REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) COVER SHEET

San Diego, CA 92101-4195
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
(RFI) COVER SHEET
Subject: Information Gathering Regarding Improvements to the City’s Current Non-
Exclusive Franchise System
Date Issued: August 13, 2015
Response Date and Time (Closing Date): September 4, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.
Questions/Comments Due Date: August 20, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
City Contact: Maureen Medvedyev, Senior Procurement Specialist,
[email protected]
Website:______________________________________________
Representative’s Original Signature: ____________________________________
1) Provide all requested information identified in this Cover Sheet.
2) Submit all requested information described in the RFI.
3) Submit all requested information on or before the Closing Date.
Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
This RFI is issued for purposes of gathering information and planning related to the
districted exclusive collection system described in the section entitled “Background.” The
City does not intend to award a contract on the basis of information received in response
to this RFI. The City may, in its sole discretion, consider the information submitted in
response to this RFI during the development of a competitive solicitation.
II. RFI SUBMITTAL PROCESS
A. RFI SUBMITTAL
1. Timely Submission. Responses must be submitted as described herein in a sealed
envelope to the Purchasing & Contracting Department (P&C) located at 1200
Third Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101. Please submit one (1) original
and one (1) copy. The subject as described on the Cover Sheet and Closing Date
must be referenced in the lower left-hand corner of the outside of the envelope.
2. Questions and Comments. Written questions and comments must be
electronically mailed (e-mailed) to the City Contact identified on the Cover Sheet
no later than the date specified on the Cover Sheet. Only written communications
relative to the RFI shall be considered. E-mail is the only acceptable method for
submission of questions. It is incumbent upon respondents to verify that the City
has received their questions and/or comments. All questions will be answered in
writing. The City will distribute questions and answers without identification of
the inquirer(s) to all responders who are on record as having received this RFI. No
oral communications can be relied upon for this RFI. Addenda will be issued
addressing questions or comments that are determined by the City to cause a
change to any part of this RFI.
3. Future Competitive Solicitations. Respondents are not prohibited from
submitting one or more proposals should the City competitively bid the goods or
services described herein.
4. RFI Opening and California Public Records Act. Responses to this RFI will
not be opened in public. Note, however, that any information submitted in
response to a RFI is a public record subject to disclosure unless the City
determines that a specific exemption in the California Public Records Act
(CPRA) applies. If a Respondent submits information clearly marked confidential
or proprietary, the City may protect such information and treat it with
confidentiality to the extent permitted by law. However, it will be the
responsibility of the Respondent to provide to the City the specific legal grounds
on which the City can rely in withholding information requested under the CPRA
should the City choose to withhold such information. If the Respondent does not
provide a specific and detailed legal basis for requesting the City to withhold the
Respondent’s confidential or proprietary information at the time a response is
Page 2
submitted, the City will release the information as required by the CPRA and
Respondent will hold the City, its elected officials, officers, and employees
harmless for release of this information. It will be the Respondent’s obligation to
defend, at Respondent’s expense, any legal actions or challenges seeking to obtain
from the City any information requested under the CPRA withheld by the City at
the Respondent’s request. Furthermore, the Respondent shall indemnify and hold
harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, and employees from and against
any claim or liability, and defend any action brought against the City, resulting
from the City’s refusal to release information requested under the CPRA which
was withheld at Respondent’s request.
B. BACKGROUND
The City of San Diego’s (City) Environmental Services Department (ESD) is seeking an
experienced and qualified consultant to examine the potential for a districted exclusive
collection system as an alternative to the current non-exclusive franchise system.
In the fall of 2014, the City Auditor recommended that ESD conduct a study examining
the potential for a districted exclusive collection system as an alternative to the current
non-exclusive franchise system, which would include an analysis and comparisons of the
two franchise systems. Additionally, ESD is interested in determining if a transition to a
districted exclusive franchise system would be beneficial to the City in meeting both
State mandated waste diversion goals, as well as the goals set forth in the approved Zero
Waste Plan for the City of San Diego (Attachment 1 – Zero Waste Plan).
The City’s Non-Exclusive Solid Waste Collection Franchise (Franchise) system was
created in October 1996 to regulate the transportation, collection, and disposal of refuse
generated by the commercial sector and by single and multi-family residences located on
private streets (herein referred to as Nonresidential). Waste hauling companies
(Franchisees) are granted Franchise Agreements authorizing them to collect refuse, which
includes (with limited exceptions, as noted in San Diego Municipal Code (SDMC) §
66.0109) recyclables, food waste, and green waste material within the city limits of San
Diego. The collection of refuse from single or multi-family residences located on public
streets, which the City is obligated to collect under the People’s Ordinance (SDMC §
66.0127), is excluded from the services Franchisees are authorized to provide.
In September 2000, a two-tier Franchise system was established with a two-tier Franchise
Fee to reflect the difference in market share served by the Franchisees. Under the two-tier
system, Class I Franchises are companies that collect up to 75,000 tons of refuse per year.
Class II Franchisees are companies that collect more than 75,000 tons of refuse per year,
with no upper limit. The City’s Franchise system is a closed system and has 21
Franchisees; however, the Class II Franchisees include the three largest companies and
their affiliates, who together account for 13 of the 21 Franchises and collect
approximately 77% of Nonresidential tonnage. The remaining eight Franchisees are
smaller companies with Class I status.
Page 3
Franchisees are required to pay both a Franchise Fee and an Assembly Bill (AB) 939 Fee.
The Franchise Fee is based on a dollar amount per ton of solid waste collected in the
City. As of 2000, Class I Franchise Fees were set at $1 per ton less than Class II
Franchise Fees to recognize the difference in value of the two classes of Franchises and
to enable the smaller Franchisees to be more competitive. Franchise Fees are currently
$15 per ton for Class I Franchisees and $16 per ton for Class II Franchisees.
The City’s AB 939 Fee is currently $11 per ton. The AB 939 Fee is currently charged on
all tons disposed at Miramar Landfill, regardless of who hauls it, and all tons disposed by
Franchisees pursuant to their City Franchise, regardless of the final disposal site. The AB
939 Fee (like the Franchise Fee) is not currently charged for types of waste that fall
outside the Franchise, such as source-separated “recyclable materials” (as defined in
SDMC § 66.0102). Therefore, if waste collected by a Franchise hauler is delivered to a
transfer station or mixed construction and demolition (C&D) debris processing facility,
where the material is separated for recycling, only that portion of the load transferred to a
disposal facility would be subject to the AB 939 Fee. AB 939 Fees are deposited into a
Recycling Fund and used exclusively to fund City recycling and waste diversion
programs and activities.
As recycling and waste diversion tonnages increase, there is a decrease in disposal
tonnages and their resulting revenues, Franchise Fees, and AB 939 Fee revenues. This
results in less revenue being available to support existing or future disposal, recycling,
and waste diversion programs. ESD is preparing to seek City Council approval to
increase the tonnage base included within the franchise, and therefore subject to the
Franchise Fee and AB 939 Fee, to help stabilize revenues and provide community
services. Fees charged to the Franchisees have been recommended to be changed to total
tons collected in the City, including solid waste and recyclable materials collected with a
net cost to the customer, such as commingled recyclable commodities, mixed C&D
debris, yard trimmings, food scraps, etc. This particular proposed change would continue
to exempt clean source separated inert materials such as concrete, asphalt, dirt, and rock
from the Franchise Fee and AB 939 Fee.
In the fall of 2014, the Office of the City Auditor issued an audit of the City of San
Diego’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs recommending that ESD examine the
potential for moving from a non-exclusive franchise system to a districted exclusive
franchise system (Attachment 2 – Performance Audit of ESD’s Waste Reduction and
Recycling Programs). Specifically, the audit recommended that ESD conduct a study
examining the potential for a districted exclusive collection system as an alternative to
the current non-exclusive franchise system, which would include an analysis and
comparisons of the two franchise systems in the following areas:
Potential for stimulating private investment and innovation in recycling
infrastructure to improve diversion rates, extend the life of Miramar Landfill, and
achieve other Zero Waste goals as defined in the Zero Waste Plan;
Impact on customer prices;
Impact on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic;
Impact on the City’s ability to stabilize franchise and AB 939 revenues; and
Impact on long-term solid waste hauling competition.
The City has accepted the Auditor’s recommendation and is requesting information from
Respondents to this RFI on how best to achieve the City’s objective.
C. REQUESTED INFORMATION
1. It is highly desired that Respondents’ submission address and provide all
information requested in this RFI, particularly relating to the goals and objectives
described in Section II, paragraph B. All responses must be thorough and concise.
The City encourages creativity.
2. Respondents should address any other issues related to this RFI that Respondent
deems important and relevant to City’s goals and objectives as described in
Section II, paragraph B.
3. If applicable, Respondents should address how Respondent would fulfill the
City’s objective of selecting a qualified and experienced Consultant to study the
City’s current non-exclusive solid waste franchise system to determine if a
transition to a districted exclusive franchise system would be beneficial to the
City in meeting the City’s waste diversion goals.
4. Respondents should describe any technical, business, legal, and/or revenue
specifications that the City should consider when structuring a competitive
solicitation that accomplishes the City’s goals and objectives.
Environmental Services Department
MMedvedyev
MMedvedyev
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Thank you to the myriad of stakeholders that contributed an enormous amount of time
and talent in providing critical input on this plan. The feedback was critical and resulted
in a much more richly nuanced plan. It became apparent through this process that
there is a significant network of existing businesses, community members and others
that are ready and willing to assist the City in reaching this goal. The synergy that can
be realized by working through this network as much as possible in reaching zero waste
goals were evident and are incorporated into the Zero Waste Plan (ZWP).
The stakeholder process has been an integral part of developing the ZWP. Because
this is a dynamic plan which will change and adjust over the years, the City will continue
to engage stakeholders throughout the implementation process.
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
Zero Waste is a principle that calls for handling discarded materials as commodities for
reuse rather than for disposal, and conserving those commodities through waste
prevention, recycling, composting, and other technologies. This “discards”
management system emphasizes commodities can flow full circle focusing on
conservation during the total life cycle of materials from product design, collection, and
processing to the marketing of new products made from the material. The goals of this
ZWP are:
target 75% diversion by 2020, 90% diversion by 2035, and “zero” by 2040 by
identifying potential diversion strategies for future action. To increase the City’s
waste diversion rate to 75% will require an estimated additional 332,000 tons per
year to be diverted from landfill disposal;
demonstrate continuous improvement towards a goal of zero waste to landfills;
emphasize education by renewing City public information efforts;
promote local policies and ordinances and legislation at the state level that
encourage manufacturers, consumers, and waste producers to be responsible
for waste;
City of San Diego’s Zero Waste Plan
Environmental Services Department P a g e | 3
SETTING
In the City, the People’s Ordinance (San Diego Municipal Code §66.0127) requires the
City to provide collection, transportation and disposal of residential refuse, which
includes trash, recyclables and yard trimmings, at no cost. The City’s inability to charge
for residential refuse collection precludes the creation of the industry standard “pay as
you throw” financial incentives for recycling and waste reduction. In addition, the
residential recycling and trash service has a cost of approximately $47 million dollars
per year that is currently funded by the City’s General Fund (GF) and fees collected
from the commercial waste stream. Approximately 23 percent of disposed material in
the City is collected under the People’s Ordinance. As a result, funding current and
future waste related programming involves an interwoven fee structure that presents
several challenges for the City’s discards management system.
Within this intricate structure are two enterprise funds (the Refuse Disposal Fund (RDF)
and the Recycling Fund (RF)), and the GF. Tipping fees collected at the Miramar
Landfill are almost evenly split between the cost of running the landfill and providing
waste related programs that support the City. There are approximately $14 million in
services that are currently paid by the RDF through the collection of tipping fees at
Miramar Landfill. As the amount of waste diverted increases, there may be GF impacts
to sustain program operations at current funding levels. In addition, the cost of
disposing City waste will significantly increase when the Miramar Landfill closes and the
City must bear the additional costs for receiving, transferring and delivering waste to
other local disposal facilities. Services that will become the responsibility of the GF
include maintaining 16 closed landfills; recycling/diversion programs; illegal dump/litter
abatements; community cleanups; homeless camp removal; dead animal collection;
code and franchise agreement enforcement; and servicing of public waste containers in
the public rights-of-way.
Current revenue streams are primarily received when materials are disposed in the
landfill. Therefore as recycling increases, revenues from tipping fees and AB 939
recycling fees at the Miramar Landfill decrease. This is further complicated in the City
because the Miramar Landfill is operating in a private market place. Fees must be kept
competitive or the City may lose waste to the other landfills and facilities in the County.
The State legislature has enacted several bills intended to promote waste diversion. In
1986, Assembly Bill (AB) 2020, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter
Reduction Act, established California Redemption Value, a refundable deposit on
certain types of beverage containers. AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act
of 1989, set forth a requirement that all local California jurisdictions achieve a rate of
50% diversion by the year 2000 and each year thereafter, and submit an annual update
to CalRecycle for approval of programs designed to divert materials from disposal to the
maximum extent feasible, or face fines of up to $10,000 per day.
Under AB 939, each jurisdiction was required to develop a Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) demonstrating how they would achieve the mandated
diversion goals. Each jurisdiction also developed a Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE), similar to the SRRE, which identified those programs the jurisdiction
would implement to ensure the proper management and handling of household
hazardous waste (HHW). Finally, each jurisdiction was required to prepare a
Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE), which identifies non-disposal facilities used by
the jurisdiction to achieve the diversion goals (i.e., Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs),
composting facilities, transfer stations recovering at least 5% of material). The
Countywide Siting Element identifies disposal facilities used by all jurisdictions within
the county and identifies at least 15 years of disposal capacity. The Countywide
Summary Plan summarizes AB 939 planning documents for each county.
Additionally, the enactment of AB 341 in 2011 established a statewide goal of 75%
diversion by 2020. It also created a mandatory commercial recycling requirement for
businesses, public agencies, and multi-family properties; with implementation, outreach,
monitoring and compliance being the responsibility of local jurisdictions.
The enactment of AB 1826 on September 29, 2014 required jurisdictions to develop
plans to divert additional organic materials from landfill disposal; and will require
businesses, public agencies, and multi-family properties to arrange for recycling of
organic materials. Beginning April 1, 2016 those who generate eight cubic yards or
more of organic waste will be required to separate and pay for the collection of their
organic wastes. By January 1, 2019, those with more than four cubic yards of solid
waste will be required to separate and pay to have organics materials collected. The bill
did not specify who was responsible for development of the facilities accepting these
organic wastes. Another organic materials related bill that was passed at the same time
is AB 1594, which removed the diversion credit associated with using yard trimmings to
cover waste in landfills.
On December 16, 2013, the City Council adopted a Zero Waste Objective that
established the targets for this ZWP of 75% diversion of waste from landfills by 2020
and Zero Waste by 2040. Staff is additionally targeting the goal of 90% diversion by
2035 as currently proposed in the City’s draft Climate Action Plan.
The City Auditor’s Performance Audit of the Environmental Services Department’s
Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs, issued in August 2014, and titled:
“Opportunities Exist to Improve Recycling Rates and Reduce Adverse Impacts
Generated by Waste Hauling,” contained 12 recommendations. Key recommendations
include:
amend franchise agreements to include minimum diversion requirements, with
liquidated damages for non-compliance, annually review the minimum required
diversion rate and determine whether an increase is needed, and for haulers to
provide all customers with a minimum level of recycling service or submit
documentation to the City justifying any exceptions that are granted;
allocate additional resources to City Recycling Ordinance (CRO) enforcement
for City-serviced residential properties;
maximize opportunities for education and outreach; and
monitor City departments’ performance with the CRO, report to the City Council
on the status annually, and educate and assist other City departments in
meeting recycling requirements.
In 1992, the City Council approved a General Development Plan for the Miramar
Landfill, which specified the development of a suite of waste management facilities,
including a HHW facility which has been built, a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF),
resource recovery facility, and related facilities.
To plan for the City’s future facility needs, the Long-Term Resource Management
Options (LTRMO) Strategic Plan was accepted by the City Council on November 13,
2012. The Plan provided an analysis of regional demand and landfill capacity; identified
options for solid waste reduction, recycling, reuse, and disposal. Options to maximize
the capacity and extend the life of Miramar Landfill were identified, including: zero waste
programs, a Resource Recovery Center at Miramar Landfill, West Miramar Landfill
expansions, permitting and expanding North Miramar Landfill, and a Transfer Station at
Miramar Landfill.
Waste from the City is disposed in the Miramar, Sycamore, and Otay Landfills.
Facilities used for diversion purposes are described in the City’s Nondisposal Facility
Element, and include several transfer stations; three mixed C&D processing facilities;
the Miramar Greenery and other composting and mulching facilities; several clean
MRFs; a substantial number of source separated recycling facilities for materials such
as concrete, asphalt, rock, dirt, metal, cardboard, paper, and other materials; and a
HHW facility for residents. However, the facilities identified in the NDFE will not be
adequate to achieve 75% diversion. Infrastructure to address specific waste streams,
like food waste, will need to be built to meet the required diversion goals.
Existing Diversion Programs and Diversion Rates San Diego has made significant strides in diverting waste from the landfill by increasing
its diversion rate by more than 20% in the last decade (see Exhibit 1 (below)). The
adoption and implementation of the City Recycling Ordinance (CRO) and Construction
and Demolition (C&D) Debris Deposit Ordinance (C&D Ordinance) and a variety of
other waste diversion programs have been crucial in positioning the City on the road to
Zero Waste.
phased into effect between 2008 and
2010. It requires recycling of
recyclable materials generated from
residential facilities (both single
family and multi-family), commercial
facilities (including City buildings),
the implementation of the CRO,
haulers are required to report the
volume (not the weight) of refuse
and recycling services provided.
of recycling service to commercial
and multi-family customers
and 2012. In 2012, the exemption
threshold for commercial and multi-
family properties was lowered to
largely coincide with the
requirements of the State’s
mandatory commercial recycling requirement under AB 341. Already having the CRO
in place put the City in a very good position for complying with this new requirement.
The C&D Ordinance took effect in July 2008. It requires certain building and/or
demolition project applicants to post a refundable deposit to ensure compliance with the
ordinance which requires diversion of at least 50% of the C&D debris generated by the
project. Diversion credit is counted for debris that is recycled, reused, or donated for
reuse. Based upon deposit refund requests, the overall recycling rate under the
Ordinance is 85% for projects asking for and receiving a refund. Larger projects
typically send much of their waste to recycling facilities with 100% diversion rates,
whereas smaller projects often co-mingle waste and use a mixed C&D processing
facility with a lower diversion rate. The average recycling rate for all projects is 71%.
Exhibit 1: Disposal and Diversion in San Diego
The City also provides curbside yard trimmings and recycling collection; waste
reduction, recycling, composting education in schools, City departments, and the
community; a compost bin voucher program to residents which discounts three styles of
compost bins; a commercial food scrap composting program; public space recycling
programs; and an environmentally preferable purchasing program (EP3). Additionally
the City requires franchise waste haulers to provide recycling services as a requirement
of their franchise agreements. Currently, the City’s diversion rate is 67% but has
remained relatively constant since 2010. There is still significant room for improvement.
The City’s single family curbside recycling and yard trimmings collection programs divert
23% of the waste generated by that sector; commercial and multi-family facilities divert
26% of the waste they generate; and the City facility diversion rate is 27%. Most mature
curbside recycling programs achieve at least a 40% rate of diversion and commercial
rates can often be significantly higher than that.
Waste Composition
is tracked by composition as seen
in Exhibit 2. When tracked by
generating sector, the disposed
can be seen in Exhibits 4-6 that all
sectors have almost equal
opportunity to enhance their
recyclable streams.
and businesses is approximately
million tons is recycled. In order to
determine what further diversion
opportunities are available, the
City conducted a Waste
Characterization Study in 2012-
2013 which evaluated the
composition of materials being
disposed. The following tonnages
Exhibit 2: Composition of Materials Landfilled & What They
Can Be Recycled Into
Sector CY 2013 tons Single-Family 381,000
Multi-Family 266,000
Commercial 645,000
Military 27,000
indicated that 76% of materials
being disposed City-wide are
disposed recyclables is
those commodities). The ZWP
the most prevalent recyclable
class, organics and C&D waste are
the largest components. One-third
accounting for 15% (or
waste stream.
increased diversion, foremost
organic materials including yard
adequate infrastructure does not
additional materials. The City
Miramar Landfill, but this facility will
not be adequate for the projected
increase in organic material
infrastructure, this ZWP includes
adding additional composting infrastructure at the Miramar Greenery. The development
of mixed recycling/ anaerobic digestion facility(ies) by private stakeholders, will be
monitored, and use of existing facilities, like the anaerobic digesters used for the
decomposition of sludge from the sewer system will be evaluated for inclusion of food
scraps. If the construction of necessary facilities to achieve the goals do not
materialize, evaluation of other options will be proposed. Other options would include
implementation of exclusive franchises that require the franchisee to develop
appropriate infrastructure or development of a City operated facility for example.
The mandatory commercial recycling programs established under AB 341 and AB 1826
are examples of state mandated local programs. These bills have established
aggressive goals for organics diversion but do not address the lack of existing
infrastructure to process the diverted organics/recyclables.
Another challenge to diversion is the requirement to divert materials requiring special
handling. Difficult to manage items including sharps, batteries, bulbs, and
pharmaceuticals present large challenges to jurisdictions as the responsibility to
manage these materials has fallen on jurisdictions, with no funding provided to aid in the
management of these wastes. Management of these items is highly regulated, and very
costly to the City and other jurisdictions. Further, these items are dangerous and
problematic if/when placed in refuse and recycling containers, or otherwise
improperly/illegally disposed. When producers and consumers share responsibility for
costs of disposal, it is easier to achieve waste reduction targets.
Stakeholder Recommendations
The City identified a broad list of stakeholders. Stakeholders were primarily alerted via
email or through the City website. Exhibit 7 shows the diversity of participation and
Exhibit 8 lists individual participants by stakeholder interest.
Eight meetings were open to the whole community and there were also numerous
individual presentations to a wide range of groups and individuals, which were provided
upon request.
increase the responsibility to recycle in the CRO;
expand curbside green waste collection;
enhance public education, outreach, collaboration and enforcement;
correct inequities associated with the People’s Ordinance;
develop new diversion strategies;
lead by example.
Stakeholders also discussed financing mechanisms. They suggested a shift away
from financing based on waste disposal to funding that is sustainable and resource
based. A detailed Stakeholder Participation Report is provided as Attachment 1.
Exhibit 8: Stakeholder Participants
Adams Avenue BID Bigsly Enterprises American Forest and Paper Association
BID Council Board of Directors Bridgepoint Education & Ashford University
Gaslamp Quarter Association California Strategies
College Area Business District CP Manufacturing Balboa Park Cultural Partnership
North Park BID San Diego Crowne Plaza Hanalei San Diego Building Industry Association
Evans Hotels Building Owners and Managers Association
EWR
Community Planners Committee Mesa College IFMA
Indiv idual Residents (18) Omnire NAIOP
Kensington Garden Club PK Holdings, LLC. San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Diego River Park Foundation Point Loma Nazarene University San Diego County Apartment Association
Scripps Miramar Ranch Planning Group Recycle San Diego San Diego County Disposal Association
Sustainable Scripps Ranch San Diego Zoo San Diego Green Building Council
SeaWorld San Diego San Diego League of Women Voters
Sharp Healthcare SD County Taxpayers Association
I Love A Clean San Diego Solar Turbines Zero Waste San Diego
Inika Small Earth Sony
San Diego County Office of Education Tap and Press
Solana Center for Environmental Innovation The Lodge at Torrey Pines Boxed Green
The 1:1 Movement UCSD Sustainable Solutions EcoParts
United Cerebral Palsy San Diego Goodwill Industries
WAXIE IMS Recycling
OB Green Gold WISH Recon Recycling
Sierra Club Ripple Textile Recycling
Surfrider Foundation San Diego Fibers
The Green Store CalRecycle Urban Corps
EcoVerse City Auditor Sustainable Surplus
Phoenix Foods City of Chula Vista
Zero Waste San Diego City of Encinitas
Ssubi is Hope City of Oceanside Allan Company
City of Poway Daily Disposal Serv ices
Debris Box
Center on Policy Initiatives Dependable Disposal
CRRA City of San Diego Public Utilities Diamond Solid Waste Serv ices
Equinox Center County of San Diego EDCO
LEA Express Waste and Recycling
MetroTransit System John Smith Earthworks
Republic Serv ices
Naval Region Southwest Waste Management
Individual Businesses and Institutions
San Diego County
San Diego Chapter
Department
POTENTIAL DIVERSION STRATEGIES
In order to develop sustainable funding mechanisms, the City worked in collaboration
with stakeholders to develop strategies that will allow for the continuance of existing
programs while also increasing funding to a level that will support new programming.
The following potential strategies are possible future actions to achieve the additional
332,000 tons of diversion needed to achieve 75% recycling. These mechanisms can
also be used to further enhance recycling beyond 2020 in order to achieve the goals of
90% diversion by 2035 and zero waste by 2040. Many of the potential programs that
have been included are direct recommendations from stakeholders received during the
outreach effort. Staff will bring specific components forward to City Council for approval
as the ZWP is implemented. The ZWP attempts to maintain as much equity as possible
across the various segments of the community.
1. Establish AB 1826 infrastructure: Additional organics recycling infrastructure will
be needed to comply with AB 1826. The City plans to encourage the private sector
development of facilities that will reduce and reuse this waste stream. These facilities
will be a key strategy to increasing the City’s diversion rate. This is projected to result in
120,000 tons of additional diversion by 2020.
2. Establish diversion requirements in franchise agreements: Franchised haulers
collect from commercial and multi-family properties and their diversion rate is 26%.
There are approximately 15,000 commercial and multi-family properties that are
serviced by the franchised haulers. Experience in other jurisdictions shows that by
including recycling benchmarks into franchise agreements, significant progress can be
made and many impediments to waste reduction and recycling removed, including the
difficulty measuring waste reduction. It has been determined that the minimum
diversion requirements should be 50% to ensure that the City can achieve 75% by
2020. Staff plans to propose this new target at the next franchise renewal and
anticipates bringing the renewals forward to City Council in Fall 2015. Staff plans to
review the target annually at the time of renewal of franchise agreements. This is
projected to result in 93,500 tons of additional diversion.
3. Provide enhanced technical assistance for commercial and multi-family: to
increase their current 26% diversion rate to 50% and materials are added to the CRO, a
train the trainer model will be applied to ensure that haulers are adequately prepared
and their staff is adequately trained. This does not result in a specific diversion quantity,
but would support diversion efforts conducted by the haulers.
4. Allow fibrous yard trimmings at the Miramar Greenery: As a result of a recent
acquisition of a new grinder and the modification of the conditions in the composting
permit, staff will now be phasing in the acceptance of fibrous yard trimmings at the
Miramar Landfill Greenery. Staff anticipates phased acceptance of fibrous yard
trimmings at the Greenery to begin in January 2016. This is projected to result in
18,000 tons of new diversion.
5. Develop a Resource Recovery Park (RRP): As originally proposed in the Miramar
Landfill General Development Plan, staff plans to construct a RRP at Miramar Landfill,
which could include a Resource Recovery Center (RRC), additional composting
infrastructure, and mixed recycling infrastructure, as are described below. The initial
step will be evaluating potential partnerships for the creation of the RRP. The RRC
would likely be the first component of the RRP to be built.
a. Develop a Resource Recovery Center (RRC): The RRC would be at the
entrance to the Miramar Landfill and would service all 200,000 transactions from
non-franchised haulers delivering wastes in small vehicles, including home owners,
contractors, and businesses. This would be constructed using funds in an existing
Capital Improvement Project and would result in the diversion of an additional
80,000 tons from disposal, and is a model that could eventually be replicated on a
smaller scale throughout the City. Staff anticipates bringing a proposal forward to
City Council to develop a RRC in July 2017.
b. Develop an aerated static pile system composting system: The City
currently composts using long windrows that are mixed and watered. A portion of
this operation is proposed to be modified to an aerated static pile system. This type
of technology conducts composting in a
controlled environment under a cover in the
outdoors. Computer systems monitor and
regulate oxygen, temperature and moisture to
ensure ideal conditions for rapid and nuisance
free composting. This change would enable
the City to better process clean separated
food scraps that would come to the Greenery
as a result of increased collection efforts.
Diversion associated with this system would
be part of the overall AB 1826 infrastructure.
c. Encourage the development of additional composting and mixed recycling
infrastructure: There is currently insufficient infrastructure in the City of San Diego
to process all of the organics that will need to be diverted to meet the AB 1826
mandate and the 75% diversion goal. The expectation is for the City’s franchised
haulers to develop the infrastructure they need to achieve the diversion
requirements for their customers, and the requirements that will be incorporated into
their franchise agreements as a result of the AB 1826 mandates.
Exhibit 9: Aerated Static Pile System
6. Modify CRO: ESD staff is planning on bringing forward two modifications to the
CRO and this is projected to result in 13,000 tons of new diversion. Additional outreach
will be required. Staff anticipates bringing CRO revisions forward to City Council in
January 2016.
a. Reduce exemptions in the City Recycling Ordinance (CRO): Approximately
3,500 of the nearly 6,000 commercial and multi-family properties that are currently
exempt do not have recycling. The exemption threshold is for facilities that
generate less than four cubic yards of refuse and recycling per week. Eliminating
the four cubic yards exemption would increase the number of multi-family properties
subject to the CRO by almost 40% and in so doing, further help to spread the
burden of additional zero waste programs across the whole community.
b. Add materials to the City Recycling Ordinance (CRO): The CRO language
was developed such that additional materials can be added as markets become
available. To comply with state law, two key commodity areas are proposed to be
added to the CRO: organics (yard trimmings and food scraps) and reusable items.
Currently only single family residents that have the greenery collection program are
required to recycle their yard trimmings and unpainted wood waste. Yard
trimmings, unpainted wood, and food scraps diversion requirements will be phased
in for commercial and multifamily waste generators. Reuseable items are a more
general, and subjective, category and it is anticipated by adding this category to the
CRO requirements, the reuse opportunities that currently exist will be used with
more frequency by the community.
7. Modify C&D Ordinance: increase diversion requirement to 65%: Construction
and demolition debris constitutes more than 23% of the commercial waste stream.
Increasing the C&D Ordinance requirement from 50% to 65% diversion appears to be a
readily reachable goal, given that mixed C&D recycling facilities servicing the City of
San Diego have been certified at 65% by staff for at least the past two years. This is
projected to result in 2,000 tons of additional diversion. Staff anticipates bringing C&D
Ordinance revisions forward to City Council in January 2016.
8. Develop a recycling reporting by neighborhoods and City departments
program: While reporting programs are not generally associated with a specific number
of tons diverted, studies show that participation increases when metrics are recorded
and reported. Capturing metrics and then sharing that information with program
participants is expected to enhance participation. Quarterly trends in City serviced
single family recycling participation for over 110 individual single family residential
communities will be publicized. For the City departments, a scorecard has been
incorporated into the City facility refuse and recycling collection contract to provide
direct feedback to all departments. Coupled with enhanced education and outreach to
departments, the City departments program could result in 1,500 tons of diversion.
9. Require City Recycling Ordinance (CRO) compliance as part of City leases of
commercial office space: Staff is working with the Real Estate Assets Department
staff to develop CRO compliance language to be incorporated into future leases of
commercial office space. This will help increase diversion for franchised haulers, as
they service buildings where the City leases space.
10. Provide enhanced education about and enforcement of City serviced
residences recycling programs: While education programs are not generally
associated with a specific number of tons diverted, they are considered essential to
increasing the efficiency of existing collection programs. Staff plans to develop
additional outreach and increase the frequency of residential recycling and trash cart
inspections. Staff anticipates enhanced education and enforcement related to City
serviced residences recycling programs to begin in Fiscal Year 2017. Coupled with
enforcement efforts focused on City serviced residences, this could result in 4,000 tons
of diversion.
a. Support local, state and federal producer responsibility policies and
laws: Although it is difficult to determine an exact number of tons that would be
diverted, producer responsibility is a key strategy. Because an effective Zero
Waste approach considers that the producers of waste should be responsible for
costs of disposal, and indeed for the total life cycle of a product, the ZWP
advocates support of education, policies and laws that promote the sharing of the
financial responsibility for hard to handle materials with the product
manufacturers and their distributors. Target materials include but are not limited
to:
o Paint, stains, varnishes
o Electronics, batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), universal
waste
o Motor oil, antifreeze, lubricants, home chemicals
b. Further promote reuse polices: The City will continue to support and
promote reuse policies such as distribution events for reuseable bags, use of
reuseable water bottles, cups, flatware, etc. as appropriate.
12. Develop “Zero Waste Star” recognition program to encourage diversion: This
recognition program will recognize local businesses, properties, non-governmental
organizations, and City departments, for their zero waste efforts. It will expand on the
current Waste Reduction and Recycling Awards Program that has primarily been
targeting businesses and multi-family complexes, to include residents, education
providers, policy groups, non-profits, etc.
13. Reuse/repair resource directories and community reuse programs: While
resource directories and community reuse programs are not generally associated with a
specific number of tons diverted, they are considered essential to increasing the use of
existing facilities and events. Providing funding is available, staff plans to promote
existing repair workshops, online resources, and reuse businesses.
14. Develop and continue community partnerships: By enhancing existing and
developing new partnerships with non-profits, local green businesses, and franchise
haulers, existing resources can be leveraged to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost
material while minimizing duplication of effort between the City and the efforts already
underway in the community.
parks, beaches, recreation centers, transit
centers, and libraries: Public space recycling is a
key public education component that supports
behavior change, where recycling away from home
leads to increased recycling at both home and work.
ESD staff will work with other departments to identify
opportunities to expand recycling service in new and
existing public facilities. The City will continue to
expand public space recycling opportunities with its
own funds as available and also seek grants and
other opportunities to allow for public space adoption
programs that help with capital funding and
maintenance costs.
16. Add materials to the City serviced single family recycling stream as markets
develop: The number of additional tons diverted will vary depending on what materials
can be added to the program. Staff routinely reassesses market conditions and
periodically adds materials to the curbside recycling program for City serviced
residences. Staff recently identified dimensional Styrofoam, the material used in
consumer goods and other packaging, to be added to the curbside recyclable materials
collection program. This commodity was added in December 2014. Although not a
significant tonnage, it removes a problematic component of the wastestream that cause
Exhibit 10: Public Recycling Containers
blown litter issues at the Miramar Landfill. In addition, staff is currently researching to
determine the benefits and identify any possible concerns if polystyrene foodservice
containers are added. Staff anticipates completing the research within six months.
17. Investigate expanding and automating single family yard trimmings collection
to include all City single family residential customers: Strategies for increasing the
City’s diversion rate must focus on organics. Currently only 190,000 of the 289,000 City
customers have greenery collection and of that only 30,000 have automated carts.
Expanding yard trimmings collection to all City serviced residential customers and
switching to automated carts, would divert 20,000 tons. This is key to achieving ZWP
goals. Use of automated carts will allow for the potential addition of food scraps to the
greenery collection program.
18. Investigate providing weekly greenery collection with food scraps and every
other week trash collection: The City will monitor and evaluate ongoing pilot programs
in other jurisdictions where yard trimmings collection combined with food scraps is
offered weekly and trash services are offered bi-weekly. If success is apparent in these
other jurisdictions, staff will determine feasibility of conducting a similar pilot in San
Diego.
19. Establish an outreach program that emphasizes the food scraps hierarchy:
reduce, reuse/rescue, compost: This approach place the first emphasis on working
with the food industry to reduce waste. It is difficult to estimate how many tons of food
scraps could be diverted from disposal. Staff will assist in publicizing best practices.
Staff will also promote the next step in the hierarchy, diverting unwanted food before it
spoils, by promoting facilities where it can be used, such as the food bank, shelters, etc.
Staff will investigate options for food scraps as animal feed. The City will also continue
its food scraps program, which currently diverts approximately 10,000 tons from
disposal.
20. Promote on-site food scraps processing and/or composting where consistent
with stormwater objectives: Staff already coordinates on Master Composter training
programs. In addition to on site composting in containers, there are other technologies,
such as food dehydrators that electrically heat and dry food scraps for sanitary storage
and transportation to a composting location.
21. Develop a community composting program: Staff plans to encourage the
establishment of additional composting sites throughout the community. It is envisioned
that sites such as community gardens, which are currently limited by state and local law
to composting vegetative waste generated on site, could expand the source of organics
to include food scraps, coffee grounds, etc. from off-site locations. The City plans to
further study such successful models as are being developed in other jurisdictions and
work with stakeholders to develop a solution for San Diego. Potential tonnage will be
determined if/as a program is developed.
CONCLUSION
This ZWP and the programs described herein provide a framework of potential
strategies to increase the City’s diversion rate over the next 25 years and ensure
compliance with current state diversion requirements. Potential strategies would be
phased in over multiple years with implementation of specific components brought
forward for City Council consideration and approval. It is anticipated that staff will
expand on the potential strategies contained herein, and develop additional ideas to
take the incremental steps to 75% diversion by 2020 and the 90% goal currently
proposed in the City’s draft Climate Action Plan. Further diversion to Zero Waste by
2040 is achievable given the rapid development of technologies and methods to reduce
reuse and recycle all materials. Each set of incremental increases to the City’s
diversion rate will be developed by considering the opportunities, technologies, and
associated costs that are available at that time. It is anticipated that staff will remain
engaged with stakeholders as all phases of this plan are implemented to ensure that the
City’s future diversion strategies are an expression of the interests of all segments of
the San Diego community.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) City of San Diego Zero Waste Plan (ZWP) Stakeholder Participation Report
REFERENCES:
2) City of San Diego Long-Term Resource Management Options (LTRMO)
Strategic Plan
b. LTRMO Webpage from February 2015
c. LTRMO Final Report Phase II
d. LTRMO Tables and Figures Phase II
e. Resolution Number R-307836
4) City of San Diego Nondisposal Facility Element
5) Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan (updates)
6) City of San Diego 2012 – 2013 Waste Characterization Study Final Report
7) Zero Waste Objective
a. Proposed Zero Waste Objective for the City of San Diego Report to City
Council
c. Resolution Number R-308657
8) City Auditor’s Report: “Opportunities Exist to Improve Recycling Rates and
Reduce Adverse Impacts Generated by Waste hauling”
9) Zero Waste Stakeholder Meeting Presentation Slides (four meeting sessions):
10) CalRecycle Landfill Tipping Fees in California February 2015 Report
11) CalRecycle State of Disposal in California March 2015 Report
12) CalRecycle State of Recycling in California March 2015 Report
Performance Audit of the Environmental Services Department’s Waste
Reduction and Recycling Programs
GENERATED BY WASTE HAULING
MMedvedyev
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
August 11, 2014
City of San Diego, California
Transmitted herewith is a performance audit report on the City of San Diego’s Environmental Services Department. This report was conducted in accordance with the City Auditor’s Fiscal Year 2014 Audit Work Plan, and the report is presented in accordance with City Charter Section 39.2. The Results in Brief are presented on page 1. Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology are presented in Appendix B. Management’s responses to our audit recommendations are presented after page 70 of this report.
We would like to thank staff from the Environmental Services Department for their assistance and cooperation during this audit. All of their valuable time and efforts spent on providing us information is greatly appreciated. The audit staff members responsible for this audit report are Andy Hanau, Alicia De La Garza, Matthew Helm, and Kyle Elser.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacey LoMedico, Assistant Chief Operating Officer Mary Lewis, Chief Financial Officer Jan Goldsmith, City Attorney Andrea Tevlin, Independent Budget Analyst Brian Pepin, Director of Council Affairs Tony Heinrichs, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Infrastructure/Public Works Mario Sierra, Director, Environmental Services Department Kristin Geitz, Interim Director, Real Estate Assets Department Misty Jones, Interim Director, Library Herman Parker, Director, Parks & Recreation
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR 1010 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 555, WEST TOWER SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
PHONE (619) 533-3165 FAX (619) 533-3036
TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, OR ABUSE, CALL OUR FRAUD HOTLINE (866) 809-3500
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Table of Contents Results in Brief 1
Background 6
Finding 1: While the City Has Made Significant Progress Toward Increasing Recycling Overall, the Recycling Rate for Commercial and Multi-Family Properties Remains Low and Impacts the City’s Ability to Reach Waste Reduction Goals 18
Finding 2: The City Should Consider Changing Its Solid Waste Franchise System to Improve Efficiency and Reduce Adverse Impacts Generated by Waste Hauling 28
Finding 3: The City Can Improve Enforcement of the Citywide Recycling Ordinance for City-Serviced Residential Properties 39
Finding 4: Improved Recycling Efforts Are Needed at City Facilities 53
Conclusion 57
Recommendations 59
Appendix C: Breakdown of Disposed Waste by Material Type 66
Appendix D: Major Revenues and Expenditures by Fund Type 67
Appendix E: Proposed City of Los Angeles Franchise Zones 69
Appendix F: City Parks, Beaches, and Libraries Surveyed 70
Performance Audit of the City’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
OCA-15-003 Page 1
Results in Brief
Approximately 1.3 million tons of waste generated by San Diego residents and businesses is placed in local landfills annually, including 835,000 tons at Miramar Landfill – the only remaining active City- operated waste disposal site. At this rate of disposal, it is anticipated that Miramar Landfill will reach capacity and close by 2025, at which time the City and its residents are expected to pay substantially higher landfill costs elsewhere. As a result, increased waste diversion and recycling are of paramount importance to the City of San Diego (City). In 2007, the City Council unanimously adopted the Citywide Recycling Ordinance (CRO), which requires most residents, businesses, and special events to recycle, and also adopted a deposit program to encourage recycling of construction and demolition waste. Furthermore, in 2013 the City Council unanimously adopted a Zero Waste Objective, which establishes goals of diverting 75 percent of the City’s waste from landfill disposal by 2020 and achieving Zero Waste by 2040. In addition to City requirements and objectives, a variety of state mandates and goals also apply to the City’s recycling efforts.
Commercial and Residential Recycling Rates Remain Low
While the Environmental Services Department (ESD) has successfully implemented many innovative programs that have helped increase the City’s overall diversion rate to 68 percent,1
we found that many businesses and residents are not meeting minimum CRO recycling requirements. As a result, the recycling rate for commercial and multi-family properties receiving service from one of the City’s franchised waste haulers is only 26 percent, and the recycling rate for single-family residential properties receiving City collection services is only 23 percent. Exhibit 1 shows total waste generated, landfilled, and recycled by property type in CY 2013.
1 CY 2012 is the most recent year that the diversion rate has been calculated. According to ESD, the 68 percent diversion rate for CY 2012 will most likely slightly decrease for CY 2013 due to the cleaning and disposal of waste from storm water channels, and the recovering economy which will result in additional waste being generated.
OCA-15-003 Page 2
Source: OCA, using data provided by ESD.
At the same time, the City’s most recent Waste Characterization Study indicates that the vast majority of waste deposited in landfills is recoverable and could be diverted from landfill disposal. This indicates that there is significant room for improvement in increasing recycling by businesses and residents, which is needed to ensure that the City reaches its waste diversion and recycling goals. Exhibit 2 demonstrates the key findings of this study.
Exhibit 2
Approximately 76 Percent of Disposed Waste Is Recoverable: Composition of Overall Disposed Waste, CY 2012 - 2013
Source: OCA, based on the City of San Diego Waste Characterization Study, 2012-2013.
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000
1,000,000
Landfilled
Recycled
Compostable/ Potentially
Compostable, 40.9%
OCA-15-003 Page 3
Commercial and Multi- Family Properties by
Requiring Haulers to Meet Minimum Recycling
Requirements
We found that the primary reason for low recycling rates for commercial and multi-family properties receiving collection services from franchised haulers is that the City has not required the haulers – who have the most day-to-day contact with customers – to achieve minimum recycling rates or ensure that customers meet the City’s minimum recycling requirements. Other jurisdictions have successfully increased recycling rates for customers receiving service from franchised haulers by including these requirements in franchise agreements. We recommend that the City revise the current franchise agreements and establish a target diversion rate requirement of between 50 and 60 percent by 2020. The revised franchise agreements should include incremental increases in the diversion rate to achieve the 50-60 percent goal by 2020. In addition, the City should require haulers to ensure that customers meet the City’s minimum recycling requirements as a condition of providing service.
The City Should Consider a Districted Exclusive
Franchise System to Increase Efficiency, Improve
Incentives to Recycle, and Reduce Street Deterioration,
Air Pollution and GHG Emissions, and Noise
We also found that the City’s current non-exclusive franchise system – where many haulers operate in all areas of the City – does not maximize operational efficiency and may not provide the best incentives for recycling. Recently, other large West Coast cities have moved away from open market and non-exclusive franchise systems similar to the City of San Diego’s, and toward districted exclusive systems whereby a single hauler operates in a defined area. This allows haulers to maximize routing efficiency and minimize operating costs. For example, a traffic study prepared for the City of Los Angeles estimates that mileage traveled by trash trucks is reduced by 35 percent in a districted exclusive system. Available research shows that this gain in efficiency can reduce average customer rates – even when adding additional recycling programs. In addition, due to their size and other operational characteristics, trash trucks contribute substantially to street deterioration, air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise. Minimizing trash truck mileage would also minimize these adverse impacts on the City’s infrastructure and environment.
Recognizing that the choice of franchise system the City uses is a policy decision that can only be made by the Mayor and City Council, we recommend that ESD conduct a study to estimate the costs and benefits of a districted exclusive franchise system in San Diego, and present the results of the study to the City Council as an option for consideration.
OCA-15-003 Page 4
Serviced Residential Properties
We also found that several opportunities exist to improve enforcement of the CRO to ensure that residents who receive City collection services are recycling. Specifically, ESD can improve the effectiveness of enforcement efforts by:
Conducting bin checks systematically instead of randomly to improve efficiency and coverage;
Consistently placing educational, non-punitive violation notices on all bins where residents are not meeting recycling requirements;
Taking proactive efforts to ensure all residents have recycling bins;
Increasing resources for enforcement to more optimal levels; and
Improving data collection and performance measurement for CRO enforcement activities.
While these steps will improve the effectiveness of enforcement efforts, our review of successful practices used by other jurisdictions indicates that the best way to improve residential recycling rates is to make recycling more convenient by providing weekly collection of recyclables, and by structuring customer rates to incentivize recycling. Neither of these options is currently available to ESD due to the financial and operational constraints that result from the People’s Ordinance, which prevents the City from charging residents for trash collection. The City’s unique limitations in adopting these successful practices may ultimately mean that the City should consider exercising its ability to issue fines to residents who continue to violate CRO recycling requirements after education and assistance in meeting requirements has been offered. This will help the City improve residential recycling rates, while recovering excessive enforcement costs incurred as a result of a consistent failure to recycle by some residents.
Recycling Efforts Can Be Improved at City Facilities
City facilities, like most businesses and residential properties, are required to recycle by the CRO. While some City facilities, such as beaches, have unique characteristics that may meet criteria to be exempt from CRO requirements, many others, including libraries, recreation centers, and City office buildings, should have adequate recycling available for users and employees. While some City facilities have recycling that meets minimum CRO requirements, others either have substandard recycling or lack recycling altogether.
OCA-15-003 Page 5
Because the City requires most residents and businesses to recycle, and because the City’s facilities are highly visible and serve a broad spectrum of City residents, the City should set a good example for residents by ensuring that City facilities meet recycling requirements where possible. We recommend that the Administration direct ESD to monitor City departments’ compliance with the CRO and report on the status to the City Council on an annual basis. Additionally, ESD should undertake efforts to educate and assist City departments in meeting recycling requirements. Finally, because many City facilities are located in leased commercial space, we recommend that the City include compliance with minimum CRO requirements as a condition in future leases of commercial space.
We made a total of 12 recommendations to address the issues we identified. The Administration agrees with all 12 recommendations. The Administration’s response to our findings and recommendations is located after page 70 of this report.
OCA-15-003 Page 6
Background
The City of San Diego (City) has been responsible for solid waste management services since the People’s Ordinance2
The Environmental Services Department (ESD) was established by the San Diego City Council in 1988 to protect the environment and to provide all San Diego residents with properly disposed municipal solid waste, along with an environment free of litter and illegal dumping. ESD pursues waste management strategies that emphasize waste reduction and recycling, composting, and environmentally- sound landfill management to meet the City’s long-term disposal needs.
was enacted in 1919. Currently, these services include: residential refuse, recyclable materials and green waste collection from single family residences and some apartment complexes; recycling and waste diversion programs; operation of the Miramar Landfill; operation of the Miramar Greenery; maintenance of closed landfills; litter control; cleanup of illegal dumps; and the management of franchises for private solid waste enterprises to provide commercial waste collection and hauling and/or operate solid waste facilities.
ESD is divided into three operational divisions and the Office of the Director. The three operational divisions are: 1) Collection Services; 2) Waste Reduction and Disposal; and 3) Energy, Sustainability and Environmental Protection. This audit was focused on the recycling programs administered by the Collection Services division and the Waste Reduction and Disposal division.
Waste Diversion Is an Important Part of the City’s
Long Range Financial and Environmental Goals
Approximately 1.3 million tons of waste generated by San Diego residents and businesses is placed in local landfills annually, including 835,000 tons at Miramar Landfill – the only remaining active City- operated waste disposal site. At this rate of disposal, the Miramar Landfill will likely be filled to capacity and close by 2025. Because of this, recycling and waste diversion are of paramount importance to San Diego. When Miramar Landfill closes, the City, businesses, and residents will have to pay significantly higher costs to dispose of waste at other landfills. For example, the General Fund currently pays
2 Under a 1986 voter-approved amendment, the City provides free refuse collection services to eligible residences, primarily consisting of single family homes. The People’s Ordinance is codified in San Diego Municipal Code §66.0127.
OCA-15-003 Page 7
$21/ton3 to dispose of residential waste at Miramar Landfill, and total General Fund tipping fee expenses were expected to be approximately $8.5 million in FY 2014. According to the City’s Long- Term Resource Management Plan, once Miramar Landfill closes, General Fund costs for disposal at Sycamore Landfill are projected to rise to $71/ton, which would increase General Fund expenses to $29 million at current disposal totals. Once Sycamore Landfill closes, costs are projected to further rise to $142/ton, which would increase General Fund expenses to $58 million.4 Therefore, while simply disposing of all materials at a landfill is relatively inexpensive today,5
In CY 2012-2013, the City completed a Waste Characterization Study, a scientific tool used by jurisdictions to assess the amount and types of waste being disposed in landfills for the purposes of evaluating and expanding recycling programs. The City’s Waste Characterization Study demonstrated that 76 percent of materials being disposed City-wide are recyclable. See Exhibit 3 for key findings of the study, which shows that 41 percent of overall waste is compostable, 17 percent is recyclable and 18 percent is potentially recyclable. See Appendix C for a breakdown of disposed waste by material type.
failing to recycle imposes a substantial future cost that will be borne by residents, businesses, and taxpayers.
3 On July 1st 2014, the disposal fee for the City’s disposal of residential waste at Miramar Landfill increased to $24/ton. 4 The future disposal cost figures cited in the City’s Long-Term Resource Management Plan are based on 2012 projections. According to ESD, the projections are subject to a degree of volatility. 5 While recycling is generally cheaper than landfilling waste, few customers can currently recycle all of their waste. Therefore, customers who recycle need to have both trash and recycling service, which can be more expensive than trash service alone. This is also discussed in Finding 1.
OCA-15-003 Page 8
Exhibit 3
76 Percent of the City’s Landfilled Waste is Recoverable: Composition of Overall Disposed Waste, CY 2012 - 2013
Source: OCA, based on the City of San Diego Waste Characterization Study, 2012 - 2013.
According to ESD, San Diegans throw away enough recyclables annually to:
Energize over 181,000 households for a year;
Conserve 3,355,937 barrels of oil;
Fuel over 400 cars for a year (156,610,400 gallons/25 miles per gallon/15,000 miles/year);6
Shorten the lifespan of the Miramar Landfill by an estimated 6-9 months for every year of operation; and
Risk the City’s ability to achieve City and State recycling requirements and goals.
Increased Waste Diversion Is Needed to Meet State
Mandates and Goals
In 1989, the State of California passed Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), which required all jurisdictions to achieve a minimum waste diversion rate of 50 percent by the year 2000 and annually thereafter, and submit an annual update of programs to CalRecycle for approval, or face fines of up to $10,000 per day. AB 939 also permitted jurisdictions to collect fees (referred to as ‘AB 939 fees’) to support recycling programs. In San Diego, this recycling fee is currently $10/ton for all waste collected in the City that is disposed, regardless
6 These energy equivalencies were calculated by ESD using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM). This model compares the amount of energy that would be required to make new materials from virgin resources to the amount of energy that is needed to make them from recycled materials, and translates energy savings from recycling into common equivalents. For example, according to WARM, recycling one ton of paper saves enough energy to power the average American home for six months.
Other Materials (Trash), 23.7%
Compostable/ Potentially
Compostable, 40.9%
OCA-15-003 Page 9
of the disposal location, and all waste disposed at Miramar Landfill, regardless of where it originated. In 2001, California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) set a goal of Zero Waste in its strategic plan for the state. More recently, the state passed Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341) in 2011, which establishes a statewide goal of 75 percent waste diversion by 2020.7
The City Has Implemented Innovative Programs that
Have Improved the Overall Diversion Rate
Led by ESD, the City has already been working towards increasing waste diversion and recycling by fostering sustainable resource management practices, as demonstrated by its 68 percent diversion
rate in CY 2012.8,9
Recycling of Christmas trees since 1973;
This diversion rate has been achieved due to many innovative programs that the City and ESD have implemented over the past several decades, including:
Curbside collection of recyclables and green waste since 1988;
White paper recycling at City offices since 1988;
Comingled recycling at City offices since 2003;
Automated trash collection since 1994;
Partially automated green waste collection since 2000; and
Automated recycling collection since 2001.
In addition to these programs, in 2007 the City Council unanimously adopted the Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) Deposit Program. The program creates an economic incentive to recycle C&D debris through the collection of fully refundable deposits which are returned upon proof of the amount of C&D debris that was diverted from landfill disposal. The C&D Ordinance went into effect in FY 2009. According to program management, since the implementation of the program, the amount of C&D that is disposed at Miramar Landfill has declined from approximately 400,000 tons per year to less than 40,000 tons per year. While some of this reduction undoubtedly resulted from a decline in construction activity due to the economic downturn, ESD reports that the recycling rate for C&D materials that
7 CalRecycle recently changed the performance metric from diversion rate (percentage of total waste generated that is diverted from disposal) to per capita disposal (tons of waste disposed per capita). The per capita disposal figure can be used to calculate the overall diversion rate. The overall diversion rate is used in this report for clarity and consistency. 8 This diversion rate will most likely slightly decrease for CY 2013 due to materials that were cleaned out of drainage channels in the Tijuana River Valley. These materials were disposed in the Miramar Landfill. 9 The 68 percent diversion rate includes materials that are recycled by individuals and non-franchised haulers.
OCA-15-003 Page 10
are subject to the deposit program has averaged 85 percent, which is a strong indicator of the program’s success.
Also in 2007, the City Council unanimously adopted the Citywide Recycling Ordinance (CRO), which requires most residents, businesses, special events, and City facilities to separate recyclable materials from trash and arrange for recycling collection service. The CRO was phased into effect between 2008 and 2010. The effect of the CRO on the City’s recycling rates for commercial, residential, and City facilities is discussed in more detail in the Findings sections of this report.
Exhibit 4 shows how the City’s diversion rate has changed over the past 20 years.
Exhibit 4
Source: OCA, based on data provided by ESD.
Additional Waste Diversion and Recycling Is Needed to
Meet the City’s Resource Management Objectives
Despite the improvement in the City’s overall diversion rate, additional waste diversion and recycling are needed to achieve the City’s resource management objectives and meet state diversion goals. At the beginning of FY 2014, the City Council unanimously adopted a Zero Waste Objective for the City, which establishes targets of diverting 75 percent of waste by 2020 and achieving Zero Waste by 2040, via the elimination of waste from landfill disposal and
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Pe rc
en t
D iv
er te
2008: Implementation of CRO and C&D Ordinance
OCA-15-003 Page 11
the diversion of recyclable materials to reprocessing into usable forms with minimal transport, energy use, and harm to society and the environment. Zero Waste is a principle that entails handling discarded materials as resources rather than waste, conserving these resources through waste prevention, recycling and composting and takes into consideration how resources flow from “cradle to grave.”
ESD is currently working on a proposal for a Zero Waste Plan to achieve these objectives. In addition, ESD is in the planning stages for a Resource Recovery Center to be constructed at Miramar Landfill, which will help customers who self-haul their own waste to separate their recyclables from trash. In 2013, ESD began distributing new recycling containers to customers receiving City recycling services, which include printed graphics to educate customers regarding what materials to place in their recycling bin.
Businesses and Most Multi- Family Residential Facilities
Receive Collection Service from Private Franchised
Haulers
The City of San Diego oversees a non-exclusive franchise system for the collection of solid waste from commercial facilities as well as most multi-family residential properties. Under this system, the City grants franchises to private waste hauling enterprises, which permits them to collect solid waste from customers in the City. Under a non- exclusive system, each hauler is permitted to operate throughout the entire City. According to ESD, 21 companies10
Franchises must be approved by the City Council, and the San Diego Municipal Code limits the term of franchises to 10 years. However, the current franchise agreements are issued for a maximum seven- year term, and are renewed annually. Franchised haulers collected approximately 1 million tons of trash and recyclables in 2013. Exhibit 5 shows the City’s current franchised haulers, the total amount of waste they collected in 2013, and the amount that was disposed and recycled.
currently have franchises to provide collection services to approximately 15,000 customers within the City. These companies are required to comply with the terms of their franchise agreements, including the payment of franchise fees to the City’s General Fund, which are charged per ton of waste collected in the City. In FY 2013, franchise fee payments totaled approximately $10 million.
10 According to ESD, while there are a total of 21 franchise agreements, due to consolidation, there are effectively 12 haulers operating in the City. Three franchisees and their affiliates collect approximately 77 percent of the City’s commercial waste.
OCA-15-003 Page 12
Source: OCA, based on hauler reports from ESD.
Most Residential Properties Receive City Collection
Services
The People’s Ordinance was enacted by the voters in 1919 and then amended by the voters twice –once in 1981 and again in 1986. The People’s Ordinance shifted responsibility to the City to collect and dispose of residential and commercial refuse generated in the City. It also required the Council to levy a sufficient tax to pay for collection and disposal services. However, the City never imposed the tax called for in the Ordinance, which established a precedent for no-fee trash collection. Subsequently, under the 1986 amendment, the language explicitly authorizing the tax was removed, and City responsibility for commercial refuse collection essentially was eliminated. As a result, the City continues to provide free refuse collection services to eligible residences, which primarily consist of single family homes.11
11 In addition to single-family homes, the City provides free collection services to some multi-family residential properties that meet service eligibility criteria. However, most multi-family properties procure refuse collection services from one of the City’s franchised haulers.
This is a relatively unique municipal arrangement, and limits revenue available for trash collection and recycling operations for residential properties. Only two other jurisdictions in California still provide free trash collection services.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Landfilled
Recycled
OCA-15-003 Page 13
The City’s Collection Services Division provides weekly refuse and every-other-week recyclables collection to approximately 283,000 residential locations throughout the City.12
Exhibit 6 demonstrates a sample from ESD illustrating the types of materials that go in the blue recycling bin and black trash bin, and highlights options for the reuse or diversion of other materials.
Another 190,000 residences receive every-other-week yard waste collection services.
Exhibit 6
The City’s Curbside Service Collects Many Types of Recyclables
Source: ESD website.
12 As discussed in more detail in Finding 2, available data indicates that some of these 283,000 customers may not have blue bins to receive recycling service.
OCA-15-003 Page 14
Commercial, Multi-Family, and Single-Family
Residential Properties
Enforcement of the CRO for commercial and multi-family properties receiving collection service from a franchised hauler is conducted by three ESD Code Enforcement Officers and two Recycling Specialists. According to ESD, enforcement is focused on educating and assisting customers to comply with CRO requirements. While fines for non- compliance are permitted by the CRO, relatively few have been assessed for hotels, multi-family properties, and businesses.13
ESD also has a Franchise Administrator to oversee compliance with franchise requirements, and the City Treasurer’s Office periodically reviews franchise and AB 939 fee payments to ensure the accuracy of fees paid and to seek payment of underpaid fees.
Enforcement of the CRO for residential properties receiving City collection services is conducted by 12 Code Enforcement Officers who conduct bin checks to ensure that residents are separating recyclable materials from trash and placing them in the blue recycling bins. This is a small part of the many other enforcement duties these officers have, which includes investigating illegal dumping and abatement of homeless encampments. Three of the officers conduct additional CRO enforcement, but this is primarily targeted at commercial businesses, multi-family properties, and special events that are subject to CRO requirements, as noted above. As with enforcement of the CRO for commercial and multi-family properties, ESD’s enforcement of the CRO for City-serviced properties is focused on education and assistance in meeting CRO requirements. To date, no single family properties have ever received fines.
The General Fund, Disposal Fund, and Recycling Fund
All Support Waste Reduction and Disposal
Operations
The City has a complex network of revenue and expenses related to refuse disposal and recycling. Each ton of refuse that is disposed in the Miramar landfill is charged a variety of different fees. Tipping fees support the Refuse Disposal Fund, and vary depending on the type of refuse hauler and the waste delivered for disposal. The Recycling Fund is supported by AB 939 fees14
13 A total of 66 fines have been assessed for commercial, multi-family properties, City-serviced properties, and special events.
and revenues received from the sale of recyclable materials, while franchise fees and the Refuse
14 Recycling fees are authorized by AB 939, which was enacted to combat the increase in waste generation and the decrease in landfill capacity throughout the State. The bill mandated the reduction of waste being disposed (25 percent by 1995, 50 percent by 2000 and annually thereafter) and allowed the collection of fees to support recycling programs. In San Diego, this recycling fee is $10/ton on all waste collected in the City that is disposed, regardless of disposal location, and all waste disposed at the Miramar Landfill, regardless of origin.
OCA-15-003 Page 15
Collector Business Tax15 are allocated to the General Fund. In addition, several funds within the City must also pay these refuse disposal fees, since they too generate waste and dispose of waste in the landfill. The General Fund bears the largest expense for disposal fees, as a result of providing residential refuse collection free of charge, which includes paying tipping fees to the Disposal Fund and AB 939 fees to the Recycling Fund. Exhibit 7 diagrams the major revenues and expenses flowing to and from these funds. In addition to the expenditures shown, in FY 2015 the City plans to spend approximately $70 million16
to slurry seal and resurface deteriorating streets and repair potholes. A significant portion of these maintenance costs are due to street deterioration caused by heavy vehicles such as trash trucks.
15 The Refuse Collector Business Tax is assessed on waste disposed at the Miramar Landfill by (i) commercial refuse collectors who are not City franchisees, (ii) other non-franchisee, commercial users of the Miramar Landfill, and (iii) individuals who dispose of two tons or more at a time (considered a commercial amount). 16 Funding for these expenses comes from various sources, the

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) COVER SHEET

Documents

Transcript of REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) COVER SHEET