analysis, comparative
rates are included as part of the evaluation. Why were they omitted in this HF&H analysis?
As a resident of Newport Beach, I have in the past, supported out -sourcing our solid waste collection,
but never at the price of compromising the quality of service we now enjoy. This quality service can be
directly attributed to the current employee group and the supervision they receive. An even bigger
issue would be that of the safety of our community. We all know when the quality of drivers, lack of
supervision and the extent of preventative maintenance are slashed to "low -ball" a bid; the level of
safety is at risk.
One final thought; two of the most respected haulers in Orange County were "excluded" for
consideration in this final analysis - Republic Services and Rainbow Disposal. I think it is fair to say that
both of these quality firms were extremely motivated to submit as competitive pricing as possible to be
successful in this RFP process. Their Path 1 (apples to apples comparisons) to the current operation
reflected the cost to give the City of Newport Beach a level of service which residents now enjoy and the
safety they expect. These two firms anticipated costs (as reflected by the HF&H analysis) were on
average over $9,000,000.00 greater than the proposed pricing by CR&R! That fact alone would bring
into question the validly of the low -ball pricing of CR&R and Ware Disposal.
I would respectfully request that the council defer any action on this RFP until all the information is
clearly presented and a complete analysis is submitted for council consideration. Newport Beach is a
class community that deserves the highest level of service, by the best drivers available and at the
highest level of safety!
Respectfully Submitted,
Dave Ault
2D!3 SEP I I :4i 9: 24
1�')- 6 6 d
4
m
r �
I
J
T � '
� r
Brown, Leilani
From: Corona del Mar Residents Assn [Info@Comra.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:01 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Brown, Leilani; Kiff, Dave; Debbie Stevens
Subject: Resident Survey - Trash Outsourcing
Attachments: Survey Trash Cohclusions.pdf
Attached this our report which recaps the Corona del Mar resident survey conducted in April 2013 as part of our
Spring newsletter mailing to over 6,300 residential households in Corona del Mar.
We had intended to present this information at the September 10 City Council meeting, but given the tone of the
staff report; council's opening remarks and the number of people who wanted to speak on this issue, we decided
to deliver this via email instead. We do ask that our report be included in the public record along with the other
public comments from last night's meeting.
The summary of our findings (see page 4 in the attachment) is:
SUMMARY
In spite of the lack of specific cost data at the time of the survey, a higher percentage of
respondents preferred outsourcing with the option to recycle at home. Those who live in the
Village preferred this option at a slightly higher rate than those who live in CdM planned
communities. Regardless of which option was chosen, 68% indicated that preference for their
choice was strong. Residents, without exception, strongly support our employee haulers, and
applaud their service, commitment and personal connections with their "customers'. Many
respondents felt disadvantaged at not having cost information on which to base their opinion.
They also felt that not all options utilizing our existing municipal workers had been adequately
addressed.
We concur with council members' comments that there is still work to be done and information to be shared
(Gardner, Hill, Petros). The concerns that Council Member Selich shared reflect that of so many in this
community. The vote, itself, demonstrated that Council was significantly divided on whether this action was
premature in face of additional fact gathering and data analysis.
Now that the decision to outsource has been made, we urge you to diligently and thoroughly review the bidders'
contracts, their service history as defined by their actual customers (not the cities), and provide more clear and
concise information about costs and services to the public as part of an ongoing process to build the public's trust
as we move forward. As demonstrated by the show of residents and their comments last night there is much
work yet to be done in this area.
We request that staff attend our October 17`" Board Meeting (7:30 am Oasis #5) to specifically address these
concerns.
Thank you.
Boar d-OfDireaors
949.719.9390 P/F
1
Corona deC.War Residents .dissociation
PO Box 1 500 1 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 Please visit our website at: w .cdmra.ora
c�cCf
RESIDENTS ASSOCIKNON
BACKGROUND
TRASH OUTSOURCING SURVEY
m APRIL 2013 ca
Corona del Mar Residents Association (CdMRA)
CdMRA was created over 25 years ago to provide a unified voice on issues affecting Corona del
Mar residential neighborhoods (composed of approximately 6300 households), and it utilizes a
variety of communication tools, educational workshops and outreach programs to accomplish
this goal.
Our Bylaws require us to keep our membership informed of issues that have a direct impact on
the quality of life in Corona del Mar, and determine whether community consensus exists on
issues which potentially challenge that quality. Working with our city's leadership and staff, we
are committed to protect, preserve and improve the quality of life for those who call Corona del
Mar their home.
METHODOLGY
The Survey Process
To determine whether there was a community consensus on the topic of outsourcing our trash
service, the Corona del Mar Residents Association conducted a survey on this topic in our Spring
2013 Newsletter. The survey went to all 6300+ residential addresses in Corona del Mar, and we
estimate that approximately 6100 households of those households are serviced by our municipal
trash haulers. It was also made available on our website to capture electronic responses.
Electronic responses were validated to insure respondent was a Corona del Mar resident.
To insure we conveyed the correct information about the project, we invited Dave Kiff, City
Manager, to write the informational article which preceded the survey. The article took up 1'/:
pages of our six-page newsletter. The single -question survey had a three part answer, asking
residents to choose one of the three options discussed in the article: retaining the current
municipal system, outsourcing with recycling done at the collection facility, or outsourcing with
the option to recycle by household. We asked how strongly they felt about their preference and
left an area for open-ended comments. This survey was put together by one of our long-time
members with a Market Research background and reviewed by our city manager.
A copy of the city manager's article and the survey question is attached as Exhibit 1.
Page 1
crs CcIMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 926251 InfoCa)cdmra.org I www.cdmra.org cst
C�T
eom611r,1'' alel Gi'(rl
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
The City Outreach Process
TRASH OUTSOURCING SURVEY
cis APRIL 2013 ca
In June, several of our Board members were invited to an informal chat with our City Manager,
Director of Municipal Operations and Council member Gardner on the topic of trash outsourcing.
We shared some of the initial survey comments and concerns with city staff. Staff shared their
comments and goals for maintaining service levels, offering a recycle option and reducing costs
associated with labor, injuries and capital investment. Staff also indicated that this meeting was
just the beginning of a series of community outreach meetings that would be conducted prior to
finalizing their recommendations to council.
Following that meeting, we invited staff on several occasions to come and talk to a larger
audience of Corona del Mar residents and Board members, and each time the invitation was
declined. Their position was that results had to be presented to Council before the public. The
assurances that collecting public input through targeted outreach opportunities never
materialized.
We believed that resident comments were an important part of the process, providing insights
that could be used as part of staff's evaluation process. Therefore, we continued to report on
this topic to our members, and from time to time members would email or otherwise contact
their council members with their thoughts, concerns and preferences.
Page 2
cns CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 92625 1 InfoCcDcdmra.orq I www.cdmra.org off
611 -C117(4 -dol c-)V(ar
RFS!DFNTS ASSOCIATION
QUANTITAIWE FINDINGS
TRASH OUTSOURCING SURVEY
cis APRIL 2013 cQ
The response rate, based on the 6100 household sampling, exceeded the requirement for a 99%
confidence level, +/- 10 points. We can therefore conclude with high confidence that these
percentages would be consistence across all of Corona del Mar households.
0 34% of the respondents preferred to keep the existing system
0 16% preferred outsourcing but no change to our collection model
0 47% preferred outsourcing with an option to recycle at home
The number of responses were fairly evenly split between CdM Village households and planned
community households.
Outsourcing with the recycle @ home option was slightly more preferred by those who live in
CdM Village than those in planned communities:
0 54% of Village households preferred this option
0 46% of planned community households preferred this option
The respondents' preference profile for the choice they made was:
0 68% had a strong preference for their choice
0 18% had a mild preference for their choice
0 12% selected no preference
Page 3
crs CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 92625 1 Info(cDcdmra.oro I www.cdmra.oro csr
0 c4/6 -r
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
TRASH OUTSOURCING SURVEY
es APML 2013 ca
The open-ended "comments" question yielded some interesting results.
1. The overwhelming concept that came out of the comments is that people are generally
happy with the existing trash service. The support for the current workers is impressive.
In the case of our current trash service, there were essentially no complaints which means
the City is doing a great job and customer satisfaction is high. This lead to a lot of
comments that basically said "if it's not broke, don't fix it."
2. At the same time, there were a number of comments that supported recycling or wanted
to see additional recycling within the City. Some of the people leaving comments seem
to imply that the City doesn't do a good job at recycling because residents aren't required
to separate out their trash.
3. Many commented that cost data were needed to determine which option would provide
true cost savings. They felt it was difficult for them to choose between the options when
so little was known about the costs.
4. They also felt that the analysis of this proposed change was rushed and might not have
considered all options, such as a hybrid of our current municipal service which included
automation and home recycling.
A redacted copy of respondents' comments is attached as Exhibit 2.
SUMMARY
In spite of the lack of specific cost data at the time of the survey, a higher percentage of
respondents preferred outsourcing with the option to recycle at home. Those who live in the
Village preferred this option at a slightly higher rate than those who live in CdM planned
communities. Regardless of which option was chosen, 68% indicated that preference for their
choice was strong. Residents, without exception, strongly support our employee haulers, and
applaud their service, commitment and personal connections with their "customers". Many
respondents felt disadvantaged at not having cost information on which to base their opinion.
They also felt that not all options utilizing our existing municipal workers had been adequately
addressed.
Page 4
c*3 CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 92625 1 Info(c)cdmra.org I www.cdmra.ora ers
Omrma
C��I(ar TRASH OUTSOURCING SURVEY
1VS cls APRIL 2013 caR!iSfDLi1'fS tlS.iC)CIAi [ON,
EXHIBIT 1
CdMRA Spring Newsletter Trash Article & Survey
Page 5
cis CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 92625 1 Info(cDcdmra.org I www.cdmra.org crs
WHY TRASH, WHY NOW?
By Dave Kiff, City Manager
Sometimes I get out and do physical work with
some of our City staff members. Twice now, I
have worked with our dedicated (and fun) trash
collectors. I lasted just one three-hour shift each
time, begging off on the second shift "because I had a meeting."
I really was just tired and sore.
I was struck by these things:
• What a great service we provide. We collect almost
everything. Our employees know many residents by name;
that certain customers may need assistance; and
sometimes they even know if a customer is on vacation.
e How intricately they maneuver through some of our most
narrow streets and alleys.
o How physically impactful the job is — on backs, hips, knees, i
shoulders.
e How sincere some residents are about trying to recycle.
Several folks would put out neatly -twined stacks of clean
newspapers next to the trash cans.
e How messy our system can still be. Alleyways, streets,
and yards end up with a lot of trash because of lost lids,
birds that get in cans on trash day, and "pickers."
Corona del Mar residents have asked why the City is even
considering changing such a well -liked system. Here's why: ,
• State law says we need to divert 75% of our waste stream
from landfills by 2020. The residential waste stream today
has about a 40-45% diversion rate. The commercial
stream is better, (almost all material from a construction
site, for instance, can be recycled) but that can vary based
on the year and the state of the economy. +
e Our trash trucks are getting old. Yes, we have saved up
resources to replace them. The new ones are about
$250K a piece and are fueled with Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG).
o A good number of our 22 refuse collection employees are i
at or near retirement age. It doesn't mean they will choose i
to retire, but it means they could (so there's an unknown as
to our future staffing levels).
o Our City government still has a pension cost problem. Our
unfunded pension liability (what the City owes to the State
pension fund if paid today in one lump sum to cover all of
the promised pension benefits) is still big. Too big. The
best way to tackle the long-term pension problem is to
reduce the overall City payroll. It would be great if I could
switch everyone (including myself) to 401K -style plans —
but that's actually against the law in California. Go figure.
o Some people in town want to recycle. They don't like it
when I remind them that our recycling program involves
people picking through our trash stream at a Materials
Recovery Facility (MRF) where much of the recyclables
arrive ruined by being mixed in with dirty trash.
o Other residents are getting older, and wanting to know why
we don't allow cans with wheels.
In light of the above, the City Council has asked us to examine
our system and to ask private companies to respond to at least
two alternative proposals for trash.
As I see it: Path #1 would mirror the current system (take
nearly everything, no recycling, same cans, and put out as
many cans as you want). Path #2 would be what I'd call
"Automated Collection — But No Big Ugly Cans and You Don't
Have to Recycle." With this path, customers would choose
between small, medium, and large carts (the small ones have a
smaller footprint than the Ace Hardware round cans). They
could receive and put out as many as they wanted. Refuse
collectors would still take nearly everything. And you could — if
you wanted - ask for one clean recyclable cart (pick a size) and
it would be collected separately with the recyclables kept clean.
The big change would be that the carts allow a refuse collector
to pick the carts up mechanically instead of getting outside to lift
cans themselves. Automated service like that can serve 1,000
households a day, instead of the 400 households that manual
collection serves.
I've tried to summarize the most frequent questions. I get about
this issue:
1. Would a new company hire our current refuse collectors?
We can require that companies offer jobs to our current
staff, i
2. Is this all about cost savings? Not all, but certainly some.
Some of it is about meeting the 75% diversion goal. Some
of it is about even better service. If we could guarantee the
same quality of service or better at less cost, doesn't it l
make sense to look at it?
3. How do you know there are any cost savings at all? We
don't know for sure. We won't know until proposals come '
back from companies. We do know that a study we had
done in November 2012 .said that cost savings could be
more than a million a year, or costs could actually be
higher, depending on the service model.
4. Could we contract out the same exact service we have
today — our cans, any number of cans, take everything we
put out like bags and big cardboard boxes? Yes.
5. How do you ever guarantee the same or better quality of
service? The right contract terms do that. You write
customer service standards into the contract, and require
adherence. If a company doesn't succeed, you end the i
contract and consider other companies or take another
look at the in-house model. 1,
6. My garage or side -yard doesn't fit the big automated can. I
The automated carts used to be big, but now they're
smaller. The carts are either 35-, 65-, or 95 -gallons. The
35 -gallon cart, even with its wheels, has a smaller footprint
than the cans purchased at the local hardware. store.
7. 1 don't want to recycle. My home isn't set up for separating
trash inside. That's what's nice about Path #2. Recycling
is voluntary. In Path #2 (described above), a household
could choose one "clean recyclables" cart or they could
pass entirely and keep with one or more trash only carts.
8. Doesn't recycling mean those many milk -crate bins that are
ugly and messy? They used to, but not anymore.. The
most common system now is one cart per home that holds
all of your clean recyclables — plastics, glass, cans, paper,
cardboard, more.
9. What is "better' service than today? Better service might
be more free bulky -item pickup days, community "shred -it"
days, battery and paint disposal days, even a "concierge"
service for the eldedy or disabled where a company gets
your trash can from your sideyard, dumps it, and puts the
cart back.
10. How can a "one size fits all" approach work for such a
diverse place? It won't. Even if the community were to go
to an automated system, it probably can't be fully
automated everywhere. Where you have narrow streets or
alleys, the semi -automated model might be best. In this
model, a refuse collector gets out of the truck and moves
the carts to the back of the truck, where a small arm "flips"
the trash into the truck. At the very least, this saves the
refuse collector's back.
11. Could we have an automated service that the City ran and
staffed? Yes.
12. How does the cost of new trucks factor in? We have saved
up funds in our reserves for buying new trucks. A new
company coming in would be expected to provide its own
trucks as a part of the city contract. And yes, the company
would consider truck purchase, maintenance, fueling, and
replacement in the amount they bid.
13. What does an outside vendor do that could be more cost-
effective? In an automated system, it's picking up 1,000
homes a route instead of 400. In a straight comparison
with our own manual service, it is two things primarily — the
economies of scale associated with serving Newport Beach
along with other cities they might serve (maintenance,
management, truck purchases, staffing flexibility, more)
and the fact that most employers no longer offer defined
benefit pensions.
This is a hard issue to discuss, and many folks are concerned
about it. The feedback to date has been very helpful and
thoughtful, with most people recognizing that being good
stewards of the City and anticipating the 75% diversion future
means that we have to look carefully at all that we do, including
a service as well -liked as refuse collection. As always, your
comments back to us are welcomed.
CDMRA RESIDENT SURVEY
QtOver the course of the year, our members
contact us by phone and email with questions
and concerns on a variety of topics. As you
might have guessed, we have been getting many questions and
comments about our trash collection system. We asked Dave
Kiff to write the above article for our members. And one of
CdMRA's long-time members volunteered to work with Dave to
put together a survey question that we could include in our
Spring Newsletter. We want to thank both Dave and Tom for
taking the time to respond to our request on this important topic
that is on everyone's mind right now.
Now that you have read Dave's article above, won't you take a
few minutes and respond to the following survey. You have a
couple of options:
1. Take the survey on our website at www.Comra.org
2. Email your responses to Inf0(cDCdMRA.orq
3. Mail your responses by USPS to CdMRA at PO Box
1500, Corona del Mar 92625
Results will be tabulated and reported on our website and in our
next members -only email newsletter.
Please respond no later than April 30, 2013.
THE QUESTION
The City needs to reduce payroll costs in order to reduce
pension liabilities. One way to do this is to transfer weekly trash
collection from the City to a private company ("outsourced"). At
present your trash is picked up whether or not it is in a trash
can. A private company may be able to pick up trash the same
j way. Another way might allow you (but not require you) to sort
i materials for recycling. Savings from outsourcing will be used to
maintain other important City services, and for infrastructure
i' such as roads. There are three options under study and we
would like your opinion.
YOUR ANSWER
Which would you prefer?
CHECK ONE BOX ONLY:
[ ] The present system: Managed by the City: cans OK but
not required. No savings for the City.
[ ] Outsourced: Outsourced but identical to the present
system: cans OK but not required. Savings for the City
[ ] Outsourced, twin tracks: Outsourced, trash in wheeled
carts (small, medium, or large), with voluntary recycling
(sorting) and green -waste separation (e.g. garden rubbish);
bags and other containers such as cardboard boxes set
beside the carts will also be picked up. There will be two
trucks picking up on the same day. Greater savings for the
City.
[) No preference
If a preference, why?
Is yours a strong or a mild preference?
( ] Strong preference
[ ] Mild preference
One response per household please.
Please write in your first and last name or street address on the
line below:
Cdc��t
apima del NT0-
RlSILUNTS ASSOC[ATION
TRASH OUTSOURCING SURVEY
u3 APRIL 2013 m
EXHIBIT 2
CdMRA Trash Survey Responses
Page 6
w CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 92625 1 Info cDcdmra.org I www.cdmra.org c>3
=1
G
n
O
c
°
avv
r$8
E
u .4
E
u Y 4
9 o
d
3
q
E o
m
c
wR
o
-
d
q
d
m a
E
o
cg
A
3��a
m
dq
-s
vv
baa^
Aot
;
S'n
u
E o
o£
c
o
3
E
o
E
E_
a° =
a
c
o
n-
o
E
°'
N
9_
Nn
ti
E
m
-'o
v
o
3
s
c
z
'z
°°°
m
••
c.10,
__°
o
r
=
mom"
_
o'
Em
o
a
c c
c
a
o
•�
o
`o
o
9d_
c'r„o'
>
d
m
E
as
3cl
-
nF
`I
{"oav
ro
nr
>°
_
3ra
-
'
c
E
I
EI
I�
�
E
EIS
EIS_
E
I�
E
E
E
OnM
~
I
y
4 tv
2
..
3
3
3.
3�3
3
3
°
Z
z
z
z z
z
�2-d
ZZ
z
z Z z
Z
z
z
z
z
Z
z
Z
Z Z
zi
2
Z
z
ZZ22
I
m2
ii U
uuu
uu
i� u
U
a auaaaau
V'V V
V
v
u
uuu
u uuu
u
u u
U
u
u
G
n
O
c
°
Corona del Mar Residents Association Trash Outsourcing Survey - April 2013
Section No P CS
OS
rr
Opin
Additional Comments
CdMNW _
1
s
CdMNW
1
s
CdMNW
1
s
CdMNW
1
_
CdMSE 1
�—
in
What we have seems to work really well -- so why change. Start different services in newer areas of the city like Newport Coast, but keep the traditional skinny driveway trucks and crews in place -- they do a
good job. The change to an outside service is likely net to save much and who knows what we run into. Changing to sorting and multiple cans seems not very practical in our dense alleys and with many renter.
-I think it will be a mess literally. My preference is mild because at the end of the day this is about trash pickup—not something l can't learn to live with as long as it is properly done.
CdMSE
1.J_�
Cci
1
in
CdMSE
1
m
Like currentsystem, but ok to outsource if savings
CdMSE
1
s
Cost effective and Eco. friendly.
Cd MSE ++'
1
s
Greatest amount of recycling 1.
CdMSE
1
in
Current system works well, but twin tracks sounds like it would improve re -cycling and save the city money.
CdMSW 1
-
CdIASW 1
s
s
Carts can be heavy and unwieldy.I live on a "private" non -city maintenance where carts would be difficult to get to a curb
rz'yoa'rorrneanruansseenrnester'mrtewcn�oertnsrt/tars—very'ssrongipagre[—
we should NOT require residents to sort out recyclables; voluntary is ok. But we appeciate the easy service we have and need a program that will actually and realistically achieve the 2020 goals without
requiring sorting at the home. Otherwise voluntary will become mandatory soon enough. -prefer local insourced service, but not hard over. new trucks unlikely to be cheaper provided by an oulsourcer.
Whether insourced or outsourced we should get the new semi automated equipment and cans if economical. -Defined benefit problem is real, but should be addressed city/state wide and not made into a
trash collection issue. Is there away to put all of the city workers and on an outsourced employee program, ie Are there new orgarbations that can legally employee everyone and provide city management
services?
CdMSW 1
11
CdMSW 1
5
Current system is excellent Have experience with outsourcing resulting in higher cosrs and lower service.
CdMSW 1
5
Why try[o Rx something that's worked very well. Myalleyisa busyoneand the lastthingl want istohave2or3 trucksinmyalley.
CdMSW 1
5
City does super job with trash. Noguamnlees with outsourcing as we've seen with street sweeping.
CdIVSW
1
s
CdMSW
They do a great job
CdMSW }
I
s
Unfunded pension liability..
CdMSW
1
Can city do recycle option?
Cd M5W
1
s
Cutting government costs should be the goals of every resident in the tradition of Alexis De Tocqueville admiration of early America&N39;s concept of the public good. Perhaps, the City can make arrangement
to provide services and assistance to those property dwellers una hie to afford or perform the services themselves.
CdMSW
1
s
Standardized rocepdcals should help with trash containment problems, a nd we should recycle
CdMSW
1
s
Iseethisasawin/win. I am always in favor of the city being efficient AND doing what we canto protect our environment lamreadytodomypartl
CdMSW
1
in
I am involved with the sustainable building industry and prefer a simpler more effective method to recycling / separating our waste. I am not privy to the trash service efficiency currently but becoming more
cost effective and efficient updated system) seems good tome. I would like to see a projected cost breakdown of the (3) options.
CdMSW
1
—
Iwoufd sg wilmgto eoutsource Optmn ,especia lye t eCo..would fire our current workers. frieressary, Option 3 wit hthe twin tracks woueaccepta e_..especla�IRita�fdp¢ upalhei
containers such as boxes and bags. 1 have not seen other communities offer this option... that boxes and bags could be picked up. Trash is in a particular container and nothing else Is allowed that would be
unacceptable to me.
CdNISW
11
5
CdMSW
1
I s
IWe need to achieve greater recycling. San Rafael makes composted organic waste available to residents.
CdMSW
1
m
I am very concerned about the environment anbelieve we can do a better job of sepanting our own hash other than exposing others to the haxartls of going through our rubbish.) firmly believe all option!
need to be considered and priced out before a decision is matle.
CdMSW
1
Will save money and is efficient
CdMSW
1
s
leads to a dilater environment
CdMSW
1
in
CdMSW L
CdMW 1
s
[he service we have n.w is restclass. Outsourcing the servlcQ will not be.There will ono concern by[ the drivers asthere rs now. Nopride in thealy.Don't buy into the B savings byoutsourangthe
service. It never quite ends up that way. It seems we are being manipulated into this change. Make the changes necessary to comply with upcoming requirements and keep the service managed by the city. Thi
is a special place to live. Let's keep it that way.
;n
CdMW 1
5
preer to keep city workers employed over supporting outside conractoTswhopay eueh mpoy�minimum wage. inecurren employees are providing an excellent serve eandsTrd-15—e r-elmne rats
not a way to handle pension issues - that should be addressed separately as a general policy city-wide or through the state legislature if necessary. It's simple enough to move trash cans with a Small dolly, so
the big, ugly vend., trash cans provided to other cities are not needed. And we do have the option to recycle: imply putting recyclables in separate bags protects them from the contamination you the In the
article when they are sorted.
CdMW 1
s
As I've seen in Huntington Beach when they outsourced their trash service, the cans provided by the service provider are not adequate to accommodate large trash items or the special times when the
homeownerhasa large amount of trash fromgardening,etc. Thelargecans offered bythe service providerw.uld prove problematic in CDMwith its thin side yards, 3 footsetback.
Legend: CS = Current; OS = Outsource as Current; TT = Outsource w/Recycle Option
CdMRA Trash Survey Page 2 of 6 Prepared September 2013
Corona del Mar Residents Association Trash Outsourcing Survey - April 2013
Section Noe CS
OS
TT
Opin
Additional Comments
This is just another method of curtailing our present trash pickup, and we pay for it. Soon they will have us taking the bins auttothe street, then placing further limits, and they still will charge us more. We
CcIMW 1
s
like the system just the way it is.
-
.. �parx'wnnpeaesmanwarxway I., un
over budget. And now you're telling us that the city can't afford our current trash Collection service? Where were those budget & pension concerns when this massive project was being Planned? looks to mo
—
like the City has backed itself into a corner financially and is now looking for ways to compensate in other areas. l understand that we need to pay taxes in order to maintain services for our city and try to save
-'_
money where we Can. l have no problems with that. l love living here and am willing to pay the taxes to keep it clean and beautiful, But the discretion which is used to determine where and how these monies
-
are allocated and spent is my concern. How is it that we would be able toou.ource this service to another Company, have the same quality of service, AND require them to hire our current refuse Collectors?
CdMW 1
s
This seems very suspect to me and I'm not buying fit
if you hire younger trash employees to replace the retiring employees, have them contribute to their retirement program. 1 was told that the current trash is sorted for recycling when it gets to its destination
CdMW 1
��
S
lease new trucks. if you can pay $1000 for a office chair times 200 for the new chamber offices you Canafford the leasegna trash truck.
The present system is geared to the nature of our neighborhood in COM. The current system uses the alleys; they are space -restricted a nd not practical for trucks with mechanical devices for cans. A new
-
system with mechanical can devices would require residents to move trash cans to the front of their houses like in some neighborhoods, which are an added inconvenience to the residents and are unattectiv
for the entire trash pickup day. The only valid reason for improving the system is to raise the diversion rate to 75%. l his can be accomplished by purchasing new trucks that contain a separate compartment in
recyclables. The separate compartmentwill keep dirty trash from the recyclables, making the MRF process more effective and efficient. The current system could offer residents a voluntary recycling option
and a trash can option as was discussed in Dave Kiff's article. Let's be frank about how outsourcing saves the city money. Outsourcing benefits will come at the expense of the current sanitation workers, in
terms of reduced wages and benefits, as well as a reduction in lobs by replacing a worker with a mechanical can collection device. How else could a private firm offer lower rates to do the same process? We
are lucky to live in a city as well-run and prosperous as Newport Beach. Any city that can afford to spend too many millions on a new City Hall/Civic Center could certainly afford to keep 22 reasonably.
compensated, middle-class sanitation worker positions intact. The fact that many of our current sanitation workers are eligible for retirement is testament to the long-term appeal of these jobs. Speaking of
retirement, Dave Kiffis misinformed ifhe would rather opt for a 401(k)- style plan in lieu of a pension. Pensions are far more favorable to the worker, which why the state requires it. The predictableoulcome
ofaa01(k)plan will be to reduce the pension liability for the city alaudable objective but at the expense of hard-working employees.Yes, there is a need for pension reformandthat's a discuss ion topic unto
itself. But let's not lose sight of the immediate consequences of outsourcing our current trash collection system. There will be fewer jobs offered by the outsourcer and there is no guarantee that the jobs
offered will even contain a pension or a 401(k) -type plan) Is that what this city wants to happen to dedicated, long-term employees? In all likelihood, the new system will beinconvenient (or residents who wit
have to transport their cans from the back of their houses to the front street curb, resulting in unsightly cans in front of houses for the entire trash collection day. In summary, the current system can be
improved to meet the state diversion requirement by using new trucks with recyclable compartments which have already been budgeted. The current system can also accommodate a variety of can sixes,
including recyclables. By keeping our current system, we can improve our trash collection system and stay true to our values of providing gainful employment to those individuals who are willing to work hard
CdMW 1
s
for our city.
C_dMW 1
s
This is no of thanno examples ofgov.m.Cr, city county or otherwise, that actually works well. Why mess with it. tinker with some other program that is broke already
CdMW - 1
s
Ithink the City does a good job. Outsourcing is a bit questionable tome.
4a
Newport Beach has a Cadillac trash pickup program that should be retained as is, NO CHANGES. Our city and its residents are among the most prosperous on planet earth. We can certainly afford our current
trash pickup service along with our Taj Mahal City Hall. Trash Diversion -color coded bags could be filled with plastics, glass and metals than mixed in with normal trash and sorted out at the sorting facility.
Trucks -We have money saved for new trucks good. City employees should NOT be outsourced. - Newport Beach City jobs are good ones and this community can continue to support them as such. If staffing is
a problem in the future the people who do the work should be retained and upstream managers should be sent elsewhere. As time goes by we have more and more Admirals and fewerships. This is a problem
that is easily rectified. Automated Pickup - Our alley system is not conducive to automated trucks. I am unaware of trashtrucks that pick up trash on both sides, ambidextrous so to speak. The alleys are narrow
Automated pickup means two runs through the alleys or rolling cans out into the street where they become an eyesore until the end of the day when returned to their parking places. Outsourcing - Companies
that get trash contracts will almost certainly place lower bids by lowering the wages of their employees and upstreanaing the profits. Pay me now or pay me later. I think there are real concerns about having
Tony Soprano collect our trash. If bids are placed for trash pickup there will be lots of under the table bribes and payoffs to get and retain the business. This maneuvering for position is bad for the City, its
citizens and employees. A little extra money to keep everything clean and on the up and up is worth the cost. If there are truly seniors in Newport Beach who have problems with taking out the hash then we
--
should make special services available to them like ORA does for their handicapped riders. I doubt this is a real problem, I see no reason for changing the present system. The suggested changes to our trash
CdMW 1
5
pick up Program a re all bad ideas and should be shelved.If there was eye racommunity that could afford our trash pickup service as is, this is the one.
CdMW
I
s
Do whatever it takes [o eliminate wisely
CdMW
1
I
IMake changes slowly
CdMW
I 1
I on
l would favor this option if, 1. The cans could be kept in the alleyand picked up in the alley as they are now, 2. We could have a choice of how many and ofwhat size canswe would get
emve asa community -any community -each member needs to do as muchas possible rebT cycle. Iwaid ll�do way more than i one now- don't m this a pro em but a socia response IIry. As 11
happens now I am ashamed that I don't do more. I can imagine how individuals "pick" through what is picked up along with bags of dog waste, diapers and the like - simply awfull We need to sort our waste at
CdMW
1
S
any expense.
We bought our home a year ago and building a new one starting lune this year. The first thing we noticed is how disorganized trash teas and how much mess seas in the alley because of that. Itcheapens the
look of the neighborhood. it creates a mess, bad smells, and birds sitting on top of trash picking it apart. Itis one of the best and most expensive places In Orange County and having a nice order to trash pick up
,r..�
system will a dd even more to the look and will support it being clean. It will also help people store their trash cans properly, closed at all times, and will keep our alleys neat a nd free from pests and vernal n.
CdMW
1
s
Also, recycling is a wonderful idea, having that extra can for recycling is much better and efficient system. Please change the system.
A system with standardized bins & trucks will save time to service routes. People may become aware of Green waste. (perhaps we address GW reduction as well by raising water rates and reducing the Number
CdMW
I
s
of times when lawns can be mowed.) We can reduce pension costs and possible workers comp by outsourcing.
CdMW
I
s
ISave the city money and my time because l am Sorting things out now.
Legend: CS = Current; CIS = Outsource as Current; TT=Outsource w/Recycle Option
CdMRA Tmsh Survey Page 3 of 6 Prepared September 2013
Corona del Mar Residents Association Trash Outsourcing Survey - April 2013
Section NOP CS
OS
TT
10pinlAdditional
Comments
s at as n is to maintain and control the tras¢ween front and backunits, particularly when one or both are rentals, it is Important to beginthe pus car active recycling, where the person iving ont s
property begins to take responsibility for how trash Is sorted. Some people, even knowing that our trash is sorted through, never rinse or combine plastic items for greater recycling value. If this could someho
CcIMW
1
s
be enforced with recycling bins, not only would there be a greater return for the city, our alleys would he overall a bit cleaner as well.
like the present system, but am also supportive of savings lot the Icy. us, outsource seems to be the best option. I t ink two trucks picking up on the same aye will s(e a bit busy, but also, , I Think we'll—
start seeing too many trash cans in the alleys, as right now most people have 2 or more normal trash cans, and then if they buy/receive a recycling one, it will make 3 or more per household, as I doubt people
CdMW
1
m
with actua lly throw one of their old barrels away to keep the number of trash cans constant.
cannh of make a sele—Fc ran mtHo-u m�farm-a ion, including cents: current costs, Yiai—cUtTin—edlr-om--p-oTenTol—outsource companies, resident rastees for each possible outsource. Sarongs Is ane u aus
term defining nothing. There is a statement about current employees' jobs being retained by new companies: isthis a guarantee or just an expressed wish? Once that information is made available, I'll be
happy to weigh in. And I do feel strongly about thisl Too many times, functions are outsourced because the current City Council wants some political capital, then the outsourced company is not managed well
Cc1MW 1
by the city and/or initial bids to secure the contracts change and the so-called cost savings evaporate!
CdMW_
1
I REALLY want to recycle as much as possible. Totally agree with your approach and very glad this is being looked at. I'm new-ish to CDM (almost 2 years naw) and was shocked that we couldn't recycle and was
CdMW
1
5
very skeptical that the present recycling system was at all effective.
.s'
Really want to retain the folks who work for us now if they so desire asthey are terrific so that is rule number 1. For sure, recycling is critical and having roller cans a must as l have psoriatic arthritis and it is
CdMW
1
s
very, very hard to drag the cans back and forth without rollers.
_
CdMW
_
1
5
CdMW
1
5
I have lived at the same address. for 20 years. Ihave become friends with the employees. We are able to throw anything away, unlike many cities in the area. Maybe we should get rid ofthe$bunny at tht
CO 1
s
new Civic Center I've been hearing about ......
Dealing with the Diversion of Recyclablesp should begin In Gated Communities with good Security. Open Diversion Recycling for most communities without gates ....means that thosesyslemswl e
raided the day before trash pick-up .... from out of town Envire, Robbers. One size does not fit all and most certainly, we need to begin our Diversion program in the Gated Communities first.... perhaps for rive
CO 1
s
lotenyears. Our NBTrash guys are the bestand do one heck ofa greatjcb_..day in layout 365 days a year.
CoH I
s
The city does a good jab now. Once trash pickup is outsourced, there will be no "going back".
I am a strong proponent of recycling. I would load to know that NB is doing its part. And yet, the people who pick-up for us now are very, very good and they deserve to keep their job. Is it passible for them tc
COH
1
in
keep their job and do what the outsourced, nein tracks an do?
CoH
1
Good for environment, also renegotiate pensions for future; they are out of control.
COH '
1
s
Present system is as good as it gets
CoH
1
_
CoH
1
_
5
We feel strongly about recycling. We are familiar with this system at our vacation home in Utah. This is an easy and effective way to recycle.
Coll
1
CoH
1
s
I a in comfortable doing some separation of trash versus recyclable, and would like the opportunity to help.
HP 1
s
Don't change; one truck one day a week
HVB 1
s
Alternatives may end up costing more
M 3VVffM?RFrei-by-timUMS [TolRtor3Ts-outsf3lydln . n n ocahong big ouT-mafn �rnawe tfiTfios TNE'4€TEd11-IR-
addition, our driver provides outstanding service including helping us with bulky items and straightening up the cans along the street. Hecares. I've seen many other locations where the drivers just toss the
cans in the street and drop garbage along the way. Newport Beach cares about its . image and the current trash collectors go a long way to ensure that our City is kept beautiful. It's not something that should
be disregarded. The City should be proud of the work their employees are providing. As far as saving the city money, I think there are other more obvious areas that could be immediately addressed. The light
HVB "Wv 1
s
on at City Hall all night long would be a good place to start.
these guys will take anything you put out. In a box, bag,con or loose, they take it a11. what makes anyone think that any contractor is going to do that and if they promise to dolt then next year they come in for
a big raise Vwe still insist on this greatservice. what happens then? You cant go back into the trash business because you sold all your trucks and fired all the workers and so whatever they ask for is going to
be highly suggested by the staff as being more economical, etc, etc, etc. Once we get rid of our trash guys we are toast. The commercial carriers will have us just where they want us. And if you think that trot
HVH 1
5
haulers don't rig bids then yuou don't follow the news of what has happened in every public entity that has gone to private carriers. I have a lot more to say but this is enough for now.
HVH 1
s
Ou r present system works perfectly] Don'tt fix it if it's not broken!
What does it say about us as a city(or as a country for that matter)where the goal is to drive down costs by lowering the standard of living for the former city workersand potentially their families? Doe-
HVH 1
s
everyone really believe, for even a minute, that the workers will be better off werking for the private company?
HVH_
1
in
Save money for the city
HVH
1
5
Two reasons. First and most strongly felt - outsourced - saves muni style pensions. Second, either"outsource" would be OR but greater City savings make n3 preferable.
ei m separating mus Is est ort eenvironment an en antes awareness of what somso trashwe are producing asm m1 uas. a have been frustratedthat our ¢ arts at separation inthe current
system seems futile. We currently put our newspapers out separately because private recyclers will pick themup- we know that they are being recycled and that there are people actually benefiting financial)
HVH -
1
5
from our efforts. The savings to the city is not of concern to us. We want to do what is best for the environment.
HVH 's'"
1
s
I would like to see the city save money by outsourcing, a rid l like the separate recyclable car to keep recycle bles clea n.
HVH "'
1
s
We should be improving on recycling our waste and helping the City that we live in to save for the future.
HVH
1
m
Simply because it would result in savings for the City
HVH 1__
We like Mark our trashman. Don't want to see him lose his job.
HVHS 1
s
Employees keep job.
Legend: CS = Current; OS = Outsource as Current; TT=Outsource w/Recycle Option
CdMRA Trash Survey Page 4 of 6 Prepared September 2013
Corona del Mar Residents Association Trash Outsourcing Survey - April 2013
Section Nap CS
OS
TT
Opin
Additional Comments
HVHS 1
s
Aperk for CdM residents; the currentsysteml
HVHS 1
in
The current system works just fine from our point of view ... and, we've been using it for 40 yea rsll
HVHS 1
s
HVHS 1
5
HVHS 1
s
Excellent service now; charge extra if needed
HVHS 1
s
Don't take a chance; happy with our system and employees. Contractor could raise fees. My existing custom-built can rack won't accommodate recycle containers.
HVHS 1
s
Outsourced Service is NOT necessary
My usual trash collection consists of no more than one container every 2 to 3 weeks. Periodically when l am clipping trees or shrubs l can have as many as 1D containers. l always separate newspapers which
deposit in brown paper shopping bags either on top afar next to the container. Unless one of the proposed options could offer me the same level of flexibility without the need to stare multiple large
containers l would not be in favor of a change. Currently my containers can be nested so as not to have a larger footprint. Quite apart from the convenience and flexibility of the present system, it has been my
experience in several other cities that have outsourced their Trash Collection, that the homeowner began to receive a separate monthly or bi-monthly bill from the new service provider. This, for a service that
was previously provided the cit. In effect homeowner was being charged sepe for a new service that was previously included the cit, without an corresponding reduction in municipal service
P YP Y. Y @ @ P V P Y� V 4 Y P g P
HVHS 1
s
charges. Iwould want to be reassured that this will not happen here with this new proposal.
I feel strongly that recycling needs to begin at home in order that our children see how much waste is generated & hope that they will be compelled to make changes in their lives in order to save the planet. I
recycling continues to happen at the Material Recovery Facility, it is unseen & forgotten, & change is less likely to be instigated in our community. As so much of the recyclables are contaminated by the time
HVHS
1
s
they reach the MRF, the efforts of a few conscientious residents are wasted. Of course saving the City money is a strong factor to consider.
HVHS
1
5
Twin tracks not acceptable
HVHS
1
s
Trash day makes our neighborhood look horrendous. There are no uniform cans; bags & junk are everywhere. -
HVHS - -
1
in
I understand the need to cutcosts, but l like the services we receive now and want to minimize any change. Option .2 seems like a reasonable compromise.
HVHS ,,j.:
1
s
HVHS
1
in
Ihate. when people loose their jobs; but long-term if it's good far the city and the environment lam all far it.
It represents the most savings for the city and residents, us included, will have a greater confidence that our refuse is actually being recycled. Or, an even better option is to charge residents an escalating rate
HVHS a:.vv
1
s
per pound of trash, but not for properly sorted recycling. Money is a great motivator. Chargethose who don't comply. Dire times and generous, inflexible pensions requires drastic action.
HVHS
1
5
Meats state law; saves money; more efficient
" -
I am used to recycling by cleaning and dividing trash. l am still doing it now. I think the percent age of recycling in this city is a pp lling. We should have a much higher percentage of recycle waste. Has anybody
HVHS
1
5
suggested a green waste trash can also? I lived in a city that recycled green waste and they used it i n all of the city parks as great compost for the city parks. Just a suggestion.
HVHS
1
s
I believe in recycling. Right now l wonder why l bother to keep newspapers, glass, etc separate. l like the two truck idea.
HVHS
1
s
Achieves: same goal with better flexibility and ability to controlcosts. _
HVHS
1
in
Greater savings for the City. Sounds neater.
I am a Recycling person at heart and undersm no the financial antl earth benefits of a more thorough method of separating, i.e. from the home or business, as opposed to on conveyer belts after everything get
HVHS
1
s
rushed. I ren lize there is more of a hassle factor for the consumer (me,) but that's quite ok.
HVHS
1
s
Ilike the idea of helping the environment, lowering costs to the city a rid rehiring on went employees. Please consider paint, battery and la rge item pickup days.
HVHS
1
5
LB has had recycling for decades. I take my recyclables there so em all for NB adopting same. By not recycling we leave so much money on the table.
The present system is clean and efficient and Flexible. Past experience with automated pickup meant more trash escaping onto the streets ie. missing the truck. As a beach community we try to minimize trash
escaping to the storm drains and the bay. I would encourage additional recycling options. l think the majority of residents support this and would helpmeet state requirements.. Renegotiate yourpension
IT 1
contracts if able. Trash is not a good candidate for outsourcing. Once out of our control we will never be able to go back Two are unsatisfied.
IT 1
5
Sideyard too small for containers; do my own gardening and usually have 10+ bags each week; I separate trash already; bags go away; containers remain on street all day
his sort of difficult to give a definitive answer to this without nowing the costs associated with it. Why don't you get bids and then pose the questions providing more details? Yoo''ll get a more realistic
IT 1
m
response. '
IT 1
s
Residental quality of life impacted. In lA sidewalks a re dirtier and obstructed by cans in narrow areas. Lots of illegal dumping too.
T e current system provides a reliable, simple and easy to deal with method o getting rid of A o the trasgenerated Ina household on aweekly basis. City trash co ectorsarerien yah ave eat
.y +s
committment in providing a necessary service that all City resident really appreciate.Some"outside vender" will probably be unable to do the same when its major objective is really nothing more than to
IT 1
5
make a profit.
ITT
s
Either outsourcing is fine; want city out of trash; pensions too high. Tired of hearing mytrash cans are too heavy to lift when full.
IT
m
Greater savings; easier recycling&sorting. Dependent on jobs offered to current staff.
IT
s
As long as we can still have trash bags, boxes and other loose trash picked up, the cost savings and diversion compliance seem to make sense. I would not want existing employees to lose their livelihoods.
IT
s
Like current system, but ok to outsource if savings
IT
5
People she hirecycleand those living in Corona Del Marshould be doing their part. This isa commentoccurancelnmost cities. People dowantto dotheirpartand thecityneedsto lead.
1C
5
Save money and recycle
Legend: CS.= Current; CIS = Outsource as Current; TT=Outsource w/Recycle Option
Cc1MRA Trash Survey Page:5 of 6 Prepared September 2013
Corona del Mar Residents Association Trash Outsourcing Survey - April 2013
Section NOP CS
I OS TT
Opin
Additional Comments
JC _
1
ra
1C
I
s
With present system some recyclables are ruined by garbage. There is the added cost of people having to pick through trash to separate. It is not that difficult for homeowner to separate trash. Energy ane
cost effective.
IC
1
in
We would be in favor of changing to a new company and recycling in reasonable size bins as long as the current employees are protected and offered jobs by the new company.
1C
1
in
Stay as close as possible to present system
JC _
1
an
Palm Desert uses twin track and it seems to work fine
JC 1
Neither strong nor mild. It's just the right thing to do; save money and recycle
1C
1
an
STRIVING FOR COST REDUCr10N
1C 1
s
With the current age of our existing employees,new hires can be brought in under a reduced benefits system. I feel our trash collection sytema with the current workers are a real benefit to Irving in Newpod
Beach and this service should be perserved.
JC 1
5
1C 3
s
Hard job don a well by our city talks;don't me ke t hem take less money and no benefits for the work th ey do.
'
1P 1
s
A huge city hall and change trash service... Why It is working well. Leave it alone. Ibelieve it is the best and most efficient method for the city to collect trash. Out City taxes support this method and can
conlinuetodoso. Perhaps if so much money was not spent on anew city hall, this would not beanissue. Haw about Dave MIT giving up some of the $1,000.00 chairs employees now enjoy?
1P 1
5
Iwouldprefertopayabit mare to continue enjoying the same, excellent service our community provides.
SA
1
5
Best forrecycling, More$saved, addresses waste stream from landfill requirements.
SA
1
5
The c N County needs to OUTSOURCE everything. there is no way we the lax payers can continue to rack up the Public Pension costs for these Public Unions. Bad enough we will be taking care of the so caller
HEROES (fireman and cops)for the rest of their lives. We are in big trouble and the Sheeple will not OPEN their eyes. Government Gone WILD] 11
Sandune
1
I 5
190 yrs old; barrels hard to handle. I'm fine with bags.
SC
1
an
SC
I
Residents should want to responsibly recyce and everyone should be sorting and doing so. It should not bean option. Many other neigh boring communities have been recycling for ages at a quite success u
rate and the communities embrace their responsibility to the environment. Their statistics are impressive and they even offer input to residents on other forms of recycling like composting, etc. Newport Beac
is past due in really amping up their recycling efforts. Recycle - Reuse - EVERYONE SORTS, it is not an optical
5C
1
5
I We have no choice
SC 1
S
�UontcFa—ng—e—wTFFw—o—rffr7Fisiso—neolIhefew occasions where governmentcan dol he job better. It has been sai-3'Figure"Tardi'hars ligure'� eifF expecte savings rom�tn emay el usory. e
w
nohave central of our destiny, the in-house model we have permits flexibilities an outside contract will not allow. Your survey questions should have included a fourth option: "The present City operated
system adjusted to include savings for the City" The way questions are asked slants the results. Without this latter option, Isuspect many respondents will believe outsourcing is the only way to save. That is
patently falsel
SH
1
Convenience and cost savings
1.°
SH
1
5
Outsourcing will save the city and the taxpaperby reducing the number of city employees, thereby cutting down on monies going to employees pension & health care . We can' afford this. Do we want tc
become Stockton? And l hate those large re -cycling cans.
SH
1
s
A greater savings to the City. Takes away 99.9% of household trash. Enables us to recycle.
_
TT
_
1
s
I think we should sort all our trash as they do in Huntington Beach with 3 Bins...
TT
1
5
Not two trucks antl extra bins unsightly; city needs to save money so outsourcing is ok; just keep current employees.
TT
1
1
5
F
Legend: CS = Current; 05 = Outsource as Current; TT=Outsource w/Recycle Option
CdMRA Trash Survey Page 6 of 6 Prepared September 2013
I'LQJ ' ,""v' J'4 —1 eY 0A
NO Change -to-
Rduse .0ollection Outsourcing Prollesak
WhatWould-Agppen tO Service Letv6hs-?
✓` LeveC,of Service - Wnluriited # ofi cans, Iartgei istemand bags^colleci'ed per, 'household
Cost - ,City'would continue to pay for trash egllection
Recyclables -, mixed, in with trashi and sortiJ4later
Only fbanges Pwposed-
✓' Residents could,choose,toseParate their -trash and recyclables= if tthey. wanted"to.
Residents would receiverfree cants, eneofrany ofthreeiisizes�, if Automated , fh isselected.
Hire current Who pays for
Type and Size' Bags allowed s
# of Cans Recycling City rash ervice
of Containers* by the cans? employees? collection? standards be
met?
Current System
A hardware
As many as you
Done after trash
City does -
City staff
I -most of
store purchased
want
is collected
Yes
Not applicable
using property
members
Newport Beach
33 -gallon can
.
.
taxes.
monitor.
Current --
Wheeled carts -
monitor.
Path #2
Wheeled carts -
�-
Newport Coast,
small, med. &
As many as you
Done after trash
(Voluntary
N/A - service
City does -
City staff
Newport Ridge,
large - provided
want,
is collected.
Yes
provided by
using property
members
Crystal Cove,
at no cost
Yes
and offer
using property
CR&R
fazes.
monitor.
more
recyclables
employment.
taxes.
monitor.
pickup)
Path #1
A hardware
you
As many as y
Done after trash
Must interview
City does -
City staff
(no change from
store purchased
want.
is collected.
Yes
and offer
using property
members
current system)
33 -gallon can
employment.
taxes.
monitor.
Path #2
Wheeled carts -
Voluntary. You
(Voluntary
small, med. &
As many as you
can choose to
Must interview
City does -
City staff
i recycling and
large*- provided
want.
have free
Yes
and offer
using property
members
semi -automated
at no cost
recyclables
employment.
taxes.
monitor.
pickup)
carts.
Visit the City's website for,,additienal' information,, en residential refuse. collection
at nev portbeachca you/,resstlentialrefuse..
*Important Note: The extra large carts would NOT be required. Residents could
choose the size and number of carts they want to use.
Cart size examples -
0 35 gallon automated container - 27"Hx 23"Wx 23"D
0 60 gallon automated container - 41 "Hx 27"W x 33"D
0 90 gallon automated container - 45.5"Hx 31 "Wx 37"D
Agenda Item No. 20
September 10, 2013
Residential Refuse Program
Newport Beach City Council
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Presentation Summary
Newport Beach and Outsourcing (Dave)
About Our Refuse Program (Mark)
About the RFP and Responses (HF&H)
Service (Mark)
Key Issues Raised (Dave)
Conclusion/Recommendation
• Police
• Fire —EMS
• Lifeguarding
• Parks
• Beaches
• Medians
• Streets
• Facilities
3 - An Active
WonCommunity
• Outdoors
• Recreation
• Seniors
• Libraries
• Arts/Cultural
Shining City by the Bay
WHY EVEN LOOK AT THIS?
WHY OUTSOURCE?
250
T
I50
M
50
Unfunded PERS Liability
(in millions)
FY 2007 FY 2011
City Retirement Payments
35
30
25
20
15
u
5
w
Amounts Paid to PERS
(in millions) Annual
Increase
FY 2000 FY 2006 FY 2014 FY 2020
2009-10 vs. 2013-14
833
763
i' IIN
752
2013 2014
Future City Retirement Payments
35
30
25
20
15
E
5
0
Amounts Paid to PERS
(in millions)
$32.7
FY 2000 FY 2006 FY 2014 FY 2020
PERS Future —Annual Payments
$25,200,000 - 2014
$32,700,000 - 2020
$43,000,000 - 2030
$5 I 90009000 - 2039
Health Care
7.4% T this year
6.7% T -next year
HOW WE OUTSOURCE
Is it something the
private sector does
well?
Are there enough
quality vendors from
which to select?
What's the state of our
own service?
Can we avoid layoffs?
Is a quality contract
available?
Does the City have the
skills to manage it?
Are there cost savings
enough to weigh
against the challenge of
change?
Outsourced
Refuse Transfer & Materials Processing Quly 2008) — CR&R
Alley Sweeping (September 2008) - Sunset Environmental Services.
City Facilities trash collection (November 2008) -Ware Disposal.
Street Sweeping (April 20 10) -Athens Services.
Beach Refuse Collection (Feb 201 1) - Rainbow Disposal.
Park and Beach/Street End Can Collection (Jan 2013) - Robert's Waste
Newport Coast, Newport Ridge, Crystal Cove (Nov 2007) — CR&R
Street Light Operations and Maintenance Qune 2013) - International Line
Builders.
Sewer video inspection (June 2013) - Houston and Harris PCS.
Landscaping (Summer 2013) - Pinnacle Landscape
Parking Meter Collection and Enforcement (Summer 20 I I) - CPS
Parking Lots Management (Summer 2013) - CPS
Economic Development (Winter 2009-10) - various
STATE OF OUR REFUSE
SERVICE
OurWorkforce
Supervision
Transfer Station Crew Chief
Refuse Workers
On Workers Comp
Collection staff remaining
N
5 16
(2)
[[1
OT and Workers Comp
Overtime
Unplanned Overtime
Worker's Comp
Number of Cases
Amount of Hours Lost
Claims and Claims Admin Costs
515 hours in FY 13-14, within just
five pay periods.
Just 167 hours in FY 12-13
23 in last 3 years
678 hours in last 3 years
$350,000 in last 3 years
Whatever the Council decides tonight, it should move to an
automated system.
2012 Total Compensation -
Newport Beach Refuse Division
Positin Title
Base and
Specialty Pay,
plus OT
Health &
Retirement,
net of B% paid
by EE
Adjusted
Total Camp
Annual Leave
Accrual per
MOU
Adjusted Total
Comp +Leave
A
B
A+B
C
A+B+C
Refuse Worker II
$
72,853
$
27,089
$
99,942
$
6,409
$
106,351
Refuse Worker II
$
61,894
$
25,620
$
87,513
$
7,280
$
94,794
Refuse Worker II
$
74,803
$
27,129
$
101,932
$
5,956
$
107,889
Refuse Worker II
$
65,399
$
25,658
$
91,057
$
6,855
$
97,912
Refuse Worker 1
$
56,659
$
24,521
$
81,180
$
4,777
$
85,957
Refuse Worker 1
$
65,832
$
26,067
$
91,899
$
4,796
$
96,695
Refuse Worker II
$
65,558
$
25,882
$
91,440
$
4,373
$
95,813
Refuse Worker II
$
72,613
$
27,019
$
99,632
$
5,956
$
105,588
Refuse Worker 1
$
58,595
$
24,804
$
83,400
$
4,796
$
88,195
Refuse Worker II
$
71,742
$
26,911
$
98,654
$
6,855
$
10.5,509
Refuse Worker II
$
71,172
$
26,002
$
97,174
$
7,308
$
104,483
Refuse Worker II
$
74,406
$
27,166
$
101,572
$
6,855
$
108,427
Refuse Worker 1
$
64,005
$
25,722
$
89,727
$
4,384
$
94,111
Refuse Worker II
$
65,200
$
25,519
$
90,720
$
3,970
$
94,689
Refuse Worker II
$
65,431
$
26,155
$
92,586
$
5,049
$
97,635
Refuse Worker I
$
58,192
$
24,795
$
82,988
$
4,796
$
87,783
Our Equipment
Our Fleet
Compliant CNG Trucks
Non -Compliant Diesel trucks
--Aged 16+ years
--Aged I I — 15 years
Estimated Cost of New CNG Trucks
4
II
5
5
$250K ea
Amount in Vehicle Replacement Reserve $4.3 M
THE RFP PROCESS AND
RESULTS
City Council Meeting — Retain HF&H
City Council Meeting — RFP Discussion
City Council Finance Committee Meeting -
RFP Refinement A
City Council Meeting - RFP Refinement
Release of RFP
Proposals Due
Proposal Summaries and Questions Sent to
Proposers
Responses to Questions Due
Follow-ups/Clarifications with Proposers
City Council Meeting — RFP Analysis & Rec.
January 2012
February 26, 2013
March 25, 2013
April 23, 2013
May 13, 2013
June 28, 2013
July 18, 2013
August 2, 2013
August 2013
September 10, 2013
• Unlimited Set Out • Unlimited Set Out Im
• Manual Collection
• Single Stream Collection
• Processing of all Waste to Recover
Recyclables
s
• Automated Collection (mix of
semi- and full automation)
• Voluntary Recycling —you can get
a recycling container
• Some Processing of Mixed
Customer -Provided Containers 01• Hauler -Provided Container
Advisory Services to Municipal Management 2
Proposer Ownership
• Athens Services
• CR&R Inc.
• Newport Beach Employee League
• Newport Recycles
• Rainbow Environmental Services
• Republic Services
• Ware Disposal
• Private
• Private
• City
• Private
9 Private
• Publicly -Traded
• Private
Advisory Services to Municipal Management 3
0
(1) As proposed plus Recycling Fee add back of $941,000.
Advisory Services to Municipal Management
12
Proposer
Path
7 -Ye
Difference from Current City
Operations
1.
CR&R
2
$
18,582,000
$
(17,013,000)
-48%
2.
Ware
1
$
21,422,000
$
(14,173,000)
-40%
3.
CR&R
1
$
22,039,000
$
(13,556,000)
-38%
4.
Ware
2
$
23,426,000
$
(12,169,000)
-34%
5.
Rainbow
2
$
27,251,000
$
(8,344,000)
-23%
6.
Republic
1
$
28,576,000
$
(7,019,000)
-20%
7.
Republic
2
$
28,576,000
$
(7,019,000)
-20%
8.
Athens
1
$
30,125,000
$
(5,470,000)
-15%
9.
N.B.E.L. (1)
2
$
32,099,000
$
(3,496,000)
-100/0
10.
Athens
2
$
33,752,000
$
(2,443,000)
-7%
11.
Rainbow
1
$
33,635,000
$
(1,960,000)
-6%
12.
N.B.E.L. (1)
1
$
34,753,003
$
(1,442,000)
-4%
13.
Current City Operations
1
$
35,595,000
$
14.
Newport Recycles
1
$
49,881,000
$
14,286,000
400/.
15.
Newport Recveles
2
Not Proposed
(1) As proposed plus Recycling Fee add back of $941,000.
Advisory Services to Municipal Management
12
CR&R IryWare
MRF for Mixed
CR&R
City's CR&R contract
Waste Processing
Newport Beach
Newport Coast, Santa Ana
City Facilities,
Experience
Heights, Commercial non -
Commercial non-exclusive
exclusive
Residential
Laguna Woods and unincorporated
Experience
27 cities
L.A. and Orange county areas
Reference Check
Score (1)
4.2
3.7
(1) 5 = Exceptional Performance, 4 = Above Expectations, 3 = Satisfactory,
2 = Below
Expectations, 1 = Unsatisfactory
Advisory Services to Municipal Management
5
—
HOWWOULDTHE
SERVICEWORK?
Service
CANS
All of my trash will be picked up.
I can have as many cans as I need.
I can have a can size that fits my space — side yard,
garage, wherever.
If I want to put out extra bags by the cans I can do so.
RECYCLING AT HOME
I don't want to recycle at home
19
Y
Y
a
OK
r1
R
Y
IR
OK
I want to recycle at home N Y
Service
CONVENIENCE
If I set out bags by the cans, they'll be collected. Y Y
If I set out larger items beside the trash, they'll be Y
collected.
If I am disabled and need side -yard "can pull-out Y
service", I can get it.
There won't be an earlier start time because of a Y
recycling truck
BULKY ITEMS
Someone will pick up my refrigerator, other big Private
appliance Hauler, fee
Someone will pick up my sofa or mattress. Private
Hauler, fee
a
Y
Y
u
u
Service
WHO PAYS?
My trash is collected at no charge to me. Y Y
The city pays for new cans. N Y
Costs of any new contract won't be passed on to me. N/A Correct
AUTOMATION v. MANUAL
Will some of the community have to remain Y — But N — some
manually -collected? automated semi -
is coming automated,
though
Use onlyAQMD Compliant (CNG) vehicles 4 now,
purchase Y
more
Service
NEW PROGRAMS — IF NEGOTIATED
Sharps - Dispose -by -mail program
Community Shred -it Days
Mulch give-away days
Compost and wood chips for City parks/parkways
EXPERIENCE/CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Direct experience in Newport Beach
"Very Satisfied" ranking in 2010 Community Survey
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
KEY ISSUES RAISED
How do we know the service is good?
Demonstrated good service in our
community (for CR&R, for example):
Newport Coast, Newport Ridge
Crystal Cove
Bonita Canyon
Santa Ana Heights
Bay Knolls (Costa Mesa SD)
Ware current provider to City facilities
LEGEND
Mean rating
on a S -point ua
1.8-2.E
2.6-3.4
Q12a Satisfaction with residential trash collection services
- 3 4.4.7 Satisfied
_ 4 2- 5,0 Very Satisfied
Other(no responsesf
2010 City of Newport
Beach Community Sur-,*ey
Of the Wealthiest California
Communities...
Belvedere -Private (Mill Valley Refuse)
Rancho Santa Fe — Private (Waste Mgmt)
Atherton — Private (Recology)
Rolling Hills — Private (Waste Mgmt)
Woodside — Private (Greenwaste)
PortolaValley — Private (Greenwaste)
Newport Coast — Private (CR&R)
r Hillsborough — Private (Recology)
Fairbanks Ranch — Private (Waste Mgmt)
San Marino — Private (Athens)
Palos Verdes Estates — Private (Athens)
Malibu — Private (Waste Management)
Orange County Cities
PRIVATE:
Aliso Viejo
Anaheim
Brea
Buena Park
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Dana Point
Fountain Valley
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine
Placentia
• La Habra
RSM
• La Palma
San Clemente
• Laguna Beach
• Laguna Hills
SJC
• Laguna Niguel
Santa Ana
• Laguna Woods
Seal Beach
• Lake Forest
- Stanton
• Los Alamitos
Tustin
Mission Viejo
Orange
Villa Park
Westminster
Yorba Linda
Orange County Cities
PUBLIC:
Newport Beach (partial)
Midway City (uninc)
Oio VADALo
CENTER
Wn7mNSTER
MEMORIAL
PARR
CEMETFAr
HUNTINGTONI HUM"morm
BEACH CrNTEA
HUMB "F
FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
"They won't be able to handle our
geography"
Most of the community =automated.
Tighter spots =semi -automated (roll the
can to the back of truck and a lift flips it
in)
This works in other tight places, like
Laguna Beach.
Contract and Cost
No cost to the customer — today or
tomorrow.
Contract proposed is for seven years.
2.5% CPI = less than expected City cost
increases
It has a term — it can be re -bid.
It has service standards.
It has penalties.
The City today successfully manages CR&R,
Ware, and several other refuse contractors.
What does $17M mean?
Allows us to manage increasing pension
costs, while still investing in the community.
Ongoing savings help fill $5-7M pension gap.
One time savings = community investment now:
Streets
Westside facilities and streetscapes (PCH, Balboa)
UTO -YIN
Can even further enhance refuse collection:
More bulky item days
A sharps program
Container pull-out for those who need it.
Shred -it days
Our employees deserve to be
protected!
They do.
Agreement with OCEA/NBEL
All employees guaranteed a good choice:
Stay with the City — likely in other field positions.
Work for the private provider, with an incentive
Retire, only if desired.
CONCLUSION
Why this is Important
The health of our city depends upon:
Reducing heavy city costs (retirement,WC,
Health)
Without compromising service
Without impacting public safety
While still keeping the community looking
And no one will lose their job.
Recommendation
Negotiate draft contract with CR&R
and/or Ware
Council guidance on Path #I or #2
Council could select other provider(s)
Return to City Council for contract
adoption (Oct -Nov 2013)
AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
�I WITH HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR
n EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
PROPOSALS
t THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Amendment No. One") is
r 1 made and entered into as of this 12th day of August, 2013 ("Effective Date"), by and
1 between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation and
charter city ("City"), and HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC, a California limited liability
company ("Consultant'), whose address is 19200 Von Karman Ave, Suite 360, Irvine,
CA 92612, and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. On June 28, 2013, City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services
Agreement ("Agreement') to conduct an evaluation of residential solid waste
collection services proposals ("Project').
B. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. One to reflect additional services
not included in the Agreement and to increase the total compensation.
C. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend the Agreement, as provided below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
l�.� 7Tu1
Section 1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety and replaced with the
following: "The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall
terminate on December 31, 2013, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein."
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Exhibit A to the Agreement shall be supplemented to include the Scope of
Services, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Services' or "Work').
Exhibit A of the Agreement and Exhibit A of Amendment No. One shall collectively be
known as "Exhibit A." The City may elect to delete certain Services within the Scope of
Services at its sole discretion.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
Exhibit B to the Agreement shall be supplemented to include the Schedule of
Billing Rates, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference
("Services" or "Work'). Exhibit B of the Agreement and Exhibit B of Amendment No.
One shall collectively be known as "Exhibit B."
The total amended compensation reflects Consultant's additional compensation
for additional Services to be performed in accordance with this Amendment No. One,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, in an amount not to exceed
Fifteen Thousand Dollars and 001100 ($15,000.00).
3. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. One to
be executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Date: 4130113
1
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
ATTEST: Mps
Date:
By: 4A4S�2\ k. P�M�
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk I;�a�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
Date: M2,- IIQ>
By:
Dave i
City Manager
CONSULTANT: HF & H Consultants, LLC,
a Californialimitd liability company
Date: ?v
By:
VW
Laith et
Seni(Yr Vice President
Date: 5 Av✓ 7-0)3
By:
VA, -*4-/
J n Fa kopf
S cretary
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Attachments: Exhibit A - Scope of Work to Review Cost Proposal Submitted By
the Newport Beach Employee League dated July 26,
2013
Exhibit B - Schedule of Billing Rates
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page 3
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK TO REVIEW COST PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE
NEWPORT BEACH EMPLOYEE LEAGUE
JULY 26, 2013
The City of Newport Beach issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) dated May 13,
2013 for residential solid waste collection services. Proposals were received on June
28, 2013 from seven proposers, including six private haulers and one from the Newport
Beach Employee League. The costs proposed by the Newport Beach Employee League
were substantially lower than the existing budgeted costs to provide residential solid
waste services with the existing municipal workforce.
If the private companies underestimate their cost of operation, they would be at
risk of absorbing a loss on the Newport Beach contract. However, as a municipal entity,
should the City retain public service, the City's general fund would absorb any excess
costs should the Newport Beach Employee League's proposed costs not be accurate.
Therefore it is critical to verify the accuracy of the cost estimates. The City has
requested HF&H Consultants to perform a more detailed review of the underlying cost
assumptions contained in the Newport Beach Employee League proposal to determine
whether all reasonable costs are accounted for.
Scope of Work
Our specific scope of work will include:
1) Meeting once with representatives of the Newport Beach Employee League
that prepared the proposal to review supporting assumptions and documentation
underlying the proposed costs. The meeting is scheduled for August 5, 2013.
2) Reviewing any additional documentation provided by the Newport Beach
Employee League to support their proposed costs.
3) Comparing the proposed costs to the City's existing budgeted costs and
identifying any variances.
4) Recommending adjustments, if applicable, to the Newport Beach Employee
League's proposed cost estimate to reflect the full cost of service, and discussing those
adjustments with a representative of the Newport Beach Employee League.
5) Documenting our findings in an exhibit.
6) Meeting with City staff to discuss the findings.
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page AS
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES
Fees
We will perform the scope of work based on time and materials. The estimated cost will
not exceed $15,000. We will bill you once per month based on the number of hours
worked and expenses incurred. Payment is due within 30 days of invoicing.
Hourly rates for professional and administrative personnel through December 31, 2013
are listed below.
Position Rate
Senior Vice President $255
Director $215
Manager $189-$209
Senior Associate $189
Associate Analyst $125-$135
Administrative Staff $80
Intern $45
Expenses will be billed as follows:
Mileage $0.565 per mile (or as adjusted by IRS allowance)
Document Reproduction (over 15 page run) $0.15 per page (black & white), $0.75 per
page (color)
Outside document reproduction/couriers/postage Actual
Public conveyances and parking Actual
All other out-of-pocket expenses Actual
HF & H Consultants, LLC
uJ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR
EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
PROPOSALS
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement') is made and
entered into as of this 28th day of June, 2613 ("Effective Date"), by and between the
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation and charter city
("City"), and HF&H CONSULTANTS, LLC, a California limited liability company
("Consultant"), whose address is 19200 Von Karman Ave, Suite 360, Irvine, CA 92612,
and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being
conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. City desires to engage Consultant to conduct an evaluation of residential solid
waste collection services proposals ("Project').
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the professional services described in this Agreement.
D. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the
previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to
retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall
terminate on December 31, 2013, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services and Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by reference ("Services" or "Work"). City may elect to delete certain Services
within the Scope of Services at its sole discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
3.1 Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this
Agreement and Consultant shall perform the Services in accordance with the schedule
included in Exhibit A. In the absence of a specific schedule, the Services shall be
performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to
strictly adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A, if any, or perform the Services in a
diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by City.
3,2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for
delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of
any such delay in the Services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees
to provide notice within two (2) calendar days of the occurrence causing the delay to the
other party so that all delays can be addressed.
3.3 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance
in writing to the Project Administrator as defined herein not later than ten (10) calendar
days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project
Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions
for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control.
3.4 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall
respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by
hand -delivery or mail.
4, COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
4.1 City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not -to -
exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Scope of
Services and Schedule of Billing Rates contained in Exhibit A. Consultant's
compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all
reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Sixty Seven Thousand
Nine Hundred Dollars ($67,900.00), without prior written authorization from City. No
billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior
written approval of City,
4.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the Work
performed the preceding month. Consultant's bilis shall include the name of the person
who performed the Work, a brief description of the Services performed and/or the
specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the Services were
performed, the number of hours spent on all Work billed on an hourly basis, and a
description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than
thirty (30) calendar days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
4.3 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically identified in Exhibit A to this Agreement or specifically approved in writing in
advance by City.
4.4 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed
without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any
Work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the
Project, but which is not 'included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 2
not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement.
Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the
Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit A.
5. PROJECT MANAGER
5.1 Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all
phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable
times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Laith Ezzet to be its
Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any
personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project
without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel.
5.2 Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project
any of its personnel assigned to the performance of Services upon written request of
City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to
complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement.
6.3 If Consultant is performing inspection services for City, the Project
Manager and any other assigned staff shall be equipped with a cellular phone to
communicate with City staff. The Project Manager's cellular phone number shall be
provided to City.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Municipal Operations Department.
City's Municipal Operations Director or designee shall be the Project Administrator and
shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator
shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the Services to be rendered pursuant to
this Agreement.
7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
To assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement,
City agrees to provide access to and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a
timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's Work schedule.
8.1 All of the Services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical
personnel required to perform the Services required by this Agreement, and that it will
perform all Services in a manner commensurate with the highest professional
standards. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "highest professional
standards" shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one (1) or more first-
class firms performing similar work under similar circumstances.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 3
8.2 All Services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel
who are not employed by City. By delivery of completed Work, Consultant certifies that
the Work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement, all applicable federal, state
and local laws, and the highest professional standard.
8.3 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and
shall keep in full force and effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is
legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City
of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement.
8.4 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be
responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes,
lockouts, accidents, acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to
approve or disapprove Consultant's Work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by
City, contractors, or governmental agencies.
ti • q
9.3 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents,
volunteers and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any
and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to
property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses,
judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation,
attorneys' fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever
(individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims"), which may arise from or in any manner
relate (directly or indirectly) to any breach of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, any Work performed or Services provided under this Agreement including,
without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials or Consultant's presence or
activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent, reckless, and/or willful acts,
errors and/or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees,
vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly
by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable, or any or all of them).
9.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to
require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this
indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorneys' fees in any action
on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement, This indemnity shall apply to all claims
and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy
limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by
Consultant.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 4
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis
and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of
conducting the Work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are
limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. No
civil service status or other right of employment shall accrue to Consultant or its
employees. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for
Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees
of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of
performing the Work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct
Consultant as to the details of the performance of the Work or to exercise a measure of
control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City
with respect to the results of the Services.
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated
Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the
Work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project
direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in
order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and
policies.
13. PROGRESS
Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator informed on a
regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and
planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired.
14. INSURANCE
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement
of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the
term of this Agreement or for other periods as specified in this Agreement, policies of
insurance of the type, amounts, terms and conditions described in the Insurance
Requirements attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the Services to be
provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or
subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 5
be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of
any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any
general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a
partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or co -tenancy, which shall result in changing
the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting
power or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership
or joint -venture.
16. SUBCONTRACTING
The subcontractors authorized by City, if any, to perform Work on this Project are
identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and
omissions of any subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual
relationship between City and any subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the
part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such
subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. City is an intended beneficiary
of any Work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care
between the subcontractor and City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the
Services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned,
transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City.
17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
17.1 Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other
writing produced (hereinafter "Documents'), prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of
implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City
shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further
compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's
expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request.
17.2 Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable
for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for
other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written
authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to
Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's
deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived
against Consultant, and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City
has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for
such changes.
17.3 All written documents shall be transmitted to City in formats compatible
with Microsoft Office and/or viewable with Adobe Acrobat.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 6
18. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the Services in this Agreement, shall be kept
confidential unless City expressly authorizes in writing the release of information.
Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives
and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement or alleged
infringement of any Unified States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright, including
costs, contained in Consultant's Documents provided under this Agreement.
20. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the Services to be
performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate
records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any Services,
expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3)
years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to
Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly
identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make
transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours.
Consultant shall allow inspection of all Work, data, Documents, proceedings and
activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final
payment to Consultant under this Agreement.
21. WITHHOLDINGS
City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction
of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to
constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall
not discontinue Work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an
immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or designee with respect to such disputed
sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of
return that City earned on its investments during the time period, from the date of
withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld.
I+Z+#�7cZ�Ic�3�.IZ�Tt�i�'�s�C�7
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional
inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what would
have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the Work accomplished by
Consultant, the additional design, construction and/or restoration expense shall be
borne by Consultant. Nothing in this Section is intended to limit City's rights under the
law or any other sections of this Agreement.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 7
23. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the
Project.
24. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
24.1 Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the
California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to
disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the Work
performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or
participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest.
24.2 If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the
Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate
termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless
City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this
Section.
��C•�itC�I�'
25.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals, including any change in
mailing address, to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing,
and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-
class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided.
25.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall
be addressed to City at:
Attn: Mark Harmon, Municipal Operations Director
Municipal Operations Department
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
PO Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
25.3 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall
be addressed to Consultant at:
Attn: Laith Ezzet
HF&H Consultants, LLC
12900 Von Karman Ave, Suite 360
Irvine, CA 92612
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 8
26. CLAIMS
Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Agreement, before making its
final request for payment under this Agreement, Consultant shall submit to City, in
writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out of this Agreement.
Consultant's acceptance of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims for
compensation under or arising out of this Agreement except those previously made in
writing and identified by Consultant in writing as unsettled at the time of its final request
for payment. Consultant and City expressly agree that in addition to any claims filing
requirements set forth in the Agreement, Consultant shall be required to file any claim
Consultant may have against City in strict conformance with the Government Claims Act
(Government Code sections 900 et seg.).
27. TERMINATION
27.1 In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the
provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured
within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are
reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate
assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written
notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure
such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the default, the non -defaulting
party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written
notice thereof.
27.2 Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole
and absolute discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by
giving no less than seven (7) calendar days' prior written notice to Consultant. In the
event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for Services
satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for
which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination,
Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed
or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form.
28. STANDARD PROVISIONS
28.1 Recitals. City and Consultant acknowledge that the above Recitals are
true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
28.2 Compliance with all Laws. Consultant shall, at its own cost and expense,
comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental
entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter
enacted. In addition, all Work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City,
county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be
subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City.
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 9
28.3 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or
condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent
breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether
of the same or a different character.
28.4 Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete
understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all
preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged
herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions
herein.
28.5 Conflicts or Inconsistencies. In the event there are any conflicts or
inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other
attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
28.6 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or
against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of
construction which might otherwise apply.
28.7 Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a
written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the
City Attorney.
28.8 Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid,
illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
28.9 Controlling Law and Venue. The laws of the State of California shall
govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to
this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of
Orange, State of California.
28.10 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal
opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee
or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap,
ancestry, sex, age or any other impermissible basis under law.
28.11 No Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute or legal action arising
under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall not be entitled to attorneys' fees.
28.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall
constitute one (1) and the same instrument.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S 9FFICE
Date: !°I ►3
By:
Aaron C. arp
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Date: b I r 9KID
By:
_ MW Na."
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
/FOWr/
Attachments:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
Date: 02,11R
By:
Dave ff
City Manager
CONSULTANT: HF&H Consultants, LLC,
a California limited liability company
Date: Z/, 7,0/-3
By:
La B. Ezzet
Senior Vice President
Date: ZN Jim c 2,013
By:
Jn Far opf
S creta
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Exhibit A — Scope of Services & Schedule of Billing Rates
Exhibit B — Insurance Requirements
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 11
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES & SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page A-1
SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE ESTIMATE TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES FOR
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
We will perform the scope of work based on time and materials. The estimated total cost to perform the
work plan is $67,900. Our actual costs could be higher or lower than this amount, depending on the
number of proposals received and other factors that cannot be precisely estimated in advance.
The proposed cost estimate includes:
• Reviewing proposals for completeness
• Evaluating complete proposals
• Preparing follow-up questions for proposers and confirming proposal understanding
• Reviewing proposer responses and clarifying unresolved issues
• Comparing private hauler proposed costs to City service costs (based on City cost data)
• Meeting with City staff to discuss the preliminary evaluation
• Interviewing proposers
• Contacting references for recommended proposer(s)
• Preparing the evaluation report
• Attending up to three meetings to discuss the evaluation report
The consulting cost estimate assumes the following parameters for proposal evaluation:
1. Cost Proposals Evaluated — The study budget includes evaluation of up seven proposals. Should
additional proposals be submitted, we estimate that the budget will increase by $5,500 per
proposal.
2. Transfer Station Lease — HF&H shall prepare a summary of proposals offered to operate the transfer
station. However, the consulting scope of work does not include negotiating and drafting the
transfer station lease agreement.
3. Comparison of Hauler Proposals to Existing City Costs — In order for HF&H to provide a comparison
of private hauler proposal costs to City costs, the City will need to provide updated City service costs
under Path 1 Manual Service (current service), and a projected budget for core service costs for Path
2 Automated Service.
HF&H's October 4, 2012 provided an analysis of core City costs for existing services which may need
to be updated to reflect inflation and use of alternative fuel vehicles for comparison with proposed
future contract costs. If the City would like HF&H to update the previous analysis of the City's cost to
provide service, it will increase our consulting cost estimate.
4. Evaluation Report — The cost estimate assumes that HF&H will submit one draft of the evaluation
report to the City and will make one set of revisions prior to submitting the final report.
May 14, 2013 1 HF&H Consultants, LLC
5. Meetings — HF&H will attend up to three meetings related to the evaluation of the proposals (e,g.
City Council or Finance Committee). HF&H will assist City staff to prepare one presentation
summarizing the results of proposal process.
6, Changes in Scope — If, during the evaluation period, the City seeks to revise the scope of services
requested from the proposers and seeks additional cost proposals, or otherwise revises the RFP
process, this would require additional time and will increase the cost estimate.
7. Negotiations — As requested by the City, this consulting scope of work and fee estimate does not
include negotiation assistance. We are available to provide such assistance if requested for an
additional fee.
The proposed scope of services does not include preparing the staff reports that City staff will need to
prepare to transmit various action items to the City Council during the process beyond assistance
described in the workplan.
The work plan that follows estimates hours by task and staff classification. Hours may be shifted among
tasks. We will bill you once per month based on the number of hours worked and expenses incurred.
Payment is due within 30 days of invoicing.
Hourly rates for professional and administrative personnel through December 31, 2013 are listed below.
Position
Rate
Senior Vice President
$255
Director
$215
Manager
$189-$209
Senior Associate
$189
Associate Analyst
$125-$135
Administrative Staff
$80
Intern
$45
Exnenses will be billed as follows:
Mileage $0.565 per mile (or as adjusted by IRS allowance)
Document Reproduction (over 15 page run) $0.15 per page (black & white), $0.75 per page (color)
Outside document reproduction/couriers/postage Actual
Public conveyances and parking Actual
All other out-of-pocket expenses Actual
May 14, 2013 2 HF&H Consultants, LLC
M
b
Oa
N
si' Ct
l0
b<
O
O N
=
Y
h
N
m
o
O
n
�
m
•
�
ti
w
aH
w
N. F
N
a
•
b
b'
O
b
O
M
h
�
M
W
W
r
N
tf
M
W
�
�
N
�
m
N
N
f9
M
U
@
N
O
c{
N
?t
c
U
N
�
W
N
O
�
O
#
A
m
@
tb
c
a
N d
@
@
N
V
E R
�
E
9c
a
w
a
N
N
o
E
E
m 0
LL
U
3
d
U
N
p
Un1
D
v
O
�
ut
m a
v�
@
c
N
m
C
g
O O
m
C
¢
a
O
2
C
V m
L
O
L1
y
W
O
o
W
G (6
U
O
W
L.
Cal
S .._
F
2
0,
W
F—
M
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS — PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1. Provision of Insurance. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and
prior to commencement of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at
its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the
type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. Consultant
agrees to provide insurance in accordance with requirements set forth here. If
Consultant uses existing coverage to comply and that coverage does not meet
these requirements, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the
existing coverage.
2. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact
business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders'
Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in
accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise
approved by the City's Risk Manager.
3. Coverage Requirements.
A. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance, statutory limits, and Employer's Liability
Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) each
accident for bodily injury by accident and each employee for bodily injury
by disease in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section
3700 of the Labor Code.
Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a
Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents,
employees and volunteers.
B. General Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance, and if necessary umbrella liability insurance, with
coverage at least as broad as provided by Insurance Services Office form
CG 00 01, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per
occurrence, one million dollars ($1,000,000) general aggregate. The
policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, personal and
advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract
(including the tort liability of another assumed in a business contract) with
no endorsement or modification limiting the scope of coverage for liability
assumed under a contract.
C. Automobile Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01
covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of Consultant
arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this
Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page B-1
vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit each accident.
D. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be
performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of
one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy
inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the
Effective Date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain
continuous coverage through a period no less than three years after
completion of the Services required by this Agreement.
4. Other Insurance Requirements. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to
contain, the following provisions:
A. Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation
against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees
and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing
insurance evidence in compliance with these requirements to waive their
right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of
recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers
from each of its subconsultants.
B. Additional Insured Status. All liability policies including general liability,
excess liability, pollution liability, and automobile liability, if required, but
not including professional liability, shall provide or be endorsed to provide
that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall be included
as insureds under such policies.
C. Primary and Non Contributory. All liability coverage shall apply on a
primary basis and shall not require contribution from any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by City.
D. Notice of Cancellation. All policies shall provide City with thirty (30)
calendar days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten
(10) calendar days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
5. Additional Agreements Between the Parties. The parties hereby agree to the
following:
A. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance
to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with
a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation and other
endorsements as specified herein for each coverage. Insurance
certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager
prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance
shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page B-2
Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of
all required insurance policies, at any time.
B. City's Right to Revise Requirements. City reserves the right at any time
during the term of the Agreement to change the amounts and types of
insurance required by giving Consultant sixty (60) calendar days advance
written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to Consultant, City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
C. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions, Consultant acknowledges and
agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional
obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
D. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features
or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on
coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage
normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given
coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive,
or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type.
E. Self-insured Retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured
retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-
insurance will not be considered to comply with these requirements unless
approved by City.
F. City Remedies for Non -Compliance, If Consultant or any subconsultant
fails to provide and maintain insurance as required herein, then City shall
have the right but not the obligation, to purchase such insurance, to
terminate this Agreement, or to suspend Consultant's right to proceed until
proper evidence of insurance is provided. Any amounts paid by City shall,
at City's sole option, be deducted from amounts payable to Consultant or
reimbursed by Consultant upon demand.
G. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from
Contractor's performance under this Contract, and that involve or may
involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. City assumes
no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty)
to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to
involve City.
H. Consultant's Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own
judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of
the Work.
HF & H Consultants, LLC Page B-3