HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgreement A-20-083 with SCS Engineers.pdf-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _ day of February, 2020, by and between
the COUNTY OF FRESNO, a Political Subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as
"COUNTY", and Stearns, Conrad, and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba SCS Engineers, a Virginia
Corporation doing business in the State of California, whose address is 438 South Marengo Avenue,
Pasadena, CA 91101, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT".
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, each local jurisdiction is obligated to divert, at minimum, fifty percent (50%) of waste
generated within its boundaries as mandated by the State of California (“State”) through enactment of the
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, codified as Public Resources Code Section 40000, et seq.
(“AB 939”); and
WHEREAS, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors (“BOARD”), in 1996, adopted COUNTY’s
Integrated Waste Management Plan, which consists of a Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE), a
Household Hazardous Waste Element, a Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE), a County Siting Element
(SE) and a County Integrated Summary Plan (SP), (collectively “Solid Waste Planning Documents”) which
established a framework intended to enable COUNTY to achieve compliance with AB 939 requirements;
and
WHEREAS, the State enacted Senate Bill 1383 (Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016; hereinafter “SB
1383”), which established short-lived climate pollutant (“SLCP”) reduction mandates including requirements
for organic waste collection and diversion, as well as edible food recovery; and
WHEREAS, SB 1383 has necessitated the review and potential revision and expansion of local
jurisdictions’ Solid Waste Planning Documents, public education and outreach programs, solid waste hauler
agreements, and solid waste and non-disposal infrastructure in order to continue achieving compliance with
waste diversion mandates; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY is now seeking the services of a qualified firm well-versed in solid waste
planning and regulations to assist with revising COUNTY’s Solid Waste Planning Documents and strategy
for implementing State regulations in order to achieve and maintain compliance; and
19-1600 Agreement No. 20-083
25th
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, COUNTY published Request for Proposal 20-018 (hereinafter “RFP), dated October
25, 2019, with a closing date of November 6, 2019, included as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference
herein, which solicited bids for the provision of independent and professional consulting services oriented
toward solid waste planning and solid waste regulatory compliance; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT submitted a proposal to COUNTY, dated November 6, 2019 in
response to the RFP (hereinafter “CONSULTANT’s Proposal”), included as Exhibit B and incorporated by
reference herein; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT’s Proposal represents to COUNTY that:
1. CONSULTANT is highly qualified to provide efficient and responsive independent, professional
consulting services to COUNTY for the comprehensive revision of COUNTY’s solid waste
management strategic plan;
2. CONSULTANT is familiar with and has a comprehensive understanding of the solid waste
industry, AB 939 and SB 1383 regulatory compliance;
3. CONSULTANT has extensive experience in serving public sector clients’
4. CONSULTANT proposes a skillful team which has worked on similar engagements for other
public sector agencies; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CONSULTANT desire to enter into an agreement for the
provision of consulting services as described in the RFP.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Each party shall designate a person who shall serve as that party’s primary contact for
the purpose of administering this Agreement. Such designated person shall be known as a “Primary
Contact”. The County Public Works and Planning, Resources Division Manager (hereinafter “COUNTY
Representative”) shall be the COUNTY’s Primary Contact for the purpose of administering this
Agreement for the COUNTY. Michelle P. Leonard, Project Director/Manager, shall be the Primary
Contact for CONSULTANT in CONSULTANT’s performance of its services hereunder. Either party to
this Agreement may change its Primary Contact at any time by immediately notifying in writing the other
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
party’s then-current Primary Contact of such a change.
B. CONSULTANT will assign CONSULTANT’s professionals identified in this Agreement
(hereinafter “CONSULTANT’s Professional Team”) to perform services under this Agreement for the
term hereof. CONSULTANT’s Professional Team is composed of the following persons either employed
directly by CONSULTANT, or as a subconsultant to CONSULTANT:
Name: Job Title or Company/Project Role:
Michelle Leonard Project Director/Manager
Tracie Onstad-Bills Senior Staff Professional/Support & Quality Assurance
Karen Luken Staff Professional/Regulatory Requirements & Related County Ordinances
Lisa Coelho Staff Professional/Lead - Assessment of Current & Past Solid Waste Plans
Amber Duran Staff Professional/Project Support
Lynea Baudino Staff Professional/Project Support
Robert Hilton HF&H Consultants/Lead - ESAP Assessment & Support
Tracy Swanborn HF&H Consultants/ESAP Support
Marva Sheehan HF&H Consultants/ESAP Support
Lauren Barbieri HF&H Consultants/ESAP Support
Emily Coven Recyclist/Lead – Data Management
Sara McCadden Recyclist/Data Support
Patti Raab Recyclist/Data Manager
Jane Olvera JP Marketing/Lead – Outreach
Michele Meisch JP Marketing/Director of Client Services
Judy Soper JP Marketing/Senior Media Buyer
Katrina Riggs JP Marketing/Copywriter
Bryan Pickens JP Marketing/Art Director
1. In addition to the above listed members of CONSULTANT’s team, CONSULTANT
shall also subcontract with other team members employed by HF&H Consultants. Such team members
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
will vary, and shall be identified by job title and project role, as follows:
Job Title: Company/Project Role:
Senior Analyst HF&H Consultants/ESAP Assessment & Support
Associate Analyst HF&H Consultants/ESAP Assessment & Support
Assistant Analyst HF&H Consultants/ESAP Assessment & Support
Administrative Staff HF&H Consultants/ESAP Assessment & Support
C. As more thoroughly set forth in Article VIII, CONSULTANT and the agents and
employees of the CONSULTANT, in the performance of the AGREEMENT, shall act in an independent
capacity and not as officers or employees of the COUNTY.
D. The parties hereto acknowledge that CONSULTANT, as an independent
contractor, intends to use members of CONSULTANT’s Professional Team during the term of this
Agreement, to provide services to others unrelated to the COUNTY or to this Agreement; however,
notwithstanding the provision of such services, CONSULTANT agrees that it will not enter into any other
agreements or engagements for other clients which would materially impair CONSULTANT’s ability to
have such persons available to perform services under this Agreement.
E. If CONSULTANT replaces any of its team with another one of CONSULTANT’s
professionals, CONSULTANT shall promptly notify the COUNTY thereof in writing and provide a
replacement professional, at no additional cost to the COUNTY. Such replacement professional shall
possess a similar level of industry knowledge, technical experience and expertise required to allow
CONSULTANT to fully and properly carry out its obligations under this Agreement, and such
replacement professional shall be one who is, in the normal course of CONSULTANT’s business,
classified by CONSULTANT at the same or higher professional staff level as the professional replaced.
The COUNTY Representative reserves the right to approve or reject any of CONSULTANT’s
replacement professionals, and the COUNTY Representative shall promptly notify CONSULTANT of the
approval or rejection of such replacement professional following COUNTY’s receipt of notice of said
professional’s appointment by CONSULTANT.
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall provide consulting services for each of COUNTY’s programs as identified
hereinbelow in Section IV, Article F, and more thoroughly described in the Scope of Work on Pages 12-
14 of RFP 20-018 (Exhibit “A” hereto) and the CONSULTANT’s Proposal (Exhibit “B” hereto).
III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY
A. The COUNTY Representative and his/her designee(s) shall serve as the administrators
of this Agreement. The responsibilities of the COUNTY Representative hereunder shall include
scheduling and coordinating meetings with the various stakeholders to obtain their cooperation to
enable the CONSULTANT to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. The COUNTY Representative
will provide the CONSULTANT with access to all documents requested by the CONSULTANT to fulfill its
obligations under this Agreement, and all available reports and records submitted to the COUNTY by
solid waste facilities, haulers and regulators. The CONSULTANT shall provide sufficient, advance
information to permit the COUNTY Representative to fulfill his/her responsibilities hereunder.
B. The COUNTY Representative shall meet separately with the CONSULTANT, if deemed
necessary by COUNTY, to discuss the progress of CONSULTANT’s performance of its obligations
hereunder. At these meetings, the COUNTY Representative also shall present, and require that the
CONSULTANT address and rectify to the COUNTY Representative’s satisfaction, any perceived
deviations that CONSULTANT has made from the Work Schedule as defined in Section IV.B. Any
revision to the Work Schedule shall be agreed upon in writing by both the COUNTY Representative and
the CONSULTANT.
IV. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSULTANT
A. CONSULTANT’s performance of its services under this Agreement shall be carried out in
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
B. CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit to the COUNTY Representative a plan and
work schedule indicating the timeline for the completion of each Task and submission of related reports
(“Work Schedule”). This Work Schedule shall be agreed upon by both the CONSULTANT and the
COUNTY Representative.
C. CONSULTANT’s services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
professional skill and the orderly progress of the work, based on the Work Schedule referenced in the
immediately preceding Section IV.B.
D. CONSULTANT shall meet separately with the COUNTY Representative, if deemed
necessary by COUNTY, to discuss the progress of CONSULTANT’s performance of its obligations
hereunder. A written and electronic status report on progress with reference to the Work Schedule for
each outstanding Task shall be provided by CONSULTANT and discussed during these meetings. At
these meetings, the CONSULTANT shall address and discuss CONSULTANT’s plan to rectify any
deviations from the agreed upon Work Schedule brought to CONSULTANT’s attention by the COUNTY
Representative. Any revision to the Work Schedule shall be agreed upon in writing by both the
COUNTY Representative and CONSULTANT.
E. Any reports, information, or other data prepared or assembled by the CONSULTANT
under this Agreement shall not be made available to any individual, organization or entity by
CONSULTANT without the express written consent of the COUNTY.
F. CONSULTANT agrees to provide the professional services described below, and as
more thoroughly described in the Scope of Work on Pages 12-14 of the RFP, Exhibit “A” hereto.
Following CONSULTANT’s completion of each of the Tasks listed in Paragraphs 1 through 6, inclusive,
of this Section IV.F, and as described in the RFP and the CONSULTANT’s Proposal (Exhibit “B” hereto),
CONSULTANT shall issue to the COUNTY Representative a written report in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations and in accordance with professional standards. All reports shall be
submitted in hard copy and also shall be provided electronically in software acceptable to COUNTY.
Task 1: Assessment of Current and Past Solid Waste Planning Documents
CONSULTANT shall review, assess and provide input and revisions as is
necessary to augment and/or improve COUNTY’s plans, jurisdictional and regional
programs, JPAs, MOUs, and other related documentation for the development of an
updated comprehensive Solid Waste Management Master Plan. CONSULTANT
understands and acknowledges that the information needs to be appropriate for use in
CalRecycle Five-Year Planning documentation.
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONSULTANT shall place special emphasis on organics diversion as it relates to
SB 1383 legislation. CONSULTANT shall prepare a report that provides a summary of
the review and assessment and shall provide revised planning document drafts for
COUNTY review and approval.
1. Jurisdictional Programs
a. Source Reduction Recycling Elements (SRRE)
b. Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)
c. Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE)
2. Regional programs
a. Siting Element
b. Summary Plan
3. Combined planning documents
a. Joint Powers Agreements (“JPAs”)
i. JPAs with Cities
ii. JPAs with Commissions and Committees
b. Memoranda of Understanding (“MOUs”)
i. MOUs with Cities
ii. MOUs with Commissions and Committees
Task 2: Exclusive Service Area Program (ESAP) Administration Support and
Assessment
Exclusive Service Area Program (ESAP) Agreements for the unincorporated
areas of COUNTY were executed with multiple solid waste hauling companies (ESAP
Haulers) in 2006 to provide for the collection, and disposal, recycling or other processing
as appropriate, of solid waste, recyclable materials and green waste, and successor
agreements, including amended and additional provisions, were executed in 2017 with
the remaining ESAP Haulers or their approved successors or assignees.
CONSULTANT shall assist the COUNTY with the following:
-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. CONSULTANT will assist with the review and assessment of the ESAP
Agreements to determine perceived or potential deficiencies and provide
recommendations for amendments that strengthen the administration and implementation
of the program.
2. CONSULTANT will provide strategies for meeting compliance with California
Assembly Bills 341 (AB 341, Mandatory Commercial Recycling) and 1826 (AB
1826, Mandatory Organics Recycling), and propose program implementation.
3. CONSULTANT will provide strategies for meeting compliance with California
Senate Bill 1383 (SLCP reduction) including recommendations for program
design, implementation, and enforcement.
4. CONSULTANT will provide ongoing support to staff on ESAP related issues as
appropriate, including attendance and facilitation of meetings.
5. CONSULTANT will assist staff in evaluating the current ESAP Program, and with
planning for the future solid waste collection program to be bid out and implemented in
2028. Activities will include territories, scope of services, logistical requirements
(containers, equipment, etc.), reporting requirements, rate structures, financial aspects
(service fees paid to COUNTY, etc.), and various other elements of the program.
Task 3: Streamline of Administration and Reporting Processes
This Task will address the streamlining of administration and required reporting
processes for (1) all hauler agreements including the Exclusive Area Program (ESAP)
and Non-Exclusive Waste Hauler Agreement (NEWHA), (2) permitted facilities and (3)
other jurisdictions (incorporated cities) within the territorial boundaries of the COUNTY.
CONSULTANT will assist the COUNTY in developing both efficient and effective
administrative and reporting processes including:
1. Provide administrative support in the assessment and revision of existing
“proprietary” reporting processes within the COUNTY that conform to the
requirements of the ESAP Agreements.
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Assess and recommend revisions for capturing SB 1383 related data for report to
CalRecycle.
3. Assist staff with the assessment of potential information technology - based
solutions (e.g., developed software platforms, etc.) that enhance the COUNTY’s
disposal and diversion reporting program, establish efficiencies for staff that track
tonnage and hauler service fee and surcharge remittances, and simplify the
aggregation of data for reporting to CalRecycle annually.
Task 4: Regulatory Requirements and Related County Ordinances
CONSULTANT will assess and provide recommendations for the revision of various
COUNTY ordinances related to solid waste, recycling, and organics programs that address all
local, state and federal regulatory requirements. These include:
1. Non-Exclusive Waste Hauling ordinance revisions
2. Construction & Demolition (“C&D”) waste management ordinance and related
C&D facility regulations (certification, C&D waste flow control, etc.)
3. Organics diversion ordinances and regulations
4. Other areas as the COUNTY Representative deems relevant and appropriate
Task 5: Education and Outreach Programming
CONSULTANT shall:
1. Evaluate current education/outreach strategies that serve the entire COUNTY of
Fresno including print and digital materials.
2. Provide recommendations on enhancing the COUNTY’s opportunities to educate
residents and businesses regarding COUNTY’s diversion and disposal programs.
3. Assist staff with developing outreach and education strategies and materials
aimed at SB 1383 compliance
4. Assist staff with developing outreach and education strategies and materials
aimed at significantly reducing the occurrence of recycling and organics
-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contamination.
Task 6: Kick-Off Meeting and Project Management
In CONSULTANT’s Proposal (Exhibit B hereto), CONSULTANT proposed, and
COUNTY by execution of this Agreement hereby accepts, the addition of a sixth additional
Task not included in the RFP (Exhibit A hereto), entitled “Kick-off Meeting & Project
Management,” the intended purposes of which are: to introduce CONSULTANT’s team, to
gather initial information necessary for CONSULTANT’s performance of each of the Tasks
required hereunder, and to provide COUNTY with an overview of how all Tasks and other
objectives outlined within the RFP will be accomplished.
V. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of three (3) years, commencing on February 25,
2020 through and including February 24, 2023. This Agreement may be extended for two (2) additional
consecutive twelve (12) month periods upon written approval of both parties no later than thirty (30) days
prior to the first day of the next twelve (12) month extension period. The Director of Public Works and
Planning or his/her designee is authorized to execute such written approval on behalf of COUNTY based
on CONSULTANT’s satisfactory performance.
VI. TERMINATION
A. Non-Allocation of Funds - The terms of this Agreement, and the services to be provided
hereunder, are contingent on the approval of funds by the appropriating government agency. Should
sufficient funds not be allocated, the services provided may be modified, or this Agreement terminated, at
any time by giving the CONSULTANT thirty (30) days advance written notice.
B. Breach of Contract - The COUNTY may immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement
in whole or in part, where in the determination of the COUNTY there is:
1) An illegal or improper use of funds;
2) A failure to comply with any term of this Agreement;
3) A substantially incorrect or incomplete report submitted to the COUNTY;
4) Improperly performed service.
-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In no event shall any payment by the COUNTY constitute a waiver by the COUNTY of any breach
of this Agreement or any default which may then exist on the part of CONSULTANT, nor shall such
payment impair or prejudice any remedy available to the COUNTY with respect to the breach or default.
The COUNTY shall have the right to demand of CONSULTANT the repayment to the COUNTY of any
funds disbursed to CONSULTANT under this Agreement, which in the judgment of the COUNTY were not
expended in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall promptly refund any such
funds upon demand.
C. Without Cause - Under circumstances other than those set forth above, this Agreement may
be terminated by COUNTY upon providing thirty (30) days advance written notice to CONSULTANT of an
intention to terminate.
VII. COMPENSATION/INVOICING
A. Total Fee
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, the Total Fee for the services required under
the initial term of this Agreement shall not exceed Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($290,000).
B. Basic Fee
The Fee for services required under Article IV, shall be invoiced at the rates shown in the
CONSULTANT’s Proposal, and shall not exceed One Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-
Seven Dollars ($196,497).
1. CONSULTANT’s Labor Rates (Dollars Per Hour)
Name Labor Rates
Michelle Leonard $275
Tracie Onstad-Bills $230
Karen Luken $125
Lisa Coelho $170
Amber Duran $140
Lynea Baudino $125
Robert Hilton $300
-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tracy Swanborn $250
Marva Sheehan $270
Lauren Barbieri $250
Senior Analyst $200
Associate Analyst $160
Assistant Analyst $135
Administrative Staff $115
Emily Coven $225
Sara McCadden $175
Patti Raab $150
Jane Olvera $112
Michele Meisch $112
Judy Soper $94
Katrina Riggs $94
Bryan Pickens $94
2. CONSULTANT estimates that the services described herein shall require a
total of approximately 1,145 hours and One Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Seven
Dollars ($196,497) for all Tasks. Cost and hours proposed by Task include:
Task Hours Cost
Task 1 172 $28,040
Task 2 377 $81,725
Task 3 112 $21,280
Task 4 88 $14,600
Task 5 356 $41,712
Task 6 40 $ 9,140
TOTAL 1,145 $196,497
-13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Other Direct Costs
In addition to the Basic Fee as referenced in the preceding Section VII.B, CONSULTANT shall be
reimbursed for direct costs incurred in connection with the performance of its services hereunder. Such
direct costs shall include, but are not limited to: airfare, automobile rentals, automobile fuel, automotive
mileage, per diem, lodging, document reproduction, and computer processing. Reimbursement of such
direct costs during the initial three-year term shall not exceed the cumulative amount of Nine Thousand
Dollars ($9,000).
If the term of the Agreement is extended pursuant to Article V, then the cumulative amount of such
reimbursable direct costs over the entire extended term of the Agreement shall be increased by Three
Thousand Dollars ($3,000) for each additional contract year. Accordingly, reimbursement of such direct
costs shall not exceed the cumulative amount of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000) over the course of the
entire term if the Agreement is extended only for a fourth contract year, and shall not exceed the cumulative
amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) over the course of the entire term if the Agreement is further
extended for the maximum fifth contract year.
D. Extra Services:
1. A maximum allocation of Seventy-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Three Dollars
($78,503) to pay for authorized Extra Services is provided herein by this Section VII.D of the Agreement.
Payment of Extra Services in excess of the maximum cumulative amount of Seventy-Eight Thousand
Five Hundred Three Dollars $78,503 is prohibited except upon written Amendment to this Agreement.
2. CONSULTANT shall not undertake, and shall not be compensated for providing,
any Extra Services without advance written authorization of the COUNTY Representative.
CONSULTANT and COUNTY shall expressly confirm in writing the authorization and maximum cost for
any such services before CONSULTANT initiates any work thereon.
3. Payment for any such authorized Extra Services will be at the cost rates identified hereinabove
in Paragraph 1 of Section VII.B, as appropriate and applicable to the specific Extra Services performed.
4. The following are CONSULTANT services which are not considered to be
encompassed by Tasks 1 through 6 or otherwise included in the Basic Fee services described in Article
IV, Section F hereinabove, but which nevertheless may be required and thus considered Extra Services,
-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
if expressly and appropriately authorized in advance and in writing by the COUNTY Representative.
a. Providing any of the services described by the CONSULTANT on pages
41-42 of its response to the RFP (CONSULTANT’s Proposal, Exhibit B hereto) under the heading of
“Optional Tasks,” which based upon such description in CONSULTANT’s Proposal may include any or
each of the following:
(i) SB 1383 Resource Analysis: Based on the selected programs and
qualitative program considerations, HF&H Consultants, a subconsultant that is
part of CONSULTANT’s team (hereinafter “HF&H”), will develop a resource
analysis to identify the costs and staffing resources needed to implement
(start-up resource requirements) and operate (ongoing resource requirements)
the new policies, programs, infrastructure, administration, and enforcement
required to comply with SB 1383. In order to produce resource analysis that is
specifically relevant to the COUNTY’s situation, HF&H will rely on any cost
information available from the COUNTY (e.g. for COUNTY staffing and
benchmarks around existing programs) as well as information we have in our
databases regarding the operating costs of the haulers in Fresno County. In
cases where data specific to the COUNTY is not available, the financial and
performance forecasts will benefit from HF&H’s extensive database of costs
and program benchmark statistics from other programs currently operating in
the Central Valley.
(ii) SB 1383 Action Plan: HF&H will compile the results of the work in
this task into an informative and visually interesting PowerPoint-style SB 1383
Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan will concisely describe each
recommendation and identif y the key steps in an appropriately phased
implementation schedule. The Action Plan will also address each of the critical
operational, logistical, and organizational considerations that must be
discussed in order to decide upon the COUNTY’s specific approach to
compliance. The Action Plan would be presented to the Board of Supervisors
-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and/or the public in the manner described in CONSULTANT’s Proposal. The
report also will provide more detailed appendices and implementation
considerations for use by COUNTY staff to guide the implementation process.
(iii) Evaluation of ESAP Program and Future Planning Program: In
anticipation of the 2028 Request for Proposal (hereinafter “Future RFP”) for
solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services, HF&H will assist
COUNTY with advanced planning of the Future RFP and agreement
processes for the next generation collection program and subsequent
agreement(s). Depending on variables such as significant changes in
territories, services or service providers, COUNTY will need approximately
three years to conduct the process, including drafting the Future RFP and
agreement documents, managing the Future RFP process, evaluating
proposals, conducting necessary community engagement, and bringing the
decision to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. As such, HF&H will
facilitate a series of 4-6 meetings with COUNTY to conduct a collection
program design workshop and work through the dozens of issues, business
terms, cost consequences, and compliance requirements that will ultimately
shape the scope of the Future RFP and subsequent agreement(s). HF&H will
generate a process design document that includes all the elements necessary
to prepare the Future RFP and subsequent agreement(s).
b. Providing unforeseen, extraordinary, or unique services or items not
encompassed by Tasks 1 through 6 or otherwise included in the Basic Fee
services described in Article IV, Section F hereinabove, but which are
expressly and appropriately authorized in advance and in writing by the
COUNTY Representative.
5. In the event the COUNTY Representative expressly authorizes Extra Services in
accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section VII.D, CONSULTANT shall keep complete
records showing the hours and description of activities worked by each person assigned to the project
-16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and all costs and charges attributable to the Extra Services work so authorized. Should there be a claim
for Extra Services, CONSULTANT agrees and understands that the claim shall identify the activity, the
performer of the activity, the reason for the activity, and the COUNTY official requesting performance of
the activity or the claim will be denied. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for all subconsultants
keeping similar records. The CONSULTANT shall not stop the work, including the work in other areas
unrelated to the Extra Services request or claim, unless it can be shown, to the satisfaction of the
COUNTY Representative, that the project work cannot proceed while a claim or request for Extra
Services is being evaluated.
E. Invoicing
CONSULTANT shall invoice COUNTY on a monthly basis during the term of this Agreement for all
services and other direct costs incurred in the performance of all services provided by CONSULTANT
under this Agreement. CONSULTANT understands and acknowledges that, consistent with the
“PAYMENT” subsection of the “GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS” section of the RFP,
terms of payment shall be net forty-five (45) days, and COUNTY shall remit payment to CONSULTANT by
the end of the forty-fifth (45th) day from the date of receipt of any proper and undisputed invoice submitted
to COUNTY by CONSULTANT.
VIII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
In performance of the work, duties and obligations assumed by CONSULTANT under this
Agreement, it is mutually understood and agreed that CONSULTANT, including any and all of
CONSULTANT's officers, agents, and employees will at all times be acting and performing as an
independent contractor, and shall act in an independent capacity and not as an officer, agent, servant,
employee, joint venturer, partner, or associate of the COUNTY. Furthermore, COUNTY shall have no right
to control or supervise or direct the manner or method by which CONSULTANT shall perform its work and
function. However, COUNTY shall retain the right to administer this Agreement so as to verify that
CONSULTANT is performing its obligations in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof.
CONSULTANT and COUNTY shall comply with all applicable provisions of law and the rules and
regulations, if any, of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over matters the subject thereof.
Because of its status as an independent contractor, CONSULTANT shall have absolutely no right to
-17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
employment rights and benefits available to COUNTY employees. CONSULTANT shall be solely liable and
responsible for providing to, or on behalf of, its employees all legally-required employee benefits. In
addition, CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible and save COUNTY harmless from all matters relating
to payment of CONSULTANT's employees, including compliance with Social Security withholding and all
other regulations governing such matters. It is acknowledged that during the term of this Agreement,
CONSULTANT may be providing services to others unrelated to the COUNTY or to this Agreement.
IX. MODIFICATION
Any matters of this Agreement may be modified from time to time by the written consent of all the
parties without, in any way, affecting the remainder.
X. NON-ASSIGNMENT
Neither party shall assign, transfer or sub-contract this Agreement nor any of its rights or duties
under this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the other party.
XI. HOLD HARMLESS
CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify, save, hold harmless, and at COUNTY’s request, defend the
COUNTY, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all costs and expenses (including attorney’s
fees and costs), damages, liabilities, claims, and losses occurring or resulting to COUNTY in connection
with the performance, or failure to perform, by CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, or employees under this
Agreement, and from any and all costs and expenses (including attorney’s fees and costs), damages,
liabilities, claims, and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation who may be injured
or damaged by the performance, or failure to perform, of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, or
employees under this Agreement.
XII. INSURANCE
Without limiting the COUNTY’s right to obtain indemnification from CONSULTANT or any third
parties, CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, shall maintain in full force and effect, the following insurance
policies or a program of self-insurance, including but not limited to, an insurance pooling arrangement or
Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) throughout the term of the Agreement:
A. Commercial General Liability
Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits of not less than Two Million Dollars
-18-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
($2,000,000.00) per occurrence and an annual aggregate of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00). This
policy shall be issued on a per occurrence basis. COUNTY may require specific coverages including
completed operations, products liability, contractual liability, Explosion-Collapse-Underground, fire legal
liability or any other liability insurance deemed necessary because of the nature of this contract.
B. Automobile Liability
Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury and for property damages. Coverage should include any auto
used in connection with this Agreement.
C. Professional Liability
If CONSULTANT employs licensed professional staff, (e.g., Ph.D., R.N., L.C.S.W., M.F.C.C.) in
providing services, Professional Liability Insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) annual aggregate.
D. Worker's Compensation
A policy of Worker's Compensation insurance as may be required by the California Labor Code.
E. Additional Requirements Relating to Insurance
CONSULTANT shall obtain endorsements to the Commercial General Liability insurance naming
the County of Fresno, its officers, agents, and employees, individually and collectively, as additional
insured, but only insofar as the operations under this Agreement are concerned. Such coverage for
additional insured shall apply as primary insurance and any other insurance, or self-insurance, maintained
by COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees shall be excess only and not contributing with insurance
provided under CONSULTANT's policies herein. This insurance shall not be cancelled or changed without
a minimum of thirty (30) days advance written notice given to COUNTY.
CONSULTANT hereby waives its right to recover from COUNTY, its officers, agents, and
employees any amounts paid by the policy of worker’s compensation insurance required by this
Agreement. CONSULTANT is solely responsible to obtain any endorsement to such policy that may be
necessary to accomplish such waiver of subrogation, but CONSULTANT’s waiver of subrogation under this
paragraph is effective whether or not CONSULTANT obtains such an endorsement.
Within thirty (30) days from the date CONSULTANT signs and executes this Agreement,
-19-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONSULTANT shall provide certificates of insurance and endorsement as stated above for all of the
foregoing policies, as required herein, to the County of Fresno, ATTN: Jerod Weeks, 2220 Tulare Street,
6th Floor, Fresno CA 93721, stating that such insurance coverages have been obtained and are in full force;
that the County of Fresno, its officers, agents and employees will not be responsible for any premiums on
the policies; that such Commercial General Liability insurance names the County of Fresno, its officers,
agents and employees, individually and collectively, as additional insured, but only insofar as the operations
under this Agreement are concerned; that such coverage for additional insured shall apply as primary
insurance and any other insurance, or self-insurance, maintained by COUNTY, its officers, agents and
employees, shall be excess only and not contributing with insurance provided under CONSULTANT's
policies herein; and that this insurance shall not be cancelled or changed without a minimum of thirty (30)
days advance, written notice given to COUNTY.
In the event CONSULTANT fails to keep in effect at all times insurance coverage as herein
provided, the COUNTY may, in addition to other remedies it may have, suspend or terminate this
Agreement upon the occurrence of such event.
All policies shall be issued by admitted insurers licensed to do business in the State of California,
and such insurance shall be purchased from companies possessing a current A.M. Best, Inc. rating of A
FSC VII or better.
XIII. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS
CONSULTANT shall at any time during business hours, and as often as the COUNTY may deem
necessary, make available to the COUNTY for examination, all of its records and data with respect to the
matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall, upon request by the COUNTY, permit the
COUNTY to audit and inspect all such records and data necessary to ensure CONSULTANT's compliance
with the terms of this Agreement.
If this Agreement exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), CONSULTANT shall be subject to the
examination and audit of the Auditor General for a period of three (3) years after final payment under
contract (Government Code Section 8546.7).
XIV. NOTICES
The persons and their addresses having authority to give and receive notices under this Agreement
-20-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
include the following:
COUNTY OF FRESNO CONSULTANT
Department of Public Works and Planning SCS Consulting Engineers, Inc. ATTN: Resources Division Manager ATTN: Michelle P. Leonard, Vice President 2220 Tulare Street, 6th Floor 438 South Marengo Avenue Fresno, CA 93721 Pasadena, CA 91101
All notices between the COUNTY and CONSULTANT provided for or permitted under this
Agreement must be in writing and delivered either by personal service, by first-class United States mail, by
an overnight commercial courier service, or by telephonic facsimile transmission. A notice delivered by
personal service is effective upon service to the recipient. A notice delivered by first-class United States
mail is effective three COUNTY business days after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid,
addressed to the recipient. A notice delivered by an overnight commercial courier service is effective one
COUNTY business day after deposit with the overnight commercial courier service, delivery fees prepaid,
with delivery instructions given for next day delivery, addressed to the recipient. A notice delivered by
telephonic facsimile is effective when transmission to the recipient is completed (but, if such transmission is
completed outside of COUNTY business hours, then such delivery shall be deemed to be effective at the
next beginning of a COUNTY business day), provided that the sender maintains a machine record of the
completed transmission. For all claims arising out of or related to this Agreement, nothing in this section
establishes, waives, or modifies any claims presentation requirements or procedures provided by law,
including but not limited to the Government Claims Act (Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code,
beginning with section 810).
XV. GOVERNING LAW
Venue for any action arising out of or related to this Agreement shall only be in Fresno County,
California. The rights and obligations of the parties and all interpretation and performance of this
Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of California.
XVI. DISCLOSURE OF SELF-DEALING TRANSACTIONS
This provision is only applicable if CONSULTANT is operating as a corporation (a for-profit or
non-profit corporation) or if during the term of the agreement, CONSULTANT changes its status to
-21-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
operate as a corporation.
Members of CONSULTANT’s Board of Directors shall disclose any self-dealing transactions that
they are a party to while CONSULTANT is providing goods or performing services under this
agreement. A self-dealing transaction shall mean a transaction to which CONSULTANT is a party and in
which one or more of its directors has a material financial interest. Members of the Board of Directors
shall disclose any self-dealing transactions that they are a party to by completing and signing a Self-
Dealing Transaction Disclosure Form, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by
reference, and submitting it to the COUNTY prior to commencing with the self-dealing transaction or
immediately thereafter.
XVII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between
the CONSULTANT and COUNTY with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all previous
Agreement negotiations, proposals, commitments, writings, advertisements, publications, and
understandings of any nature whatsoever unless expressly included in this Agreement.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year
2 first hereinabove written .
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONSULTANT
~~----1 v. r-
Michelle P . Leonard , Vice President
Print Name & Title
438 South Marengo Avenue
Pasadena , CA 91101
Mailing Address
FOR ACCOUNTING USE ONLY:
FUND: 0701
SUBCLASS: 15001
ORG: 9015
ACCOUNT: 7295
COUNTY OF FRESNO
~13--t.~~
Ernest Buddy Mende.Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Fresno
ATTEST:
Bernice E . Seidel
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Fresno , State of California
By: --~ci~....,=!!!t)~Q :::::.',_~~~~----~
-22-
COUNTY OF FRESNO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
NUMBER: 20-018
SOLID WASTE PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES
Issue Date: October 10, 2019
Closing Date: NOVEMBER 6, 2019 AT Heather Stevens
All Questions and Responses must be electronically submitted on the Bid Page on Public Purchase.
For assistance, contact Heather Stevens at Phone (559) 600-7115.
BIDDER TO COMPLETE
Undersigned agrees to furnish the commodity or service stipulated in the attached at the prices and terms stated in this RFP.
Bid must be signed and dated by an authorized officer or employee.
COMPANY
CONTACT PERSON
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
( )
TELEPHONE NUMBER E-MAIL ADDRESS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME TITLE
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 3
KEY DATES .................................................................................................................... 4
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS & CONDITIONS .............................................................. 5
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................... 8
BID INSTRUCTIONS .................................................................................................... 10
SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................... 12
SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 15
COST PROPOSAL ........................................................................................................ 17
AWARD CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... 18
PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 19
TRADE SECRET ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................... 21
DISCLOSURE – CRIMINAL HISTORY & CIVIL ACTIONS ........................................... 22
CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................... 24
REFERENCE LIST ........................................................................................................ 25
PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................... 26
CHECK LIST ................................................................................................................. 27
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 30
OVERVIEW
The County of Fresno Department of Public Works and Planning, Resources Division is currently seeking
proposals for solid waste planning and management consulting services from one or more qualified
consultant(s). Consultant(s) must have at least five (5) years of related experience in the planning, analysis,
assessment, recommendation, and implementation of successful and sustainable integrated solid waste
management programs.
Specifically, the consultant(s) will have direct experience providing services to public sector agencies within
the following areas:
1. Formulation and implementation of solid waste planning documents, as required by California Public
Resources Code 40000 et seq.
2. Assessment and administrative support of contracted solid waste, recycling, and organics collection
services within the public sector (e.g. exclusive service area programs or solid waste franchise
agreements)
3. Assessment, formulation and implementation of organics diversion programs including rate structures,
logistics, and contractual development of services)
4. Assessment and revision of jurisdictional ordinances governing solid waste, recycling, and organics
programs (e.g. mandatory collection implementation, C&D waste management, organics diversion, and
ordinances enforcing such programs).
5. Assessment of diversion and disposal reporting processes, support to reporting staff, and evaluation and
implementation of potential IT solutions (e.g. software solutions) for diversion and disposal reporting.
6. Public engagement with multiple stakeholders with differing interests and achievement of a common goal
relating to jurisdictional solid waste, recycling, and organics programs.
7. Other tasks as appropriate that fall within the general scope of assessment, formulation, implementation,
and revision of solid waste diversion and disposal programs within the County.
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 30
KEY DATES
RFP Issue Date: October 10, 2019
Bidders’ Conference: October 22, 2019 at 3:00 PM
County of Fresno - Purchasing
333 W. Pontiac Way
Clovis, CA 93612
Written Questions for RFP Due: October 24, 2019 at 10:00 AM
Questions must be submitted on the Bid Page.
RFP Closing Date: November 6, 2019 at 2:00 PM
Proposals must be electronically submitted on the Bid Page.
BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE & SITE INSPECTION:
A bidders’ conference will be held in which the scope of the project and proposal requirements will be
explained. Addenda will be prepared and distributed to all bidders if questions are submitted.
Bidders are to contact Heather Stevens at County of Fresno - Purchasing, (559) 600-7115, if they are
planning to attend.
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 30
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS & CONDITIONS
TERM: It is County's intent to contract with the successful bidder for a term of three years with the option to
renew for up to two additional one year periods based on mutual written consent.
The County reserves the right to terminate any resulting contract upon written notice.
AWARD: The award will be made to the vendor offering the proposal that is deemed the most advantageous
to the County. Past performance (County contracts within the past seven years) and references may factor
into awarding of a contract. The County will be the sole judge in making such determination. The County
reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. Award Notices are tentative. Acceptance of an offer made
in response to this RFP shall occur only upon execution of an agreement by both parties or issuance of a
valid Purchase Order by Purchasing. After award, all bids shall be open to public inspection. The County
assumes no responsibility for the confidentiality of information offered in a bid.
Award may require approval by the County of Fresno – Board of Supervisors.
PARTICIPATION: The bidder may agree to extend the terms of the resulting contract to other political
subdivisions, municipalities, and tax-supported agencies. Such participating governmental bodies may make
purchases in their own name, make payment directly to the bidder, and be liable directly to the bidder, holding
the County of Fresno harmless.
CONFIDENTIALITY: Services performed by the bidder shall be in strict conformance with all applicable
Federal, State of California and/or local laws and regulations relating to confidentiality, including but not
limited to, California Civil Code, California Welfare and Institutions Code, Health and Safety Code, California
Code of Regulations, Code of Federal Regulations.
The bidder shall submit to County’s monitoring of said compliance.
The bidder may be a Business associate of County, as that term is defined in the “Privacy Rule” enacted by
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). As a HIPAA Business Associate,
vendor may use or disclose protected health information (“PHI”) to perform functions, activities or services for
or on behalf of County, as specified by the County, provided that such use or disclosure shall not violate
HIPAA and its implementing regulations. The uses and disclosures of PHI may not be more expansive than
those applicable to County, as the “Covered Entity” under HIPAA’s Privacy Rule, except as authorized for
management, administrative or legal responsibilities of the Business Associate.
The bidder shall not use or further disclose PHI other than as permitted or required by the County, or as
required by law without written notice to the County. The bidder shall ensure that any agent, including any
subcontractor, to which vendor provides PHI received from, or created or received by the vendor on behalf of
County, shall comply with the same restrictions and conditions with respect to such information.
SUBCONTRACTORS: If a subcontractor is proposed, complete identification of the subcontractor and his
tasks should be provided. The primary contractor is not relieved of any responsibility by virtue of using a
subcontractor. A specialty contractor cannot contract for work outside of their classification even if they are
going to subcontract that work to another licensee who does hold the classification. The only classification
that may do that is the B – General Building contractor.
SELF-DEALING TRANSACTION DISCLOSURE: Contractor agrees that when operating as a corporation (a
for-profit or non-profit corporation), or if during the term of the agreement the Contractor changes its status to
operate as a corporation, members of the Contractor’s Board of Directors shall disclose any self-dealing
transactions that they are a party to while Contractor is providing goods or performing services under the
agreement with the County. A self-dealing transaction shall mean a transaction to which the Contractor is a
party and in which one or more of its directors has a material financial interest. Members of the Board of
Directors shall disclose any self-dealing transactions that they are a party to by completing and signing a
Fresno County Self-Dealing Transaction Disclosure Form and submitting it to the County prior to
commencing with the self-dealing transaction or immediately thereafter.
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 30
LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE: The Local Vendor Preference does not apply to this Request for
Proposal.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The County shall not contract with, and shall reject any bid or proposal
submitted by the persons or entities specified below, unless the Board of Supervisors finds that special
circumstances exist which justify the approval of such contract:
1. Employees of the County or public agencies for which the Board of Supervisors is the governing body.
2. Profit-making firms or businesses in which employees described in Subsection (1) serve as officers,
principals, partners or major shareholders.
3. Persons who, within the immediately preceding twelve (12) months, came within the provisions of
Subsection (1), and who were employees in positions of substantial responsibility in the area of service to
be performed by the contract, or participated in any way in developing the contract or its service
specifications.
4. Profit-making firms or businesses in which the former employees described in Subsection (3) serve as
officers, principals, partners or major shareholders.
5. No County employee, whose position in the County enables him to influence the selection of a contractor
for this RFP, or any competing RFP, and no spouse or economic dependent of such employee, shall be
employees in any capacity by a bidder, or have any other direct or indirect financial interest in the
selection of a contractor.
6. In addition, no County employee will be employed by the selected vendor to fulfill the vendor’s contractual
obligations to the County.
DISCLOSURE: The bidder is required to disclose if, within the three-year period preceding the proposal,
their owners, officers, corporate managers and partners have been convicted of, or had a civil judgment
rendered against them for:
• fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public
(federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction;
• violation of a federal or state antitrust statute;
• embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification, or destruction of records; or
• false statements or receipt of stolen property
Within a three-year period preceding their proposal, they have had a public transaction (federal, state, or
local) terminated for cause or default.
ORDINANCE 3.08.130 – POST-SEPARATION EMPLOYMENT PROHIBITED: No officer or employee of
the County who separates from County service shall for a period of one year after separation enter into any
employment, contract, or other compensation arrangement with any County consultant, vendor, or other
County provider of goods, materials, or services, where the officer or employee participated in any part of the
decision making process that led to the County relationship with the consultant, vendor or other County
provider of goods, materials or services.
Pursuant to Government Code section 25132(a), a violation of the ordinance may be enjoined by an
injunction in a civil lawsuit, or prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor.
TIE BIDS: In the event of a tie score between two or more proposals at the completion of the evaluation
process, the evaluation team will break the tie by re-evaluating the proposals and coming to a consensus on
which proposal to award. Additional information or interviews may be requested from bidders with the tied
proposals.
DATA SECURITY: Individuals and/or agencies that enter into a contractual relationship with the County for
the purpose of providing services must employ adequate controls and data security measures, both internally
and externally to ensure and protect the confidential information and/or data provided to contractor by the
County, preventing the potential loss, misappropriation or inadvertent access, viewing, use or disclosure of
County data including sensitive or personal client information; abuse of County resources; and/or disruption to
County operations.
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 30
Individuals and/or agencies may not connect to or use County networks/systems via personally owned
mobile, wireless or handheld devices unless authorized by County for telecommuting purposes and provide a
secure connection; up to date virus protection and mobile devices must have the remote wipe feature
enabled. Computers or computer peripherals including mobile storage devices may not be used (County or
Contractor device) or brought in for use into the County’s system(s) without prior authorization from County’s
Chief Information Officer and/or designee(s).
No storage of County’s private, confidential or sensitive data on any hard-disk drive, portable storage device
or remote storage installation unless encrypted according to advance encryption standards (AES of 128 bit or
higher).
The County will immediately be notified of any violations, breaches or potential breaches of security related to
County’s confidential information, data and/or data processing equipment which stores or processes County
data, internally or externally.
County shall provide oversight to Contractor’s response to all incidents arising from a possible breach of
security related to County‘s confidential client information. Contractor will be responsible to issue any
notification to affected individuals as required by law or as deemed necessary by County in its sole discretion.
Contractor will be responsible for all costs incurred as a result of providing the required notification.
AUDITS & RETENTION: The Contractor shall maintain in good and legible condition all books, documents,
papers, data files and other records related to its performance under this contract. Such records shall be
complete and available to Fresno County, the State of California, the federal government or their duly
authorized representatives for the purpose of audit, examination, or copying during the term of the contract
and for a period of at least three (3) years following the County's final payment under the contract or until
conclusion of any pending matter (e.g., litigation or audit), whichever is later. Such records must be retained
in the manner described above until all pending matters are closed.
PAYMENT: County will make partial payments for all purchases made under the contract and accumulated
during the month. Terms of payment will be net forty-five (45) days.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION: The ensuing contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
Any claim which cannot be amicably settled without court action will be litigated in the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California in Fresno, CA or in a state court for Fresno County.
ASSIGNMENTS: The ensuing proposed contract will provide that the vendor may not assign any payment or
portions of payments without prior written consent of the County of Fresno.
ASSURANCES: Any contract awarded under this RFP must be carried out in full compliance with The Civil
Rights Act of 1964, The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, their subsequent amendments, and any and
all other laws protecting the rights of individuals and agencies. The County of Fresno has a zero tolerance for
discrimination, implied or expressed, and wants to ensure that policy continues under this RFP. The
contractor must also guarantee that services, or workmanship, provided will be performed in compliance with
all applicable local, state, or federal laws and regulations pertinent to the types of services, or project, of the
nature required under this RFP. In addition, the contractor may be required to provide evidence
substantiating that their employees have the necessary skills and training to perform the required services or
work.
LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS: Any license(s) and/or certification(s) required in this RFP must be
obtained by the bidder prior to submitting a proposal and must be active and in good standing. Proposals
submitted without the proper license(s) and/or certification(s) will be deemed non-responsive.
PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 7028.15: Where the State of California requires a Contractor’s
license; it is a misdemeanor for any person to submit a bid unless specifically exempted.
Exhibit A
Page 7 of 30
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting the County's right to obtain indemnification from contractor or any third parties, contractor, at
its sole expense, shall maintain in full force and effect, the following insurance policies or a program of self-
insurance, including but not limited to, an insurance pooling arrangement or Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
throughout the term of the Agreement:
A. Commercial General Liability: Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits of not less than Two
Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence and an annual aggregate of Four Million Dollars
($4,000,000.00). This policy shall be issued on a per occurrence basis. County may require specific
coverage including completed operations, product liability, contractual liability, Explosion-Collapse-
Underground, fire legal liability or any other liability insurance deemed necessary because of the
nature of the contract.
B. Automobile Liability: Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance with limits of not less than One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury and for property damages. Coverage
should include any auto used in connection with this Agreement.
C. Professional Liability: If Contractor employs licensed professional staff, (e.g., Ph.D., R.N., L.C.S.W.,
M.F.C.C.) in providing services, Professional Liability Insurance with limits of not less than One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) annual aggregate.
This coverage shall be issued on a per claim basis. Contractor agrees that it shall maintain, at its sole
expense, in full force and effect for a period of three years following the termination of this Agreement,
one or more policies of professional liability insurance with limits of coverage as specified herein.
D. Worker's Compensation: A policy of Worker's Compensation insurance as may be required by the
California Labor Code.
Additional Requirements Relating to Insurance:
Contractor shall obtain endorsements to the Commercial General Liability insurance naming the County of
Fresno, its officers, agents, and employees, individually and collectively, as additional insured, but only
insofar as the operations under this Agreement are concerned. Such coverage for additional insured shall
apply as primary insurance and any other insurance, or self-insurance, maintained by County, its officers,
agents and employees shall be excess only and not contributing with insurance provided under Contractor's
policies herein. This insurance shall not be cancelled or changed without a minimum of thirty (30) days
advance written notice given to County.
Contractor hereby waives its right to recover from County, its officers, agents, and employees any amounts
paid by the policy of worker’s compensation insurance required by this Agreement. Contractor is solely
responsible to obtain any endorsement to such policy that may be necessary to accomplish such waiver of
subrogation, but Contractor’s waiver of subrogation under this paragraph is effective whether or not
Contractor obtains such an endorsement.
Within thirty (30) days from the date Contractor executes this Agreement, Contractor shall provide certificates
of insurance and endorsement as stated above for all of the foregoing policies, as required herein, to the
County of Fresno, Attn: Mike Griffey, 2220 Tulare Street, 6th Floor, Fresno, CA 93721, stating that such
insurance coverage have been obtained and are in full force; that the County of Fresno, its officers, agents
and employees will not be responsible for any premiums on the policies; that such Commercial General
Liability insurance names the County of Fresno, its officers, agents and employees, individually and
collectively, as additional insured, but only insofar as the operations under this Agreement are concerned;
that such coverage for additional insured shall apply as primary insurance and any other insurance, or
self-insurance, maintained by County, its officers, agents and employees, shall be excess only and not
contributing with insurance provided under Contractor's policies herein; and that this insurance shall not be
cancelled or changed without a minimum of thirty (30) days advance, written notice given to County.
Exhibit A
Page 8 of 30
In the event Contractor fails to keep in effect at all times insurance coverage as herein provided, the County
may, in addition to other remedies it may have, suspend or terminate this Agreement upon the occurrence of
such event.
All policies shall be with admitted insurers licensed to do business in the State of California. Insurance
purchased shall be purchased from companies possessing a current A.M. Best, Inc. rating of A FSC VII or
better.
Exhibit A
Page 9 of 30
BID INSTRUCTIONS
• All prices and notations must be typed or written in ink.
• Unless otherwise noted, prices shall remain firm for 180 days after the closing date of the bid.
• Proposals must be electronically submitted on the forms provided in this RFP with all pages numbered.
• Additional material may be submitted with the proposal as attachments. Any additional descriptive
material that is used in support of any information in your proposal must be referenced by the appropriate
paragraph(s) and page number(s).
• Bidders must electronically submit their proposal in .pdf format, no later than the proposal closing date
and time as stated on the front of this document, to the Bid Page on Public Purchase. The County will not
be responsible for and will not accept late bids due to slow internet connection or incomplete
transmissions.
• County of Fresno will not be held liable for any costs incurred by vendors in responding to this RFP.
• Bidders are instructed not to submit confidential, proprietary and related information within the request for
proposal. If you are submitting trade secrets, it must be electronically submitted in a separate PDF file
clearly named “TRADE SECRETS” and marked as Confidential, see Trade Secret Acknowledgement
section.
• If a bidder finds any discrepancies or has any questions, submit all inquiries to the Bid Page on Public
Purchase or contact Heather Stevens at (559) 600-7115. Any change in the RFP will be made only by
written addendum issued by the County. The County will not be responsible for any other explanations or
interpretations.
• Failure to respond to all questions or to not supply the requested information could result in rejection of
your proposal. Merely offering to meet the specifications is insufficient and will not be accepted. Each
bidder shall submit a complete proposal with all information requested.
• Proposals received after the closing date and time will NOT be considered.
• Proposals will be evaluated by an evaluation team led by County Purchasing and may consist of County
of Fresno department staff, community representatives from advisory boards, and other members as
appropriate. If a proposal does not respond adequately to the RFP or the bidder is deemed unsuitable or
incapable of delivering services, the proposal may be eliminated from consideration. Upon review and
evaluation, the evaluation team will make the final recommendation to the County department.
• Appeals must be submitted in writing within seven (7) working days after notification of proposed
recommendations for award. A “Notice of Award” is not an indication of County’s acceptance of an offer
made in response to this RFP. Appeals shall be submitted to County of Fresno Purchasing, 333 W.
Pontiac Way, Clovis, CA 93612 and in Word format to gcornuelle@FresnoCountyCA.gov. Appeals
should address only areas regarding RFP contradictions, procurement errors, proposal rating
discrepancies, legality of procurement context, conflict of interest, and inappropriate or unfair competitive
procurement grievance regarding the RFP process.
Purchasing will provide a written response to the complainant within seven (7) working days unless the
complainant is notified more time is required. If the appealing bidder is not satisfied with the decision of
Purchasing, bidder shall have the right to appeal to the County Administrative Office within seven (7)
working days after Purchasing’s notification; if the appealing bidder is not satisfied with CAO’s decision,
the final appeal is with the Board of Supervisors. Please contact Purchasing if the appeal will be going to
the Board of Supervisors.
Exhibit A
Page 10 of 30
• All communication regarding this RFP shall be directed to an authorized representative of County
Purchasing. The specific Analyst managing this RFP is identified on the cover page, along with his or her
contact information, and he or she should be the primary point of contact for discussions or information
pertaining to the RFP. Contact with any other County representative, including elected officials, for the
purpose of discussing this RFP, its content, or any other issue concerning it, is prohibited unless
authorized by Purchasing. Violation of this clause, by the vendor having unauthorized contact (verbally or
in writing) with such other County representatives, may constitute grounds for rejection by Purchasing of
the vendor’s quotation.
The above stated restriction on vendor contact with County representatives shall apply until the County
has awarded a purchase order or contract to a vendor or vendors, except as follows. First, in the event
that a vendor initiates a formal appeal against the RFP, such vendor may contact the Purchasing
Manager who manages that appeal as outlined in the County’s established appeal procedures. All such
contact must be in accordance with the sequence set forth under the appeal procedures. Second, in the
event a public hearing is scheduled before the Board of Supervisors to hear testimony prior to its
approval of a purchase order or contract, any vendor may address the Board at scheduled Board
Meeting.
Exhibit A
Page 11 of 30
SCOPE OF WORK
The County of Fresno on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Planning is requesting proposals
from qualified vendors to provide the following:
The COUNTY has a wealth of planning material available, detailing regional topography and resident
composition across geographic areas, as well as implemented plans, programs, facilities, and potential
additional opportunities for waste stream diversion and processing. The COUNTY wishes the
CONSULTANT to utilize this data, and information to review plans, programs and processes in order to
address immediate challenges, as well as to formulate revised plans for the next 5, 10, 15, and 20 years to
coordinate solid waste management activities that address countywide needs. Special emphasis will be
made in the planning of programs and practices that assist the County in meeting compliance with
California Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383), the Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP) legislation focusing on
organics diversion programs statewide.
The CONSULTANT will present best practice, evidence-based options for the expansion of solid waste
management plans related to materials collected, processed, recycled, diverted and landfilled, and present
achievable diversion and disposal model options successfully executed within other jurisdictions. The
CONSULTANT will also address any outstanding gaps related to COUNTY ordinances and regulations, and
present solutions/proposals to address future problems as they relate to the regional solid waste planning.
Contact Person
The Consultant’s principal contacts for the project after execution of the contract will be the Resources
Division Manager and Principal Staff Analyst for the Resources Division Solid Waste Planning section, and/or
other designated solid waste planning staff, who will coordinate activities performed by the Consultant.
Scope of Work
The CONSULTANT will perform activities prepare comprehensive short-, mid- and long-term solid waste
planning documents (for the 5, 10, 15, and 20 years planning periods) that provide a Masterplan for
implementable solid waste programs, both local and regional in scope, through the following review and
assessment:
Task 1 - Assessment of Current and Past Solid Waste Planning Documents
The CONSULTANT shall review, assess and provide input to augment/improve the following plans, programs
and documentation in developing new Masterplan; this information needs to be appropriate for use in
CalRecycle Five-Year Planning documentation:
a. Jurisdictional programs
i. Source Reduction Recycling Elements (SRRE)
ii. Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)
iii. Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE)
b. Regional programs
i. Siting Element
ii. Summary Plan
c. Combined planning documents
i. Joint Powers Agreements (JPA)
1. JPAs with Cities
2. JPAs with Commissions and Committees
Exhibit A
Page 12 of 30
ii. Memorandums of Understanding (MOU)
1. MOUs with Cities
2. MOUs with Commissions and Committees
CONSULTANT shall place special emphasis on organics diversion as it relates to SB 1383
legislation. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a report that provides a summary of the review and
assessment and shall provide revised planning document drafts for COUNTY review and approval.
Task 2 - Exclusive Service Area Program (ESAP) Administration Support and Assessment
Exclusive Service Area Program (ESAP) Agreements for the unincorporated areas of COUNTY were
executed with multiple solid waste hauling companies in 2006 to provide for the collection of trash, recycling,
and green waste and amended and successor agreements were adopted in 2017. The CONSULTANT shall
assist the COUNTY with the following:
The CONSULTANT will assist with the review and assessment of the ESAP Agreements to determine
deficiencies and provide recommendations for amendments that strengthen the administration and
implementation of the program.
a. The CONSULTANT will provide strategies for meeting compliance with California Assembly Bills 341 (AB
341, Mandatory Commercial Recycling) and 1826 (AB 1826, Mandatory Organics Recycling), and
propose program implementation.
b. The CONSULTANT will provide strategies for meeting compliance with California Senate Bill 1383 (Short
Lived Climate Pollutants) including recommendations for program design, implementation, and
enforcement.
c. The CONSULTANT will provide ongoing support to staff on ESAP related issues as appropriate,
including attendance and facilitation of meetings.
d. The CONSULTANT will assist staff with evaluating the current ESAP Program, and planning for the
future solid waste collection program to be bid out and implemented in 2028. Activities will include
territories, scope of services, logistical requirements (containers, equipment, etc.), reporting
requirements, rate structures, financial aspects (service fees paid to County, etc.), and various other
elements of the program.
The CONSULTANT will provide a report detailing the work conducted and assessment findings within this
task area as needed or requested by COUNTY.
Task 3 - Streamline of Administration and Reporting Processes
This task will address the streamlining of administration and reporting processes for 1) all hauler agreements
including the Exclusive Area Program (ESAP) and Non-Exclusive Waste Hauler Agreement (NEWHA), 2)
permitted facilities and 3) jurisdictions. CONSULTANT will assist the COUNTY in developing both efficient
and effective administrative and reporting processes including:
Provide administrative support in the assessment and revision of existing “proprietary” reporting processes
within the County that conform to the requirements of the ESAP Agreements.
a. Assess and recommend revisions for capturing SB 1383 related data for report to CalRecycle.
b. Assist staff with the assessment of potential I.T.-based solutions (e.g. developed software platforms, etc.)
that enhance the County’s disposal and diversion reporting program, establish efficiencies for staff that
track tonnage and hauler service fee and surcharge remittances, and simplify the aggregation of data for
reporting to CalRecycle annually.
Exhibit A
Page 13 of 30
Task 4 - Regulatory Requirements and Related County Ordinances
a. The CONSULTANT will assess and provide recommendations for the revision of various COUNTY
ordinances related to solid waste, recycling, and organics programs that address all local, state and
federal regulatory requirements. These include:
1. Non-Exclusive Waste Hauling ordinance revisions
2. C&D waste management ordinance and related C&D facility regulations (certification, C&D waste
flow control, etc.)
3. Organics diversion ordinances and regulations
4. Other areas as relevant and appropriate
Task 5 - Education and Outreach Programming
The CONSULTANT shall:
a. Evaluate current education/outreach strategies that serve the entire County of Fresno including print and
digital materials.
b. Provide recommend dations on enhancing the County’s opportunities to educate residents and
businesses regarding County diversion and disposal programs.
c. Assist staff with developing outreach and education strategies and materials aimed at SB 1383
compliance
d. Assist staff with developing outreach and education strategies and materials aimed at significantly
reducing the occurrence of recycling and organics contamination
Exhibit A
Page 14 of 30
SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to instructions included in this RFP, Proposal Content Requirements, a bidder’s proposal shall
include a response to the following:
Capability & Qualifications
a) Explain your company’s capacity to take in large amounts of information and program descriptions
and extract and utilize the most necessary information.
b) Demonstrate your experience working with government agencies and departments to plan and
implement solid waste programs by evidence of at least three prior clients.
c) Provide examples of your ability to create assessments that may include but are not limited to
executive summary reports, research and survey findings, and comparative analysis.
d) Describe your aptitude to produce a practical comprehensive integrated waste management plan
based on research and anticipated future regulations.
e) Describe your experience assessing and recommending new and revised jurisdictional ordinances.
f) Describe your knowledge or awareness of the issues associated with providing the services
proposed and knowledge of the laws, regulations, statutes and effective principles required to address the
tasks?
g) Does the CONSULTANT and their proposed Project Manager and Main Staff have at least five (5)
years of experience in directly relatable services to the “Scope of Work” for government entities and can
show at least three (3) project examples of such?
h) Describe your experience in the creation of joint power agreements, memorandums of
understanding, and contracts within the solid waste industry.
Education/Outreach Development
a) Describe your experience evaluating education/outreach materials and strategies specific to solid
waste collection and material diversion programs, including but not limited to organics.
b) Provide a sample portfolio of previous education/outreach materials.
c) Describe your experience assessing the needs of a community in regards to finding the best
messaging and strongest communication plan.
Reporting Requirements
a) Describe your experience assisting jurisdictions comply with solid waste reporting requirements.
b) Describe your experience developing and supporting reporting forms and processes.
c) Describe you experience in researching, assessing and recommending reporting software programs.
Solid Waste Diversion
a) Demonstrate how the CONSULTANT will address the requirements of SB 1383 and provide a
potential organics diversion program model that is effective in addressing current and anticipated organics
diversion requirements.
b) Demonstrate your experience in the implementation of diversion programs in jurisdictions that do and
do not currently have jurisdiction wide diversion programs in place.
Management & Administration
a) Demonstrate your ability to annually develop and submit a project management timeline specifying
deliverables, responsible parties, and completion dates and ability to update the timeline quarterly.
b) Describe your experience at delivering monthly status reports, on all project tasks in a timely manner
and within the customer’s requirements.
c) Describe your experience with providing a monthly invoice no later than 30 days after the end of the
previous month, including all approved project expenses and related backup documentation (such as work
Exhibit A
Page 15 of 30
orders, invoices and receipts).
d) The CONSULTANT shall provide an organizational plan and management structure for overseeing
the proposed services.
e) The CONSULTANT shall provide its organizational philosophy and goals.
Exhibit A
Page 16 of 30
COST PROPOSAL
Please complete all information on this form for the full term plus two (2) possible one (1) year
extensions.
Task # Description Staff Name Rate ($/hr) Hours Totals
Task 1 Assessment of Current and Past
Solid Waste Plans 1.___________________ _________ _________ _________
2.___________________ _________ _________ _________
3.___________________ _________ _________ _________
Totals _________ _________
Task 2 Exclusive Service Area Program
(ESAP) Assessment/Support 1.___________________ _________ _________ _________
2.___________________ _________ _________ _________
3.___________________ _________ _________ _________
Totals _________ _________
Task 3 Streamline of Administration and
Reporting Processes 1.___________________ _________ _________ _________
2.___________________ _________ _________ _________
3.___________________ _________ _________ _________
Totals _________ _________
Task 4 Regulatory Requirements and
Related County Ordinances 1.___________________ _________ _________ _________
2.___________________ _________ _________ _________
3.___________________ _________ _________ _________
Totals _________ _________
Task 5 Education and Outreach
Programming 1.___________________ _________ _________ _________
2.___________________ _________ _________ _________
3.___________________ _________ _________ _________
Totals _________ _________
GRAND TOTAL _________ _________
Exhibit A
Page 17 of 30
AWARD CRITERIA
All proposals will be evaluated using the same criteria. While cost is important, other factors are also
significant, and the County may not select the lowest cost proposal. The objective is to choose the proposal
that offers the highest quality services and will best achieve the County’s goals and objectives within a
reasonable budget. Evaluations will be based on the criteria listed below:
COST
A. As submitted under the “COST PROPOSAL” section.
MANAGEMENT PLAN
A. Does the bid demonstrate the CONSULTANT’s ability to effectively manage a large consulting project,
including developing project management plans and timelines, consistent project status reporting, timely
and thorough billing practices, and demonstration of an organizational philosophy, goals, and
management structure suitable for a large consulting project of the nature and scope presented herein.
CAPABILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS
A. Does the bid demonstrate the CONSULTANT’s capabilities and qualifications adequate for a consulting
project of the nature and scope presented herein, including developing clear strategies and action plans,
experience working with government agencies to plan and implement solid waste programs, and firm
knowledge and awareness of laws, regulations, statutes, governing solid waste programs.
EDUCATION/OUTREACH DEVELOPMENT
A. Does the bid demonstrate the CONSULTANT’s experience with Education/Outreach development,
including evaluating existing programs and providing recommendations for improvement.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Does the bid demonstrate the CONSULTANT’s experience with solid waste reporting, including
compliance with State reporting requirements, client support in developing/maintaining reporting forms
and processes, and assessing and recommending software/technology based reporting solutions.
SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
A. Does the bid demonstrate the CONSULTANT’s experience addressing the implementation of organics
diversion programs, including developing organics programs that comply with State regulations,
specifically SB1383, and developing and implementing diversion programs from scratch in jurisdictions
that do not currently have comprehensive diversion programs in place.
Exhibit A
Page 18 of 30
PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
It is required that the vendor submit his/her proposal in accordance with the format and instructions
provided under this section.
I. RFP PAGE 1 AND ADDENDUM(S) PAGE 1 (IF APPLICABLE) completed and signed by participating
individual or agency.
II. COVER LETTER: A one-page cover letter and introduction including the company name and address
of the bidder and the name, address and telephone number of the person or persons to be used for
contact and who will be authorized to make representations for the bidder.
A. Whether the bidder is an individual, partnership or corporation shall also be stated. It will be
signed by the individual, partner, or an officer or agent of the corporation authorized to bind the
corporation, depending upon the legal nature of the bidder. A corporation submitting a proposal
may be required before the contract is finally awarded to furnish a certificate as to its corporate
existence, and satisfactory evidence as to the officer or officers authorized to execute the
contract on behalf of the corporation.
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: The Contractor may become involved in situations where
conflict of interest could occur due to individual or organizational activities that occur within the
County. The Contractor must provide a statement addressing the potential, if any, for conflict
of interest and indicate plans, if applicable, to address potential conflict of interest. This
section will be reviewed by County Counsel for compliance with conflict of interest as part of the
review process. The Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local conflict of interest laws,
statutes and regulations.
V. TRADE SECRET:
A. Sign where required.
VI. CERTIFICATION – DISCLOSURE – CRIMINAL HISTORY & CIVIL ACTIONS
VII. REFERENCES
VIII. PARTICIPATION
IX. EXCEPTIONS: This portion of the proposal will note any exceptions to the requirements and
conditions taken by the bidder. If exceptions are not noted, the County will assume that the bidder's
proposals meet those requirements. The exceptions shall be noted as follows:
A. Exceptions to General Conditions.
B. Exceptions to General Requirements.
C. Exceptions to Specific Terms and Conditions.
D. Exceptions to Scope of Work and/or Scope of Work Proposal Requirements.
E. Exceptions to Proposal Content Requirements.
F. Exceptions to any other part of this RFP.
X. VENDOR COMPANY DATA: This section should include:
A. A narrative which demonstrates the vendor’s basic familiarity or experience with problems
associated with this service/project.
B. Descriptions of any similar or related contracts under which the bidder has provided services.
C. Descriptions of the qualifications of the individual(s) providing the services.
Exhibit A
Page 19 of 30
D. Any material (including letters of support or endorsement) indicative of the bidder's capability.
E. A brief description of the bidder's current operations, and ability to provide the services.
F. Copies of the audited Financial Statements for the last three (3) years for the agency or program
that will be providing the service(s) proposed. If audited statements are not available, compiled
or reviewed statements will be accepted with copies of three years of corresponding federal tax
returns. This information is to be provided after the RFP closes, if requested. Do not provide
with your proposal.
G. Describe all contracts that have been terminated before completion within the last five (5) years:
1. Agency contract with
2. Date of original contract
3. Reason for termination
4. Contact person and telephone number for agency
H. Describe all lawsuit(s) or legal action(s) that are currently pending; and any lawsuit(s) or legal
action(s) that have been resolved within the last five (5) years:
1. Location filed, name of court and docket number
2. Nature of the lawsuit or legal action
I. Describe any payment problems that you have had with the County within the past three (3)
years:
1. Funding source
2. Date(s) and amount(s)
3. Resolution
4. Impact to financial viability of organization.
XI. SCOPE OF WORK:
A. Bidders are to use this section to describe the essence of their proposal.
B. This section should be formatted as follows:
1. A general discussion of your understanding of the project, the Scope of Work proposed and
a summary of the features of your proposal.
2. A detailed description of your proposal as it relates to each item listed under the "Scope of
Work Proposal Requirements" section of this RFP. Bidder's response should be stated in
the same order as are the "Scope of Work Proposal Requirements" items. Each description
should begin with a restatement of the "Scope of Work Proposal Requirements" item that it is
addressing. Bidders must explain their approach and method of satisfying each of the listed
items.
C. When reports or other documentation are to be a part of the proposal a sample of each must be
submitted. Reports should be referenced in this section and submitted in a separate section
entitled "REPORTS."
D. A complete description of any alternative solutions or approaches to accomplishing the desired
results.
XII. COST PROPOSAL: Quotations may be prepared in any manner to best demonstrate the worthiness
of your proposal. Include details and rates/fees for all services, materials, equipment, etc. to be
provided or optional under the proposal.
XIII. CHECK LIST
Exhibit A
Page 20 of 30
TRADE SECRET ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Each proposal submitted is public record under the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov. Code, secs. 6250 and
following) and is therefore open to inspection by the public as required by Section 6253 of the California Government
Code. This section generally states that "every person has a right to inspect any public record". The County will not
exclude any proposal or portion of a proposal from treatment as a public record except information that it is properly
submitted as a “trade secret” (defined below), and determined by the County to be a “trade secret” (if not otherwise
subject to disclosure, as stated below). Information submitted as “proprietary”, “confidential” or under any other terms
that might state or suggest restricted public access will not be excluded from treatment as public record.
"Trade secrets" as defined by Section 6254.7 of the California Government Code are not treated as a public record
under that section. This section defines trade secrets as:
"...Trade secrets," as used in this section, may include, but are not limited to, any formula, plan, pattern, process, tool,
mechanism, compound, procedure, production data or compilation of information that is not patented, which is known only
to certain individuals within a commercial concern who are using it to fabricate, produce, or compound an article of trade or
a service having commercial value and which gives its user an opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors
who do not know or use it."
Such information must be submitted in a separate PDF file named "Trade Secret" and marked as “Confidential” in the
Public Purchase system. Bidders must include a clear and concise statement that sets out the reasons for confidentiality
in accordance with the foregoing definition of “trade secret.” Examples of information not considered trade secrets are
pricing, cover letter, promotional materials, references, and the like.
Information submitted by a bidder as "trade secret" will be reviewed by County of Fresno's Purchasing Division, with the
assistance of the County’s legal counsel, to determine conformance or non-conformance to the foregoing definition.
Information that is properly identified as “trade secret” and which the County determines to conform to the definition will
not become public record (if not otherwise subject to disclosure, as stated below). The County will safeguard this
information in an appropriate manner, provided however, in the event of a request, demand, or legal action by any
person or entity seeking access to the “trade secret” information, the County will inform the bidder of such request,
demand, or legal action, and the bidder shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, including its officers and
employees, against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, or costs or expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs,
relating to such request, demand or legal action, seeking access to the “trade secret” information.
Information submitted by bidder as trade secret and determined by the County not to be in conformance with the
foregoing California Government Code definition shall be excluded from the proposal and deleted by the County.
The County shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any proposals or portions thereof, if (1)
they are not electronically submitted in a separate PDF that is marked "Trade Secret" and marked as Confidential in the
Public Purchase system; or (2) disclosure thereof is required or allowed under the law or by order of court.
Bidders are advised that the County does not wish to receive trade secrets and that bidders are not to supply trade
secrets unless they are absolutely necessary.
I have read and understand, and agree to the above "Trade Secret Acknowledgement."
BIDDER MUST CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
Has bidder submitted certain bid information that is a “trade secret,” as defined by Section 6254.7 of the California
Government Code, and in compliance with the requirements of this Trade Secrets Acknowledgement?
By marking “NO”, bidder does not claim any confidentiality of any bid information submitted to the County.
_____ YES _____ NO
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED BY BIDDER:
Signature Date
Print Name Title
Exhibit A
Page 21 of 30
DISCLOSURE – CRIMINAL HISTORY & CIVIL ACTIONS
In their proposal, the bidder is required to disclose if any of the following conditions apply to them, their
owners, officers, corporate managers and partners (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Bidder”):
1. Within the three-year period preceding the proposal, they have been convicted of, or had a civil
judgment rendered against them for:
a. fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a
public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction;
b. violation of a federal or state antitrust statute;
c. embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification, or destruction of records; or
d. false statements or receipt of stolen property
2. Within a three-year period preceding their proposal, they have had a public transaction (federal,
state, or local) terminated for cause or default.
Disclosure of the above information will not automatically eliminate a Bidder from consideration. The
information will be considered as part of the determination of whether to award the contract and any
additional information or explanation that a Bidder elects to submit with the disclosed information will be
considered. If it is later determined that the Bidder failed to disclose required information, any contract
awarded to such Bidder may be immediately voided and terminated for material failure to comply with the
terms and conditions of the award.
Any Bidder who is awarded a contract must sign an appropriate Certification Regarding Debarment,
Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters. Additionally, the Bidder awarded the contract must
immediately advise the County in writing if, during the term of the agreement: (1) Bidder becomes
suspended, debarred, excluded or ineligible for participation in federal or state funded programs or from
receiving federal funds as listed in the excluded parties list system (http://www.epls.gov); or (2) any of the
above listed conditions become applicable to Bidder. The Bidder will indemnify, defend and hold the County
harmless for any loss or damage resulting from a conviction, debarment, exclusion, ineligibility or other matter
listed in the signed Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters.
Exhibit A
Page 22 of 30
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER
RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS - PRIMARY COVERED TRANSACTIONS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary participant is providing the certification
set out below.
2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of
participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it
cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in
connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction.
However, failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall
disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.
3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when
the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the
prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other
remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction
for cause or default.
4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to
which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary participant learns that its
certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed
circumstances.
5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, participant, person, primary covered
transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set
out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may
contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a
copy of those regulations.
6. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in
order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a
participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary
course of business dealings.
Exhibit A
Page 23 of 30
CERTIFICATION
(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it, its owners,
officers, corporate managers and partners:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded by any Federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment
rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a
public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement,
theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving
stolen property;
(c) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public
transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default.
(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification,
such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
Signature:
Date:
(Printed Name & Title)
(Name of Agency or Company)
Exhibit A
Page 24 of 30
REFERENCE LIST
VENDOR MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Firm:
Provide a list of at least five (5) customers for whom you have recently provided similar services. If you have
held a contract for similar services with the County of Fresno within the past seven (7) years, list the County
as one of your customers. Please list the person most familiar with your contract. Be sure to include all
requested information.
Reference Name: Contact:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone No.: ( ) Project Date:
Service Provided:
Reference Name: Contact:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone No.: ( ) Project Date:
Service Provided:
Reference Name: Contact:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone No.: ( ) Project Date:
Service Provided:
Reference Name: Contact:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone No.: ( ) Project Date:
Service Provided:
Reference Name: Contact:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone No.: ( ) Project Date:
Service Provided:
Failure to provide a list of at least five (5) customers may be cause for rejection of this RFP.
Exhibit A
Page 25 of 30
PARTICIPATION
The County of Fresno is a member of the California Association of Public Procurement Officials (CAPPO)
Central Valley Chapter. This group consists of Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties and all
governmental, tax supported agencies within these counties.
Whenever possible, these and other tax supported agencies co-op (piggyback) on contracts put in place by
one of the other agencies.
Any agency choosing to avail itself of this opportunity, will make purchases in their own name, make payment
directly to the contractor, be liable to the contractor and vice versa, per the terms of the original contract, all
the while holding the County of Fresno harmless. If awarded this contract, please indicate whether you would
extend the same terms and conditions to all tax supported agencies within this group as you are proposing to
extend to Fresno County.
* Note: This form/information is not rated or ranked for evaluation purposes.
Yes, we will extend contract terms and conditions to all qualified agencies within the California
Association of Public Procurement Officials (CAPPO) Central Valley Chapter and other tax
supported agencies.
No, we will not extend contract terms to any agency other than the County of Fresno.
(Authorized Signature)
Title
Exhibit A
Page 26 of 30
CHECK LIST
This Checklist is provided to assist vendors in the preparation of their RFP response. Included are important
requirements the bidder is responsible to submit with the RFP package in order to make the RFP compliant.
Check off each of the following (if applicable):
1. Signed cover page of Request for Proposal (RFP).
2. Check http://www.FresnoCountyCA.gov/departments/internal-services/purchasing/bid-
opportunities for any addenda.
3. Signed cover page of each Addendum.
4. Provide a Conflict of Interest Statement.
5. Signed Trade Secret Form as provided with this RFP (Trade Secret Information, if provided,
must be electronically submitted in a separate PDF file and marked as Confidential).
6. Signed Criminal History Disclosure Form as provided with this RFP.
7. Signed Participation Form as provided with this RFP.
8. The completed Reference List as provided with this RFP.
9. Indicate all of bidder exceptions to the County’s requirements, conditions and specifications
as stated within this RFP.
10. Bidder’s proposal, in PDF format, electronically submitted to the Bid Page on Public
Purchase.
Return Checklist with your RFP response
Exhibit A
Page 27 of 30
COUNTY OF FRESNO
ADDENDUM NUMBER: ONE (1)
RFP NUMBER: 20-018
SOLID WASTE PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES
Issue Date: October 15, 2019
Closing Date: November 6, 2019 at 2:00 PM
All Questions and Proposals must be electronically submitted to the Bid Page on Public Purchase.
For assistance, contact Heather Stevens at (559) 600-7110.
NOTE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND/OR CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NUMBER: 20-018 AND INCLUDE THEM IN YOUR RESPONSE. PLEASE SIGN
AND RETURN THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.
The bidders’ conference previously scheduled for October 22, 2019 at 3:00 PM has been cancelled.
Potential bidders should post any questions regarding this RFP to the bid page on Public Purchase.
All questions will be answered in an additional Ad dendum after the question cut off date of October
24, 2019 at 10:00 AM.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE (1) TO RFP 20-018
COMPANY NAME: (PRINT)
SIGNATURE:
NAME & TITLE: (PRINT)
Purchasing Use: HS:st ORG/Requisition: 9015 / 9012000045
Exhibit A
Page 28 of 30
COUNTY OF FRESNO
ADDENDUM NUMBER: TWO (2)
RFP NUMBER: 20-018
SOLID WASTE PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES
Issue Date: October 25, 2019
Closing Date: November 6, 2019 at 2:00 PM
All Questions and Proposals must be electronically submitted to the Bid Page on Public Purchase.
For assistance, contact Heather Stevens at (559) 600-7110.
NOTE THE ATTACHED ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND/OR CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NUMBER: 20-018 AND INCLUDE THEM IN YOUR RESPONSE. PLEASE SIGN
AND RETURN THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.
➢ Please see questions & answers on the next page.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDUM NUMBER TWO (2) TO RFP 20-018
COMPANY NAME: (PRINT)
SIGNATURE:
NAME & TITLE: (PRINT)
Purchasing Use: HS:hs ORG/Requisition: 9015 / 9012000045
Exhibit A
Page 29 of 30
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q1. The RFP didn't mention a budget, is there a budget set for this project or an
estimated budget?
A1. The County intends to budget a total of $200,000 for solid waste pl anning consulting
services over the full length of the agreement between County and the successful bidder.
This would include the initial three-year term and the two potential one-year extensions, for
a total of five years. Accordingly, the average amoun t per year would be $40,000. Please
note that this is only an average and may be adjusted upward or downward in each County
budget cycle depending on needs during the term of the agreement, direction from County
and department administration, etc.
Q2. On page 12, it says that the County has planning materials available -- are all
planning materials/data available electronically?
A2. These materials are primarily in print form within the solid waste section’s document library.
However, materials could easily be scanned and provided to the successful bidder via
email and/or a file transfer service such as dropbox, etc. depending on file size.
Q3. Does the disclosure section on pg 10 apply to subcontrac tors as well?
A3. Page 10 does not mention disclosure. Please see page 22 (underline added for emphasis):
In their proposal, the bidder is required to disclose if any of the
following conditions apply to them, their owners, officers, corporate
managers and partners (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Bidder”):
Q4. on page 10, bullet 3: It says that the proposal must be electronically submitted on
the forms provided in the RFP. Can we paste our forms into our formatted proposal?
Please provide clarification.
A4. Yes, you can paste your information into the proposal, and/or insert pages where
necessary.
Q5. Are we required to use the cost form on page 17 or are we allowed to prepare our
own fee estimate as long as it includes all the same information?
A5. Yes, as long as all the information asked for is provided. Please keep in mind that if any of
the information is missing, the entire proposal cou ld be marked unresponsive and not
evaluated.
Exhibit A
Page 30 of 30
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 1
I.RFP PAGE 1 AND ADDENDUM(S) PAGE 1
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 2
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 3
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 4
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 221
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 5
Environmental Consultants & Contractors
II. COVER LETTER
Ms. Heather Stevens November 6, 2019
County of Fresno Proposal No. 010900219
333 W. Pontiac Way
Clovis, CA 93612
559-600-7115
Subject: Proposal for Solid Waste Planning Consulting Services - Number: 20-018
Dear Ms. Stevens:
Our Understanding
Assessing the best plan for collecting and recovering organic waste is a long process with hundreds
of variables to consider, which can be further complicated when in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). We
understand Fresno County (County) is seeking support in the development of a solid waste
Masterplan. California’s Senate Bill (SB) 1383 is on the horizon and will dramatically change the
landscape of organics collection and processing for municipalities. Additionally, with China’s National
Sword putting pressure on the recycling infrastructure nationally and locally, it is even more
important now than ever to recycle right, separate organics, initiate effective waste reduction
education campaigns, and most importantly -- minimize contamination. SCS Engineers (SCS) is the
best firm to prepare a solid waste plan that meets the County’s short- (5 years), intermediate- (10
years), and long-range (15 and 20 years) goals, while taking into consideration the economic, social,
and environmental issues of various solid waste management policies, programs, and infrastructure
options.
The County strives to improve and find innovative ways to meet and exceed their waste diversion
goals while managing to safely dispose waste in an efficient and functional way. The County’s
Masterplan will help Fresno County to: 1) Reduce waste generation; 2) Maximize reuse recycling and
diversion of organics from landfill with minimal contamination; 3) Effectively manage hazardous
waste for reuse/safe disposal; 4) Support state regulatory requirements while adhering to local
policies and ordinances; 5) Provide education and outreach to the community to increase
participation and reduce contamination in waste diversion programs; and 6) Efficiently aggregate
data collection and record keeping for use in CalRecycle reports.
Team of Experts Means Evidence-Based Solutions
The requested solid waste Masterplan approach requires a project team of multi-faceted, highly
skilled experts. We have an entire practice area devoted to materials management and we ensure
our clients meet solid waste regulatory compliance. The team that will serve you on this project
includes some of the best Sustainable Materials Management (SMM), data management and
marketing experts in California. To ensure we meet all of your expectations on this key project, we
are excited to partner with HFH Consulting, Recyclist, and JP Marketing. HFH Consulting will assist
with Exclusive Service Area Program (ESAP) related tasks, Recyclist will provide data management,
and JP Marketing, local to Fresno, will perform the marketing outreach to your community.
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 6
Environmental Consultants & Contractors
Our team has proven experience facilitating productive meetings with board members and other
stakeholder groups to provide a clear picture about the solid waste system challenges and educating
our clients on their options when supporting their long-term strategic plans. Our team’s experience in
solid waste program design and implementation experience and working with JPAs will improve your
Solid Waste Plan because our methodology will identify specific interim goals. These goals will
provide flexibility should there be significant local and regional changes during the planning period,
and we will develop best practices to service the current and future needs of the region in the most
fiscally responsible and efficient manner possible.
Our Approach
Through a collaborative approach, our team can help you design and implement innovative waste
prevention programs and policies that convert expert-level understanding of growth projections for
Fresno County, solid waste systems, regulatory requirements and community behaviors into
measurable results appropriate for use in reports required by CalRecycle.
On behalf of all our team members who will contribute to your project, we are confident we will help
you achieve your desired outcomes. If you have any questions concerning any aspect of this
proposal, please contact myself or Tracie. Our contact details are provided below.
Sincerely,
Michelle P. Leonard Tracie Onstad Bills
Vice President Senior Project Manager
SCS Engineers SCS Engineers
626-322-3823
mleonard@scsengineers.com
925-426-0279
tbills@scsengineers.com
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 7
III.TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Section Page
I.RFP PAGE 1 AND ADDENDUM(S) PAGE 1 ....................................................................................... 1
II.COVER LETTER ................................................................................................................................. 5
III.TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... 7
IV.CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT ............................................................................................. 8
V.TRADE SECRETS .............................................................................................................................. 9
VI.CERTIFICATION – DISCLOSURE – CRIMINAL HISTORY & CIVIL ACTIONS .................................... 10
VII.REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 13
VIII.PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................................. 15
IX.EXCEPTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 16
X.VENDOR COMPANY DATA ............................................................................................................. 17
XI.SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................................... 34
Project Understanding .................................................................................................................... 34
Our Project Approach ...................................................................................................................... 35
Task 1 - Assessment of Current and Past Solid Waste Planning Documents ................... 35
Task 2 - Exclusive Service Area Program (ESAP) Administration Support and
Assessment............................................................................................................... 36
Task 3 - Streamline of Administration and Reporting Processes ....................................... 37
Task 4 - Regulatory Requirements and Related County Ordinances ................................. 38
Task 5 - Education and Outreach Programming.................................................................. 40
Optional Tasks ....................................................................................................................... 41
Scope of Work Proposal Requirements ......................................................................................... 42
XIII.COST PROPOSAL ........................................................................................................................... 61
XIV.CHECKLIST .................................................................................................................................... 62
Tables
Table 1. Additional References ........................................................................................................ 14
Table 2. SCS Organic Material Management Services .................................................................. 32
Table 3. SCS Solid Waste Related Experience 2015-Present ....................................................... 43
Table 4. Team Organization Chart ................................................................................................... 58
Appendices
Appendix A Resumes
Appendix B Letters of Recommendation
Appendix C Legal Disclosure
Appendix D Outreach Sample Work
Appendix E Sample Reports
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 8
IV.CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
We do not foresee any potential conflicts of interest and will abide with all federal, state and local
conflict of interest laws, statues and regulations.
Exhibit B
Page 9 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 9
V.TRADE SECRETS
Exhibit B
Page 10 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 10
VI.CERTIFICATION – DISCLOSURE – CRIMINAL HISTORY & CIVIL
ACTIONS
Exhibit B
Page 11 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 11
Exhibit B
Page 12 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 12
Exhibit B
Page 13 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 13
VII.REFERENCES
*Please see page 14 for a list of our sub-consultants’ references.
Exhibit B
Page 14 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 14
Table 1. Additional References
Sub-
Consultant Client Contact Phone Address Services
HFH
Consultants
Fresno
County
Dan Amann,
Landfill
Operations
Manager
559-600-4309
2220 Tulare St,
Fresno, CA
93721
Model update
and training
Fresno County
American Ave
landfill.
Recyclist
Sacramento
County,
Regional
Solid Waste
Authority
Etienne Ozorak
Currently:
Integrated Waste
Superintendent,
City of Glendale
818-550-3468
850 Goethe
Road
Sacramento, CA
95827
Provided
services
aggregating
data across
multiple
franchised
and non-
franchised
haulers.
Riverside
County,
Department
of Waste
Resources
Angela Dufresne,
Principal Engineer 909-226-8461
14310 Frederick
St, Moreno
Valley, CA 92553
Provided
services
aggregating
data across
multiple
franchised
and non-
franchised
haulers.
JP
Marketing
Fresno
County
Department
of Behavioral
Health
Brian Bishop,
Staff Analyst 559-600-6843
1925 E. Dakota
Ave
Fresno, CA
93726
Developed
Suicide
Prevention
Awareness
Public
information
program.
City of
Fresno,
Department
of Public
Utilities
Alicia Real,
Recycling
Coordinator
559-621-1878
1325 El Dorado
St.
Fresno CA 93706
Developed
Public
information
program for
the Solid
Waste
Management
Division for the
City of Fresno.
Fresno
County
Department
of Public
health
Elizabeth Tello,
Staff Analyst 559-600-6478
1221 Fulton St,
Fresno, CA
93721
Developed
Tobacco
Prevention in
Behavioral
Health
Facilities
program.
Exhibit B
Page 15 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 15
VIII. PARTICIPATION
Exhibit B
Page 16 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 16
IX.EXCEPTIONS
SCS abides by all general conditions and requirements within the RFP.
Exhibit B
Page 17 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 17
X.VENDOR COMPANY DATA
A. A narrative which demonstrates the vendor’s basic familiarity or experience with problems
associated with this service/project.
Overview
Established in 1970, SCS Engineers (SCS) is one of the most experienced and most widely respected
employee-owned environmental consulting firms in the United States. The firm is also one of the
premier solid waste consulting firms in the nation. SCS’s SMM practice is a key part of their core
Solid Waste services, and is an integral and growing segment of the company’s overall operations.
The firm’s SMM practice is leading the charge to sustainability through innovative and effective
residential and commercial recycling programs, diversion policies, organics management, permitting
and permit evaluations, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies, construction and demolition
(C&D) debris recycling systems, and procurement policies.
Serving clients in all 50 states and internationally, SCS employs over 840 engineers, geologists,
planners, analysts, technicians, safety consultants,
managers, and professional support staff, including
over 300 in California. SCS’s SMM staff specialize in all
aspects of solid waste planning and operations,
including the completion of comprehensive solid
waste/Zero Waste management plans, waste
characterization studies, waste diversion alternatives
studies, feasibility studies, program analyses, financial
analysis and rate studies, collection and efficiency
assessments, organizational assessments, permits
and permit evaluations, and many more support
services. The firm helps leaders of solid waste
departments comply with AB 32, AB 341, AB 939, AB
1045, AB 1594, AB 1826, and SB 1383 by assessing,
planning, implementing, supporting, and monitoring
well-established and innovative recycling and waste
diversion programs.
Serving Fresno County
We have partnered with the County before where we have worked on landfill related projects. Some
of our projects include transfer station design, landfill gas master plan, supporting the Southeast
Regional (SER) Commission in Waste-to-Energy (WTE) contractor procurement, landfill gas services,
landfill gas designs, and compliance evaluation related to Title 27 California Code of Regulations
(CCR).
Meeting Regulatory Compliance
SCS has helped clients with regulations such as AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383 by helping
with planning, data collection, and implementation and outreach efforts. While many know SCS
Engineers as a landfill engineering firm, we are now being recognized as an overall sustainability
firm. Our President and Board of Directors have placed a heavy emphasis on SMM because they
recognize landfills may be a thing of the past. Our efforts to help our clients stay ahead of the curve,
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE COMPLETING
RATE REVIEWS, 20-YEAR PLANNING
PROJECTIONS, AND ALTERNATIVES
MODELING.
EXPERTISE IN THE REGULATORY
LANDSCAPE IMPACTING SOLID WASTE
OPERATIONS IN CALIFORNIA.
BROAD EXPERIENCE IN SUSTAINABLE
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS, AND BEST
PRACTICES.
Exhibit B
Page 18 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 18
allow us the opportunity to affect change by advising and providing solutions on how they will comply
with regulations. We also place a heavy focus on training and educating staff so they remain
informed to better help our clients. Our SMM team is certified in composting, organics outreach, zero
waste, Community Based Social Marketing, and a Registered Environmental Health Specialist, this
experience will serve well for this project.
Solid Waste Planning
While SCS’s experience spans the nation, the firm has particular strength in California, having
assisted hundreds of clients with designing and implementing residential and commercial collection
programs, multi-family recycling programs, recycling at public venues and special events, and
reporting and monitoring program results.
Nationally, SCS has completed approximately 10,000 individual waste and recycling reviews, solid
waste and Zero Waste plans, facility feasibility studies, collection and disposal alternatives surveys,
rate analyses, permitting evaluations, waste characterization studies, and other research projects,
over 500 of which have been completed by their SMM professional staff.
Sustainable Materials Management
SCS’ SMM professionals specialize in all aspects of solid waste planning and operations, including
solid waste and materials management/zero waste plans and implementation, waste
characterization studies, public outreach and education programs, organics diversion (including
collection and processing services), financial analysis and rate studies, collection and efficiency
assessments, and organizational assessments.
Our team has decades of combined experience in developing and implementing innovative high-
diversion plans, programs, and facilities from policy development to on-the-ground technical
/implementation support. These projects have included focus on recycling and organics diversion
programs, and, in the more recent years, specifically on complying with AB 341 and AB 1826
requirements. With the passing of SB 1383, we are assisting clients with planning for compliance
including projects with the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, Merced County Regional
Waste Management Authority, County of Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and City of Fullerton and
El Segundo. Our contract management work involves providing AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and other
regulatory compliance assistance, including preparing annual reports, and developing construction
and demolition (C&D) ordinances and monitoring compliance.
Organics Material Management
SCS assists communities in evaluating waste streams and determining the applicability of both
traditional and emerging organics materials technologies. Our staff is devoted to staying current with
the latest trends and technologies in this sector. They evaluate and provide unbiased analyses on
approaches and technologies so that their clients can make informed decisions.
What truly sets SCS apart from other consulting firms is that they actually operate composting
facilities. SCS operates five compost facilities on the East Coast, ranging from 2 to 36 acres,
where SCS manages from 5,000 to 25,000 cubic yards of material each year. SCS knows first-
hand how to produce a high-quality product and the most appropriate composting technologies
and equipment to use, based on site, feedstock, and regulatory considerations. They have also
assisted clients in California and nationally with a variety of composting projects. These projects
demonstrate that SCS has the capabilities and personnel to provide a wide range of services in
composting and organic materials management.
Exhibit B
Page 19 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 19
Commercial Recycling and Organics Waste Reduction Program
SCS regularly provides technical assistance with commercial and multi-family recycling and organics
diversion programs, coordinating efforts to comply with existing and proposed legislature, including
AB 341, AB 1826, AB 939, AB 876, AB 199, AB 1045, and SB 1383. To assist clients in reaching
both immediate and long-term objectives, SCS provides a variety of services relating to these
mandates, including but not limited to: capacity assessment and documentation, waste
characterization studies, outreach and training, site assessments, compliance recommendations,
and implementation assistance. SCS prioritizes communication and collaboration in these efforts.
That is why SCS works with clients to build on existing programs and incorporate past successes into
current efforts where possible. This helps to maximize results and increase waste diversion. SCS also
regularly facilitates community outreach efforts, assisting with strategy coordination and
development to optimize participation in compliance efforts at multiple levels, encompassing
commercial, multi-family, and individual residences.
Founded in 1989, HF&H’s largest service area has been the negotiation and management of solid
waste franchise agreement, with RFP and negotiation projects accounting for as much as half of
their annual work. Since the implementation SB 1383 in 2016, HF&H has developed and refined
tools to help clients plan for SB 1383 compliance, identify program gaps, provide for food recovery,
identify processing capacity, and negotiate contractor roles in implementation and compliance.
HF&H’s processes and people are highly effective in achieving superior results, while minimizing the
impact on public agency staff and elected officials.
Recyclist creates cloud-based solutions that make solid waste program management easy. The
triple-bottom-line company designs software to empower citizens, government and business with the
information they need to move our world toward a more sustainable future. Recyclist’s Software-as-a-
Service (SaaS) products — used by cities, counties and waste haulers — provide new visibility into
waste stream data, innovative ways to track commercial outreach and compliance, and state-of-the-
art digital recycling education for residents. Founded in 2014 in Truckee, California, the company is
certified as both a SB (Small Business) and a DBE (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise).
Exhibit B
Page 20 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 20
Because the founders of JP Marketing, Jane Olvera and Paul Quebe, began their careers in local
news in Fresno, they are intimately familiar with the stories surrounding this local geographic area
that date back nearly 30 years. Since 1994, JP Marketing has supported special initiatives for local
organizations which have helped us prepare to super-serve our current Fresno County government
and public agency clients.
B. Descriptions of any similar or related contracts under which the bidder has provided services.
Contra Costa County - Senate Bill 1383 Organics Planning, Central Contra Costa Solid Waste
Authority
SCS performed work for the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (dba RecycleSmart) to
understand what organic programs are currently in place, the volume of organic material currently
diverted, processing capacity available, and provide recommendations on how to enhance organics
programs to address the regulations of SB 1383.
SB 1383 regulations are still in draft form, and some of the organic diversion information is difficult
to assess. We worked with RecycleSmart and their franchised collection hauler to receive data and
program information to provide a full picture of which organic programs are currently established,
and which programs should be enhanced or added to meet SB 1383 regulations. Our
recommendations were based on metrics, reporting, and monitoring, which are required in the
regulations.
Santa Clara County - Composting Processing Capacity and Organics Diversion Study
Santa Clara County sought to assess current and potential capacity for organics diversion that would
be processed under all existing and future applicable solid waste and organics diversion legislation,
including AB 341, AB 1826, AB 939, AB 876, AB 199, AB 1045, and SB 1383. The county requested
assistance to conduct a detailed study of waste reduction and infrastructure alternatives, including
anaerobic digestion, small scale in-vessel composting, backyard composting, grass-cycling, food
rescue, and other hitherto unexplored viable alternatives that would support increased composting
and organics diversion over the next 15 years. Project work was from January 2017 to December
2017.
We helped the county document current and future capacity at all major facilities within and in close
proximity to the greater Santa Clara County region, including the practical steps each will need to
take to accommodate increased operations. SCS also assessed additional composting capacity
within residential, education, farming, and public service sectors; identified and discussed emerging
technologies, backyard composting capacity, current and future food waste reduction projects, and
the prevalence of organics backhauling. SCS used the results of this assessment to recommend next
steps for attaining compliance with AB 341, AB 1826 and SB 1383, and these recommendations
align with the USEPA food waste hierarchy, the markets for end-products, greenhouse gas emission
reduction and state regulations.
Los Angeles County - Sustainable Waste Management/Commercial Institutional Recycling
Program (CIRP)
Exhibit B
Page 21 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 21
The County of Los Angeles Public Works Department has adopted a “Roadmap to a Sustainable
Waste Management Future”. The goal of this “Roadmap” is to help the county implement waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and composting systems at county facilities, in the county unincorporated
communities, and in the overall Los Angeles County region.
The county has over 20 different departments, numerous divisions, and thousands of facilities. SCS
is currently visiting over 25 County facilities and developing facility case studies that will enable
coordination of recycling activities between these entities, and a sharing of experiences, challenges,
and successes. A web-based training program is under preparation, which will facilitate the
dissemination of information.
City of Fullerton – Solid Waste and Recycling Consulting
The City of Fullerton sought to improve their solid waste program to ensure they were on track for
compliance with AB 1826, AB 939, and AB 341. Our services included: CalRecycle support; technical
and field guidance on the administration of the city's solid waste and recycling franchise agreement;
technical recycling assistance, education, and outreach to local restaurants and businesses on
implementing AB 1826 commercial organics recycling program; maintain and develop recycling
programs; attend progress meetings and prepare monthly progress reports; and perform other duties
as assigned by the city.
RethinkWaste/South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) - Franchised Hauler
Agreement Support Services, RethinkWaste
RethinkWaste is a JPA that includes 12 public agencies in San Mateo County. In November 2016,
RethinkWaste/SBWMA sought assistance with multiple, complex tasks associated with renewal of
the Recology franchise agreement extension process. Working under a tight project schedule, the
city enlisted SCS to meet its project milestones and mandated reporting deadlines. Successful
project completion involved two primary tasks. The first task included support with research, report
writing, developing board and committee packets, and performing other support duties related to the
Recology franchise agreement extension process.
The second task involved support with report writing and potential research to assist in finalizing an
agency assessment. The goal was accomplished through our collaborative work with the SBWMA
Executive Director in providing the agency assessment to the Board of Directors at their February
2017 meeting.
City of Alameda - Zero Waste Implementation Plan Technical/Implementation Assistance for
Business and Multi-family Properties
In October 2018, the City of Alameda hired SCS to perform zero waste technical assistance. The
objective of the project was to help the city meet its zero waste goals of 89 percent diversion by
2020. SCS collaborated with city staff and the franchised hauler, Alameda County Industries (ACI), to
provide technical assistance to commercial and multi-family sites identified as being large waste
generators. SCS provided project management, direction, field staff, data management and reporting
for this project.
The businesses visited were large waste generators and had site-specific obstacles that made it
difficult to decrease the amount of waste they sent to landfill. Additionally, Alameda has issues with
illegal dumping, homeless, and personnel who do not care about waste diversion. SCS staff had to
use persistent tactics, letters from the city and the county, and violation and fines if business owners
Exhibit B
Page 22 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 22
and/or property managers did not comply. These tools were effective in gaining most businesses
compliance.
During the 2018/19 fiscal year, the SCS team completed 133 site visits, conducted 31 trainings,
completed 79 waste assessment forms, added 99 cubic yards (CY) of new weekly recycling
service, 24 CY of new weekly organics service, reduced garbage service by 51 CY per week, and
identified 542 CY per week of backhauled or third party diversion. SCS was initially provided the
top 50 generators with a reported 18.4 percent diversion rate in October of 2018. As of October
2019, 60 generators have achieved a collective 48.9 percent diversion rate.
City of Glendale - Regulatory Compliance and Reporting
SCS began work with the City of Glendale in September 2016. The city presently had nearly 30
haulers that service the commercial sector; however, the city did not have an ordinance that requires
haulers to report on their activities. Therefore, the city was unable to report on progress towards
implementing AB 341, AB 1826, and other regulatory requirements. The new franchise agreement
prepared and facilitated by SCS, once implemented, will assist the city in meeting its regulatory and
reporting obligations and achieving compliance with new legislation.
To date, SCS has accomplished multiple project tasks to assist the city with regulatory and reporting
requirements. We began by assessing applicable laws and regulations, including the city’s municipal
code and Zero Waste Plan as they relate to solid waste collection and regulation of private haulers,
as well as laws governing the management of municipal solid waste in Glendale. This enabled our
team to identify state regulations, including CalRecycle reporting requirements, that the city’s current
open permitting system is incapable of complying with. Based on findings, our team advised the city
of the latest legislation regarding franchising, franchising models, and methods of operation
necessary to sustain the Glendale’s current and future solid waste enterprise. We also coordinated
with the hauler community to collect service level and rate data from the five largest haulers. Based
on insights from this data, our team developed a model to be used to perform a predictive analysis
on the likely fiscal impacts upon current commercial refuse collection rates.
Additional related projects can be found in Table 3, page 43.
C. Descriptions of the qualifications of the individual(s) providing the services.
Please find below our team’s solid waste qualifications for each key personnel. Full resumes and
additional team members can be found in Appendix A – Resumes on page A-1.
ROLE: PROJECT MANAGER/DIRECTOR MICHELLE LEONARD
Years of Experience: 36
Sample Projects:
RecycleSmart, SB 1383 Planning and Reporting Assistance
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Smart Business
Recycling Program Compliance with SB 1383
South Bayside Waste Management Authority Agency Assessment and Franchise
Negotiation Assistance
County of Santa Cruz, Strategic Planning Support
Placer County, Organics Recycling Plans for Eastern & Western Placer County
Exhibit B
Page 23 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 23
Michelle leads SCS’s growing SMM practice and is an SCS Vice President. She has 36 years of
directly relevant experience with an emphasis on solid waste management planning and policy
development. She has helped public and private sector clients, including JPAs, in the preparation
of solid waste management plans and ensuring compliance with SB 1383; designed and
implemented waste reduction, recycling, and reuse programs; and evaluated existing programs to
identify opportunities to reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste. She has prepared plans and permits
for transfer stations, material recovery facilities (MRFs), and drop-off and buy-back centers. She has
a strong working knowledge of solid waste management regulations and practices, and has
presented successful projects to city, county, and state regulators, including the projects above
mentioned.
ROLE: SENIOR STAFF PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT/QUALITY ASSURANCE TRACIE ONSTAD BILLS
Years of Experience: 25
Sample Projects:
Merced County Solid Waste Authority, SB 1383 Planning and Reporting
Assistance
South Bayside Waste Management Authority Agency, Assessment and
Franchise Negotiation Assistance
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, SB 1383 Planning
Santa Clara County, Organics Capacity Study
County of San Mateo, Pescadero Transfer Station Feasibility Study and Organics Analysis
Tracie has over 25 years of materials management experience, including working for a hauler, a
county government, and a non-profit; and over 12 years with materials management consulting
firms. For the past 3 years, Tracie has been a key member of SCS’s SMM group. She has contributed
to the development of many solid waste plans, providing materials flow assessments, organics
processing research and analysis, hauler customer service reviews, construction and demolition
(C&D) ordinance reviews and recommendations, and recycling and organics management technical
assistance to government agencies, schools, multi-family dwellings and businesses throughout
Northern California. An expert in the solid waste regulatory environment, she takes pride in her
ability to engage stakeholders in meaningful, action-oriented ways to drive higher levels of
regulatory compliance and customer service.
ROLE: TASK 4 LEAD – REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS & RELATED COUNTY ORDINANCES KAREN LUKEN
Years of Experience: 30
Sample Projects:
City of New Braunfels, TX; Solid Waste Management Plan & Rate
Study
City of Olathe, KS; Strategic Solid Waste Management Plan
Cuyahoga County Waste District, OH; Strategic Evaluation
Saint Louis County, MO; Solid Waste Management Plan
Kaua’i and Oahu Counties, HI; Solid Waste Management Plans
Karen has almost 30 years of experience helping communities throughout the world systematically
assess and improve their solid waste management programs, facilities and services. While serving
as the director of the Hamilton County Solid Waste District, Karen gained first-hand experience on
Exhibit B
Page 24 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 24
the challenges of designing and implementing county-level programs that required support from
multiple municipalities. There are 52 municipalities in Hamilton County and 100 percent
approved the waste management plan that Karen developed and implemented.
Karen uses this knowledge to help cities, counties and national governments design strategic plans
that achieve their waste management goals. Karen’s diverse project experience in the United
States, as well as globally, gives her clients insight on emerging trends and best practices in
waste management and recovery. Karen then works closely with her clients to harmonize these
trends and practices with the goals and conditions of the local community. Finally, Karen guides
these communities in designing education and outreach campaigns to effectively convey key
messages and foster a shared vision amongst residents, business and government officials for new
solid waste management systems, policies and programs.
ROLE: TASK 1 LEAD –ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT & PAST SOLID WASTE DOCUMENTS LISA COELHO
Years of Experience: 5
Sample Projects:
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority SB 1383 Planning
Santa Clara County Organics Capacity Study to Track SB 1383
Compliance
City of Santa Clara, Pilot Residential Food Scraps Recycling Program
Analysis and Recommendations for SB 1383 Compliance
City of Sunnyvale, FoodCycle: Residential Food Scraps Recycling Program Analysis and
Recommendations for SB 1383 goals
Lisa is a SMM Specialist with a passion for organics programs. As a Zero Waste Program Coordinator
and Environmental Programs Consultant, she has over 5 years of experience in the solid waste
industry, specifically working with municipalities. She has unique previous work experience as a staff
member for the City of Santa Clara, Department of Public Works, and the City of Sunnyvale,
Environmental Services Department. In these roles, she provided extensive technical assistance to
single-family residential customers, schools, restaurants, and commercial business customers.
Lisa is currently assisting municipalities with California’s SB 1383. In addition to the above projects,
she assists the Counties of Alameda and Monterey with their solid waste research, program
planning, and technical assistance. She excels in the development of communication materials,
such as tailored video and multimedia outreach presentations. She is research oriented, with a
strong background in community-based social marketing; outreach and education; data gathering
and analysis; and project management.
ROLE: STAFF PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT AMBER DURAN
Years of Experience: 5
Sample Projects:
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Smart Business
Recycling Program Compliance with SB 1383
City of Fullerton, Solid Waste and Recycling Services, Including Tracking
and Reporting for AB 1826, AB 939, and AB 341
City of El Segundo, Solid Waste Consulting Services, Including Compliance Reporting
Exhibit B
Page 25 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 25
StopWaste, Alameda County, Waste Characterization Study
County of San Mateo Pescadero Transfer Station Feasibility Study and Organics Analysis
Amber has a diverse background in solid waste management and environmental health. Working
with the SMM team, she delivers quality technical support to businesses, multifamily dwellings, and
government facilities to increase recycling participation, deliver outreach and education, coordinate
collection with haulers, and collect data. Her experience in government and the private sector have
sharpened her capability to collaborate with multiple types of organizations.
ROLE: STAFF PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT LYNEA BAUDINO
Years of Experience: 3
Sample Projects:
Santa Clara County Organics Capacity Study
City of Berkeley, Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance
City of Alameda, Zero Waste Alameda
Alameda County Green Business Program
County of San Mateo Pescadero Transfer Station Feasibility Study and Organics Analysis
Ms. Baudino is a SMM Specialist with a passion for organics programs. She has over 3 years of
experience in the solid waste industry, specifically working with local municipalities and non-profits.
She has previously worked as a staff member for the City of Fremont’s Environmental Services
Department and the Ecology Center in Berkeley. She provides technical assistance to clients,
including residents, property managers, schools, city facilities, and businesses. She has
extensive experience conducting qualitative and quantitative research on environmental policy
and technology.
ROLE: TASK 2 LEAD ESAP ASSESSMENT/SUPPORT ROBERT HILTON
Years of Experience: 17
Sample Projects:
City of Fresno, Franchise Contracts and RFP Development
Tulare County, Franchise Agreement and AB 341 and AB 1826
Compliance
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (MCRWMA); SB 1383 Program
Compliance Analysis
Rob has provided recycling and solid waste consulting services to public agencies in projects
covering a wide range of strategic, operational, programmatic, contractual, and financial issues. Rob
leads HF&H’s California franchising team in support of more than a dozen communities each year
who are either competitively procuring or negotiating solid waste collection, processing, and/or
disposal contracts. In addition, he has lead HF&H’s statewide efforts since 2016 to prepare local
government clients for SB 1383. These efforts include several SB 1383 implementation plans,
SB 1383-compliant franchise agreements, SB 1383-compliant ordinances, and a series of SB
1383 Local Government Summits.
Exhibit B
Page 26 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 26
ROLE: TASK 2 ESAP SUPPORT TRACY SWANBORN, PE
Years of Experience: 29
Sample Projects:
City of San José, Franchise Contracts and RFP Development
CalRecycle, Model Implementation Tools and Support to Reach SB
1383 Compliance
County of San Diego, SB 1383 Program Compliance Analysis
Tracy’s expertise is in collection, transfer, processing, and disposal services procurement, contract
development, and negotiations. She also has extensive experience assisting jurisdictions with
diversion program planning including organics diversion programs.
Tracy has been actively involved in monitoring the development of SB 1383. She attended in person
or by webinar all of CalRecycle’s SB 1383 informal rule-making workshops and CalRecycle’s March
2019 SB 1383 hearing. As part of the HF&H team that developed and hosted two SB 1383 Local
Government Summits in 2018 for jurisdictions, Ms. Swanborn was instrumental in developing the
SB 1383 presentation and presented a significant portion of the content. She also led the
preparation of HF&H’s SB 1383 compliance checklist, which has been distributed widely to
jurisdictions.
For more information on the Task 2 ESAP team, please see Appendix A – Resumes.
ROLE: TASK 3 DATA MANAGEMENT LEAD EMILY COVEN
Years of Experience: 5
Sample Projects:
Provided Data Processing and Management / Program Tracker for the following clients:
–San Luis Obispo County IWMA
–Placer County
–City of Alameda
–City of Cupertino
–Sonoma County Resource
Recovery
–City of Clovis
–Sacramento Regional SWA
–Milpitas Sanitation
–Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority
–Sonoma County
Emily created and launched the Recyclist Program Tracker, a cloud-based data management tool
that municipal solid waste and recycling program managers use to gain direct insight into waste
streams, track compliance, and conduct effective, targeted outreach. She provides customized
technology solutions throughout the waste industry, including creating a county-wide digital
media strategy, developing mobile load-checking apps for contamination prevention, building
custom data management platforms, and designing custom website solutions.
ROLE: TASK 3 DATA SUPPORT SARA MCCADDEN
Years of Experience: 10
Sample Projects:
Provided Data Processing and Management / Program Tracker for the following client s:
–San Luis Obispo County IWMA –Placer County
Exhibit B
Page 27 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 27
–City of Alameda
–City of Cupertino
–Sonoma County Resource
Recovery
–City of Clovis
–Sacramento Regional SWA
–Milpitas Sanitation
–Salinas Valley Solid Waste
Authority
–Sonoma County
Sara is highly experience in preparing technical reports in compliance with CEQA/NEPA, ESA, and
SMARA; developing and managing program budgets; reviewing grants; knowledgeable of California
Codes, primarily in Environmental Protection and Natural Resources titles.
ROLE: TASK 3 DATA MANAGER PATTI RAAB
Years of Experience: 20
Sample Projects:
Provided Data Processing and Management / Program Tracker for the following clients:
–San Luis Obispo County IWMA
–Placer County
–City of Alameda
–City of Cupertino
–Sonoma County Resource
Recovery
–City of Clovis
–Sacramento Regional SWA
–Milpitas Sanitation
–Salinas Valley Solid Waste
Authority
–Sonoma County
Patti has extensive experience with both technical and non-technical teams across all levels of an
organization to provide accurate reliable data for analysis, answering questions and leading to new
discoveries and insights. Proficient in the development and design of interactive business
analytics, dashboards and reports meeting all levels of company requirements with recognized
problem solving skills and a proven ability to understand and anticipate customer needs.
ROLE: TASK 5 - OUTREACH LEAD JANE OLVERA
Years of Experience: 30
Sample Projects:
Fresno County Department of Public Health and Fresno County Health Improvement
Partnership Branding, Develop Umbrella Brand for Fresno County
Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health Focus Groups, Enhanced Outreach
Efforts and Communications Plan
Southern California Association of Governments, Enhanced Outreach Efforts and
Communications Plan
Jane Olvera is the Founder and President of JP Marketing. She has more than 30 years of experience
related to strategic brand development for municipalities, including County of Fresno and City of
Fresno.
ROLE: DIRECTOR OF CLIENT SERVICES MICHELE MEISCH
Years of Experience: 25
Sample Projects:
Fresno County Department of Public Health and Fresno County Health Improvement
Partnership Branding, Develop Umbrella Brand for Fresno County
Exhibit B
Page 28 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 28
Fresno County Department of Public Health, Tobacco Cessation Community Outreach
Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health, Suicide Prevention Awareness
Campaign
Michelle has more than 25 years of experience related to strategic brand development for
municipalities, including County of Fresno and City of Fresno. She is also skilled in media strategy
and negotiation strategy, data analysis, comprehensive campaign post analysis, and budget
management.
For more information on the Outreach team, please view Appendix A - Resumes on page A-1.
D. Any material (including letters of support or endorsement) indicative of the bidder's
capability.
Our team has received recommendation letters based on our performance in providing solid waste
services from Placer County, Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority and City of Kirkwood. For the
full letters of recommendations, please see Appendix B - Letters of Recommendation on page B-1,
quotes can be found on page 29.
Exhibit B
Page 29 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 29
I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND SCS ENGINEERS TO OTHER MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
PROGRAMS BECAUSE OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE INDUSTRY AND THEIR ABILITY TO
PROVIDE THE HARD FACTS OF OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCY IN A POSITIVE, HOPEFUL
PERSPECTIVE.
WILLIAM E. BENSING, JR., DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES, KIRKWOOD, MISSOURI
SCS ENGINEERS WAS CONTRACTED THROUGH THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE
AUTHORITY (CCCSW A) AND REPUBLIC SERVICES TO PERFORM VISUAL CHARACTERIZATIONS
AND COMMERCIAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR OUR SIX MEMBER AGENCIES. I HAVE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH TRACIE OVER THIS PAST YEAR AND FIND HER A JOY TO WORK WITH
AS WELL AS EXTREMELY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HAVING AN EXTENSIVE ARRAY OF SOLID WASTE
AND RECYCLING EXPERIENCE.
KEN ETHERINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
SCS PROVIDED THE COUNTY WITH THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE THAT WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE
SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THE RESULTING DOCUMENT WAS A WELL-
ORGANIZED AND EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE, AND PROVIDED THE COUNTY WITH VALUABLE
INFORMATION FOR USE IN ITS THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
I WOULD RECOMMEND SCS AND TRACIE BILLS AND MICHELLE LEONARD FOR WORK
INVOLVING ORGANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONAL/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.
CASEY FORD, PE, PLACER COUNTY
Exhibit B
Page 30 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 30
E. A brief description of the bidder's current operations, and ability to provide the services.
SCS Engineers was established in Southern California as a partnership on
the first Earth Day in April 1970 and is 100 percent owned by its
employees. SCS Engineers is a full-service environmental engineering
consulting firm specializing in solid waste management and environmental
services.
McGraw Hill’s Engineering News Record (the engineering industry’s
preeminent rankings publication) has nationally ranked SCS as a top-tier
consulting firm in design, environmental engineering, solid waste,
wastewater, site assessment, and compliance. Waste360 has ranked SCS
Engineers in the Top 100 Solid Waste and Recycling Design-Build Firms in
North America.
Expertise in Municipal Waste Recycling & Recovery Services
SCS is one of the few environmental consulting firms in the country that specializes in systematic
municipal waste management consulting. We are national leaders in comprehensive solid waste
planning, collection, and processing assessments, regulatory review, financial analysis and
community outreach to promote responsible waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and recovery.
SCS has an entire practice area devoted to SMM — one of our fastest growing and most vibrant
areas of specialization.
The concept of SMM is part of a paradigm shift. Recyclables
used to be what we kept out of the trash. Now, trash is what
we have left over after we reduce, reuse, recycle, and
compost.
Cities and counties across the nation are now pursuing Zero
Waste. Zero Waste is a design principle. It goes beyond
recycling and focuses first on source reduction,
environmentally preferable purchasing, reuse, before
recycling and composting. SCS promotes reuse, recycling,
and conservation programs, and also – more importantly –
emphasizes SMM by considering the entire life-cycle of
products, processes, and systems. SCS’s project solutions
strive to eliminate waste by reducing consumption and
advocating for the redesign of products and packaging so
they can be reused, recycled back into the marketplace, or
composted back into the soil.
We have significant experience assisting government agencies in California and other states with the
implementation of recycling and waste diversion programs, and helping leaders of solid waste
departments tasked with evaluating their compliance with SB 1383, AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and
other solid waste regulations. Our relationships with collection companies assists our effectiveness
with understanding the barriers and best practices for developing tools and implementation.
Exhibit B
Page 31 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 31
SCS has completed approximately 10,000 individual studies, surveys, audits, and research projects
concerning a wide range of solid waste and environmental issues — over 500 of which have been
completed by our vibrant and growing SMM practice.
SCS’s growing team of SMM professionals perform the following suite of services in Table 2 on page
32.
Exhibit B
Page 32 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 32
Table 2. SCS Organic Material Management Services
Program Planning
and Studies
Regulation Review and Compliance Planning
Comprehensive SMM, Strategic Solid Waste, & Zero Waste Plans
Policy Development and Implementation
Organics Recycling, Capacity Study, Future Planning and Reporting
Site Assessments and Evaluations for Infrastructure Expansion
Organics Processing Facility Design and Construction
Edible Food Recovery Capacity Study and Planning
Benchmarking of Services and Fees
Diversion Analysis and Planning
Waste Generation and Characterization Studies
Contamination Studies and Sampling Protocol Development
Feasibility Studies
Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Financial and
Economic Analysis
Rate Analysis
Hauler Audits
Cost of Service Studies
Franchise Agreement Reviews
Cost, Financial, and Economic Analysis
Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships
Development of RFQ/RFP/Bid Documents
Procurement Assistance
Grant Funding Applications and Management
Customer Billing and Service Reviews
Program Design
and
Implementation
Collection, Waste and Diversion Assessments
Business and Multi-family Technical Assistance
Generator Surveys
Prepare Implementation Schedules
Monitoring and Evaluating Programs
Assess Program Effectiveness and Identify Efficient Improvements
Special Events and Public Venue Programs
Develop and Maintain Food Recovery Organization Lists
Inspections for Edible Food Generators
Employee and Janitorial Training Workshops
Comprehensive Data Management and Analysis
Establish Communication Models for Local Government Officials, Food
Suppliers and Intermediary Organizations
Annual Reporting for Regulatory Compliance
Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Programs
LEED Certification
Public Outreach
and Education
Development of Public Education Programs
Outreach for Edible Food Generators and Recovery Entities
Provide Guidance to Interface with Health Departments
Facilitation of Public Meetings, Workshops, Seminars and more
Design and Create Employee and Volunteer Protocols
Administer Public Opinion Surveys
Development of Flyers, Newsletters, Social Media, and Other Collateral
Exhibit B
Page 33 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 33
F. Copies of the audited Financial Statements for the last three (3) years for the agency or
program that will be providing the service(s) proposed. If audited statements are not available,
compiled or reviewed statements will be accepted with copies of three years of corresponding
federal tax returns. This information is to be provided after the RFP closes, if requested. Do not
provide with your proposal.
After the RFP closes and upon request from the County, we will provide our audited financial
statements for the last three years.
G. Describe all contracts that have been terminated before completion within the last five (5)
years:
SCS does not track information on terminations unless the matter has resulted in claims or litigation.
SCS has not been terminated for default.
H. Describe all lawsuit(s) or legal action(s) that are currently pending; and any lawsuit(s) or legal
action(s) that have been resolved within the last five (5) years:
Please see attached disclosure in Appendix C - Legal Disclosure on page C-1.
I. Describe any payment problems that you have had with the County within the past three (3)
years:
SCS has not had any payment problems with the County within the past three years.
Exhibit B
Page 34 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 34
XI.SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Fresno County is seeking improvement within their current Solid Waste Plan where they are currently
responsible for 14 territories and 8 solid waste and recycling haulers in an Exclusive Service Area
Program (ESAP). We understand that the regulatory climate of solid waste management is changing
and can be complicated by several factors including various municipalities in JPAs; local, state, and
federal policies and regulations; community education and outreach; budget; and market conditions.
As stated in the RFP, the County has extensive planning data including details about the regional
landscape, community growth projections, existing waste management programs, processing
capacity and potential opportunities for landfill diversion. We will analyze and synthesize the
County’s wealth of data to develop a Masterplan detailing a coordinated approach to ever-efficient
waste management to meet the immediate needs of the County as well as the projected needs over
the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.
The results and recommendations within the Masterplan will establish short-, medium- and long-term
goals best suited for developing cost effective projects, programs, and solutions for the community.
The Masterplan will consider, where appropriate, residential, commercial, institutional, and
recreational wastes, special and hazardous wastes and how best to utilize existing resources,
vendors and partnerships, and identify new opportunities. The Masterplan will also provide
comprehensive strategies and policies for processing waste at existing facilities, increasing waste
diversion and reducing waste volumes, and controlling community waste collection costs with
specific focus on the SB 1383 organics diversion requirements.
SB 1383 prescribes jurisdictions to implement mandatory organics management programs and
policies to achieve a statewide reduction of organics sent to the landfill. The overarching goal is a 50
percent reduction of statewide organics sent to landfill by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by
2025. The requirements for jurisdictions include:
Provision of organics recycling services to all residential and commercial customers;
Conducting an organics capacity and edible food recovery capacity study;
Supporting capacity expansion (if applicable to meet the organics tonnage projections);
Adoption of local ordinances to support and enforce SB 1383 requirements;
Container color and labeling requirements;
Outreach and education requirements;
Monitoring and enforcement to minimize contamination;
Regulation of self-haulers;
Purchasing requirements;
And implementation of an edible food recovery program for commercial customers.
Our team has extensive experience collaborating with municipalities to develop strategic waste
management plans; conducting organics processing capacity studies; analyzing and updating local
and regional policies; customizing education and outreach; and assisting with data management for
regulatory reporting. Additionally, our team possesses an intimate understanding of the
requirements of SB 1383 and can find opportunities for improving a program design and
implementation strategies to meet your landfill diversion goals.
Exhibit B
Page 35 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 35
OUR PROJECT APPROACH
While many of the tasks may be the same, the approach for developing a plan that achieves a
client’s goals is highly unique to each project. Certain project tasks, such as establishing a baseline
and assessing existing plans and programs, are fundamental components of a strategic planning
process. For your project, we will follow ensure to meet your needs by:
1.Collaborating
Engage with all County staff and stakeholders to ensure a systematic approach.
Review and analyze existing: programs, policies and outreach.
Model current and projected organics generation, disposal, collection and processing.
2.Innovating
Research opportunities for state-of-the-art technologies, strategies and end market
solutions to achieve compliance with current and future regulations.
Recommend policy and solid waste agreement enhancements.
3.Communicating
Develop a Masterplan to address short-, medium- and long-term needs and goals.
Present findings to stakeholders and synthesize technical information for dissemination
to Board Members and local elected officials.
Develop an education and outreach strategy to achieve needs and goals,
recommendations updating or creating outreach collateral in compliance with SB 1383
and a recommended communication implementation plan.
Task 1 - Assessment of Current and Past Solid Waste Planning
Documents
Prior to assessing current and past solid waste planning documents, we recommend a half-day work
session to identify and prioritize the goals for the future solid waste management system. During this
work session, our team will also help participants evaluate the strengths and weakness of the
existing system, and facilitate a preliminary discussion on pathways to optimize the strengths and
address the challenges.
After the planning meeting, our team will perform a full review of all County documents including
jurisdictional programs (e.g. source reduction recycling element, household hazardous waste
element, and non-disposal facility element), regional programs (e.g. siting element and summary
plan), combined planning documents (e.g. JPA Agreements with cities and with commissions and
committees), and Memorandums of Understanding (e.g. MOUs with cities, and with commissions
and committees). During the review, SCS will document areas for improvement and additions or
changes that will enhance the current documents, provide details for the solid waste plan, and
update the documents to address new regulations.
Exhibit B
Page 36 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 36
Our team will use the results of this work session and the document review to assess whether
existing documents and policies achieve these goals as well as their appropriateness for use in the
CalRecycle, five-year planning documents. As requested in the RFP, our team will place special
emphasis on organics diversion as it relates to SB 1383 legislation. As shown in our qualifications,
multiple members of our team have successfully guided California communities in complying SB
1383 and our team has also designed and operated recovery systems for organics. This unique
experience will allow Fresno County to successfully comply with SB 1383 requirements.
Task 1 Deliverables:
Draft report that provides a summary of the review and assessment of the plans.
Draft revised planning documents for review and approval.
Task 2 - Exclusive Service Area Program (ESAP) Administration Support
and Assessment
Task 2a - Strategies for Meeting Compliance With AB 341 and AB 1826 and Program
Implementation
Our team will review the last three years of reporting from each of the ESAP haulers to the County
and from the County to CalRecycle related to the levels of participation and compliance with AB 341
and AB 1826. During this review, we will document trends and identify potential issues that we will
discuss and clarify with County staff directly responsible for the preparation of the reports. If
necessary, we will meet or have a call with CalRecycle’s local assistance staff to discuss compliance
concerns that they have. From there, the SCS team will incorporate the development of program
enhancements into the strategy for meeting compliance with SB 1383 (subtask 2b below), as
compliance with SB 1383 inherently results in compliance with AB 341 and AB 1826 and the
commercial programs provide a good phasing approach into full SB 1383 compliance.
Task 2b. Meeting Compliance With SB 1383 and Recommendations for Program Design,
Implementation, and Enforcement
Overview
SB 1383 represents the most significant change to solid waste programs and management in a
generation and will require significant additional resources from the County, ESAP haulers, and
generators throughout the County. SCS and HF&H partnered on California’s first SB 1383 planning
effort in 2018 and have since worked both together and separately to assist dozens of clients
throughout the state in charting the course towards SB 1383. Our proposed process for evaluating
compliance, assessing options, conducting a resource analysis of the staffing and costs required to
comply, and documenting those requirements in a plan has been further developed and improved in
over 30 comminutes throughout California since that first project only a year ago.
Compliance Gap Analysis
The first step in the process is to review the County’s current policies, programs, infrastructure,
administration, and enforcement systems to assess the level of compliance against the
requirements of SB 1383. The SCS team will utilize their proprietary compliance assessment
checklist to document the level of compliance against the 81 specific jurisdictional obligations
contained in SB 1383. This checklist will define the compliance gaps and begin to identify the
appropriate responsible party (County, hauler, facility, other) for each.
Exhibit B
Page 37 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 37
Preliminary Review of Options
Upon completion of the compliance analysis, we will meet with County staff to discuss the
compliance gaps and alternative approaches to meeting those requirements. The SCS team will
facilitate this discussion, providing guidance on options and approaches used or planned by other
agencies similar to Fresno County. Based on the minimum program standards in SB 1383 and
discussion with staff, our team will develop a set of recommended organic waste reduction programs
designed to bring Fresno County into compliance with SB 1383. They will begin by developing a
menu of program options and then prepare an assessment of key qualitative program considerations
for each option, which will inform the resource analysis.
Task 2c. Supporting Your Staff on ESAP Related Issues
The flexible nature of this task description allows us to support the County on a wide range of issues
that arise. As such, it is difficult to provide a well-considered scope and budget, but have assumed
that this support would require approximately $50,000 per year and that specific task orders and
budgets would be issued for work performed under this subtask. The current budget the County has
dedicated for this work, does not allow for this level of support or funding. We will have $10,000
each year dedicated for assistance, and if the need arises to perform further evaluation and support,
our team would like to discuss with the County next steps. We are certainly flexible with regard to the
budget allocated to this task, but would prefer to have each specific task, as assigned, have a scope
and budget approved through a task order with the County’s project manager. This assures the
County that this task will not just be an “open checkbook” and also provides clarity for both parties
on the specifics of each assignment.
It is likely that the first use of this task will be to negotiate revisions to the hauling agreements to
incorporate the requirements of SB 1383. Our team is currently working for CalRecycle to produce a
statewide model franchise and ordinance that are compliant with SB 1383. These tools should allow
for a much more cost-efficient process to arrive at those revised agreements from a business term
and service description perspective. The negotiations will be further supported by out team’s cost
analysis of SB 1383. Our team has negotiated with every hauler serving Fresno County. They have a
good working relationship with them and have successfully navigated several very challenging
negotiations in places like the City of Fresno, Merced County, Tulare County, and Kern County. We
are confident that we can successfully work with the group to negotiate implementation of the
changes required by SB 1383.
Task 2 Deliverables:
Draft report detailing the work conducted and assessment findings.
Task 3 - Streamline of Administration and Reporting Processes
Based on our experience and our knowledge, we believe our team’s solid waste data management is
the best in the industry. Our data management technology is specifically made for local governments
so they can easily track their SB 1383 compliance. We consistently work with our clients on their
management system to ensure they comply with regulatory requirements and can easily manage
their solid waste data.
Task 3a. Assess and Recommend Revisions for Capturing SB 1383 Related Data for Reporting
Exhibit B
Page 38 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 38
SCS will review the current administrative and reporting processes for the hauler agreements (e.g.
ESAP and Non-Exclusive Waste Hauler Agreements), permitted facilities and jurisdictions. From this
review, we will make recommendations on how best to support the County in efficiently submitting
reports and managing all of the data that is gathered. Additional assessments will be made to
provide revisions of existing reporting processes that conform to the requirements of the ESAP
agreements, as well as to manage new data that will be collected and required under SB 1383.
As part of the evaluation, our team will assist with assessing the current processes for gathering
data, inputting data, and ultimately reporting on data. We have seen every kind of service-level and
tonnage data, as well as the countless forms and spreadsheets used by different jurisdictions for
internal tracking and reporting. Every city and county has different data sources and different
internal processes. Our expertise lies in identifying ways
to simplify, streamline and make these processes more
efficient. We frequently evaluate a range of IT solutions
for customers, helping internal IT departments to identify
the best third-party solutions to fulfill a requirement, and
assisting in the configuration of the tools to meet their
needs. This type of overall assessment by an IT expert,
will assist the County in identifying not only the best
reporting process, but ideas on the tools necessary for
efficient and streamlined data collection and reporting.
Task 3b. IT-Based Solutions
SCS will assist County staff in the assessment in IT based solutions that will enhance the disposal
and diversion reporting program, identify efficiencies for tracking tonnage, service fees and
surcharges, and simplifying the aggregated data. An integral part of this assessment includes
Recyclist. They bring a forward-looking perspective that will help Fresno County get ahead of the
game for all data collection, and more importantly SB 1383 data capture and reporting. Recyclist is
laser-focused on the SB 1383 recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and has been at the
forefront of educating the California municipal solid waste community about these requirements,
through conference presentations and webinars. They also are in close contact with CalRecycle’s SB
1383 and Local Assistance teams, who have reached out to Recyclist on a number of occasions to
offer CalRecycle insight into what is feasible for jurisdictions from a data gathering, processing and
reporting point of view.
Task 3 Deliverable:
Provide administrative support, as needed, in the assessment and revision of existing
“proprietary” reporting processes within the County that conform to the requirements of
the ESAP Agreements.
Task 4 - Regulatory Requirements and Related County Ordinances
Our team will collaborate with Fresno County to understand the different ordinances that require
review, to receive background information on how they have been used, the functionality of each,
and details the County is looking for to add into the ordinances. An assessment will be performed on
the current documents to identify what needs to be enhanced and what should be added to meet
new requirements. The following ordinances will be reviewed:
Non-Exclusive Waste Hauling Ordinance
Exhibit B
Page 39 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 39
We will meet with representatives from County of Fresno Resources Division and Environmental
Health, as well as permittees, to ascertain their perspective on how the NEWHA program is working
and where there are opportunities for improvement. Our team will also benchmark provisions of
Fresno County’s NEWHA program to other California counties. The provisions to be benchmarked
include:
Application process
Agreement terms
Container size
Container labelling
Flow control
Reporting
Fees
Insurance
C&D Waste Management Ordinance and Related C&D Facility Regulations
SCS will evaluate current Cal Green standards, new requirements under the SB 1383 regulations,
and all other pertinent details to assess the current C&D ordinances and provide feedback on
recommended changes. Additional research will be performed to understand how the County
performs certification to the local C&D recycling facilities, and how the material is designated to go to
certain facilities. SCS will provide recommendations on how to enhance the C&D ordinance.
Organics Diversion Ordinances and Regulations
In October 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to recycle their organic and
green waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week.
AB 1826 is referred to as the Mandatory Organics Recycling (MOR) law. Businesses that generate
four or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week must comply with the MOR.
To comply with MOR, businesses must select one or any combination of the following actions in order
to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial organic waste from disposal:
Subscribe to an organics service with a hauler authorized to provide services for the area
in which it is located; or
Make other arrangements for the sale or donation of organic waste, including self-
hauling materials to recycling facilities or composting on site.
If a business or multi-family property is located within the unincorporated areas of Fresno County and
subscribes to organics services from the ESAP Hauler and is authorized to provide services in their
area, the business is already in compliance with the MOR Law.
Our team will focus our efforts on reviewing ordinances for the incorporated areas in Fresno County
to assess whether they require an amendment to comply with AB 1826
Other Areas as Relevant and Appropriate
Exhibit B
Page 40 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 40
As SCS reviews the different ordinances, our team will reflect back to the solid waste plan and how
new ordinances might be relevant. Should a new ordinance be required, SCS will provide
recommendations on what that looks like.
Task 4 Deliverable:
Recommendations for the revision of various County ordinances related to solid waste,
recycling, and organics programs that address all local, state and federal regulatory
requirements.
Task 5 - Education and Outreach Programming
In our experience, recycling and related waste conservation programs are most successful when
customers are not only informed, educated, and called to action, but supported in practical ways in
their efforts to learn new behaviors. To achieve a waste diversion education program’s specific
desired outcomes requires expert-level planning and implementation performed by highly trained
professionals with a passion for waste reduction, re-use, and recycling. Our SMM professionals often
team with other consulting firms to design, implement, and track successful public education and
engagement programs. Directed and supported by recognized industry experts and certified
community based social marketing (CBSM) professionals, our outreach teams include enthusiastic
and persuasive recycling professionals.
Together with JP Marketing, our objective is to support your goals to create awareness and behavior
change for the target populations they seek to motivate. We will play a key role in driving the Fresno
County population in general, and target segments specifically, to seek information and engage with
the programs from the Department of Solid Waste. We will employ data analytics, gathered by
primary and / or secondary research and behavioral economics—the study of how social, cognitive,
and emotional factors impact decisions. The latter involves such tactics as writing content and
delivering messages that influence choices.
Task 5a. Evaluating Current Outreach Strategies
Kick-off meeting with client and all stakeholders to get feedback on current and past
strategies
Review existing materials
Perform target market research
Evaluate research and use it in the formulation of recommendation
Agency internal team strategy meeting
Presentation of recommendations to client
Task 5b. Providing Recommendations to Enhance Public Education
Use information collected in above evaluation
Agency to create a Marketing Plan to include:
–Media strategy and budget
–Outreach strategy (i.e. event and community opportunity recommendation)
Task 5c. Developing SB 1383 Outreach and Education Strategies
Review SB 1383 and discuss with client and all stakeholders
Exhibit B
Page 41 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 41
Enhance above referenced Marketing Plan to include annual education required by
SB1383
Execute strategies once approved by client
Task 5d. Developing Campaign to Reduce Recycling and Organics Contamination
Ensure above referenced Marketing Plan includes strategies to reinforce the importance
of proper waste sorting to reduce the occurrence of recycling and organics contamination
Execute strategies once approved by client
Optional Tasks
The following tasks are not part of this scope of work or budget, or requested in the RFP, however
should be considered.
SB 1383 Resource Analysis
Based on the selected programs and qualitative program considerations, HF&H will develop a
resource analysis to identify the costs and staffing resources needed to implement (start-up resource
requirements) and operate (ongoing resource requirements) the new policies, programs,
infrastructure, administration, and enforcement required to comply with SB 1383. In order to
produce resource analysis that is specifically relevant to the County’s situation, HF&H will rely on any
cost information available from the County (e.g. for County staffing and benchmarks around existing
programs) as well as information we have in our databases regarding the operating costs of the
haulers in Fresno County. In cases where County-specific data is not available, the financial and
performance forecasts will benefit from HF&H’s extensive database of costs and program
benchmark statistics from real-world programs operating in the Central Valley.
SB 1383 Action Plan
HF&H will compile the results of the work in this task into an informative and visually interesting
PowerPoint-style SB 1383 Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan will be created in a concise
document that identifies each recommendation, key implementation steps, and a high-level phased
implementation schedule. The Action Plan will also address key operational, logistical, and
organizational considerations that must be discussed in order to decide on the County’s specific
approach to compliance. Our objective would be to synthesize our analysis into an intuitive
document and present much of this information graphically, so that it can be used to convey the plan
to the Board of Supervisors and/or the public. The report will also provide more detailed appendices
and implementation considerations for use by County staff to guide the implementation process.
Evaluation ESAP Program and Future Planning Program
While 2028 sounds like a long way off, it is not too early to start planning for the next generation of
the franchise system. If significant changes in territories or services are required, and especially if
there is a change in service providers, the County needs approximately three years to conduct an
RFP process for those services, including drafting RFP and contract documents, managing the RFP
process, evaluating proposals, conducting community engagement, bringing the decision to the
Board for consideration, and affecting the purchase and deployment of new equipment that is
required for a transition.
Exhibit B
Page 42 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 42
Prior to that three year process for the RFP, the County needs to have completed all of the design
work, which may require as much as another two to three years. HF&H has a proven analytical
process for working through those design issues. The process starts with gathering robust and
detailed data about the customers, collection operations, programs, services, performance, tonnage,
and rate/financial arrangements. This data is processed through various analytical tools like
cost/benefit models, operating pro-formas, and GIS systems to help with decision-making about
major issues like how to define the geographic service areas and how to structure rates. HF&H used
similar processes in helping the City of Fresno plan its privatization of Commercial services and
helping the City of San Jose convert an open-market commercial system with over 28 haulers into a
single hauler system with separate contracts for material processing and disposal.
HF&H understand that these processes are heavily informed by the data and analysis, but are often
more influenced by local infrastructure and regional practices. As such, HF&H facilitates a series of
4-6 meetings with each client to conduct a “design intake” and work through the dozens of issues,
business terms, cost consequences, and compliance requirements that will ultimately shape the
scope of the RFP and Franchise Agreement. This results in a process design document that includes
all of the elements necessary to prepare the RFP and Franchise Agreement.
At this point in the design process, it is important to get buy-in from executive management, elected
officials, and stakeholders. This is done by summarizing the design document into an attractive and
easy-to-understand presentation that can be used by the consultant and/or County staff to brief
management and Board staff and conduct stakeholder input meetings. With the input from those
key stakeholders, the design and presentation are modified to present the design to the Board of
Supervisors for approval and authorization to prepare and issue the RFP documents.
SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Please find below our line-by-line response to items on page 15 of the RFP:
Capability & Qualifications
a) Explain your company’s capacity to take in large amounts of information and program
descriptions and extract and utilize the most necessary information.
Because of our experience working with various municipalities on their solid waste related issues, we
know exactly what to look out for when going through large amounts of data. For example, in May
2019, SCS spent an 8-hour day at the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
(MCRWMA) offices reviewing emails and other documents, in order to develop a list of CalRecycle
Disposal Reporting System (DRS) reports that needed completing, prioritized by deadline. SCS was
subsequently hired to assist MCRWMA with SB 1383 planning, compliance activities related to
General Waste Discharge Requirements for composting operations, and completing the reports and
providing additional assistance, as needed. Project work began in October, 2019 and will involve a
kick-off meeting to discuss priorities for all three components of the project, including gathering
relevant DRS data, completing outstanding reports, recommending improvements to tracking
systems, and training new MCRWMA staff responsible for completion of future reports.
b) Demonstrate your experience working with government agencies and departments to plan
and implement solid waste programs by evidence of at least three prior clients.
Operating since 1979, largely most of our experience is working with government agencies and
departments. We work closely with regulators and municipalities to ensure a smooth process. As
Exhibit B
Page 43 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 43
mentioned earlier, we have worked with local, state, and federal clients to help them implement solid
waste management programs. Please find additional related projects below in Table 3 on page 43.
Table 3. SCS Solid Waste Related Experience 2015-Present
Client, Location Year Project Description
Merced County
Regional Waste
Management
Authority
2019 - Present Assisting MCRWMA with the Annual Report, DRS
Reporting and AB 341 and AB 1826 reporting. SCS
just started a project to assist with SB 1383 planning,
and managing storm water regulations for their
compost facility.
City of Oceanside 2019-Present Assisting the City in identifying potential sites with
appropriate characteristics and zoning for use as a
new site for composting. The scope of work includes
identifying potential sites, evaluating their potential
development and use for composting, identifying
the permit requirements, preparing a report, and
presenting the information to the City staff and City
Council. (2019 to present).
City of Long Beach 2018 Assisted to perform evaluation of the costs, facility
and service options associated with implementing
curbside collection of source separated organics.
The report includes organics cost per ton,
transportation costs, and collection costs (2018).
Synagro 2018 Project Manager working with SCS staff to perform
research and analysis on facilities, hauling
companies, and potential feedstock generators to
provide an overview of where the organic material is
generated, what facility is accepting this material,
the quantities of organic material potentially
available, and the available capacity for organic
materials for AB 1826 (2016).
Central Contra
Costa Solid Waste
Authority
(RecycleSmart)
2016 – 2019 Member Agency Recycling Project. Commercial
recycling and organics technical assistance for all
member agencies.
Central Contra
Costa Solid Waste
Authority
(RecycleSmart)
2016 – 2017 Food Waste Project. Commercial organics recycling
technical assistance for all member agencies. This
project is focused on working with businesses to
decrease contamination in food scraps within
material sent to East Bay Municipal Utility District
(EBMUD).
City of Lakewood 2000 – 2016 Solid Waste Services: AB 939, AB 341 compliance;
residential and commercial franchise assistance;
residential and commercial recycling programs;
outreach and education.
Exhibit B
Page 44 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 44
Please see section B. Descriptions of any similar or related contracts on page 20 and our references
form on page 13 for more detailed information on our projects.
c) Provide examples of your ability to create assessments that may include but are not limited to
executive summary reports, research and survey findings, and comparative analysis.
In-depth analysis of solid waste collection operations, including assessments, summary reports,
research and survey findings, and comparative analysis are important factors when creating a solid
waste masterplan that will meet compliance. We have performed the following services for our
municipal clients to help improve and tailor plans for each of our clients’ needs.
Collection Assessments
SCS performs collection routing analyses and contracting services for residential and commercial
refuse, recyclables, and compostable materials. We have completed numerous route optimization,
equipment alternatives, billing methods, and bidding, contracting, and privatization assessments.
We routinely conduct equipment demonstrations, recommend equipment, prepare specifications
and conduct procurement bidding.
We perform organization assessments to identify opportunities for enhancing an organization’s
ability to maximize its cost effectiveness, waste reduction and recycling, and ability to meet long-term
community needs. This includes organizational analysis and design, development of performance
measures to gauge efficiency of programs and services, and evaluation of administration of
personnel, physical, and financial resources, and benchmarking of operations with similarly sized
operations to determine relative efficiency and opportunities for improvement. We also determine if
planning strategies and objectives are appropriate, financially sound, and viable; identify causes of
performance shortfalls; offer proven recommendations to reduce costs and improve productivity and
services; and assist with monitoring program results. Results include improved allocation of
resources, expanded and more reliable services, reduced customer complaints, lower costs, and
stronger foundations for successful long-term operations and services.
Rancho Santiago
Community College
District, Santa Ana
2016 –
Ongoing
Solid waste, recycling, and organics services
procurement.
Athens Services,
Pasadena
2009 –
Ongoing
City of Pasadena Third Party Diversion Audits. In a
separate project, trained 100 third party field
representatives to perform commercial recycling
technical assistance for the City of Los Angeles new
franchised services (Spring and Summer 2017).
City of Rancho Palos
Verdes
2001 – 2016 AB 939, AB 341 compliance; hauler audits; residential
franchise rate review; residential and commercial
recycling programs; City Hall and parks recycling.
County of Placer 2015 – 2016 Organics Collection and Processing feasibility Study.
Organics Recycling Plan for Eastern and Western
Placer Counties: evaluate each County's waste
stream and the applicability of established and
emerging technologies (e.g., composting,
anaerobic digestion).
Exhibit B
Page 45 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 45
Waste Assessments
The purpose of visual inspections of exterior waste containers is to identify specific materials (e.g.
bottles, cans, paper, food scraps, compostable paper, etc.) that could be recycled or composted; to
estimate the volume of each material category; to right-size container types, sizes, and collection
frequency; and to develop information concerning purchasing habits.
We regularly find that adjustments in purchasing habits can increase the amount of materials
diverted from landfills, and that additional training and practical support (more bins, improved
placement, better labeling, etc.) is required to improve on-site recycling.
Diversion Assessments
Our SMM professionals can assist with diversion assessments ranging from full, countywide program
analyses involving interaction with multiple haulers, to specifically targeted assessments.
Waste diversion success is dependent on the quality of a community’s waste reduction, recycling,
and re-use; source separation and contamination control; disposal options — landfills, recycling sites,
waste conversion facilities (composting, waste-to-energy, etc.); collection and disposal practices; and
recycling markets by product.
In addition to local government developing the infrastructure and resources needed for a modern-
day waste collection system, key drivers of waste diversion program success include diversion
awareness, education, and outreach; practical support (bins, posters, training, etc.); and, perhaps
most importantly, supporting behaviors and habits that contribute to success.
Diversion Program Development
Comprehensive waste diversion programs exist in cities and counties throughout the U.S. Many are
highly successful, others are generally or somewhat successful, and others are only marginally
successful.
SCS maintains a national database of such programs and stays abreast of the latest successes,
innovations, and creative ways municipalities across the country are optimizing the diversion of
sustainable materials away from landfills. This national knowledge base, coupled with our familiarity
with all existing and anticipated regulations impacting waste diversion programs throughout the U.S.
informs the expert-level assistance we provide to clients looking to strengthen or re-tool their
diversion programs.
Facility Feasibility Studies
In the last 30 to 40 years, like many other nations, the U.S. has moved from a smattering of bottle
banks in local communities (often painted green) to an entire ecosystem of “green” industries
involved in manufacturing and providing all manner of products and services — alternative energy
(solar, wind, hydrothermal, etc.), building design, consulting, electric cars, energy efficiency products,
organic food, recycling, zero waste lifestyles, etc., etc. The waste disposal needs of communities in
practically every major metropolitan area in the U.S. are now served by a mix of composting centers,
landfills, material recovery facilities (MRFs), transfer stations, organics processing plants, recycling
centers, waste-to-energy facilities, and even hybrid versions of the above.
Exhibit B
Page 46 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 46
Local government agencies must balance the long-term environmental and economic benefits of
establishing these facilities with the often significant capital expenditure needed to build, integrate,
and maintain them, while also securing the “buy-in” needed from their residents and businesses for
these facilities to become successful ventures. SCS has a deep pedigree in assisting municipalities
and developers to closely examine all facets of solid waste facilities under consideration for
construction.
Prepare Implementation Schedules
Accurately estimating the time needed to implement any new program or initiative and then
implementing the program or initiative on schedule depends on having a full understanding of the
factors that may impact the implementation schedule, knowledge of relevant best practices and
implementation efficiencies, timely and professional communication between all parties, and the
technical and management acumen to overcome schedule challenges as expeditiously as possible
when they arise. We know schedule adherence is always important and sometimes critically so.
Therefore, we are especially focused when assisting clients with this type of service.
Rate Analysis
SCS regularly performs rate studies to help answer questions such as, “Are your solid waste
collection rates too low?” Too high, or just about right for your city/county/jurisdiction?” “How are
you sure?”
With the cost of providing solid waste collection services rising, it is more important than ever to
closely track rate information and benchmarks. SCS provides services that make sense of current
solid waste operations and existing rates, while helping develop tailored long-term financial models
that inform decision-making and financial planning for each client’s unique situation.
Most importantly, a well-planned and detailed rate analysis can be used to measure the revenues
needed to provide the desired levels of service, while also helping establish fair, equitable, stable,
and defensible solid waste user rates.
Methodology
We spearheaded the first national methodology for conducting waste
composition studies for the EPA.
This same methodology was subsequently used as the basis for the ASTM
Standard D5231-92 (1990,’94, ’98) – “Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid
Waste,” which is widely recognized as the national standard.
We are methodical when it comes to our assessments, executive summary reports, research and
survey findings and comparative analysis. We continuously seek improvement within our own
processes and field.
d) Describe your aptitude to produce a practical comprehensive integrated waste management
plan based on research and anticipated future regulations.
An example where we have produced a solid waste plan based on our research and anticipation for
future regulations was for County of Placer where we provided an evaluation of alternatives available
Exhibit B
Page 47 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 47
for collecting, hauling, and processing food waste in the eastern portion of Placer County (Tahoe
Area). The driver behind the study was the state law (AB 1826), which requires communities to
divert organic waste from landfills, and the development of an organics management program by
January 1, 2016.
The evaluation included the following steps:
Model the waste characterization to estimate and project the types and quantities of
organic material generated in the region.
Identify site constraints and criteria for consideration when evaluating and deciding on a
new organics processing technology.
Evaluate site location options and develop a pro/con matrix.
Research potential technologies, and score and develop a list of viable options.
Assess feedstock and product markets.
Identify permitting requirements and regulations.
Develop a cost model to assist with the evaluation.
Develop an Organics Management Plan.
Based on the results of the evaluation, scoring and ranking, and the project team’s experience
working on similar projects, recommendations were made on the organics processing technology
that best meets the County’s goals and requirements.
Another example was when SCS Engineers and HF&H worked together in December 2017 to analyze
current solid waste programs for Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority’s (dba RecycleSmart)
and develop a menu of waste management options with respect to SB 1383. Although the SB 1383
regulations were in the early draft stages at this time, SCS and HF&H conducted extensive research
to gain insight into the anticipated requirements. SCS and HF&H compiled key program statistics in
the RecycleSmart service area to provide a snap shot summary of current organics program efforts,
estimated organics disposal and processing capacity available for organics material, reviewed food
waste reduction and rescue programs, and made recommendations on changes or additions to
organics diversion programs, and recommendations for metrics, reporting and monitoring for the
Authority to comply with the new SB 1383 regulations.
e) Describe your experience assessing and recommending new and revised jurisdictional
ordinances.
As mentioned above, we have performed various assessments in order to help our clients meet
regulatory requirements. Based on our experience, we create assessments by collecting all data and
assessing where we see there are gaps. We then ensure to communicate with the regulatory
agencies to ensure compliance. Also, because of our working relationships with regulatory agencies,
we understand exactly what it means to meet compliance. An example of complex revised
jurisdictional ordinances, we worked with Hamilton County to develop a solid waste management
plan where there are 52 municipalities. After presenting our solid waste management plan, we
received 100 percent approval.
Exhibit B
Page 48 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 48
f) Describe your knowledge or awareness of the issues associated with providing the services
proposed and knowledge of the laws, regulations, statutes and effective principles required to
address the tasks?
Through a combination of client and industry advocacy, active participation in and sponsorship of
industry associations, forums and seminars, as well as high quality project work that is both directly
and indirectly reviewed by regulators and policy makers, SCS helps shape and implement policies in
the industries we specialize in (e.g. solid waste, organics management, waste-to-energy conversion,
ambient air tracer sciences, etc.).
Programs designed to maintain regulatory compliance, boost operational efficiencies, and
accomplish specific objectives are often a component of a larger strategic plan and budget. Smart
program development must take these factors into consideration, as well as a program’s integration
and compatibility with associated programs, the intelligent application of technology, and the
practicality of implementation based on what is known and what is anticipated. The introduction of
new regulations can often illuminate compliance gaps that may or may not have existed previously,
and create a need to thoroughly re-assess programs, up to and including revising Municipal Codes.
A core service offering of SCS’s SMM practice, diversion analysis and planning is an ever-increasing
responsibility for municipalities and businesses involved in the collection, disposal, and
management of waste. Because the SCS Team has leadership roles in organizations such as the
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), American Public Works Association (APWA),
California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA), the U.S. Composting Council, and long-
standing relationships with management and staff at CalRecycle, we are at the forefront of
emerging solid waste regulatory and technology trends, as well as best practices. In addition, we
have helped cities, counties, and national governments throughout the world deploy or adapt these
technologies, policies, and best practices for their local conditions. Finally, because SCS is an
engineering firm, we are frequently contracted by technology developers, government officials, and
financial investors to conduct due diligence on the technical and financial feasibility of innovative,
waste management technologies.
Multiple new laws have been introduced in the past 20 years concerning waste diversion, particularly
in California, primary of which are:
AB 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) – focuses on significantly
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A pioneering national effort to address
climate change, AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by
2020 – a reduction of approximately 15% based on current projections.
AB 341 – states the policy goal of the state of California is that not less than 75 percent
of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020.
AB 1826 – requires businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016,
depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that
on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic
waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including
multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units (note: multifamily
dwellings are not required to have a food waste diversion program). If statewide disposal
of organic waste in 2020 is determined not to have reduced from 2014 levels by 50%,
then a new level of mandatory commercial recycling will impact a greater number of
businesses.
Exhibit B
Page 49 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 49
SB 1383 – requires states to reduce from 2014 levels organics in their landfills by 50%
by 2020 and 75% by 2025. The law also requires that no less than 20% of disposed
edible food be recovered for human consumption by 2025.
Additional California laws enacted in recent years include:
AB 1045 – requires state entities to work together for the development and deployment
of composting.
AB 876 – requires local governments to plan for the building of sufficient composting
and anaerobic digestion infrastructure in their jurisdictions to address organics
processing for at least a 15-year period.
AB 199 – creates a sales-and-use tax exemption for businesses on purchases of
equipment used for recycling and composting, as well as equipment that processes
recycled materials. Businesses may apply for the exemption with the California
Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA), which
provides similar exemptions for sustainable energy and transportation purchases with
the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
AB 888 – ensures personal care products will be formulated with environmentally-safe
alternatives to the trillions of tiny plastic microbeads that have ended up in rivers, lakes
and oceans, which are ingested by fish and other wildlife.
SCS offers clients comprehensive support in current state assessments and desired future state
planning and implementation.
In addition, HFH was selected by CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management
Board) to determine the cost of mandatory commercial recycling in California largely based on the
information contained in this database because no other consulting firm could offer access to the
same type of detailed operational and cost data and prior attempts by other firms to collect this data
from the industry were unsuccessful.
g) Does the CONSULTANT and their proposed Project Manager and Main Staff have at least five
(5) years of experience in directly relatable services to the “Scope of Work” for government
entities and can show at least three (3) project examples of such?
Our team has Task Leaders with at least five years of experience relating to Solid Waste Planning.
For more details on their projects and experience, please see capsules on page 22 or full resumes in
Appendix A – Resumes on page A-1.
h) Describe your experience in the creation of joint power agreements, memorandums of
understanding, and contracts within the solid waste industry.
We are experienced in developing relationships and providing skills and assistance to support client
staff. We provide expertise in planning programs and policies; developing and negotiating collection
processing and disposal agreements, conducting compensation and rate adjustments, conducting
performance reviews, and more. Our extensive JPA experience better informs us of issues and
concerns that are unique in JPAs; how JPAs have handled different program preferences and cost
allocations between Member Agencies; when and how Member Agencies have been involved in the
Exhibit B
Page 50 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 50
decision-making process; and understanding the complexities of the issues well enough to be able to
explain them simply to the Board, especially newer Board members.
An example of our experience includes City of Rancho Palos Verdes where we represented the City at
a local JPA meeting. As mentioned in our project profiles, we have also worked with South Bayside
Waste Management Authority (dba RethinkWaste), a joint powers authority to twelve public agencies
in San Mateo County. We have also worked with RecycleMore, another JPA that is responsible for
legislative compliance on behalf of its member agencies. Five member agencies hold exclusive
franchise agreements with Republic Services, Inc. (Republic). One member agency holds an
exclusive franchise agreement for residential service with a small collection company that only
serves that city.
Education/Outreach Development
a) Describe your experience evaluating education/outreach materials and strategies specific to
solid waste collection and material diversion programs, including but not limited to organics.
SCS has reviewed outreach programs and JP Marketing has had the opportunity to work with several
Fresno County and city departments and related partners. They include the Fresno County
Department of Public Health, the Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health, City of Fresno
Department of Public Utilities, City of Fresno Transportation Department and the Fresno Community
Health Improvement Partnership (FCHIP). In all cases, their contracts kick-off with an all-stakeholders
meeting at which an evaluation of objectives and an audit of assets and resources takes place.
In some cases, JP’s contracts allow for the execution of research that provides valuable insights as
to where the client is today and where it needs to be to ensure messages resonate with target
audiences and create desired behavior changes. This research is crafted to ensure procured data is
relevant and applicable to the objectives. For example, to measure City of Fresno resident’s attitudes
regarding the Department of Public Utilities, they used their proprietary quantitative research tool
MMAPS® (www.mmapsresearch.com) which quickly provided quantitative data for developing
campaign messaging and media. In another example, to gain deep insights into perceptions that
influence behavior change, they conducted multiple target audience qualitative focus groups for the
Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health, securing unique and powerful feedback on
sensitive topics such as addiction and suicide.
The key to any evaluation is the quality of the questions. To ask good questions requires a quality
understanding of the topic at hand. JP Marketing currently handles two contracts for the California
Department of Food & Agriculture (State Organics Program and Inspection Service Division Food
Waste Initiative) both of which address issues of food waste and dialogue surrounding compliance
with SB 1383. Furthermore, their work with the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities Solid
Waste Division is also creating a knowledge base for JP Marketing on this topic that can inform their
work for this contract.
The City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities (FCDPU) has three divisions in addition to the
administrative team. These divisions include Solid Waste, Water and Wastewater. While there is
some similarity in objectives, there is an opportunity to provide synergistic messaging to
communities throughout Fresno County while carefully differentiating Fresno County Department of
Public Works from Fresno City Department of Public Utilities.
Improving a community takes many integrated efforts, so JP Marketing’s knowledge of Fresno City
Department of Public Utilities and our Fresno County government clients will bring insights to your
Exhibit B
Page 51 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 51
contract while ensuring your branding and voice is unique to Fresno County. Below in section b) on
page 50 is an overview of our most recent campaigns with the FCDPU Solid Waste Division.
b) Provide a sample portfolio of previous education/outreach materials.
Objective: Public information program for the Solid Waste Management Division
The Solid Waste Management Division is
responsible for the collection of municipal solid
waste, recyclables, green waste, and Operation
Clean Up from residential customers. Our goals
for the division are to continue to increase
residential understanding, engagement and
behavior change.
The public information campaigns JP has
developed, in conjunction with the department,
have worked to educate the community on
proper recycling methods, source separation in
Operation Clean Up, contamination prevention,
and environmental protection issues focusing
on the following items:
Contamination of Recycling and
Green Waste
Household Hazardous Waste
E-Waste (Electronics Recycling)
Battery Recycling
Fluorescent Tube Recycling
Illegal Dumping
Fats, Oils & Grease Disposal
Used Oil Recycling
Municipal Codes
Through our multi-media and multi-cultural
campaigns, JP and the Solid Waste Department are able to engage with Fresno residents with an
educational and proactive approach to create a lasting impact on Fresno’s communities.
For additional sample work, please see Appendix D - Outreach Sample Work on page D-1.
c) Describe your experience assessing the needs of a community in regards to finding the best
messaging and strongest communication plan.
In 2019, SCS along with Action Research and Gigantic Idea Studios, began research and design of a
household food waste prevention program with Santa Clara County’s Recycling and Waste Reduction
Division. The goal of this project is to reduce household food waste in Santa Clara County by using a
community-based social marketing (CBSM) framework to effect behavior change by developing
recommended strategies and tailoring existing outreach materials.
Exhibit B
Page 52 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 52
CBSM is a best practice method to achieve lasting, quantifiable behavior change that meets market
transformation goals. It offers a proven, research and metrics- based alternative to traditional
education campaigns (McKenzie-Mohr, 1996; 1999; 2000; 2011).
CBSM is based upon research in the social sciences that demonstrates that behavior change is often
most effectively achieved through initiatives delivered at the community level that focus on removing
barriers to an activity while simultaneously enhancing the activity’s benefits.
CBSM brings together knowledge from the field of social marketing with a variety of behavior change
“tools” drawn from social psychology, environmental psychology, and other social sciences. CBSM
involves five steps:
1. Selecting which behaviors to target.
2. Identifying the barriers and benefits to the selected behavior.
3. Developing a strategy that reduces the barriers and increases the benefits to the
behavior.
4. Piloting the strategy.
5. Broad scale implementation, replicable outreach strategies, and ongoing evaluation.
SCS reviewed Santa Clara County’s existing baseline food waste data including waste
characterization studies and route audits. SCS also reviewed current outreach campaigns; such as,
education about proper sorting for recycling, recycling food scraps and food-soiled paper, and proper
disposal of household hazardous waste. Together, with the Santa Clara County subcommittee, we
prioritized the target behaviors most likely to prevent food waste in Santa Clara County to focus on
for the remainder of the project tasks. To determine barriers and benefits, SCS conducted a
supplemental review of relevant research literature and case studies before conducting in-person
residential surveys. The National Research Defense Council (NRDC) is now collaborating with SCS by
cross-sharing data from their Food Matters campaign for comparison to Santa Clara County’s
research findings.
SCS is now in the process of designing and implementing a pilot program to measure the impact of
outreach materials on the reduction of edible organics in the residential waste stream. Specific
messages and design elements will reflect the benefits that emerged from the research conducted
with the target audiences for specific behaviors. The messages may also address internal barriers
such as lack of knowledge or misperceptions. We will also investigate and address any potential for
food recycling messages to undermine the food waste prevention messages. Approaches based on
CBSM principles will be created to address each barrier and to emphasize the benefits of food waste
reduction. Based on our experience, these may include:
Social Norms. Communicate messages about the social approval of the target behavior
or the extent to which others are engaged.
Prompts. Provide reminders to target audiences to engage in the target behaviors.
Commitment. Through social networks, utilize personal appeals for residents to engage
in the target behaviors.
Outreach strategies will be piloted with a test and control group in January of 2020. Outreach
messaging will be matched to a target audience and tested through a variety of communication
channels, to find the most efficient and effective means of encouraging residential behavior change
through a public campaign. SCS will deliver a comprehensive implementation plan that includes
Exhibit B
Page 53 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 53
recommended program elements (i.e., communications and outreach materials, protocols and
tracking tools) and recommendations for evaluation for a scalable county-wide residential food waste
prevention program.
Reporting Requirements
a) Describe your experience assisting jurisdictions comply with solid waste reporting
requirements.
Our clients meet solid waste related regulatory requirements with our help by understanding the
process and knowing exactly what is required. We have also built strong relationships with regulatory
agencies, which gives us more insight on what exactly agencies are looking out for.
As an example, SCS provides AB 939 services to the City of San Gabriel under contract to Athens
Services. As part of their franchise agreement, Athens is responsible for ensuring the City is in
compliance with AB 939. Services have included:
Gathering and analyzing Disposal Reporting System (DRS) data, including verification of
generator origin, contacting and reporting illegal haulers, and submitting corrections to
DRS.
Reviewing and verifying hauler reports.
Evaluating diversion program effectiveness, including identification of opportunities to
enhance diversion.
Meeting with CalRecycle, City, and hauler representatives
Attending and presenting results at public meetings and hearings.
For the past 15 years, the City has met or exceeded its AB 939 diversion mandate and/or per capita
disposal equivalent targets.
Additionally, we have partnered with HF&H because since the inception of AB 341 and then AB
1826, HF&H has assisted jurisdictions in the process of gathering, analyzing, verifying, and
reconciling customer participation data to ensure that accurate reports of participation are provided
to CalRecycle. In addition to the major efforts for annual AB 939 reporting, HF&H has supported
many agencies with the disposal modifications process with CalRecycle.
b) Describe your experience developing and supporting reporting forms and processes.
Developing and supporting reporting forms and processes are important factors when meeting
compliance, we have helped our clients meet compliance based on our experience and our
relationships with regulators. For example, we helped the City of El Segundo to meet CalRecycle
compliance and evaluate their options for its future solid waste system by reviewing all of the City’s
documents. As part of the initiation process and reviewing the documents, we met with CalRecycle to
understand the deficiencies cited in the JCU. Following the meetings with City staff and CalRecycle
staff -- we prepared a memo detailing outcomes and next steps.
In addition to our own process, HF&H has contract development and negotiations process in over
100 California communities. They have designed and drafted reporting requirements from haulers
designed to help jurisdictions document and monitor their operations and regulatory compliance. In
Exhibit B
Page 54 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 54
addition, HF&H manages the franchise agreements for over 20 agencies in California, so they
receive the hauler reports on a regular basis and are responsible for assessing the accuracy and
integrity of those reports and conveying them to clients. In certain cases, this includes working with
the hauler (and their software companies) to develop custom reporting and data mapping to resolve
issues like reporting the difference between accounts and containers in service (which often vary
because of the number of containers at a given site).
c) Describe your experience in researching, assessing and recommending reporting software
programs.
Through our experience working with various municipalities and our subcontractors, attending
conferences, and following industry news we have found only the Recyclist database to be
sufficiently comprehensive and secure to meet the reporting requirements of SB 1383. Recyclist
provides an outreach tracker tool that allows field staff to record outreach activities performed,
waste assessment reports, compliance status, and service levels. Additionally, Recyclist aggregates
data into a customized summary that updates in real-time based on outreach activities. SCS uses
the Recyclist for technical assistance records, data management and reporting in other service areas
including RecycleSmart, City of Alameda, and most recently City of Oceanside.
For the City of Alameda, SCS worked with Recyclist to customize the database to track the outreach
provided to complex multi-family and commercial waste generators. As an example of a complex
business property, the Alameda Landing shopping center contains over 30 tenant businesses
including Target and Safeway. ACI provided SCS staff remote access to their customer database,
Tower, so SCS staff could access service level information, outreach history, and contact information.
However, this database is not accessible from the field, does not contain detailed information about
backhauling, site visit activities, or source reduction information.
Recyclist also provides an outreach tracker tool that allows field staff to record outreach activities
performed, waste assessment reports, compliance status, and service levels. Throughout the project,
all team members conferred with each other and the Recyclist database to provide updates, reduce
overlap, and avoid multiple staff visiting the same generator without coordination. Recyclist was
programed to track the “parent” and tenant relationships for each generator, so SCS and City staff
were able to review individual tenant information, as well as collective information for the entire
property. The database was further expanded to host a waste assessment report used to track each
generator’s waste management practices and service levels. Data about backhauling practices can
also be measured using the waste assessment reports. Recyclist also added a portal to collect data
from visual audits and roll-off container tonnages. Lastly, unique to Alameda, Recyclist added a
tracker for food ware ordinance compliance reviews and enforcement. Throughout the project, all
team members conferred with each other and the Recyclist database to provide updates, reduce
overlap, and avoid multiple staff visiting the same generator without coordination. This database is
now the most comprehensive aggregation of solid waste program data and outreach history for
both commercial and multi-family properties in Alameda.
Solid Waste Diversion
a) Demonstrate how the CONSULTANT will address the requirements of SB 1383 and provide a
potential organics diversion program model that is effective in addressing current and
anticipated organics diversion requirements.
Based on our experience when addressing the requirements of SB 1383, we have found that each
project and client has specific needs. No one solid waste plan fits all. We do not use templates when
Exhibit B
Page 55 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 55
addressing solid waste concerns. Our team approach includes getting all the information we can
from our client, finding holes within the current solid waste plan based on our team’s cross-discipline
expertise, and developing a plan that addresses both the current situation and our client’s concerns
and needs.
For example, Santa Clara County sought to assess current and potential capacity for organics
diversion that would be processed under all existing and future applicable solid waste and organics
diversion legislation, including AB 341, AB 1826, AB 939, AB 876, AB 199, AB 1045, and SB 1383.
The County requested assistance to conduct a detailed study of waste reduction and infrastructure
alternatives, including anaerobic digestion, small scale in-vessel composting, backyard composting,
grass-cycling, food rescue, and other hitherto unexplored viable alternatives that would support
increased composting and organics diversion over the next 15 years. Project work was from January
2017 to December 2017.
We achieved the following milestones for the County
during this project:
Documented current and future capacity at
all major facilities within and in close
proximity to the greater Santa Clara County
region, including the practical steps each
will need to take to accommodate increased
operations.
Evaluated additional composting capacity
within residential, education, farming, and
other public service communities within the
county; identified and discussed emerging
technologies, backyard composting capacity, current and future food waste reduction
projects, and the prevalence of organics backhauling.
Provided recommendations on next steps for attaining compliance with AB 341, AB 1826
and SB 1383, and how recommendations fit into the EPA food waste hierarchy, the
markets for end-products, greenhouse gas emission reduction and State regulations.
Provided report findings in accordance with the County’s intent to include in submission
in an annual report to CalRecycle for AB 876 reporting purposes.
b) Demonstrate your experience in the implementation of diversion programs in jurisdictions that
do and do not currently have jurisdiction wide diversion programs in place.
1. In October 2017, the City of Santa Clara wanted to create and implement a new
residential organics collection program from scratch to improve their diversion goals. SCS
managed technical assistance, data tracking, and program assessment analysis for the
City’s Pilot Residential Food Scraps Recycling program.
2. In 2005, SCS performed the first Statewide Waste Characterization Study undertaken by
the State of California. SCS helped designed and execute the study, and based on dada
received from 400 participating businesses throughout the state, established diversion
rates for 10 different generator groups (as a subcontractor to Cascadia Consulting
Group, San Jose, CA).
Our team analyzed the organics tonnage
projections and capacity estimates to understand
the availability of future organics processing.
Exhibit B
Page 56 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 56
3. In 2001, SCS studied the feasibility of a diaper recycling for the City of Santa Clarita, CA-
the first study of its kind in California.
4. In 2000, SCS designed one of the first e-waste collection events in California (for the City
of Lakewood, CA).
5. In 1997, SCS wrote the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPS’s) national protocol for
sorting municipal solid waste.
6. In 1992, SCS designed the first all-new, state-of-the-art materials recovery facility (MRF)
in the Stata of Florida. (Built for the Ready Creek Improvement District, the MRF served
Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida).
More recently, we have implemented diversion programs for RecycleSmart/Alameda where we
established curbside commercial organics. In addition to our project profiles and references, we
have also completed solid waste diversion programs for Fullerton, Santiago College, City of
Lakewood, and even in Honolulu.
Management & Administration
a) Demonstrate your ability to annually develop and submit a project management timeline
specifying deliverables, responsible parties, and completion dates and ability to update the
timeline quarterly.
We save our clients time and money by embracing value consulting principles, which means we
proactively strive to find opportunities for efficiency in our project work.
Embracing the principle of continuous improvement, SCS also benchmarks all of our projects for
overall client satisfaction by assessing our own quality, timeliness of deliverables, and
responsiveness. We proactively seek feedback from you during (and after) project completion. As
mentioned above, clear and regular communication at the outset of the project maximizes overall
project efficiencies and successes. If an adjustment needs to be made, we will consult you
immediately as soon as we can and make the
adjustment upon your approval.
SCS uses Newforma Project Center
(Newforma) to aid project management.
Newforma is an easy-to-use repository that
streamlines the exchange of information and
reports between all parties involved in a
project. If you desire, a unique Newforma
Project Center workspace can be established
for this project at no cost to you.
Time and schedule management will be
controlled through use of Microsoft Outlook.
Exhibit B
Page 57 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 57
b) Describe your experience at delivering monthly status reports, on all project tasks in a timely
manner and within the customer’s requirements.
We customize communication plans for each
project we work on because we believe that is how
we set up for success. The communication plan
details contact information for all key project staff,
days/times of availability, the best methods of
contacting you, and how often you would like to set
up status updates. The communication plan is
established at the project kick-off meeting.
We follow a highly collaborative closed loop
communication process to ensure projects start,
progress, and conclude in accordance with our
clients’ expectations. We will agree on major project
milestones in the kick-off meeting and benchmark
your expectations for each of those milestones.
Emphasis will be placed on frequent
communication during the early weeks and months
of project work to ensure the project framework is
clearly established and agreed to. While our communication plan will be established by all parties,
we are flexible and can accommodate changes and adjustments as needed.
c) Describe your experience with providing a monthly invoice no later than 30 days after the end
of the previous month, including all approved project expenses and related backup
documentation (such as work orders, invoices and receipts).
SCS has several dedicated accounting teams that handle monthly invoices which include approved
work orders, invoices, and receipts.
When our project manager receives an approved work order, we immediately submit the work order
internally and begin the task. Once the task is complete, we provide an invoice within 30 days after
completion.
All accounting backup documents are scanned and kept for four years. Original documents are kept
for one-year and destroyed at the end of each fiscal year. Contract documents are kept permanently
d) The CONSULTANT shall provide an organizational plan and management structure for
overseeing the proposed services.
Please see our organization chart below in Table 4 on page 59.
Develop a
customized
plan to meet
your
expectations
Seek your
feedback at
regular
intervals
Make
adjustments
as needed
Seek your
feedback
Understand
your
expectations
for the
project
Exhibit B
Page 58 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 58 Table 4. Team Organization Chart Exhibit B Page 59 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 59
e) The CONSULTANT shall provide its organizational philosophy and goals.
Our vision is to create value and success for our clients in solving their solid waste and
environmentally driven challenges. We believe client success drives our success.
Our mission is to:
Adopt our clients’ environmental challenges as our own.
Promote a sustainable environment through innovation and the creative application of
technology and management strategies.
Our values are to:
Provide superior client service that meets or exceeds our clients’ expectations.
Hold ourselves accountable to our Vision, Mission, and Values.
Achieve teamwork and cooperation. Require civility inside and outside of SCS.
Foster employee welfare, with both professional and personal growth.
Offer practical, value-added solutions to our clients’ environmental challenges.
Achieve technical excellence and quality in all that we do.
Promote professionalism and integrity. Be honest, fair, and ethical.
Be entrepreneurial, innovative, and creative. Reward performance.
Promote broad employee ownership of SCS.
Support our profession, our industry, and our communities.
Hold paramount the safety and health of employees, our clients, and the public.
Our key service commitments are:
Health & Safety is always our highest priority. This commitment is evidenced by our
national Experience Modification Rate of 0.98.
Responsiveness. In today’s business climate inquiries and messages need to be
responded to within hours, not days. We do our best to meet this expectation, no matter
how busy we are.
“Value Engineering” means proactively seeking ways to save our clients’ time and
money. This fundamental operating philosophy has served SCS well for 49 years and will
continue to be the model that underpins all of the services we provide. When our project
managers focus on adding value rather than maximizing SCS’s bottom line, we build trust
and long-term relationships.
“Ownership Makes a Difference.” As an employee-owned company since 1986, our
project managers are empowered to deliver solutions that make our clients’ projects
successful. We are not subject to the sometimes conflicting objective to maximize
shareholder value that large public companies must adhere to.
Client Success Initiative. Launched in 2017, this companywide commitment to
understanding our client’s needs on an even deeper level informs our approach to
project work and is the foundation upon which we will continue to thrive and grow. “When
our clients’ succeed, we succeed.”
Exhibit B
Page 60 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 60
Regular, open, two-way communication and the sharing of expertise between
consultant and client produces better information, better decision-making, and better
results every time. We believe strongly in a collaborative approach to understanding each
project’s unique challenges and delivering customized, practical, cost-effective solutions.
Fully understanding expectations before and during project work greatly influences
project success. We know how important it is to our clients that we provide accurate
quotes and proposals before being awarded a project. Our commitment in this area is
evidenced by our record of submitting few, if any, change orders on the projects we are
awarded.
Quality Control. SCS’s success is due, in large part, to a constant commitment to quality,
client satisfaction, and continuous improvement in our internal quality control systems
and procedures. An update to our Quality Management Plan was completed in 2019 and
is currently being used by all project managers.
Technology, when applied wisely, can significantly improve project efficiencies and
reduce client costs. SCS’s industry-leading suite of data management technologies,
SCSeToolsTM, currently includes three major modules: SCS DataServices®; SCS
MobileToolsTM; and SCS Remote Monitoring and Control®, and is constantly evolving to
meet our clients’ needs for easier, better, less-expensive ways to maintain regulatory
compliance.
Strong project management is accomplished by embracing the above service
commitments and through skilled use of Microsoft Office, Newforma Project Center and
Google Docs (file sharing), Deltek Vision (internal project management), and many other
project-specific software, as appropriate.
C. When reports or other documentation are to be a part of the proposal a sample of each must
be submitted. Reports should be referenced in this section and submitted in a separate section
entitled "REPORTS."
Please see full sample reports in Appendix E - Sample Reports on page E-1.
D. A complete description of any alternative solutions or approaches to accomplishing the
desired results.
XII.We have provided all recommendations in Scope of Work.
Exhibit B
Page 61 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 61 XIII.COST PROPOSALExhibit B Page 62 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 62
XIV. CHECKLIST
Exhibit B
Page 63 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 A-1
Appendix A
Resumes
Exhibit B
Page 64 of 221
MICHELLE P. LEONARD
Education
BS – Environmental Studies (with honors), University of California, Berkeley, 1980
Professional Affiliations
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), International Board Past
President; Recycling and Special Waste Technical Division Past Director;
Southern California Founding Chapter, Board of Directors (2009 to Present)
Past Director, Southern California Waste Management Forum
Past President, Women’s Environmental Council
Appointed by the Secretary of Commerce as a Member of the Environmental Technologies Trade
Advisory Committee
Professional Experience
Ms. Leonard has 35 years of experience in environmental consulting and project management, with
an emphasis in solid waste management planning and facilities. She has assisted public and private
sector clients in the preparation of solid waste management plans; designed and implemented
waste reduction, recycling, and reuse programs; and evaluated existing programs to identify
opportunities to reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste. She has prepared plans and permits for
transfer stations, material recovery facilities (MRFs), and drop-off and buy-back centers. She has a
strong working knowledge of solid waste management regulations and practices, and has presented
numerous successful projects to city, county, and state regulators.
Notable projects that Ms. Leonard has been involved in are described below.
Solid Waste Planning and Studies
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LACDPW), County of Los Angeles Smart
Business Recycling Program (Program), Los Angeles, CA. As Project Director, Ms. Leonard directed
SCS’s involvement with the LACDPW to meet requirements of the California Integrated Waste
Management Act (IWMA) of 1989, Assembly Bill (AB) 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling (MCR),
and AB 1826 Mandatory Commercial Organics (MCO). The goal of the Program is to help businesses
reduce waste and preserve landfill capacities. Objectives include assisting the LACDPW to achieve
recycling and diversion while complying with state requirements. The contract included a wide variety
of types of work, ranging from complex site visits to reporting, graphic design, and procurement of
promotional items.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Study and White Paper. As Project Manager, Ms. Leonard
managed the preparation of the EPR while comparing European, Canadian, and U.S. policies and
programs for value and effectiveness. The study evaluated definitions from municipal solid waste
(MSW), recycling rates, and methodologies. She compared the EPR-reported impacts in recycling
within the entities.
City of Pasadena, Zero Waste Strategic Plan, Pasadena, CA. As Project Manager, Ms. Leonard
evaluated existing programs, determined the objectives, performed a waste characterization study,
Exhibit B
Page 65 of 221
identified options to address the objectives, developed guiding principles, screened options for
implementation, and was solely responsible for selecting the most suitable option. The project also
involved the stakeholder engagement process, which included workshops and outreach efforts.
City of Santa Monica, Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan (ZWSP), Santa Monica, CA. As
Project Manager, Ms. Leonard was responsible for preparing a strategic operations plan that
evaluated current conditions, and recommended policies, programs, and infrastructure to reach the
City’s goal of zero waste by 2030. The project included planning of a zero waste ordinance, guiding
principles, waste characterization and generation projections, and review and recommendation of
suitable options. The ZWSP also evaluated the impacts on the City’s rate structure, and mechanisms
to finance the program.
City and County of Spokane, Spokane County Solid Waste Management Plan Update, Spokane,
WA. As Project Director, Ms. Leonard updated all elements of the County’s solid waste plan, with
particular focus on infrastructure, waste stream projections, financial impacts of alternatives,
transfer system improvements, moderate risk waste, composting options, and addressing
construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste options. Spokane County is home to almost
500,000 residents and is served by a solid waste system that consists of public and private
operations. The Spokane Solid Waste Management System (System), a department of the City of
Spokane, operates two transfer stations, a waste-to-energy plant, and collection service for city
residents. The remaining city and county unincorporated areas are served by private franchised
haulers who utilize the System’s facilities.
City of Toledo and University of Toledo, Organic Waste Recycling CDI Recovery Facilities
Feasibility Study, Toledo, OH. Ms. Leonard’s responsibilities included a feasibility study to optimize
operations of two permitted composting sites, and development evaluation of a new regional food
scraps and organic waste management facility. In addition, she evaluated the development of the
construction, demolition, and inert (CDI) materials recovery facility to recycle concrete, asphalt, and
other inert materials. The project incorporated design, permitting, and environmental issues, and
included a siting study to identify potential locations for facilities. Lastly, Ms. Leonard evaluated the
financial aspects of the facilities’ development and operations.
City of Malibu, Solid Waste System Audit, Malibu, CA. As Project Director, Ms. Lenard conducted
an evaluation of the City’s solid waste program to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and challenges of the existing program. She conducted an inventory of the Existing Policies and
Programs, and prepared a comparison of the City’s Existing Policies and Programs with industry
standards and trends. SCS contacted 10 municipalities with similar demographics to Malibu to
obtain information on Existing Policies and Programs in place. Relevant information, such as year
adopted or implemented, affected sector, diversion impacts and/or rate, cost per capita, household
or business, was compiled in a matrix format to facilitate review and evaluation by the City.
Athens Services, Third Party Diversion Study, Pasadena, CA. As Project Director, Ms. Leonard
verified a third-party diversion for commercial businesses in the City of Pasadena, on behalf of the
client. The project included contacting businesses to verify types and quantities of materials source
reduced, recycled, composted, or diverted through programs outside of the hauler’s control.
Composting Facility Conceptual Design and Costs, Athens Services, CA. As Project Director, Ms.
Leonard supported the proposed development by preparing a conceptual design for a 100-acre site
to handle yard debris and food scraps. The plan included the layout for receiving, processing, and
storing of finished product, as well as storm water and other environmental controls. As part of the
project, Ms. Leonard assisted SCS in the preparation of estimated costs for the development of the
site, including site planning, buildings, and equipment.
Exhibit B
Page 66 of 221
County of Santa Cruz, Solid Waste System Business Plan (Business Plan), Santa Cruz County, AZ.
As Project Director, Ms. Leonard was responsible for evaluating system costs, revenues, and
liabilities over a 30-year planning period to assist the County in identifying options for the Business
Plan. This included considering continued operations, privatization of operations, and sale of the
assets. Ms. Leonard also incorporated into the Business Plan the County’s operation of two landfills,
transfer stations, and drop-off centers for recycling.
City of San Gabriel, Electronic Annual Report and Disposal Tracking, San Gabriel, CA. For over 15
years, SCS has assisted the City in the preparation of its Solid Waste Annual Report to the State of
California (CalRecycle), which identifies the City’s compliance with diversion mandates, program, and
policy implementation. As Project Director, Ms. Leonard conducted disposal tracking for the City,
which identifies disposal tonnage misallocated to the City, and reallocates it to the City of origin for
disposal reporting purposes.
County of Mecklenburg, Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan), Mecklenburg County, NC. As
Senior Technical Advisor, Ms. Leonard contributed to updating the County’s Plan, which included the
design of high diversion, reduction, reuse, and CDI policies and programs. She also assisted with the
financial impact analysis, diversion estimates, and waste characterization study.
Miami-Dade County Department of Solid Waste, Solid Waste Management Master Plan, Miami-
Dade County, FL. As Senior Technical Advisor, Ms. Leonard assisted in the preparation of a solid
waste master plan identifying options and improvements to the solid waste system, including the
collection, transfer, and processing operations. A series of public workshops and meetings were
conducted to identify the preferred options for implementation over the planning period.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Solid Waste Programs, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. As Project Director,
Ms. Leonard provided annual solid waste management services. Her work included a series of
projects intended to increase the City’s diversion, including expansion of the City’s multi-family
recycling program. As part of the project, she conducted workshops at a number of homeowner
association groups to introduce the new program, and help managers implement the recycling
methods as well. She also conducted a workshop on the City’s CDI recycling program for haulers and
contractors, and participated in a variety of other public education and outreach programs.
City of Irvine, Zero Waste Technical Assistance, Irvine, CA. Initiated in 2004, the project’s
objectives were to conduct waste audits and provide information to businesses regarding recycling
and waste reduction. The project was later expanded, and, as Project Director, Ms. Leonard assisted
in developing the outreach efforts in educating schools, municipal facilities, the Zero Waste program
for restaurants, while assisting in the preparation of a CDI ordinance, and providing her expertise in
negotiations for a semi-exclusive solid waste franchise agreement and recycling programs for special
events and public venues.
City of Lakewood, Solid Waste Generation Study and Solid Waste Support Services, Lakewood,
CA. As Project Director, Ms. Leonard was responsible for City’s environmental programs. In 2000,
SCS was selected to conduct a solid waste generation study in support of a new base year
modification and compliance order, in addition to providing solid waste support services. Based on
the success of that project, Ms. Leonard and SCS have provided ongoing solid waste support
services to the City, including disposal reporting system reviews and analysis, commercial waste
audits, public education and outreach programs, applications for the Used Oil Grant Administration,
preparations for annual reporting, and design and implementation of special recycling events.
California Institute of Technology (CalTech), Waste Audit and Waste Characterization Study,
Pasadena, CA. As Project Manager, Ms. Leonard conducted a waste audit and waste
Exhibit B
Page 67 of 221
characterization study at CalTech to determine the types, quantities, and sources of compostables in
the waste stream. She was responsible for determining if the was material suitable for incineration,
including the sources and possibility of reuse of packaging in the campus waste stream. A total of 66
samples were collected from 11 generator groups, and sorted according to 27 different material
types. The results of the study were also used to evaluate potential costs and savings from the
implementation of new and/or expanded recycling programs.
County of Orange, Disposal Agreement Rate Model Analysis, Anaheim, CA. As Project Director, Ms.
Leonard performed an analysis of the landfill rate model prepared by Orange County, CA. The 34
cities in Orange County each had a disposal agreement with the County to dispose of all city waste at
the three County-owned landfills for a set tipping fee. The existing 10-year agreement expired in
2009, and the County proposed a new tipping fee based on a financial model. Ms. Leonard identified
and advised the Waste Management Committee of the Orange County City Managers Organization
on contributing factors or issues that could have enabled the cities to constructively negotiate
contract terms. This included a contract rate that could be more favorable to the cities, resulting in
assisting the cities in analyzing the relative merits of alternative fee structures (i.e., flat fee versus
adjusted annually based on inflation), and designing a policy and methodology for the County to
declare a dividend (or rate reduction) in the event of actual expenses being less than projected or
actual tonnage quantities were greater than expected.
City of Santa Maria, Collection and Disposal Rate Study, Santa Maria, CA. As Project Director, Ms.
Leonard reviewed the existing collection and disposal rates charged to residents, businesses and
industrial customers. She conducted a thorough analysis of the existing rate structure based on the
City’s budget, operations, and financial reports. She developed a financial model utilized to estimate
the appropriate rate structure for all aspects of the City's solid waste system, and the costs and
revenues associated with specific system programs.
City of Redondo Beach, Solid Waste Franchise Agreement Audit, Redondo Beach, CA. As Project
Director, Ms. Leonard performed an independent audit of the Solid Waste Handling Services
Agreement between the City of Redondo Beach and Consolidated Disposal Service (Consolidated).
The project included reviewing background information relative to the operation of the City’s solid
waste system, issuing a request to Consolidated for pertinent financial and operational data and
documents, while verifying supporting documentation and recalculating the AB 939, administration,
and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) fees. Ms. Leonard sampled commercial bin service
accounts for testing, performed selected site inspections to document the service levels, and
contacted large multi-family accounts by telephone and/or site inspections to identify any
differences with the hauler’s customer database. Lastly, she prepared a report documenting her
findings and giving her recommendations.
City of Pasadena, Residential Collection Rate Study, Pasadena, CA. The City provided solid waste
and recycling collection service to approximately 27,000 residential units (single-family residences
and multi-family units) within the City’s incorporated limits. A rate model was developed to enable
financial performance projections of residential refuse collections for the upcoming 10-year planning
period (2006 to 2015), and model various user rate structures to help eliminate the Refuse
Collection Fund’s existing negative cash balance. Based on data and information provided by City
staff, individual spreadsheets were linked to develop an overall rate model to evaluate the impact of
critical City cost and program revenues areas on different potential rate options.
City of Santa Clarita, Waste Generation Study and Disposal Reporting System Review, Santa
Clarita, CA. As Project Manager, Ms. Leonard was responsible for conducting a waste generation
study to establish the current and potential recycling rate for the City. As part of the study, SCS
completed on-site waste assessments at some of Santa Clarita’s largest businesses, to identify
Exhibit B
Page 68 of 221
diversion from City programs, and other activities that divert solid waste, including recycling,
composting, and source reduction. In addition, SCS completed a comprehensive review and
evaluation of the City’s 1999 and 2000 Disposal Reporting System (DRS) reports, after a 65,000-ton
spike in disposal reported in 2000. The project included review of hauler reports to compare data
with landfill records. Ms. Leonard prepared a report to the City Council presenting corrected previous
errors and recommendations to avoid future discrepancies.
LACDPW, Countywide Yard Waste Program, Los Angeles, CA. As Project Manager, Ms. Leonard
was responsible a 2-year effort to design, manage, and implement the Countywide Yard Waste
Program. Work involved providing a broad range of public education, outreach, and training
programs related to yard waste composting, worm composting, water-wise gardening, and grass
recycling. The project also incorporates a statistical survey of program awareness and efficacy, in
addition to evaluating and monitoring program results.
LACDPW, Recycling Program Study, Los Angeles, CA. As Project Director, Ms. Leonard was
responsible for development of the ACCESS database of over 1,400 County departments and
facilities in support of the County’s recycling program. The information was used to identify and
maintain a list of existing recycling efforts. The project also involved providing recommendations for
the expansion of existing or new recycling programs for all County facilities and departments.
LACDPW, Waste Generation Study, Los Angeles, CA. As Project Director, Ms. Leonard was
responsible for conducting the Los Angeles County Waste Generation Study. She oversaw
preparations of the two waste generation studies for the unincorporated areas. As part of the project,
a waste characterization of residential and commercial generators were also conducted. Over 1,000
surveys were distributed to residents, businesses, haulers, and facility operators to determine
diversion activities throughout the County. Results from the surveys of grass recycling and organics,
inert materials, materials recovery facilities and transfer stations, scrap metal and electronics were
calculated to determine the optimum new base year for the County.
County of Sonoma, Solid Waste Management Alternatives Analysis, Santa Rosa, CA. As Project
Manager, Ms. Leonard was responsible for evaluating solid waste management alternatives. Ms.
Leonard and SCS worked with the County and a 35-member Local Task Force to identify and select
alternatives for disposal of the County’s waste, following closure of its landfill in 2015. The project
included an analysis of the existing solid waste management system, projection of future
demographics and solid waste generation, review and evaluation of alternatives, and completion of a
strategy that may include options for disposal, alternative technologies, diversion programs, and
policies.
Exhibit B
Page 69 of 221
TRACIE ONSTAD BILLS
Education
BA – Environmental Science, San Jose State University, 1992
Specialty Certifications
Zero Waste Principles and Practices SWANA Certification (2017)
Organics Collection SWANA Certification (2016)
Professional Affiliations
Solid Waste Association of North America – Member
SWANA Gold Rush Chapter – President
California Resource Recovery Association – Advisor, Past President
National Recycling Coalition – Member
Northern California Recycling Association – Member
Professional Experience
Ms. Bills has over 24 years of materials management experience, including working for a hauler, a
county government, and a non-profit; and over 12 years with materials management consulting
firms, the past 3 with SCS. She has contributed to the development of many solid waste plans,
providing materials flow assessments, organics processing research and analysis, hauler customer
service reviews, construction and demolition (C&D) ordinance reviews and recommendations, and
recycling and organics management technical assistance to government agencies, schools, multi-
family dwellings and businesses throughout Northern California. An expert in the solid waste
regulatory environment, she takes pride in her ability to engage stakeholders in meaningful, action-
oriented ways to drive higher levels of regulatory compliance and customer service.
A representative sampling of Ms. Bills’ project management experience is provided below.
Organics Projects
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, Senate Bill 1383 Organics Planning, Walnut Creek,
CA. Project Manager working with another consulting firm to analyzed current programs, compiled
key program statistics to provide a snap shot summary of current organics program efforts,
estimated organics disposal and processing capacity available for organics material, reviewed food
waste reduction and rescue programs, and make recommendations on changes or additions to
organics diversion programs, and recommendations for metrics, reporting and monitoring for the
Authority to comply with the new SB 1383 regulations (2018).
City of Long Beach, Residential Organics Collection and Composting Evaluation Study, Long
Beach, CA. Assisted to perform evaluation of the costs, facility and service options associated with
implementing curbside collection of source separated organics. The report includes organics cost per
ton, transportation costs, and collection costs (2018).
Exhibit B
Page 70 of 221
Santa Clara County, Composting Processing Capacity and Organics Diversion Study, San Jose,
CA. Project Manager for a study to assess the capacity of facilities that accept organic waste for
composting to comply with AB 1826 and to evaluate other on-site composting options from
residents, golf courses, schools, stables, etc. (2017).
Synagro, Organics Market Research Study, Southern CA. Project Manager working with SCS staff
to perform research and analysis on facilities, hauling companies, and potential feedstock
generators to provide an overview of where the organic material is generated, what facility is
accepting this material, the quantities of organic material potentially available, and the available
capacity for organic materials for AB 1826 (2016).
Waste Management Davis Street Transfer Process Report Update for Organics Processing
Facility, San Leandro, CA. Assisted with updating the Transfer Process Report to incorporate
changes for the new Organics Material Recovery Facility, which included the different technologies
and processes that will be included in the design (2016).
Western Placer County, Organics Recycling Management Plan, Auburn, CA. Project Manager to
provide modeling characterization of business sector to identify organics volume, and AB 1826
organics management plan developed for AB 1826 (2016).
Eastern Placer County, Organics Recycling Management Plan and AB 1826 Organics
Management Plan, Truckee, CA. Project Manager to provide modeling characterization of business
sector to identify organics volume, research on organics processing technologies including siting and
cost analysis, recommendations and AB 1826 organics management plan developed (2015 to
2016).
Los Angeles County, AB 1826 Organics Management Plan, Los Angeles, CA. Researcher to attain
local information and writer to develop the County’s Organics Management Plan for compliance with
AB 1826 (2015).
EcoSafe, Inc., Organics Compostable Bag Study, San Francisco, CA. Project Manager leading field
staff to perform physical characterization of trash, recycling, and organics containers of selected
MFDs, in order to assess the success of the EcoSafe outreach program in increasing diversion, which
included EcoSafe providing outreach material and free compostable bags to MFDs (2014 - with
previous employer).
City of Alameda, Organics Technical Assistance, Alameda, CA. Project Manager working with
outreach staff with the primary focus of increasing organics recycling at small businesses and
selected MFD’s (2013 to 2014 - with previous employer).
City of Fremont, Commercial Organics Analysis, Fremont, CA. Project Manager working with
outreach staff to perform visual audits and survey food service businesses that have front-of-house
material managed by customers in order to understand barriers and needs to provide organics
recycling to these businesses (2013 to 2014 - with previous employer).
City of Union City, MFD Organics Analysis, Union City, CA. Project Manager working with outreach
staff who performed visual audits and assessed MFDs for potential organics recycling services
(2013 to 2014 - with previous employer).
StopWaste.Org, County Plant Debris Ban Research and Analysis, Oakland, CA. Assistance in
evaluating success of local facilities to inform public of the new ban and whether the facilities
complied (2009 - with previous employer).
Exhibit B
Page 71 of 221
KAREN M. LUKEN
Education
BS – Communication Arts, University of Cincinnati, 1986
Professional Affiliations
International Association of Facilitators
American Public Works Association (APWA) National Solid Waste Committee
Recycling Chairman for the U.S. Conference of Mayors
National Strategic Planning and Recycling Certification Instructor for the Solid Waste Association of
North America (SWANA)
President of the SWANA Buckeye Chapter
Coordinator for SWANA’s annual conference
Ohio delegate at a White House Recycling Summit
Steering committee member for the U.S State Department’s Clean Climate Air Coalition
Professional Experience
Karen has almost 30 years of experience helping local communities, national governments and
private businesses throughout the world reduce litter and decrease dependency on landfills by
promoting a circular economy where waste becomes a resource. Karen has helped communities
throughout the world achieve their pollution prevention and circular economy goals through a
systematic, strategic planning process. This planning process includes establishing a baseline,
characterizing the waste stream, analyzing policies and legislation, conducting cost benefit analyses,
characterizing waste streams, and fostering a shared vision among stakeholders.
Relevant projects that Karen has been involved in are described below.
U.S.
City of New Braunfels, TX: Solid Waste Management Plan & Rate Study (2018-2019). As a
subcontractor to SCS, conducted a needs assessment based on short-, medium- and long-term
goals, and recommended strategies to achieve those goals. Strategies included implementation
requirements as well as impact on landfill diversion. Also prepared a 5-year action plan.
City of Olathe, KS: Strategic Plan (2016-2018). The City contracted EESI to provide expert guidance
on development of a Solid Waste Management Plan for the City. The plan will serve as a
blueprint/guide for the City’s solid waste programs and operations for the next 50 years.
Cuyahoga County Waste District, OH: Strategic Evaluation (2017-2018). Performed a strategic
evaluation of Cuyahoga County Waste District’s residential, commercial and multi-family recycling
programs, organics composting, organics recovery, and education/outreach initiatives.
Ohio Waste Districts of Hamilton, Preble, Mercer, Clark, Greene, Butler, Portage, Cuyahoga,
Adams-Brown, Henry, Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne, Athens-Gallia, and Clermont: Solid Waste
Management Plans (1990-Ongoing). Helped 13 districts prepare multi-year solid waste
management plans to ensure sufficient, long-term disposal capacity and establish sufficient
Exhibit B
Page 72 of 221
programs to increase recycling and manage special wastes. All 13 plans were ratified by government
officials, approved by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and were fully implemented.
Saint Louis County, Missouri: Solid Waste Management Plan (2010). Prepared a solid waste
management plan on behalf of the Saint Louis Department of Health (DOH). The plan inventoried the
existing solid waste management system, assessed its strengths and weaknesses, and identified
strategies to optimize the performance of the system’s individual components. Karen also designed
an outreach process and was retained to solicit related concerns from County residents, businesses
and government officials.
Kaua’i and Oahu Counties, Hawaii: Solid Waste Management Plans (2008). Collaborated with both
Counties to update their Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans. Activities included:
Coordinating public meetings, chairing workshops with the mayor and County council
members, and facilitating a solid waste advisory committee.
Characterizing existing waste management infrastructure and future capacity needs.
Identifying pathways to decrease pollution from plastics, increase the recovery of
recyclables and organics, and improve market conditions.
Evaluating the technical and financial feasibility of converting waste into energy.
Formulating a process to site solid waste facilities.
Modelling a system cost and rate analysis.
Preparing an implementation action plan.
International
Saint Lucia, West Indies: National Waste Strategy (2018). Worked with the island nation of Saint
Lucia to develop a national waste strategy to manage their waste for the next 20 years in a
financially-viable, technically-feasible, and socially-acceptable manner. To accomplish this, Karen:
Engaged all relevant stakeholders to determine the goals and vision to decrease
dependency on landfills through by converting waste into a resource.
Assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the existing waste management system;
benchmark the current waste management system against similar systems.
Evaluated solid waste technical, programmatic, regulatory and financial pathways to
implement the national strategy recommendations.
Karen also facilitated a National Waste Management Strategy Workshop, attended by 25
representatives from various ministries, government departments, statutory agencies, and the
private sector. The Workshop was one of the strategies used to get broad-based input into a Solid
Waste Management Strategic Plan for Saint Lucia. As a result of this planning process, Saint Lucia
developed a five-year, strategic action plan to assure consistent and efficient waste collection, use
waste as a local resource for local businesses to manufacture products on-island , educate children
on the importance of proper waste management, develop a system to recover plastic bottles, and
develop, long-term final management systems.
Exhibit B
Page 73 of 221
United Nations Environmental Program: Caribbean Action Plan (2017-2018). Facilitated visioning
sessions with ministers and environmental directors from 12 Caribbean nations to: 1) Inventory
existing solid waste management systems throughout the Caribbean; 2) Quantify the social,
environmental, and economic cost of inaction; 3) Evaluate systematic strengths and weaknesses;
and 4) Begin establishing a platform for development of a regional solid waste action plan that
fosters an environmentally and financially sustainable solid waste management system.
City of Lagos, Nigeria: Integrated Waste System Improvement (2013). Over a 3-year period, helped
the Lagos Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) improve their waste system. This was
accomplished by raising awareness amongst leaders within Lagos State and Nigerian National
government about the potential to improve environmental, social, and economic conditions;
establishing a regulatory framework and funding mechanism to properly manage solid waste; and by
structuring a public-private-partnership (PPP) to replace dump sites with an integrated solid waste
management complex, which would include an organics composting facility, a materials recycling
center, and a professionally engineered and operated residual waste landfill.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi, India: Integrated Waste Management Strategy (2012).
Assisted with development of the project strategy and feasibility report implement a 1,000 ton-per-
day integrated solid waste management project waste system, and was actively involved in the
procurement process through: preparing the request for qualifications (RFQ), engaging best practice
companies, developing a request for technical and financial proposals (RFP) and terms of reference,
evaluating proposals, and assisting with negotiations with proposers.
Exhibit B
Page 74 of 221
LISA COELHO
Education
BS – Environmental Studies, San Jose State University, 2016
Professional Affiliations
California Resource Recovery Association – Member
Northern California Recycling Association – Member
SWANA Gold Rush Chapter – Member
Women in Solid Waste and Recycling – Member
Recycling Certification Institute- Construction and Demolition Recycling Rate Evaluator
Professional Experience
Lisa Coelho is a Sustainable Materials Management Specialist with a passion for organics programs.
As a Zero Waste Program Coordinator and Environmental Programs Consultant, Ms. Coelho has over
5 years of experience in the solid waste industry, specifically working with municipalities. She has
unique previous work experience as a staff member for the City of Santa Clara, Department of Public
Works and City of Sunnyvale, Environmental Services Department at the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station.
In this role, Ms. Coelho provided extensive technical assistance to single-family residential
customers, schools, restaurants, and commercial business customers.
Ms. Coelho is currently assisting municipalities with California’s Short-lived Climate Pollutant Act
known as Senate Bill (SB) 1383. She assists the Counties of Alameda, Monterey and Santa Clara
with their solid waste research, program planning and technical assistance. She excels in the
development of communication materials, such as tailored video and multimedia outreach
materials. She is research oriented, with a strong background in community-based social marketing;
outreach and education; data gathering and analysis; and project management. Notable projects in
which she has been involved are described below.
Edible Food Recovery
Smart Business, Food Drop Program, LA County, CA. LA County’s Food Drop program matches
edible food donors to recipient organizations with in-person technical assistance appointments.
Developed and led a “Train the Trainer” workshop to equip technical assistance staff with the best
outreach tools, techniques, and problem-solving strategies necessary to facilitate maximum,
successful food donation from 150 edible food generators (2018).
Silicon Valley Food Rescue, Santa Clara County, CA. Collaborated with Santa Clara County
municipal staff, Silicon Valley Joint Venture, private corporations, and non-profit organizations to
establish a food rescue framework. The mission of the Food Rescue Council is to collect edible food
from large generators and redistribute it to recipient organizations before it becomes food waste.
Served as a discovery lead for program research with donor organizations, recipient organizations,
and food insecure customers (2016- with previous employer).
Exhibit B
Page 75 of 221
Source Reduction
Community- Based Social Marketing Applied to Household Food Waste Prevention, Santa Clara
County, CA. Research, design, implement and evaluate a household food waste prevention program
that converts expert-level understanding of behaviors into successful, measurable results through
skillfully tailored behavior-based marketing. Completed the advanced Community-based social
marketing workshop with Dough McKenzie-Mohr in October, 2018 (2019).
ReThink Disposable, Clean Water Action Fund, Santa Clara County, CA. Business engagement,
technical assistance, and auditing for the ReThink Disposable campaign in Santa Clara County.
Santa Clara County has banned expanded polystyrene, but allows compostable and recyclable
disposable food ware. Businesses are provided with waste reduction metrics and a cost-benefit
breakdown upon completion of their transition from disposable food ware to reusable dish ware.
Community-based Social Marketing strategies are used to help business owners and employees to
implement operational changes needed to make the transition from disposable to reusable dishes.
Out of 200 businesses, 45 will be selected for ReThink Disposable certification (2018).
ReFuel Your Fun, California Product Stewardship, Sunnyvale, CA. Administration for the CalRecycle
household hazardous waste (HHW) grant was awarded to the City of Sunnyvale, and Heidi Sanborn
from California Product Stewardship Council was selected as the subcontractor for the project. The
collaboration launched ReFuel Your Fun, a campaign for one-pound refillable gas cylinders. From
2010 to 2013, more than 16,000 disposable cylinders were processed through the SMaRT Station
at a cost of over $140,000. Assisted with program outreach by tabling events with CPSC staff and
launching a social media campaign (2017 – with previous employer).
Countywide Compliance Planning
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, Senate Bill 1383 Planning, Walnut Creek, CA.
Conducted an analysis of current solid waste programs in comparison to the Senate Bill 1383
requirements to illuminate any gaps specific to maximizing the reduction and/or diversion of organic
waste Recommended program enhancements, metrics for assessment, data tracking and reporting
requirements (2018).
Monterey Regional Waste Management District, Waste Characterization Study, Salinas, CA.
Sampled, sorted, and classified material types present in commercial and residential recycling loads
for the cities of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Pebble Beach, Monterey, Salinas, Seaside, and Watsonville.
Assisted with data entry and analysis. Provided a portfolio of relevant photographic evidence to the
Outreach Coordinator. Participated in tours of the MRF for a local High School Leadership group
(2018 and 2019).
Santa Clara County, Solid Waste Rate Study, Santa Clara County, CA. Collaborated with Santa
Clara County Technical Advisory Committee city representatives and associated haulers to compile a
comprehensive solid waste rate study. Additionally, prepared a state-of-curbside organics programs
study to track the current status of each city’s program, aimed at compliance with new SB 1383
regulations (2018 – with previous employer).
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Santa Clara County, CA.
Participation in development of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
standard operating procedures and data collection for qualitative trash assessments and qualitative
trash monitoring and receiving in waters. Utilized EOA, Inc., training for Visual On-land Trash
Assessment Protocol for Stormwater to conduct blight inspections in the Galway area of Santa Clara,
and to provide necessary technical assistance and outreach to 94 impacted properties to obtain
Exhibit B
Page 76 of 221
compliance with stormwater regulations. Ms. Coelho is a supportive member of the Santa Clara
Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Watershed Watchers program through event
tabling, providing outreach at schools, social media promotion, and leading a national creek cleanup
(2018 – with previous employer).
Commercial Organics Collection
City of Alameda, Zero Waste Technical Assistance for Commercial and Multi-family Dwellings,
Alameda, CA. Provided extensive technical assistance to the 50 commercial and multi-family
dwelling properties generating the greatest amount of waste in Alameda. Technical assistance
included assisting with recycling, organics recycling, and food ware ordinance compliance as well as
exploring opportunities for source reduction. Beyond recommended service level changes, technical
assistance provided staff training and door-to-door outreach for multi-family tenants, office building
tenants and businesses considered tenants of shopping centers. Additional assistance resources
were offered whenever possible (e.g. applying for the StopWaste indoor container grant and
assistance with locking exterior enclosures to prevent scavenging). Developed and managed a
customized Recyclist database for record keeping and reporting. SCS was initially provided the top
50 generators with a reported 18.4% diversion rate in October of 2018. As of October 2019, 60
generators have achieved a collective 48.9% diversion rate. (2019).
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, Commercial Technical Assistance, Walnut Creek,
CA. Provided technical assistance to commercial businesses to increase enrollment and
participation in mandatory recycling and organics recycling. Technical assistance included
recommendations for additional recycling and organics services; downsizing of trash containers;
outreach materials; staff trainings; and guidance for placement of recycling and organics containers.
(2019).
City of Santa Clara, Commercial Food Scraps Recycling Program, Santa Clara, CA. Led hauler
staff (Mission Trail Waste Systems) in development of procedures, outreach materials, and protocol
for initiating commercial business compliance with AB 1826. Prepared a plan to provide and track
exceptional in-person technical assistance to businesses ranging from restaurants to NVIDIA. Trained
city staff to perform and analyze commercial waste characterizations. Enrolled businesses in the
appropriate organics recycling program based on the composition of their waste stream (e.g.
composting yard waste only; composting yard waste with food and food-soiled paper; or recycling
source-separated food scraps only). (2017- with previous employer).
City of Sunnyvale, Commercial Food Scraps Recycling Program, Sunnyvale, CA. Worked in
partnership with the City’s food scraps processor (Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises) to
evaluate technical data and make program adjustments to meet diversion goals. Regularly
performed commercial waste characterizations at the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station. The outreach plan
combined technical assistance and assessment for mandatory recycling, mandatory organics
recycling, food rescue, expanded polystyrene ban, plastic bag ban, ReThink Disposable certification
and Green Business certification in an effort to provide a one-stop shop for environmental
compliance needs. Hosted an introduction to AB 1826 workshop at LinkedIn’s campus for 75
businesses. Assisted businesses with siting internal and external waste containers, signage, and
staff training for businesses. Partnered with Action Research to conduct a Community-Based Social
Marketing study about increasing participation and reducing contamination in restaurant organics
programs. (2016 - with previous employer).
Community- Based Social Marketing Applied to Commercial Organics Collection, Sunnyvale, CA.
Community-Based Social Marketing coaching with Lori Large and Jennifer Tabanico of Action
Research. Conducted a research study titled, Organics Recycling Readiness: The Barriers and
Exhibit B
Page 77 of 221
Benefits of Commercial Organics Recycling in Sunnyvale, CA, published by Action Research on
behalf on the City. (2015 – with previous employer).
Sunnyvale Unified School District, Zero Waste Champions Program, Sunnyvale, CA. Worked with
School District staff, School Board staff, administrators, teachers, students, and custodians to create
and oversee the School Zero Waste Champions Program, which simultaneously meets AB 1826 and
AB 939 mandates. The students, known as Zero Waste Champions (ZWCs), led their fellow students
in lunch waste diversion by pouring off leftover milk, recycling containers, and separating food scraps
from packaging. Conducted each school’s waste audit with students and administrators, and shared
the story through a photo report. Photos showing each school’s food scraps, plus color-coded bins
and a few key accessories, armed the ZWCs for success. After a Train-the-Trainer session, students
engaged in training the student body, teachers, and administrators so that the program became a
self-sustained operation. With Ms. Coelho’s assistance, ZWC students created a team to monitor
daily operations and promote their program with signage, presentations, and videos. The Zero Waste
Champions Program saved the Sunnyvale School District over $25,000 reduced garbage costs in the
first two years; and won the 2017 City of Sunnyvale State of the City Award for Outstanding
Environmental Achievement (2017 – with previous employer).
Residential Organics Collection
City of Santa Clara, Pilot Residential Food Scraps Recycling Program, Santa Clara, CA. Principal
in drafting a clear, complete, concise analysis and recommendations to comply with new SB 1383
regulations by conducting thorough research, including current state of regulations, site
assessments, waste sorts, provision of subject matter expertise, and customer satisfaction survey
analysis for the Pilot Residential Food Scraps Recycling Program. Use of project management
software to plan, organize, direct, administer, and evaluate programs. A customized Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) system was created to facilitate a cohesive customer service
strategy to simultaneously provide in-person technical assistance to customers and detailed digital
recordkeeping for annual reports. (2018 - with previous employer).
City of Sunnyvale, FoodCycle: Residential Food Scraps Recycling Program, Sunnyvale, CA.
Conducted feasibility research, planning, and communication implementation plan for the citywide
rollout of a residential food scraps collection program. Hosted public information meetings with City
management, Communications staff, Mayor Hendricks, the Neighborhood Leader’s Association, and
Sustainability Commission. In preparation for implementation, was able to analyze problems,
identify alternative solutions, determine feasibility of proposed solutions, and implement
recommendations in support of SB 1383 goals. Partnered with Gigantic Idea Studios to create a
professional-quality, multi-lingual public service announcement that garnered a 2018 California
Association of Public Information Officials Award for distinction (2017 - with previous employer).
Exhibit B
Page 78 of 221
AMBER DURAN, REHS
Education
BS – Environmental and Occupational Health Science (Minor in Sustainability),
California State University, Northridge, 2015
Professional Licenses
Registered Environmental Health Specialist (REHS) (No. 8684) – State of California,
Department of Public Health (December 2016)
Specialty Certifications
Safe Surplus Food Donation Best Management Practices Training
Public Health Alliance, January 2018
Managing Municipal Solid Waste Collection Systems Course
Solid Waste Association of North America (September 2018)
Professional Affiliations
National Environmental Health Association
Solid Waste Association of North America
California Resource Recovery Association
Professional Experience
Ms. Duran has a diverse background in solid waste management and environmental health. Working
with the Sustainable Materials Management team, she delivers quality technical support to
businesses, multifamily dwellings, and government facilities to increase recycling participation,
deliver outreach and education, coordinate collection with haulers, and collect data. Her experience
in government and the private sector have sharpened her capability to collaborate with multiple
types of organizations. Mrs. Duran has been working with SCS for 1.5 years. Prior to that, she worked
for the City of South Pasadena for 2 years.
LA County Department of Public Works, Smart Business Recycling Program, Integrated Waste
Management Plan, Los Angeles County, CA. Project staff responsible for assisting businesses and
schools with recycling programs through site visits, waste characterization studies, and technical
assistance. To prepare the County for SB 1383, Ms. Duran’s work includes the food DROP program,
a private-public partnership providing a comprehensive food recovery program. Duties include on-site
assistance to restaurants, grocery stores, and other food generators to reduce food waste and
donate surplus food. Ms. Duran formed coordinated strategies for addressing education deficits,
infrastructure barriers, and brand protection concerns related to food recovery. (2017 to present).
City of Fullerton, Solid Waste and Recycling Services, Fullerton, CA. Project lead responsible for
providing regulatory compliance and support through planning, business technical assistance, and
Amber Duran
Exhibit B
Page 79 of 221
tracking and reporting for AB 1826, AB 939, and AB 341. Her work also includes collaborating with
Waste Not OC to provide food recovery services to the City. (2018 to present).
La County Department of Public Works, Commercial and Institutional Recycling Program, Los
Angeles County, CA. Project staff for the County headquarters’ “Scrape Your Plate” organics
recycling program, utilizing on-site vermicomposting and back of the house collection for anaerobic
digestion. Work also includes resource development plans to increase diversion and comply with AB
1826 at County facilities (2017 to present).
City of Palmdale, Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events, Palmdale, CA. Project lead
responsible for the coordination, administration, and reporting of eight HHW events throughout the
City. Her work includes management, advertising campaign development, and public outreach
(2017 to present).
StopWaste, Waste Characterization Study, Alameda County, CA. Project staff responsible for
measuring the composition at transfer stations from residential and commercial streams and
conducting visual audits of self-haul service (2017).
City of South Pasadena, Environmental Programs, South Pasadena, CA. City staff responsible for
implementing environmental programs, including the plastic bag ban and polystyrene ban. Her work
included outreach, education, and technical assistance to restaurants and grocery stores (2014 to
2017).
Athens Services, Third-Party Diversion Audits, Pasadena, CA. Project staff responsible for verifying
third-party diversion for Athens Services customers in the City of Pasadena (2017 to present).
Athens Services, Third-Party Diversion Audits, Santa Paula, CA. Project staff responsible for verifying
third-party diversion for Athens Services customers in the City of Santa Paula (2018 to present).
City of El Segundo, Solid Waste Consulting Services, El Segundo, CA. Ms. Duran assists the City of
EL Segundo with a variety of solid waste services. Her work includes writing a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for solid waste services, providing AB 1826 compliance reports, and preparing the City’s
Electronic Annual Report (2018 – Present).
City of Malibu, Solid Waste and Stormwater Consulting Services, Malibu, CA. SCS was hired to
provide a variety of solid waste and stormwater services in the City of Malibu. Ms. Duran work with
the City includes preparing a plan for addressing the City’s sustainability goals and objectives by
identifying baseline conditions, measurements, reporting methods, and potential emission reduction
projects (2017 to present).
City of Culver City, Commercial Sector Waste Characterization Study, Culver City, CA. Ms. Duran
assisted in conducting a waste characterization study for Culver City. The study measured the waste
flow and composition from the commercial recycling, organics, and trash stream to identify
contamination and evaluate efficiencies. Ms. Duran’s responsibilities included management of the
crew and execution of the study (2018).
City of Culver City, Sony Studios Waste Characterization Study, Culver City, CA. SCS was hired to
conduct a waste characterization study for Sony Studios in Culver City. The study identified waste
reduction and recycling opportunities for this specialized waste stream. Ms. Duran was project staff,
assisting in performing the study and tracking data (2018).
Exhibit B
Page 80 of 221
County of San Mateo, Pescadero Transfer Station, San Mateo County, CA. Ms. Duran served as
project staff responsible for research on organic recycling technologies and data collection on
organics processing facilities to determine capacity (2017).
City of Ames, Waste Diversion Enhancement and Recommendation Report, Ames, IA. Ms. Duran
was responsible for conducting phone and email surveys of businesses to determine waste diversion
opportunities and recycling program participation (2017).
City of Walla Walla, Financial Planning Study, Walla Walla, WA. Ms. Duran served as project staff
responsible for rate and surcharge comparison studies along with evaluations and recommendations
on compost sales (2017).
Athen’s Environmental Services, Electronic Annual Report and Disposal Tracking, San Gabriel,
CA. Ms. Duran assists the City of San Gabriel in preparing its Solid Waste Annual Report to
CalRecycle. Her work includes identifying the City’s compliance with diversion mandates and
program and policy implementation. She also conducts disposal tracking for the City, which identifies
disposal tonnage misallocated to the City, and reallocates it to the City of origin for disposal reporting
purposes (2017 to present).
Exhibit B
Page 81 of 221
LYNEA BAUDINO
Education
BS – Environmental Studies, San Jose State University, 2016
Professional Affiliations
California Resource Recovery Association – Member
Northern California Recycling Association – Member
SWANA – Member
SWANA, Gold Rush Chapter – Member
Women in Solid Waste and Recycling – Member
Professional Experience
Ms. Baudino is a Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) Specialist with a passion for organics
programs. She has over 3 years of experience in the solid waste industry, specifically working with
local municipalities and non-profits. She has previously worked as a staff member for the City of
Fremont’s Environmental Services Department and the Ecology Center in Berkeley. In these roles,
she provided technical assistance to residents, property managers, schools, city facilities, and
businesses. She has extensive experience conducting qualitative and quantitative research on
environmental policy and technology.
Notable projects in which she has been involved are described below.
Waste Characterization
Republic Services/City of Fremont, Commercial Residual Recycling Characterization, Fremont,
CA. As a staff member, Ms. Baudino assisted with characterizing 10 samples of residual material
coming from commercial recycling loads in Fremont. She also evaluated data and wrote reports.
City of Santa Cruz, Landfill Waste Characterization, Santa Cruz, CA. Ms. Baudino served as a staff
member who assisted with characterizing over 20 samples of residential and commercial landfill
waste, while also collecting and recording quality data.
Recycling and Zero Waste
City of Alameda, Zero Waste Alameda, Alameda, CA. Ms. Baudino collaborated with City
representatives and associated haulers to accomplish the City’s 89 percent diversion from the City’s
landfill by July 2019. She also provided technical assistance to commercial and City facilities by
implementing source reduction changes and improving waste diversion in order to decrease the
amount of landfill service provided.
Alameda County Green Business Program, Alameda County, CA. Ms. Baudino engaged local
businesses for Green Business certification through the Alameda County Green Business Program.
She collaborated with City staff to strategize on how to approach and involve local businesses,
including City facilities, in becoming a green business. She teamed with County staff to conduct on-
site waste assessments to fulfill waste diversion requirements for becoming a certified Green
Business.
Exhibit B
Page 82 of 221
Mattress Recycling Council, California Programs, CA. Ms. Baudino analyzed data from over 30
cities, counties, and private waste haulers throughout California to verify their participation in the
mattress recycling program.
Ecology Center, Resourceful Website Development, Berkeley, CA. Ms. Baudino collected and
analyzed data regarding proper disposal, environmental impacts, and zero-waste alternatives of over
150 commonly disposed of items in the City of Berkeley. She coordinated with web developers and
the marketing team to develop a user-friendly recycling guide, similar to the Alameda County
resource RecycleWhere.org.
Commercial Organics
City of Fremont, Commercial Food Scraps Recycling Program, Fremont, CA. Ms. Baudino
collaborated with hauler staff (Republic Services) in developing procedures, outreach materials, and
protocols for initiating commercial business compliance with AB 1826. She also prepared a plan to
provide and track exceptional in-person technical assistance to businesses, and implemented food
scraps recycling at several City facilities, which include the Corporation Yard, fire stations, senior
center, and libraries.
Alameda County Sustainability, Green Child Care Program, Fremont, CA. Ms. Baudino coordinated
with County staff, school administrators, and teachers to implement organics recycling at various
private preschools and learning centers throughout Fremont. To keep children and toddlers engaged,
she developed appropriate signage to help them understand the basics of organics recycling. She
also educated teachers and staff regarding the types of materials that belong in organics waste
containers.
Source Reduction
ReThink Disposable Campaign, Clean Water Action Fund, Santa Clara County, CA. Ms. Baudino
engaged businesses by providing technical assistance and completing audits for the ReThink
Disposable campaign in Santa Clara County. The County banned expanded polystyrene, but allowed
compostable and recyclable disposable foodware. Businesses were provided with waste reduction
metrics and a cost-benefit breakdown upon completion of their transition from disposable foodware
to reusable dishes. Out of 200 businesses, 45 were selected for the ReThink Disposable
certification.
City of Berkeley, Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance, Berkeley, CA. Ms.
Baudino assisted the Ecology Center, Plastic Pollution Coalition, and Berkeley Zero Waste
Commission with outreach development, market research, event planning, and technical assistance.
She has extensive experience conducting research on environmental policy and regulations, program
development and implementation, and data analysis.
Exhibit B
Page 83 of 221
Range of Experience
Since 2002, Mr. Hilton has provided recycling and solid waste consulting
services to public agencies in projects covering a wide range of strategic,
operational, programmatic, contractual, and financial issues. Rob leads
HF&H’s California franchising team in support of more than a dozen
communities each year who are either competitively procuring or negotiating
solid waste collection, processing, and/or disposal contracts. In addition, he
has lead HF&H’s statewide efforts since 2016 to prepare local government
clients for SB 1383. These efforts include several SB 1383 implementation
plans, SB 1383‐compliant franchise agreements, SB 1383‐compliant
ordinances, and a series of SB 1383 Local Government Summits.
Expertise
SB 1383 Compliance
Franchise Negotiations
Franchise Procurements
High Diversion/Zero Waste Plans
Strategic Planning
Stakeholder Engagement
Policies and Municipal Codes
Recent and Relevant Projects
City of Fresno – Developed RFP for franchised commercial and multi‐family
solid waste, recycling and organics collection and processing services and
negotiated franchised contracts with two service providers, resulting in
lower rates to customers than previously charged by the City.
Tulare County – Negotiated the first ever franchise agreement in Tulare
County’s unincorporated areas, resulting in minor/no rate increases for
rate payers and new services compliant with AB 341 an AB 1826.
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (MCRWMA) –
Contracted to perform a 3‐year in‐depth SB 1383 program compliance
analysis for the County, which includes recommended programs, a cost
benefit model, implementation considerations, a SB 1383 Action Plan, and
presentations to the MCRWMA Governing Board.
Knowledge and Understanding of SB 1383
Since its adoption in 2016, Mr. Hilton has been a recognized leader on SB 1383.
Immediately after the Governor signed the bill in 2016, Rob lead several in‐
process franchise negotiations through the process of anticipating
requirements, drafting franchise language to meet those requirements, and
negotiating that language with industry – all before the first draft rules were
available. In order to gain a mastery of the issues, Mr. Hilton has attended all
of the formal and informal rule‐making meetings, and has provided comments
and testimony on several occasions throughout the formal and informal rule
Rob Hilton, CMC
President
Historical Experience
Years of Experience: 17
Clients: 150
Engagements: 357
Articles and Speeches: 35
Education
B.A., Political Science/Public
Administration, UC Davis
Zero Waste Principals and
Practices, CRRA/SWANA
Joint Certification
Professional License
Certified Management
Consultant (CMC), Institute
of Management Consultants
USA
Professional History
HF&H Consultants, LLC:
2002 to present
Professional Organizations
Past President, California
Resource Recovery
Association (CRRA)
Faculty, Solid Waste
Association of North
America (SWANA)
Institute of Management
Consultants (IMC)
Contact Information
(925) 977‐6959
Rob@hfh‐consultants.com
Exhibit B
Page 84 of 221
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 2 of 2
Rob Hilton, CMC
President
making process. Many on CalRecycle’s executive team know Rob personally and have reached out to him on
several occasions to solicit his feedback and perspective on the draft SB 1383 regulations and even to make a
presentation during the informal rulemaking workshops.
Rob is currently leading a large effort for CalRecycle to prepare model tools related to the requirements of SB
1383. The tools include a model franchise agreement, a model food recovery agreement, and a model
enforcement ordinance and purchasing policy. CalRecycle chose HF&H through a competitive process based
on Rob and HF&H’s unparalleled understanding of the complex requirements of the SB 1383 regulations.
Rob recognized the need to get information to local governments early to start raising awareness and
beginning the planning process and has volunteered considerable time to do so. He has given numerous SB
1383‐specific presentations for events and groups such as NCRA, CRRA, SWANA, and even at CalRecycle’s SB
1383 workshop, as described in the speaking engagements section below. In addition, Rob lead HF&H to host
two Local Government Summits in 2018 to disseminate information on SB 1383 to more than 155
representatives of over 100 jurisdictions in Northern and Southern California, and has worked to develop tool‐
kits, check‐lists, and other compliance tools for jurisdictions.
Rob has supported or is currently supporting multiple jurisdictions and agencies with projects related to SB
1383, including several SB 1383 implementation plans, technical memos, SB 1383‐compliant franchise
agreements, and SB 1383‐compliance ordinances for clients including: San Diego County, Santa Cruz County,
the Town of Truckee, City of San Ramon, Castro Valley Sanitary District, City of Oceanside, South Bayside
Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), RecycleSmart (CCCSWA), the City of Watsonville, the City of Santa
Maria, and the City of Vacaville.
Procurement and Contract Negotiations
Mr. Hilton leads HF&H’s contracting team in support of more than a dozen communities each year who are
either competitively procuring or negotiating solid waste collection, processing, and/or disposal contracts.
Rob specializes in working with large (e.g. San Jose, Fresno, San Diego) and multi‐jurisdictional (e.g. Monterey
Regional Waste Management District, South Bayside Waste Management Authority, West Valley Solid Waste
Management Authority, etc.) agencies through their more complex and publicly‐scrutinized procurement
processes. He has also excelled in serving smaller communities like the Town of Truckee, Old Sacramento
Historic District, and the Golden Hills Community Services District, who have very unique service conditions
and requirements. Through these projects, no matter how large or small, Mr. Hilton employs a process that
ensures integrity, transparency with the public and elected officials, and the best overall value for the
community. In most cases, Mr. Hilton is able to secure significant service improvements, cost reductions to
customers, and/or increased or stabilized funding to the public agency.
Recent Clients
Exhibit B
Page 85 of 221
“I enjoy helping clients achieve their diversion and contracting goals and am
committed to delivering a high level of client service.”
Range of Experience
Tracy Swanborn, a Senior Manager with HF&H, has more than 29 years of
solid waste and recycling consulting experience assisting municipal
agencies. Her expertise is in collection, transfer, processing, and disposal
services procurement, contract development, and negotiations. She also
has extensive experience assisting jurisdictions with diversion program
planning including organics diversion programs.
Expertise
Contract Development and
Negotiations
Procurements
High Diversion/Zero Waste
Plans
Strategic Planning
Stakeholder Engagement
Policies and Municipal Codes
SB 1383 Compliance
Recent and Relevant Projects
City of San José – Analyzed existing non‐exclusive commercial
collection system for current diversion levels and managed
negotiations with franchised haulers that resulted in triple the
initial commercial diversion levels.
CalRecycle – Currently creating model implementation tools and
guidance to support jurisdictions and other regulated entities
across the state with implementing programs and policies to reach
compliance with SB 1383. The tools are under review and will be
made available to the public in 2020.
County of San Diego – Developed “Community” and “County
Operations” plans for achieving 75% diversion by 2025 and zero
waste by 2035. Planned policies and programs that are expected to
reduce disposal by 160,000+ tons per year and comply with SB
1383. Drafted a non‐exclusive franchise agreement (with
numerous SB 1383 provisions), a CALGreen‐compliant C&D
ordinance, and County Code update.
Knowledge and Understanding of SB 1383
Tracy has been actively involved in monitoring the development of SB
1383. She attended in person or by webinar all of CalRecycle’s SB 1383
informal rule‐making workshops and CalRecycle’s March 2019 SB 1383
Tracy Swanborn, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Historical Experience
Years of Experience: 29
Clients Served: 69
Past Engagements: 175
Articles and Speeches: 11
Education
B.S., Civil Engineering
Bucknell University, PA
Professional License
Professional Engineer
(C51875)
Professional History
HF&H Consultants, LLC: 2000 to
present
Brown, Vence & Associates:
1990 to 2000
Professional Organizations
Solid Waste Association of
Northern California (SWANA)
California Resource Recovery
Association (CRRA)
Contact Information
(707) 246‐4803
Tracy@hfh‐consultants.com
Exhibit B
Page 86 of 221
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 2 of 2
Tracy Swanborn, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
hearing. As part of the HF&H team that developed and hosted two SB 1383 Local Government Summits
in 2018 for jurisdictions, Ms. Swanborn was instrumental in developing the SB 1383 presentation and
presented a significant portion of the content. She also led the preparation of HF&H’s SB 1383 compliance
checklist, which has been distributed widely to jurisdictions.
Tracy is managing a large effort for CalRecycle to prepare model tools related to the requirements of SB
1383. The tools include a model franchise agreement, a model food recovery agreement, and a model
enforcement ordinance and purchasing policy.
Franchise, Processing, and Disposal Contracting
Ms. Swanborn has managed over 17 competitive contractor selection projects for Alameda, Central
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA), Livermore, Petaluma, Union City, Newark, Chandler
(Arizona), Fremont, Windsor, Citrus Heights, Sandy (Oregon), Santa Cruz County, South Bayside Waste
Management Authority (SBWMA), Colusa, Chula Vista, and assisted with many others including: the City
of Palo Alto’s Zero Waste procurement, the City of San Jose’s commercial redesign procurement, and the
South Bayside Waste Management Authority’s collection and processing procurement. Her procurement
experience includes diversion and program planning, RFP and contract preparation, proposal evaluation,
contractor selection, and negotiations. As part of these projects, she regularly presents reports to elected
officials and facilitates public workshops. She has managed other types of projects including redesign of
collection systems; sole source contract negotiations for collection, processing, and disposal services;
development of non‐exclusive franchise agreements; and review and revision of municipal code language.
Ms. Swanborn is currently preparing a non‐exclusive franchise agreement for the County of San Diego, for
which she developed new contract provisions to address collection‐related SB 1383 requirements. The
draft agreement has been presented to haulers for review and comment on two occasions. In the next
few months, it will be presented at a public meeting and then to the Board for approval.
Ordinance Development
Ms. Swanborn is currently assisting the County of San Diego with a major revision of their solid waste
ordinance and development of a CALGreen‐compliant construction and demolition debris recycling
ordinance. This process has involved engagement with stakeholders on several occasions to solicit and
respond to questions and concerns. In the past, she prepared solid waste ordinances for the Cities of
Alameda and Livermore.
Recent Clients
Exhibit B
Page 87 of 221
“Providing assurance to our client’s that their ratepayers are paying the
appropriate rates is what drives me.”
Range of Experience
Marva Sheehan is Vice President of HF&H Consultants and has more
than 40 years of financial and accounting experience as a consultant
and controller. Marva has been with HF&H since 2005 and has managed
rate review projects, billing and franchise fee audits, procurement and
contract negotiations, and financial and operational reviews for
jurisdictions throughout California. She has developed solid waste cost
of service rate models to meet Proposition 218 requirements.
Expertise
Rate Adjustment Reviews
Cost of Service Studies
Agency Fee Audits
Performance Reviews
Billing System Audits
“Workable” Recommendations
for Agency and Haulers
Executive Director of Solid
Waste Authority
Recent and Relevant Projects
Fresno County – Negotiated an agreement between the County and
the City for disposal of the City’s solid waste at the American Avenue
landfill, developed a long‐term tip fee model for the landfill, and
updates the model annually.
Sacramento County – Currently performing a cost of service
engagement for the County’s landfill, transfer station, and residential
collection service.
City of San José – Performing annual rate adjustments for organics
processing and collection, in addition to on‐call consulting related to
financial inquiries.
Knowledge and Understanding of SB 1383
Ms. Sheehan’s long‐standing industry knowledge has been extremely
valuable for understanding the complexities of SB 1383 and the
potential cost impacts. Marva is currently developing an SB 1383
implementation for the West Valley Solid Waste Management
Authority (WVSWMA). As executive director of WVSWMA, Marva is
assisting member agencies in meeting their diversion goals,
understanding SB 1383 regulations, and supporting strategic planning
for implementation.
Marva Sheehan, CPA
Vice President
Historical Experience
Years of Experience: 40+
Clients Served: 67
Past Engagements: 238
Articles and Speeches: 3
Education
B.S., Business Administration,
Emphasis in Accounting,
University of CA, Berkeley
Certified Public Accountant –
State of California
Professional History
HF&H Consultants, LLC: 2005 to
present
Allied Waste Industries: District
and Regional Controller, 1999‐
2005
Browning Ferris Industries:
Division and Area Business
Center Controller, 1992‐1999
Professional Organizations
California Society of Certified
Public Accountants
Contact Information
(925) 977‐6961
Marva@hfh‐consultants.com
Exhibit B
Page 88 of 221
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 2 of 2
Marva Sheehan, CPA
Vice President
Marva gave a presentation on the edible food recovery components of SB 1383 at the SB 1383 Local
Government Summits, hosted by HF&H in June of 2018. She also presented on how to adapt franchise
agreements in changing market conditions at the SWANA Western Regional Symposium in April 2019,
which will be an extremely valuable skillset as we work to adapt and create model franchise agreements
for SB 1383.
Solid Waste Industry Expert
Prior to joining HF&H, Ms. Sheehan was a controller in the solid waste industry, participating in
management of solid waste and recycling collections, MRFs, transfer stations, and landfills. Ms. Sheehan
has prepared rate applications for several Allied Waste Industries divisions. The process included the
preparation of the rate application package as well as working with the outside consultants during the
review. She developed the policies and procedures for jurisdictional cost allocations and participated in
the franchise fee audits for several cities in the Bay Area, including the City of Fremont and the City of San
Jose. This industry perspective is very valuable as HF&H develops and negotiates agreements and rates
with collection companies.
Recent Clients
Exhibit B
Page 89 of 221
Range of Experience
Ms. Barbieri brings a decade of franchise analysis, development,
negotiations, and management experience to her role as a Senior Project
Manager in HF&H’s Northern California office. She began working with
HF&H in 2008 and returned in 2011 after earning an MBA from the UCLA
Anderson School of Management.
Recently, Ms. Barbieri assisted the City of San Ramon with negotiating an
SB 1383‐compliant franchise agreement, one of the first such agreements
in the State. Beyond utilizing her negotiating skills to protect solid waste
ratepayers, Ms. Barbieri has assisted more than 75 municipal agencies with
financial analysis, rate setting, audits, diversion planning, and municipal
code drafting,.
Expertise
Franchise Agreements
Negotiations
RFP Development
Policies and Municipal Codes
Performance Reviews
SB 1383 Compliance
Recent and Relevant Projects
City of Elk Grove – Managed franchised contract negotiations, which
resulted in implementation of additional programs to assist the City in
diverting additional tonnage and a City Organics Recycling Program.
City of Clovis – Managed a competitive RFP process that resulted in
additional amenity collection and recycling, and food waste collection
and processing.
City of Oakland – Performed billing audit and performance review of
Waste Management; assisted with development of the City’s C&D
system, contract, and resulting municipal code revisions; assisted with
the implementation of the Waste Management and California Waste
Solutions agreements.
Knowledge and Understanding of SB 1383
Lauren has been following SB 1383 development and monitoring changes
through the various draft regulations. As part of the HF&H team that hosted
two SB 1383 Local Government Summits in 2018 for jurisdictions, Ms.
Barbieri prepared and presented portions of HF&H’s 4‐hour SB 1383
presentation. She recently completed drafting and negotiations of three
SB‐1383 compliant franchise agreements described in the following
section.
Lauren Barbieri
Senior Project Manager
Historical Experience
Years of Experience: 10
Clients: 75
Engagements: 132
Articles and Speeches: 5
Education
M.B.A., University of CA, Los
Angeles
B.A., Legal Studies, University
of CA, Berkeley
Professional History
HF&H Consultants, LLC: 2008 to
2009; 2011 to present
Hornblower Yachts, Inc.: 2005
to 2008
Professional Organizations
Solid Waste Association of
North America (SWANA)
Contact Information
(925) 977‐6958
Lauren@hfh‐consultants.com
Exhibit B
Page 90 of 221
HF&H Consultants, LLC Page 2 of 2
Lauren Barbieri
Senior Project Manager
Franchise, Processing, and Disposal Contracting
Since Ms. Barbieri began at HF&H, she has managed and/or participated in a wide range of procurement and
negotiation projects including several competitive and sole source procurements, as well as operational
reviews. In 2018, she assisted the City of San Ramon in developing one of the first SB 1383‐compliant franchise
agreements in the State, and managed competitive negotiations with multiple haulers for both San Ramon
and the Castro Valley Sanitary District. She also managed sole source negotiations for unincorporated regions
of Nevada County, which position the agency for compliance with SB 1383 when the regulations become
effective while avoiding an initial rate increase. In 2017, she managed sole source negotiations for the Town
of Truckee, and the Cities of Pleasanton and Elk Grove. In 2016, Lauren drafted multiple contract documents
regarding the construction and operation of a new material recovery, anaerobic digestion, and composting
facility for the County of Santa Barbara, and drafted a new franchise agreement for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga to use in sole source negotiations. In 2015, she completed a franchise study for the City of
Berkeley, which was focused on the co‐existence of City‐operated and private‐hauler collection operations,
and managed a competitive procurement for the City of Clovis. In 2014, Lauren advised the City of Hayward
in a sole source negotiations process, and managed the first ever competitive procurement in the Golden Hills
Community Services District, which resulted in a 20% rate reduction, introduction of a recycling cart program
and development of a recyclables drop‐off center within the District limits. In 2012, she participated in
facilitating a competitive procurement in California City that resulted in significant improvements to recycling
programs and illegal dumping mitigation. In 2011, she drafted new agreement language and collaborated in
a MRF agreement extension for the City of Oxnard. She has also aided in RFP and franchise revisions for the
Cities of Milpitas, Livermore, Newark, Palo Alto, Daly City, Mountain View, California City, Oxnard, the
Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD), the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
(CCCSWA), and the Counties of Santa Cruz and Marin, and contributed to building a solid waste business plan
for the City of Sacramento.
Recent Clients
Exhibit B
Page 91 of 221
EMILY COVEN
12242 Business Park Drive, Suite 19
Truckee, CA 96161
emily@recyclist.co
(530) 414-9901
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Recyclist, Truckee, CA
Founder, 2014-Present
Created and launched the Recyclist Program Tracker, a cloud-based data management
tool that municipal solid waste and recycling program managers use to gain direct insight
into waste streams, track compliance, and conduct effective, targeted outreach.
.Created and launched the nation’s first web & mobile platform designed exclusively for
municipal solid waste and recycling programs to conduct world-class public education
and outreach.
Provided customized technology solutions throughout the waste industry, including
creating a county-wide digital media strategy, developing mobile load-checking apps for
contamination prevention, building custom data management platforms, and designing
custom website solutions.
Delivered presentations on digital outreach and data management at WasteExpo,
SWANApalooza, SWANA Western Regional Symposium, NCRA Recycling Update, and
regional conferences in New York, New England, Colorado and Washington.
Served as a Guest Instructor for GreenEducation.US’s Certified Sustainable Resource
Management Professional program, teaching courses on Digital Outreach, Data Tracking
and SB 1383 Compliance.
Led a growing company successfully providing ongoing digital outreach and data
management services to now 35 cities, counties, waste management authorities and
haulers, covering a combined population of more than 7 million California residents.
Exhibit B
Page 92 of 221
Flax Media, San Francisco, CA and Queenstown, New Zealand
Founder & Principal, 2004-2014
Founded and ran a virtual international web design and development agency primarily servicing
the news, media and education industries.
Services included:
Strategic Technology Consulting
Product Management
Website & Application Design
Website & Application Development
Information Architecture
User Experience Design
Content Management Systems
Mobile Apps
Digital Audio & Video Production
Software & Product Demos
Online Marketing
Clients included:
PBS
MTV
KQED Public TV & Radio
Current TV
Yale University
UC Berkeley
George Lucas Educational Foundation
Kaiser Family Foundation
Foundation for the NIH
23andMe
Michael Pollan
KQED Public Television & Radio, San Francisco, CA
Web Producer, 2001-2004
MTV Networks, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY
Director of Production Technology, 2000-2001
SonicNet.com, San Francisco, CA
Editorial Technology Coordinator, 1999-2000
EDUCATION
Yale University
B.S., Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, 1996, 3.8/4.0
cum laude, with Distinction in the Major
San Francisco State University
M.A., Creative Writing, 2004, 4.0/4.0
Exhibit B
Page 93 of 221
Sara McCadden
sara@recyclist.co
10605 Saxon Way Truckee, CA 96161 • Mobile: (530) 205-0666
Education
MSc. Hydrology, GPA: 3.5. University of Nevada. Reno, Nevada, 2014-2017
BSc. Biology, GPA: 3.1. Florida State University. Tallahassee, Florida, 2004-2009
Minors in Chemistry and Mathematics
Scholarship/Awards
Jerry and Betty Wilson Hydrology Scholarship (2015-2016)
Technical Skills
Experienced in preparing technical reports in compliance with CEQA/NEPA, ESA, and SMARA.
Develop and manage program budgets ranging from $100k-$900k.
Successfully manage project/program staff schedule and yearly trainings.
Experience reviewing grants for habitat enhancements.
Effectively train and lead field staff for: vegetation, hydrology, and soil sampling; botanical and wildlife surveys;
habitat assessments; and wetland delineations.
Knowledgeable of California Code of Regulations, primarily Environmental Protection and Natural Resources
titles.
Knowledgeable in NEPA and CEQA.
Knowledgeable in both California and Nevada water rights laws and regulations.
Proficient in ArcGIS, statistical data analysis using RStudio, and MS Office applications.
Experience in public speaking and conference planning.
Professional Experience
Project Manager, October 2018 - current
Recyclist, Truckee, California
Environmental Scientist 3, October 2016 – July 2017
State of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Graduate Student Researcher, August 2014 – December 2017
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Ecologist, July 2014 – July 2015
Robison Engineering, Sparks, Nevada
Land Health Assessment Program Coordinator, July 2013 – July 2014
The Great Basin Institute, Reno, Nevada
Ecologist, March 2010 – July 2013
Garcia and Associates, Auburn, California
Technical Writer/Botanist, November 2009 – March 2010
The Forester’s Co-Op, Grass Valley, California
Botany Technician, May 2009 – November 2009
The Great Basin Institute, Reno, Nevada
Exhibit B
Page 94 of 221
CLIENTS & PROJECTS
Program Tracker
Data Processing and Management
City of Alameda
City of Burbank
City of Clovis
City of Culver City
City of Cupertino
City of Napa
City of Sunnyvale
City of Thousand Oaks
City of Union City
City of Vacaville
Town of Truckee
Placer County
Riverside County
Sacramento Regional SWA
San Luis Obispo County IWMA
Santa Cruz County
Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority
Sonoma County
Alameda County Industries
Marin Sanitary Service
Milpitas Sanitation
Mission Trail Waste Systems
Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery
Republic Services of Contra Costa County
Republic Services of Daly City
Sonoma County Resource Recovery
Public Education Website+ / Ultimate Recycling Guide
Digital Outreach
City of Burbank
City of Lincoln
City of Napa / Napa Recycling
City of San Jose
City of Santa Cruz
City of Stockton
City of Torrance
Town of Truckee
City of Ukiah / C&S Waste Solutions
Lake County / C&S Waste Solutions
Merced County Regional WMA
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Technology Consulting
Burrtec
Milpitas Sanitation
Waste Connections
Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises
San Jose Center for the Development of Recycling
Exhibit B
Page 95 of 221
Patti Raab
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Over 20 years of experience collaborating with both technical and non-technical teams across all
levels of an organization to provide accurate reliable data for analysis, answering questions and
leading to new discoveries and insights. Proficient in the development and design of interactive
business analytics, dashboards and reports meeting all levels of company requirements with
recognized problem solving skills and a proven ability to understand and anticipate customer
needs.
WORK EXPERIENCE
Data Manager/Engineer
Recyclist June 2019 to Present
Business Intelligence Developer / Consultant
Independent Contractor Sept 2018 to May 2019
Business Intelligence Developer
Clear Capital Apr 2015 to Aug 2018
Software Engineer II - Research & Development
Haemonetics Corporation Jan 2009 to Mar 2015
Report Developer
Independent Contractor Aug 2005 to Jan 2009
IT Specialist
Agilent Technologies / Hewlett-Packard Co May 1994 to Oct 2001
EDUCATION
Sierra College - Area of Study/Major: Computer Science
SQL Using Oracle, Web Application I, Data Communications, Advanced Visual Basic
University of California Santa Barbara - BA Political Science
CERTIFICATIONS & MEMBERSHIPS
Microsoft Professional Certificate: Applied Data Analytics
Microsoft Verified Certificate: Analyzing and Visualizing Data with Power BI
Microsoft Verified Certificate: Essential Math for Machine Learning: Python Edition
Microsoft Verified Certificate: Querying Data with Transact-SQL
Microsoft Verified Certificate: Analytics Storytelling for Impact
Microsoft Verified Certificate: Ethics and Law in Data and Analytics
Cloud Analytics Academy: Cloud Analytics Master
Exhibit B
Page 96 of 221
Jane Olvera - PRESIDENT | FOUNDER
More than 30 years’ experience
Strategic Brand Development Consumer Activation Strategies
Consumer Research & Analysis Outreach Program Development
Media Strategy & Negotiation Results-Driven Reporting
Budget Strategy & Management Multi-Agency Coordination
Team Leadership Multi-Media Creative Direction
Education
Master of Arts, Organizational Communication, CSU Fresno, Summa Cum Laude (pending
thesis)
Bachelor of Arts, Speech Communication, CSU Fresno, Magna Cum Laude
Certifications
2018 Certificate in Business Intelligence (ARC-GIS), MBA Program, Brandman University
Awards & Honors
2018, 2017, 2016, 2015 & 2014 Business Journal “Best Agency of the Year” Award
2017 Fresno State MCJ Alumni & Friends “Fellow” Award for Industry Contributions
2016 Fresno Advertising Federation Silver Medal Award for Industry Contributions
2013 Better Business Bureau Torch Award for Business Ethics
2012 Fresno Advertising Federation “Agency of the Year” Award
2005 First 5 Fresno County “Child-Friendly Business” Award
2004 KSEE TV NBC 24 “24 Women of Influence” Award
1999 KSOF Radio 98.9 FM “San Joaquin Valley Best” Women in Business Week Award
1996 Fresno Business Journal “40 Business Professionals Under 40” Award
1993 Miss California USA
1990 National Speakers’ Association Cavett Award
1990 CSUF Arts & Humanities Dean’s Medalist
1990, 1989 & 1987 National Hispanic Scholar
1989 Leadership America Graduate
1989 Leon S. Peters Leadership Award
1989 Catholic School Achiever of the Year
1988 United States Congressional Silver Medal
Professional Memberships & Associations
Fresno Advertising Federation, Member/ Contributor
Public Relations Society of America, Member/ Contributor
Fresno State Bulldog Alumni Association, Member
Fresno County Farm Bureau, Member
Project Examples
Project Name Healthy Fresno County Brand
Project Description Develop an umbrella brand for Fresno County
Initiative led by Public Health
Client Fresno County Department of Public Health and FCHIP
Exhibit B
Page 97 of 221
Role Strategic direction, consumer research and stakeholder
collaboration for multiple initiatives that require perception
and behavior change outcomes
Project Name Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health Focus
Groups
Project Description Conduct a series of focus groups with the purpose of
enhancing future outreach efforts and department
communications plan
Client Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health
Role Developed questionnaires, conducted focus groups,
presented report to stakeholders
Project Name Go Human Campaign
Project Description Conduct research with the purpose of enhancing future
outreach efforts and department communications plan
Client Southern California Association of Governments
Role Facilitated multiple agency collaboration and consumer
awareness research
Exhibit B
Page 98 of 221
Michele Meisch - DIRECTOR OF CLIENT SERVICES
More than 25 years’ experience
Strategic Brand Development Consumer Research & Analysis
Media Strategy & Negotiation Budget Strategy & Management
Team Leadership
Education
MBA, Marketing, University of Phoenix
Bachelor of Science Business, emphasis in Marketing, CSU Fresno
Professional Memberships & Associations
Fresno Advertising Federation, Member/ Contributor
Fresno State Bulldog Alumni Association, VP of Recruitment and President Elect
Project Examples
Project Name Fresno County Health Improvement Partnership Branding
Project Description Develop logo, messaging and website
Client Fresno County Health Improvement Partnership
Role Strategic direction, project management, stakeholder
outreach
Project Name Tobacco Cessation Community Outreach
Project Description Develop messaging, media planning and buying,
community event sponsorship research and execution
Client Fresno County Department of Public Health
Role Strategic direction, project management, community event
planning and execution.
Project Name Suicide Prevention Awareness Campaign
Project Description Develop messaging and creative elements, media planning
and buying, community event sponsorship research and
execution
Client Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health
Role Strategic direction, project management, community event
planning and execution.
Exhibit B
Page 99 of 221
Judy Soper – SENIOR MEDIA BUYER
More than 30 years’ experience
Traditional (print, TV, radio, outdoor) Media Buying
Search Engine Marketing
Digital & Programmatic Planning & Buying
Strategic Planning
Media Negotiating and Purchasing
Data Analysis
Comprehensive Campaign Post Analysis & Reporting
Budget Management
Education
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with Advertising Minor, CSU, Fresno
Associate of Arts in Human Services, Community College of the Finger Lakes
Programs and Software
Nielsen, Arbitron and Comscore ratings systems
STRATA Buying Software. Centro, Acuity and Choozle
Tapclicks, Funnel, Google Data Studio, Google Analytics, StackAdapt, and CallRail
Google AdWords Certified
Awards
2015 Fresno Advertising Federation Media Planner of The Year
1989 Kellogg’s AAF National Student Advertising Competition Top 15 Team
John Reed King Advertising Scholarship
Project Examples
Project Name Tobacco Cessation Community Outreach
Project Description Develop messaging, media planning and buying,
community event sponsorship research and execution
Client Fresno County Department of Public Health
Role Media research, media planning, buying and reporting
Project Name Flu Vaccination Public Outreach Campaign
Project Description Develop messaging, media planning and buying
Client Fresno County Department of Public Health
Role Media research, media planning, buying and reporting
Project Name Low Cost Auto Insurance
Project Description Develop messaging, media planning and buying
Client California Low Cost Auto Insurance
Exhibit B
Page 100 of 221
Katrina Riggs - COPYWRITER
More than 10 years’ experience
Messaging & concept development Copywriting & editing
Website projects Broadcast production
Advertising development Branding & Creative Concepting
Education
Bachelor of Arts, Mass Communication & Journalism with Print Emphasis, CSU Fresno
Dow Jones News Fund Editing Internship Program
Awards
2014 Telly Award Winner
2007 California College Media Association Award Winner
Project Examples
Project Name Website
Project Description Design, content and development of website
Client City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities
Role Copywriter
Project Name Lead Poisoning Prevention Public Outreach Campaign
Project Description Develop messaging, media planning and buying
Client Fresno County Department of Public Health
Role Creative concepting, campaign messaging and tag line
development
Project Name Healthy Fresno County Brand
Project Description Develop an umbrella brand for Fresno County. Initiative led
by Public Health.
Client Fresno County Department of Public Health and FCHIP
Role Tag line development and website content
Exhibit B
Page 101 of 221
Bryan Pickens - ART DIRECTOR
More than 20 years’ experience
Creative Direction
Graphic Design
Advertising Development
Custom Illustration
Campaign Concepting
Education
Bachelor of Fine Arts in Graphic Design and a minor in Fine Arts from California State
University, Chico
Studied Art at the Los Angeles Academy of Figurative Art
Awards & Honors
2016 Fresno Advertising Federation Best of Show, Advertising Industry Self-Promotion
Online/Interactive, JP Marketing website
2016 Gold ADDY, Logo Design, Nutcher Milk Company logo
2016 Gold ADDY, Packaging Single Unit, Nutcher Milk packaging
2016 Silver ADDY, B-to-B Website, FocusVision website
2015 Gold ADDY, Elements of Advertising, Logo, GO by BIKE logo, SANDAG
2015 Gold ADDY, Sales Promotion, Kit, CORE Business Interiors
2014 Fresno Advertising Federation Creative Talent of the Year Award
2014 Fresno Advertising Federation Best of Show 2014, Advertising Industry Self-
Promotion, Bizzy the Bee Children's Book
2014 Silver Telly Award, "Art of Caring" Kaweah Delta Hospital
ADDY Gold Winner in the following: Magazine Design, Editorial Spread, Cover Design,
Book Design, Stationary Package, Logo Design, Poster Design, Illustration,
Website/Consumer HTML, Self Promotion, Direct Self Promotion, Invitation
2006 Digital Art Show: Artronica 2006
1998 Designer of the Year, Orion Newspaper, California State University, Chico
Project Examples
Project Name Go By Bike Campaign
Project Description Develop messaging and branding campaign
Client SANDAG
Role Creative concepting, brand development
Project Name Suicide Prevention Awareness Campaign
Project Description Develop messaging and creative elements, media planning
and buying, community event sponsorship research and
execution
Client Fresno County Department of Behavioral Health
Role Creative concepting, campaign design and imagery
Exhibit B
Page 102 of 221
Project Name Flu Vaccination Public Outreach Campaign
Project Description Develop messaging, media planning and buying
Client Fresno County Department of Public Health
Role Creative concepting, campaign design and imagery
Exhibit B
Page 103 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 B-1
Appendix B
Letters of Recommendation
Exhibit B
Page 104 of 221
Exhibit B
Page 105 of 221
Exhibit B
Page 106 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 C-1
Appendix C
Legal Disclosure
Exhibit B
Page 108 of 221
October 30, 2019
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: County of Fresno, CA
FROM: Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
SUBJECT: RFP No: 20-018 Solid Waste Planning Consulting Services
SCS has been in business for 49 years. We have offices throughout the United States and other parts
of the World. SCS stands behind its work. Occasionally, an organization with our scope and size
has been involved in litigation. None of the matters has been or are material to our operations or
limit in any way our ability to perform the work proposed.
1. Lawsuit Name ISM Industries, Inc. v. Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting
Engineers, Inc. dba SCS Energy, Mitchell Energy Services, LLC
and Kilgore Industrial Civil, LLC
Case Number A180382-C
Date of Lawsuit October 1, 2018
County/State Files District Court of 128th Judicial District, Orange County, TX
Parties Involved: ISM Industries, Inc., SCS Energy, Mitchell Energy Services, LLC
and Kilgore Industrial Civil, LLC
Claim: Breach of Contract
Status: Pending
2. Lawsuit Name Kelvin Wright v. Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
Case Number NC061666
Date of Lawsuit March 2, 2018
County/State Files Superior Court County of Long Beach, CA
Parties Involved: Kelvin Wright, Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
Claim: Wrongful termination, discrimination
Status: Settled March 2018
3. Lawsuit Name Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba SCS
Engineers v. Rockview Dairies, Inc.
Case Number VC066932
Date of Lawsuit February 16, 2018
County/State Files Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles
Parties Involved: SCS Engineers, Rockview Dairies, Inc.
Claim: Collection Action; counterclaim by defendant
Exhibit B
Page 109 of 221
Status: Pending
4. Lawsuit Name Yvette Styles et al v. City of Miami, SCS Engineers
Case Number 2017-022967-CA-01
Date of Lawsuit September 27, 2017
County/State Files In the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami Dade County, FL
Parties Involved: Yvette Styles, City of Miami, SCS Engineers
Claim: Suit against the City for health effects of an incinerator closed in
1970, (before SCS was started), and against SCS for unspecified
negligence as a result of services provided to the City decades later.
Status: Pending
5. Lawsuit Name Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba SCS
Engineers and SCS Field Services v. Twin Valley, Inc.; Steve
Havens
Case Number 17CV305865
Date of Lawsuit February 1, 2017
County/State Files Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa
Clara
Parties Involved: SCS Engineers, Twin Valley, Inc., Steve Haven
Claim: Collection Action
Status: Settled June 2019
6. Lawsuit Name Zigler, Inc., Ward Zigler, and Patricia Zigler v. Southern States
Cooperative, Inc., Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting
Engineers, Inc. dba SCS Engineers, Antietam Claim Service, LLC
and Roger Greenfield
Case Number 16-C-247
Date of Lawsuit January 12, 2017
County/State Files In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, WV
Parties Involved: Zigler, Inc. Ward Zigler, Patricia Zigler, Southern States
Cooperative, Inc. and SCS Engineers
Claim: Damage to property due to exposure to odors and ozone
Status: Settled August 2018
7. 2
.
Lawsuit Name Daniel Hogan v. County of Humboldt; County of Humboldt
Waste Management Authority; Winzler & Kelly; Griffin
Dewatering Corporation; SCS Field Services
Case Number DR 160325
Date of Lawsuit June 24, 2016
County/State Files Superior Court of State of California in and for the County of
Humboldt
Exhibit B
Page 110 of 221
Parties Involved: Daniel Hogan, County of Humboldt; County of Humboldt Waste
Management Authority; Winzler & Kelly; Griffin Dewatering
Corporation; SCS Field Services
Claim: Personal injury claim by an individual who fell in a hole on
client’s site.
Status: Settled September 2019
8. Lawsuit Name: Androscoggin Valley Regional Refuse Disposal District v. R. H.
White Construction Co., Third-Party v. Sanborn, Head &
Associates, CDR Maguire Inc., Electrical Installations, Inc., EII,
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., PSB Industries, Inc., Unison Solutions, Inc.,
CMA Engineers, Inc., Atlas Copco North America, LLC as
successor to Houston Service Industries, Inc. and SCS Engineers
Case Number: 115CV00434
Date of Lawsuit: November 6, 2015
County/State Filed: U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
Parties Involved: Androscoggin Valley Regional Refuse Disposal District, R. H.
White Construction Co., Sanborn, Head & Associates, CDR
Maguire Inc., Electrical Installations, Inc., EII, Fuss & O’Neill,
Inc., PSB Industries, Inc., Unison Solutions, Inc., CMA
Engineers, Inc., Atlas Copco North America, LLC as successor to
Houston Service Industries, Inc. and SCS Engineers
Claim: Breach of Contract claim by AVRRDD and counterclaim by
defendant against AVRRDD and all engineers involved in project.
Status: Settled February 2018
9. Lawsuit Name: Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. v.
Cream’s Dismantling, Inc.
Case Number: 257198
Date of Lawsuit: May 21, 2015
County/State Filed: Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sonoma
Parties Involved: SCS Engineers; Cream’s Dismantling, Inc.
Claim: Collection Action
Status: Settlement agreement and confession of judgement with payment
to SCS
10. Lawsuit Name: Kenosha Newco Capital, LLC v. ABC Insurance Company, et al.
and AMCON Design and Construction Co., LLC v. Uptown Brass
Development, BT2, Inc. et al.
Case Number: 14 CV 1276
Date of Lawsuit: February 2015
County/State Filed: Kenosha, Wisconsin
Parties Involved: Kenosha Newco Capital, LLC, ABC Insurance Company, The
Kubala Waschatko Architects, Inc., GHI Insurance Company,
Exhibit B
Page 111 of 221
AMCON Design and Construction Co., LLC, Uptown Brass
Development, LLC, Robert Niebauer, Lawrence Kilduff, Thomas
R. O’Brien, Conrad Accola, BT2, Inc., Vulcan Roofing & Siding,
Precision Plastering, Inc., Masonry Specialists II, LLC, Contract
Glass & Partitions, Inc., A.W. Oakes & Son, Inc., Northern
Landscape Construction, Swederski Concrete Construction, Inc.
Claim: Buyer of property at forecl osure sued contractor and numerous
other parties for claims related to design and construction.
Contractor filed 3rd party claim against BT2 (acquired by SCS)
and others for contribution.
Status: Settled October 2016
11. Lawsuit Name: Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc. vs.
Theodore L. Vallas
Case Number: 37-2015-00002972-CU-BC-CTL
Date of Lawsuit: January 26, 2015
County/State Filed: California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, North
County District
Parties Involved: SCS Engineers; Theodore L. Vallas
Claim: Collection Action
Status: Settlement September 2015 with payment to SCS
12. Lawsuit Name: Daniel L. Schriner, etc., et al vs. Presto Oil, Inc., et al. including
Stearns Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Case Number: 2014-CV-269
Date of Lawsuit: November 10, 2014
County/State Filed: State of Kansas, District Court of Douglas County
Parties Involved: Presto Oil, Inc.; Presto Convenience Stores, LLC; Presto
Convenience Store #25, LLC; Terry Presta; Panty, Inc.; Larsen &
Associates; SCS Aquaterra; Dan Schriner; Sally Hare-Schriner
Claim: Trespass, nuisance and negligence
Status: Dismissed without Prejudice February 2015
13. Lawsuit Name: The Crossing Condominium Unit Association, Inc. vs Apple Tree
– Fitchburg, LLC and Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
Case Number: 14CV1901
Date of Lawsuit: July 3, 2014
County/State Filed: State of Wisconsin, Circuit Court, Dane County
Parties Involved: The Crossing Condominium Unit Association, Inc., Apple Tree –
Fitchburg, LLC and Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
Claim: Claims related to storm water issues.
Status: Settled October 2015
Exhibit B
Page 112 of 221
14. Lawsuit Name: Colleen Martinez vs Jennifer Anne Rovezzi; Stearns, Conrad and
Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Case Number: D-1116-CV-2014-00315
Date of Lawsuit: June 27, 2014
County/State Filed: District Court: Eleventh Judicial District, San Juan County, New
Mexico
Parties Involved” Colleen Martinez, Jennifer Ann Rovezzi, Stearns, Conrad and
Schmidt, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Claim: Claim related to automobile accident
Status: Settled
15. Lawsuit Name: Berdysz v. Boyas Excavating, Inc., et. al.; Baczkowski v. Boyas
Excavating, Inc., et. al.
Case Number: CV 14 826410; CV 09 712005
Date of Lawsuit: May 6, 2014
County/State Filed: In the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Project Name: City View Center
Project Location: Garfield Heights, Ohio
Claim: Nuisance claim by property owners against the developers of an
adjacent shopping center developed on a landfill, and developer’s
technical consultants.
Status: Settled May 2016
16. Lawsuit Name: BioFuels Point Loma, LLC v. SCS Energy; Safeco Insurance
Company
Case Number: 37-2014-00013708-CU-BC-CTL
Date of Lawsuit: April 30, 2014
County/State Filed: Superior Court of California, San Diego County
Project Name: Point Loma BUDG Facility
Project Location: San Diego, California
Claim: Claim against SCS Energy for negligence in connection with its
design, construction, maintenance and operation of bio-gas treatment
facility that was damaged by fire.
Status: Settled September 2015
17. Lawsuit Name: Amin Ahrari v. David Evans, SCS Field Services
Case Number: RG14715536
Date of Lawsuit: March 19, 2014
County/State Filed: Superior Court of California, Unlimited Jurisdiction, County of
Alameda
Parties Involved” Amin Ahrari, David Evans, SCS Field Services
Claim: Claim related to automobile accident
Status: December 2015 Dismissed with Prejudice
Exhibit B
Page 113 of 221
18. Lawsuit Name: William Kilpatrick v. Lee County Landfill, Republic; SCS
Engineers, et al
Case Number: 2013-CP 31 346
Date of Lawsuit: December 2013
County/State Filed: Lee County, South Carolina
Project Name: Lee County Landfill
Project Location: Lee County, South Carolina
Claim: Personal injury claim by employees of contractor working on site
where SCS was providing services.
Status: Settled August 2015
19. Lawsuit Name: Jeremy Rogers v. Lee County Landfill, Republic; SCS Engineers,
et al
Case Number: 2013-CP 31 346
Date of Lawsuit: December 2013
County/State Filed: Lee County, South Carolina
Project Name: Lee County Landfill
Project Location: Lee County, South Carolina
Claim: Personal injury claim by employees of contractor working on site
where SCS was providing services.
Status: Settled August 2015
20. Lawsuit Name: Onebeacon Ins. Co. v. Vilter Mfg. LLC, SCS Energy, et. al.
Case Number: 37-2013-00043303-CU-PL-CTL
Date of Lawsuit: April 9, 2013
County/State Filed: Superior Court of California, San Diego County
Project Name: Point Loma BUDG Facility
Project Location: San Diego, California
Claim: Claim against equipment manufacturer for products liability and
negligence, and against SCS Energy for negligence in connection
with its design, construction, maintenance and operation of bio-gas
treatment facility that was damaged by fire.
Status: Settled September 2015
Exhibit B
Page 114 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 D-1
Appendix D
Outreach Sample Work
Exhibit B
Page 115 of 221
TV Storyboard
Exhibit B
Page 116 of 221
Exhibit B
Page 117 of 221
Billing Insert
Exhibit B
Page 118 of 221
2. Fresno City also needed our help with a Public Information Program for the
Wastewater Management Division.
The Wastewater Management Division of the Department of Public Utilities provides
sanitary sewer collection system maintenance services for the City of Fresno.
Additionally, it provides treatment, reclamation and recycled water services to Fresno,
Clovis and unincorporated areas of Fresno County. The public information program
educates the community about keeping sewer lines clean by salinity education; proper
disposal of waste including fats, oils and grease; wastewater treatment and reclamation;
recycled water; by-products reuse; environmental protection, and additional focus on
the following education opportunities for residents:
Developing community recognition of the valuable service provided
Recycled water benefits and encouraging the use of recycled water where
available
Environmental regulations and legislations affecting the wastewater collection
system and treatment process and their effect on the economic vitality of the
region
Pollution prevention and best management practice components that can help in
the maintenance of clean sewer lines, treatment and reuse of wastewater, and
protection of the environment
Maintenance and asset rehabilitation and replacement for the treatment facility
and collection system
The City of Fresno’s Wastewater Management Division is one of the most highly
regarded programs in the state, if not the nation. Yet the general public understands
little regarding how important and well-managed Fresno’s wastewater is. JP’s role with
the Wastewater Division has been to educate residents about the “hows” and “whys” of
what happens when their used water goes down the drain.
November Statement Insert
Exhibit B
Page 119 of 221
September Statement Insert
Social Media Images
3. Finally, JP developed a monthly utility bill insert to be sent to customers once a
month.
For this objective, JP designs and prints a utility bill insert to be mailed to a third-party
mail house for insertion into the monthly municipal utility bill. The insert highlights the
importance of reliable and cost-effective utility service, while allowing each of the
operating divisions to present timely public information regarding their specific programs
and announcements.
Exhibit B
Page 120 of 221
Exhibit B
Page 121 of 221
Proposal for Solid Waste Planning www.scsengineers.com
Consulting Services - Number: 20-018 E-1
Appendix E
Sample Reports
Exhibit B
Page 122 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance
Fiscal Year 2017/18
FINAL Report
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority
(DBA RecycleSmart)
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925-906-1801
7041 Koll Center Pkwy, Suite 135
Pleasanton, CA 94566
925-426-0279
01217225.00 | June 29, 2018
Exhibit B
Page 123 of 221
Section Page
RecycleSmart Walnut Creek
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page i www.scsengineers.com
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2 Business Recycling Assistance Methodology ................................................................................... 1
Target List ................................................................................................................................. 1
Field Work Preparation............................................................................................................. 3
Site Visit Protocol ...................................................................................................................... 4
Monthly Updates....................................................................................................................... 6
3 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 6
4 Weights ............................................................................................................................................... 8
5 Case Studies ....................................................................................................................................... 9
6 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................................. 11
7 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1. Business Targets for each Member Agency ........................................................................... 2
Table 2. Number of Businesses Visited by Member Agency ................................................................ 6
Table 3. New Recycling and Organics Diversion ................................................................................... 7
Table 4. Compliance with MCR and AB 1826 ....................................................................................... 7
Table 5. Results from Weights Received by Truck Scale ..................................................................... 9
Appendices
A. Business Weight Data
Exhibit B
Page 124 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 1 www.scsengineers.com
1 INTRODUCTION
The Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (RecycleSmart) contracted with SCS Engineers (SCS)
to provide commercial recycling and organics assistance to all cities within the RecycleSmart area.
The RecycleSmart service area, also known as the Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) includes Unincorporated Contra Costa County,
and the cities of Danville, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga and Walnut
Creek). The primary objectives of the project were to increase
recycling and organics participation, reduce waste volumes, and
increase levels of non-contaminated diversion volumes
throughout each service area, while maintaining equity among
the member agencies.
SCS was committed to executing proven outreach techniques,
reinforcing key messaging, working diligently to remove barriers
and obstacles to participation, and carefully managing data, schedules, and reporting. During the
2017/18 fiscal year, the SCS team visited 843 businesses, trained 454 businesses, and added 6.32
cubic yards (cy) of new weekly recycling diversion, 24.92 cy of new weekly organics diversion, and
reduced trash service by 17.07 cy a week.
This project supplemented efforts performed by Republic Services (Republic) and RecycleSmart staff
by providing additional recycling and organics diversion assistance to businesses. The process
undertaken by SCS and the results from this assistance are documented in this report, including
highlights of successes and challenges, analysis of the data from the follow-up audits and weight
records, and recommendations for next year.
2 BUSINESS RECYCLING ASSISTANCE METHODOLOGY
The business recycling assistance was performed by experienced recycling specialists. The process
included establishing a target list of businesses, preparing for the field work, performing the site visit,
and documenting the results of the site visit. The following sections describe the steps undertaken to
perform the business recycling assistance.
Target List
Using customer data provided by RecycleSmart and Republic, SCS created a target list of high priority
businesses from the 2,093 businesses 1 in the authority service area. The businesses were organized
according to the priorities identified by RecycleSmart, which include businesses that:
•Have not been visited;
•Need additional training or assistance;
•Do not currently subscribe to recycling or organics services with Republic;
1 Number of businesses provided in the 2017 Request for Proposals document, and used for deciding the number of businesses to visit
in each service area. Republic reported the number of businesses within the service area on a monthly basis, which fluctuated over the
course of the project.
Exhibit B
Page 125 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 2 www.scsengineers.com
•Have been identified as needing greater capacity for recycling or organics service than the
bin provides;
•Have recycling in trash or major overflow problems;
•Have large volumes of contamination in recycling or organics; or
•Have large volumes of weekly collection capacity.
The target list was developed considering the need to provide equal coverage and similar levels of
outreach and assistance among the RecycleSmart cities. The number of businesses within each city,
the number of businesses in each city as a percentage of the total number of businesses in the
RecycleSmart service area, and the number of businesses that were targeted in each city during the
2017/18 project are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Business Targets for each Member Agency
Member Agency:
Number of
Businesses within
Agency
% of RecycleSmart
Service Area
Number of Businesses
on Target List
County 96 7% 56
Danville 398 17% 136
Lafayette 320 15% 120
Orinda 129 7% 56
Moraga 126 7% 56
Walnut Creek 1,024 47% 376
Total 22,0093 1100% 800
As part of the development of the new target list, SCS added businesses in the Unincorporated,
Danville, Lafayette, Orinda and Moraga areas that are new Republic accounts and have not received
technical assistance. Additional assistance was provided to businesses that were visited in the
2016/17 project if requested by Republic or RecycleSmart, or fell within the criteria mentioned above.
Republic is required to visit all 2,093 businesses each year, and SCS provided recycling technical
assistance to 1,200 businesses in 2016/17 and 2017/18. Given that most of these accounts were
visited during the past year (exclusive of new businesses), we gave priority to businesses that have
not yet been visited, required additional assistance, or had high diversion potential.
SCS reviewed the target list in conjunction with the Walnut Creek Commercial Recycling Assistance
Project to confirm the businesses were not visited under either project. The following was performed
when finalizing the business target list:
•Businesses within the City of Walnut Creek all needed to be visited according to the
number of targets required for both the JPA and Walnut Creek Commercial Recycling
Assistance projects. When deciding on how best to split the Walnut Creek businesses, SCS
divided them according to geographic area, and assigned an equal number of strip malls
and large businesses to each project.
•Businesses that generated a high percentage of food waste were added.
Exhibit B
Page 126 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 3 www.scsengineers.com
•Schools, City can service, municipality services, and multi-family dwellings were removed
from the list.
•Businesses receiving recycling assistance from Republic staff within the first three months
of the Fall were highlighted and visited in the Spring. Throughout the project, Republic
provided their target lists to SCS staff, who updated the spreadsheet and visited
businesses a few months before or after depending on the appropriate timing to maximize
and support Republic technical assistance.
•In order to be most effective and resourceful, careful management of the targets for all
projects (Recycling Assistance JPA and Walnut Creek projects) was necessary. Throughout
the project, all team members conferred with each other and the Google Docs to provide
updates, reduce any overlap, and avoid multiple staff visiting the same business.
Field Work Preparation
Prior to a site visit, business account lists were distributed in large groups to staff, based on local
postal codes. Geo-mapping tools, such as BatchGeo.com, were also used to transform account data
into a visual map so staff could efficiently schedule and route their work.
In order to prepare for the site visits, SCS confirmed with RecycleSmart which outreach materials were
to be distributed, and which containers could be provided. This included preparation of a letter
explaining the purpose of the site visits, and development of a custom form for SCS team members to
use to collect data when out in the field.
SCS worked with RecycleSmart to understand what information was necessary to capture while out in
the field, and placed this information in a spreadsheet for tracking all activities. This spreadsheet was
uploaded to Google Docs, and available for viewing by Republic and RecycleSmart staff. The Google
Docs allowed outreach staff to access notes on any account from their phone or tablet while out in the
field. This also allowed staff to work together in the same document at the same time. Prior to going
out into the field, the business service level and contact information was placed in the spreadsheet.
The spreadsheet was set up in order for the field staff to collect the following information when visiting
businesses:
•Date and type of contact made for each business.
•Date of site visit.
•Number of businesses in complex sharing containers.
•Date SCS staff sent the recommendations form to Republic.
•Confirmation that Republic delivered bins or made changes.
•Confirmation that slim jims and deskside bins were issued.
•Date of training, if received.
•Date of door-to-door outreach, if received.
•Date of follow up visit.
Exhibit B
Page 127 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 4 www.scsengineers.com
•Addition of recycling or organics service, by weekly volume increase.
•Reduction in trash service, by weekly volume decrease.
•Compliance with the RecycleSmart Mandatory Commercial Recycling ordinance (MCR) and
AB 341 (i.e. do they currently recycle, note if the business does not want to recycle and
why).
•Compliance with AB 1826 (i.e. what threshold they fall under: four or eight cubic yards of
organics material a week, four cubic yards of trash).
•Potential code violations.
•Whether business was transferred to Republic or RecycleSmart for additional assistance.
The SCS Central Desktop was developed for use by all project staff for storage of photos,
recommendation reports, and all outreach material. This cloud based system allowed the project team,
including RecycleSmart and Republic staff, to upload or download information. This enabled sharing
of documents whenever needed. The Google Doc spreadsheet was used in tandem to collect data
and provide a summary of site visit activities.
Additionally, Republic paid for a database to be developed by The Recyclist for use in tracking technical
assistance activities. In March 2018, Republic provided SCS staff capabilities to view service levels
and comments for each account. This assisted the SCS team to update service levels and to confirm
when Republic staff visited or planned to visit businesses, so there was no overlap.
Site Visit Protocol
SCS staff visited targeted businesses (without an appointment) to conduct a site visit with the business
owner, manager, or decision-maker responsible for property management matters. For those
businesses willing to cooperate with our request, SCS performed a waste assessment and discussed
potential service changes, program implementation, and the necessary steps to a successful and
lasting recycling program with the decision maker. If the waste assessment could not be accomplished
during the impromptu visit, SCS scheduled an appointment to return to perform the site visit. A
telephone call was sometimes necessary to achieve this, depending on the location of the decision-
maker. If an appointment was scheduled, SCS staff sent an email to the business confirming the
appointment and providing explanatory information.
Site Visit Activities
The following activities were included in the Site Visit:
•Performed a visual characterization of each container on-site in order to learn what material
could be recycled and what purchasing decisions the business might consider to make their
purchases more sustainable and/or recyclable.
o Visited business the day before waste service.
o Verified trash and recycling container sizes and the fill levels of each.
Exhibit B
Page 128 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 5 www.scsengineers.com
o Observed the contents of each commercial waste bin and estimated the composition
by volume of each material type, and estimated the additional recycling potential
from waste,
o Observed the contents of each commercial recycling bin and estimated the fill level
of each, noted the percentage of contamination, and evaluated if right-sizing of
container(s) was needed.
o Documented third party vendor information, including service provider name,
container size, and type of materials collected.
o Noted the presence of scavengers, if seen, including the types and quantities of
materials being scavenged and the types of vehicles being used.
o Identified additional customer service needs and other special features that were a
priority.
o Noted large volumes of material that could be recycled or reused. For example, in
association with Resource Area for Teachers (RAFT).
•Performed a waste assessment, which consisted of a walkthrough with the manager or owner of
the front-of-house (FOH) waste collection, back-of-house (BOH) waste collection, and outside
garbage and recycling bins. During the walk-through, data was gathered regarding baseline
waste types and quantities, and material collection infrastructure.
•Identified opportunities for the business to effectively participate in the recycling program, as
well as discussed any infrastructure and education needs. This included identifying what interior
bins were needed to be purchased or supplied by Republic, and the location(s) for these bins.
This discussion included sharing our recommendations for a customized waste prevention and
recycling collection process, realistic diversion goal estimates, realistic cost savings, and the free
multi-lingual support available: training sessions, signage and collateral, referrals, and other
support activities.
•Discussed program details, rate incentives, proposed service changes, the implementation
process, and any concerns the business may have in participating in the program.
•Formalized the proposed service changes for approval by the business and confirmed the
proposed service changes with Republic (i.e. container placement and enclosure access).
•Notified the business and Republic, via email, of the schedule and next steps for implementing
service changes.
If a business was found to be diverting recyclables on their own (i.e. self-haul or 3rd party vendor), this
was documented, a Self-Haul Reporting Form was provided, and details were reported to
RecycleSmart.
Recommendation reports were completed if there was a change to the businesses recycling, organics
or trash service, and saved, along with any photos, in a folder on the SCS Central Desktop. All details,
regardless of whether a recommendation report was filled out, were saved on the spreadsheet in
Google Docs.
Most targeted business that began recycling or organics services during the project received a follow-
up visit one month after their recycling service was implemented. The purpose of the follow-up visit
Exhibit B
Page 129 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 6 www.scsengineers.com
was to confirm delivery and use of recycling containers, assess if any additional outreach or training
was needed, and speak with the business’s decision maker(s) to see how the overall recycling program
is working for them. Any red flags or immediate needs were discussed with RecycleSmart and Republic
to define next steps.
Monthly Updates
SCS provided monthly updates to RecycleSmart staff to inform of progress made on the number of
businesses visited, the number of businesses that did not comply with MCR and AB 1826, the number
of changes to recycling services, and the volume of increased recycling diversion and decreased
landfill numbers. All updates were provided in a summary spreadsheet distributed with the monthly
invoice. In the last few months of the project, weekly phone updates along with a general overview of
target numbers were discussed, which provided RecycleSmart with up to date information on the
status of the project.
3 RESULTS
SCS captured specific information during the site visits, and regularly placed the information on the
Google Docs spreadsheet in order to provide a live feed for updates. This spreadsheet includes the
full target list for each member agency, a worksheet that highlights those businesses where recycling
assistance has been completed, or are still in process and awaiting the final follow up, and a summary
page with results. The overall summary of results of the 2017/18 JPA Commercial Recycling
Assistance Project are included in this section.
The project goal was to visit 800 businesses between September 2017 and June 2018. The site visits
began in September 2017, and it was estimated that 88 businesses would be visited each month
(September 2017 to May 2018). There was a consistent flow of visiting businesses, with the bulk of
the businesses visited from September to January. SCS staff completed visiting businesses at the end
of May 2018, to provide time to finalize data and write the report.
Overall, SCS was able to perform site visits to 843 businesses during the time period, which was an
additional 43 businesses above the agreed upon target. The result was an increase in the number of
businesses visited than was required. In Table 2, the number of businesses that were anticipated to
receive visits are compared to the number of businesses that were visited.
Table 2. Number of Businesses Visited by Member Agency
City:
Number of
Businesses Targeted
for Visits
Actual Number of
Businesses Visited Difference
County 56 59 +3
Danville 136 136 0
Lafayette 120 127 +7
Orinda 56 65 +9
Moraga 56 56 0
Walnut Creek 376 400 +24
Total 800 88433 ++443
Exhibit B
Page 130 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 7 www.scsengineers.com
Additionally there were 53 businesses that received a follow up visit and 454 businesses that received
recycling or organics training. Table 3 shows the number of businesses that implemented recycling
and organics services, along with the weekly cubic yard increase, and reduction in trash volume. The
amount of increased recycling and organics diversion is low in comparison to the 2016/17
RecycleSmart JPA project. There are three reasons for this. First, Republic staff visited every business
in the authority, every year for the past three years, with RecycleSmart and SCS staff visiting half of
the same businesses. Due to the extensive efforts provided to the businesses for recycling and
organics technical assistance and the good job implementing recycling, a majority of the businesses
subscribe to recycling and/or organics services with Republic. Also, with Republic staff visiting every
business, many of the sites that SCS visited was after Republic, who may have already changed service
levels. This would mean that the visit that SCS staff performed, was to provide additional follow up
services, however may not have required changes to service levels or increasing recycling and organics
diversion. Lastly, although the numbers appear light in the report, it should be noted that Republic
may have increased business recycling or organics service levels, however it is not documented in this
report. The same is true if a business uses a 3rd party recycler or self-hauls material to a processor for
recycling or composting, those diversion numbers are also not included.
Although, businesses received recycling technical assistance from RecycleSmart, Republic and SCS
staff over the past three years, there is a lot of improvement that still needs to be made with
businesses. Working with the businesses to get them to use the recycling and organics services is
critical to increasing diversion. Not all businesses are using the recycling and organics services
correctly, and with further assistance, focus can be made on getting businesses to recycle more and
recycle right. This includes decreasing contamination, getting businesses to recycle the proper
material, and improving the ability to get recycling and organics out of the trash and into the correct
bin. Recommendations are made in Section 7 to discuss options on how to continually improve
diversion numbers.
Table 3. New Recycling and Organics Diversion
Number of
Businesses that
Implemented
Recycling
New Weekly
Recycling
Diversion
Number of
Businesses that
Implemented
Organics
New Weekly
Organics
Diversion
Reduction in
Trash Volume
33 6.32 cy 24 24.92 cy 17.07 cy
As part of the information collected, SCS documented if the business was in compliance with
RecycleSmart’s Mandatory Commercial Recycling ordinance (MCR) and Assembly Bill 1826
(mandatory organics). Table 4 shows the total number of businesses that comply or do not comply
with the mandatory regulations.
Table 4. Compliance with MCR and AB 1826
MCR Compliant Not MCR Compliant AB 1826
Compliant
AB 1826 Not
Compliant
826 17 351 149
As indicated in Table 4, there are 826 businesses that are MCR compliant and 17 businesses that are
not compliant. There are 351 businesses that are compliant with AB 1826, and 149 businesses that
did not have organics services. There are 843 businesses total, with 500 that have been marked as
Exhibit B
Page 131 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 8 www.scsengineers.com
one of the two categories listed above. The remaining 343 businesses did not generate organic
material, were no longer in business, or did not have 4 cubic yards of weekly trash, and fall outside of
the current AB 1826 requirement for businesses.
SCS completed recycling assistance for 750 businesses. There are 93 businesses remaining that still
need some type of assistance such as delivery of containers, training, or follow up. This work should
be continued during the 2018/19 JPA Recycling Assistance project.
4 WEIGHTS
RecycleSmart wanted to find a different metric for measuring efforts on recycling and organics
diversion that could be presented in a manner that made it easy to report information to their Board
of Directors. In support of this effort, Republic placed scales on their commercial front load recycling
trucks, and began collecting weights from recycling front load bins when servicing the containers.
RecycleSmart requested that SCS review and analyze these weights to understand if the weights can
provide details on the success of the recycling program.
At the beginning of the project, SCS was to select 140 commercial businesses (between the JPA and
Walnut Creek projects) that appeared to be good targets for this information. However, after reviewing
the September, October and November weight data, it was obvious that not every business selected,
received weights each month. This was due to the scale not capturing weights for bins, driver error, or
the commercial recycling truck was in the shop for maintenance and a separate truck without a scale
was used.
After review of the September, October and November weights, SCS looked at which containers were
weighed consistently over those three months, and tracked those 271 businesses from September
2017 to May 2018. The baseline weight data began in September 2017 with 271 business’ containers
receiving weights that month, and concluded in May 2018 with SCS selecting 186 businesses because
they were visited under the RecycleSmart JPA project, with the other 55 businesses under the
RecycleSmart Walnut Creek project.
The methodology for measuring weights included averaging the weights for the business over the
number of service days the business received a weight from the truck scale. These averages were
used to compile Table 5. The numbers in Figure 1 below included combining all of the average weights
for each business, by each member agency service area, in order to understand the total average
volumes of recycling that was weighed.
Table 5 shows 186 businesses received weights each month, of which 126 businesses received
weights and technical assistance, with 62 businesses increasing their recycling weights after receiving
technical assistance. The average percentage of businesses that improved their recycling weights after
technical assistance was 51%, which ranged from 30% of the businesses in Lafayette to 82% of the
businesses in Danville increasing recycling weights.
Exhibit B
Page 132 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 9 www.scsengineers.com
Table 5. Results from Weights Received by Truck Scale
Area
Number of
BBusinesses
Tracked
from
September
22017 to
May 2018
Number of
BBusinesses
Receiving
TA and
Weights
Number of
BBusinesses
with
Increased
RRecycling
Weights
After
Receiving
TTA
Number of
Businesses
TThat Did Not
See an
Increase in
Weights
After
Receiving
TTA
Number of
BBusinesses
That Did Not
Receive
Weights
Percent of
BBusinesses
that
Improved
wwith TA
County 10 4 2 1 1 50%
Danville 23 17 14 3 0 82%
Lafayette 33 23 7 16 0 30%
Moraga 20 9 4 4 1 44%
Orinda 19 12 6 4 2 50%
Walnut
CCreek JPA 81 61 29 20 12 48%
Total 186 126 62 48 16 51%
For details on businesses weighed, refer to AAppendix A.
5 CASE STUDIES
There were three businesses that stood out to SCS staff as exemplary models for “can do” attitude
and working diligently to improve their recycling and organics programs. They are First Republic Bank,
Moraga UPS, and Nissan of Walnut Creek, all of which are highlighted below.
Caffino
Caffino, located at 3483 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Lafayette, has
done an excellent job recycling. SCS staff visited this
business in September 2017 and spoke with the on-duty
manager and the barista. There were designated interior
receptacles for bottles/cans and clean paper. SCS staff
provided training and educational material to further clarify
items that can be recycled. Even though this business does
not subscribe to organics collection service due to its small
size and modest generation of compostables, employees
return spent coffee grounds to their original foil pouches to
donate to customers for garden use!
First Republic Bank
First Republic Bank, located at 1400 Civic Drive in Walnut Creek, had a 2 cy trash bin that was serviced
five times per week. This site was selected for right-sizing service, based on previous experience with
similarly-sized banks that have less than half of this capacity. During the site visit, SCS staff was given
Exhibit B
Page 133 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 10 www.scsengineers.com
the contact information for the bank representative, and our email was forwarded to the Regional
Manager who had assisted in rolling out organics collection with their San Francisco branch offices.
This allowed for an informed conversation with the Regional Manager regarding the 2019 AB 1826
requirement for businesses with 4 cubic yards or more of weekly trash service. After review of the
business’ services, it was recommended to right-size their trash and roll out organics services. The
bank was thrilled to learn they could save money with the change in services. With our assistance, it
was decided to reduce trash collection service from 5 to 3 days per week, increase recycling capacity
from one to 3 times per week, and introduce (2) 64 gallon organics carts for the food and food-service
items from their break rooms, to be serviced once per week. Two trainings were scheduled for staff,
and one for their janitorial team, which took place all on the same day (the janitorial training was led
in Spanish). A follow up visit was performed, and it was noted there was a lot more diversion, and the
janitorial service and bank staff were on board with the new program. It is often difficult to work with
businesses that have a headquarters or a manager in a different location, however this business stood
out not only for their willingness to change services to comply with regulations, but also their ability to
quickly respond to the requests and changes..
Hakam Misson
Hakam Misson, located at 790 San Ramon Valley Road in Danville, has made great strides to increase
recycling and organic material collection. SCS staff worked with all businesses at this complex, each of
which had a separate Republic Services account. At this site, there were only two organics carts for the
four businesses in the complex, and the account for Hakam Misson did not have an organics cart even
though their trash was 50% full of yard waste. SCS staff met with management and presented them with
the pictures taken during the site visit, and provided recommendations for service level adjustments. The
business admitted they threw cardboard into the trash container when the recycling bin was full, and
were thankful for the free assistance so they could increase recycling capacity by one yard per week, as
well as introducing two organics carts for their yard waste. In addition to the introduction of organics
collection at Hakam Misson, an increase of organics collection at Baramoodi (one of the other tenants)
transpired, and a draft email that could be forwarded to all employees informing them to place food,
food-soiled paper and yardwaste in the new organics carts was provided.
Home for Jewish Parents
Home for Jewish Parents, located at 4000 Camino Tassajara, proved to be solidly committed to
waste reduction. This institution is a large scale housing facility for 180 senior citizens. The
Environmental Services Manager was very knowledgeable and extremely devoted to training his staff
on sorting their waste. The clean compost and recycling bins demonstrated the successful efforts
and dedication to sustainability.
Moraga UPS Store
Many small business managers care greatly about the environment and want to do the right thing, but
do not have time to research and follow through with tasks such as changing their trash and recycling
service. The Moraga UPS store located at 1480 Moraga Road is a good example of this fundamental
need of small businesses. The manager of the UPS store was already training staff on recycling and
doing a great job sorting waste, and was very proud that they would take customer waste like used
Styrofoam peanuts and bubble wrap and reuse them. However, there were still a lot of recyclables
going into the garbage cart because there was not enough service. The store manager was not aware
that recycling is offered at no additional charge, and that it was easy to change service. The
RecycleSmart technical assistance program helped make the process easy and effortless for her. For
those small businesses that want to do the right thing, the RecycleSmart program is key in initiating
change that could otherwise be overlooked.
Exhibit B
Page 134 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 11 www.scsengineers.com
6 LESSONS LEARNED
As with any project, there are lessons learned that can be changed or revised to improve the project
in following years. SCS has identified a number of lessons learned for consideration for the 2018/19
JPA Recycling Assistance project.
•Develop relationships with property management: Small office buildings with “No Solicitation”
signs are the most difficult to visit, because they are more likely to be leery of unannounced
visits and less responsive to directives not coming from their property management company.
For these locations, it may be more useful to forge deeper relationships with the property
management companies, and have information forwarded to the individual tenant businesses
on an annual basis.
•Train staff at Starbucks stores: A special effort in training Starbucks staff is recommended, as
most stores are not doing a good job sorting recyclables. This could be the result of Starbucks
using their own recycling and composting rules, which may not be consistent with collection
programs in the RecycleSmart service area. It would be recommended that someone from
RecycleSmart and/or Republic Services make contact with Starbucks corporate
representatives to explain that local rules may be different than what they had made universal
for all their locations, regionally and/or statewide.
•Distribute an anti-illegal dumping mailer: Illegal dumping continues to be a huge issue in the
RecycleSmart service area. In some locations, property management reported locked bins had
been pried open and/or illegal dumping continued on the side of locked bins or enclosures. It
is recommended that an anti-illegal dumping mailer and/or other outreach materials be
distributed to residents and businesses in the service area.
•Allocate more resources to national companies: Many national banks and retail businesses
indicated they are prevented from making any decisions (even if money was not involved)
without having corporate approval. Allocating more resources to follow-up with the corporate
offices of large national companies that have dozens of branches throughout Northern
California would benefit the RecycleSmart program.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
During the 2017/2018 project year, SCS exceeded the project goal of performing site visits at 800
businesses within the RecycleSmart service area. SCS field staff visited 843 businesses and
increased recycling services by 6 cubic yards and 25 cubic yards of organic material from landfill. While
we are satisfied with our performance to date, we do see the value in making some adjustments
moving forward with the 2018/19 JPA Recycling Assistance Project. Our recommendations are
outlined below:
•Continue to improve Google Docs: Review and simplify how Google Docs is used to aid
document storage and sharing. Continue to improve the document to simplify this process
and save time.
Exhibit B
Page 135 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance Page 12 www.scsengineers.com
•Use GIS to map businesses: Improve scheduling efficiencies through Geographic Information
System (GIS) mapping technology to develop target lists. Clustering site visits in tighter
geographical areas and illustrating the site visit addresses on a map will save time.
•Improve truck scales to receive weights consistently: Weight data was better than found in the
2016/17 JPA Recycling Assistance project, however improvements could be made by Republic
to their weight collection system so the containers receive weights on a more regular basis.
•Develop a system to separate efforts between field staff: Develop a better separation of labor
between Republic and SCS staff. Republic is contractually required to visit all commercial
businesses, and SCS visited 1,200 of those same businesses (half of the businesses in the
service area), which created overlap for recycling assistance. Utilizing the Recyclist database
helped SCS staff learn which Republic recycling coordinators visited or planned to visit
businesses, however the Republic staff was unclear of who SCS was visiting. It would be helpful
if Republic would allow SCS staff the ability to write comments in the Recyclist database so
there is transparency and good communication on the project.
•Identify businesses that are more complicated and require extra time to increase diversion
and decrease contamination. These businesses could include strip malls, large office
buildings, chain restaurants, and other businesses that have more complex services or
multiple stakeholders involved.
•Train janitorial staff at office buildings: Consider visiting office buildings with diversion
potential, and have not yet received janitorial training or “door-to-door” outreach efforts to
individual tenants.
•Target businesses requiring coordination through corporate headquarters: Businesses that
require coordination with corporate headquarters, such as Safeway, Office Depot, and Dollar
Stores, should also be targeted for additional and persistent follow up and assistance.
•Target businesses not compliant with AB 1826: Consider selecting businesses that are not
compliant with Phase 3 of AB 1826 (4 cubic yards or more of weekly trash) and those marked
as “failing” or “needs heavy assistance” in our tracking system.
•Republic to provide referrals to SCS for additional training: Consider requesting referrals from
Republic staff for SCS staff to visit businesses that Republic may not have time to spend to
train and work with the businesses staff or employees, to maximize diversion.
•Consider adding enforcement and potential fines for businesses not recycling: Many
businesses are not engaged in recycling and if an enforcement component for compliance is
added to the RecycleSmart service area, it is believed that businesses would take more time
to ensure they are recycling with limited contamination. If RecycleSmart had the ability to levy
surcharges or fees for contamination and non-compliance, this would add an additional level
of push for the business to make sure and get things right.
•Provide more interior recycling and organics bins: It would be helpful to have access to more
interior green and blue bins to provide to businesses. This helps the business be more
successful in recycling.
Exhibit B
Page 136 of 221
RecycleSmart JPA
Commercial Recycling Assistance A-1 www.scsengineers.com
APPENDIX A
Exhibit B
Page 137 of 221
RecycleSmart Project_Weight Records per Business TargetedSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun123456789101 CountyCENTURY MANAGEMENT COMPANY60191no 200 496 130 220 230 240 380 0 1,830 03 CountyALAMO MEDICAL GROUP279134YES 967 355 411 224 186 384 514 0 0 07 CountyURBAN WEST BUILDING178 No Data No Data 1,550 817 990 1,850 2,350 1,970 1,860 0 1,995 09 CountyBUSKIRK EXECUTIVE CENTER186150YES 530 397 1,500 1,360 2,240 1,640 1,120 0 910 012 DanvillePEEKADODDLE ACADEMY OF DANVILL7165YES 283 141 166 227 222 130 0 0 0 014 DanvilleDANVILLE BOWLING120120no 721 680 229 656 635 764 923 0 0 015 DanvilleVALLERO SERVICE CENTER15897YES 542 328 261 534 438 418 179 0 0 016 DanvilleMY PAINT STOP LLC222200YES 782 161 297 1,152 934 303 897 0 0 018 DanvilleOAK COURT PROPERTIES177133YES 642 695 310 157 83 268 233 0 0 021 DanvilleROESBERY CAR CARE-DV167138YES 454 322 365 194 460 413 347 0 0 022 DanvilleCHEZ NOEL397100YES 3,946 683 524 929 0 86 301 0 0 023 DanvilleRUSSELLO PROPERTIES LLC19695YES 1,958 327 526 432 300 81 387 0 0 024 DanvillePET FOOD EXPRESS193115YES 1,030 152 535 515 321 949 998 0 0 025 DanvilleBARRINGTON COURT BKD024341 R&T139128YES 768 624 605 507 443 588 366 0 0 026 DanvilleCHICO'S335144YES 2,011 2,279 1,402 720 394 1,051 1,357 0 0 027 DanvilleSANORRIS INVESTMENTS LLC379192YES 2,329 1,054 1,467 1,218 1,682 1,529 1,872 0 0 028 DanvilleU P S167196no 554 1,400 1,500 1,672 1,782 1,302 1,628 0 0 029 DanvilleHOSPICE OF CONTRA COSTA FOUNDA231226YES 2,155 1,710 1,874 143 767 1,372 1,241 0 0 030 DanvilleG N VENTURES208137YES 3,647 2,170 1,975 1,690 1,580 1,354 863 0 0 032 DanvilleDH INVESTORS LLC206208no 705 2,059 3,926 3,860 3,331 4,517 3,943 0 0 033 DanvilleDANVILLE LIVERY & MERCANTILE317288YES 3,809 5,554 6,174 8,849 6,563 8,633 7,655 0 0 036 LafayetteCOMPASS MARKETING3092no 60 360 156 193 227 255 214 0 518 037 LafayetteLESLIE'S POOL 0354 3YD REC113112YES 340 320 176 298 75 161 307 0 447 038 LafayetteCORAL POOL SERVICE6267no 240 500 189 233 82 123 124 0 393 039 LafayetteNUT FACTORY92112no 220 440 197 589 242 129 181 0 52 041 LafayettePEDDER LAW GROUP5350YES 320 360 257 263 313 95 143 0 154 045 LafayettePREMIER KITCHENS10042YES 400 360 325 101 77 13 55 0 194 046 LafayettePEACOCK CONSTRUCTION128113YES 320 380 343 403 353 231 274 0 260 047 LafayetteKWIK STOP #2131133no 420 780 355 351 355 330 259 0 757 048 LafayetteG SCOTT HAISLET5371no 160 200 364 265 134 148 220 0 159 049 LafayetteCHEESE STEAK SHOP193162YES 580 700 391 557 80 120 404 0 214 051 LafayetteGEROW/E.C.8692no 380 380 458 307 311 124 156 0 276 053 LafayetteMCDONALDS175161YES 700 1,140 565 1,363 456 556 974 0 1,818 054 LafayetteJACK IN BOX1696no 80 340 702 656 274 326 360 0 1,103 055 LafayetteSERVICE OUTLET393 460 no1,180540740000000056 LafayetteSMOK'N BONES, LLC91178no 1,220 560 834 1,225 188 1,700 1,532 0 3,504 057 LafayetteDIABLO EAST ASSOC.140153no 500 1,240 930 1,051 468 559 891 0 1,271 058 LafayetteH.M. KRAMER PROPERTIES186205no 660 620 1,013 801 598 496 383 0 758 059 LafayetteLEMOS CENTER303 208 YES8201,1801,040000000060 LafayetteHAWS AUTO BODY120149no 600 560 1,142 1,069 618 560 572 0 709 063 LafayetteHIDEOUT KITCHEN(HALLMARK BLDG)136192no 1,500 1,900 1,500 1,174 989 768 508 0 1,348 064 LafayetteSWIFT REAL ESTATE PARTNERS142242no 1,680 1,700 1,717 2,490 888 915 1,259 0 1,272 065 LafayetteEL CHARRO MEXICAN RESTAURANT250331no 2,500 2,540 1,791 2,504 2,084 1,297 1,292 0 2,652 066 LafayettePOST OFFICE-CARRIER ANNEX809877no 3,460 3,760 4,294 2,753 2,419 1,341 1,551 0 3,304 068 MoragaNARASKY DALEY BOWERS5145YES 200 200 167 132 79 101 122 0 144 070 MoragaHOLY TRINITY CHURCH108112no 380 700 286 375 413 154 462 0 342 074 MoragaFILICE INSURANCE8875YES 340 360 438 171 64 115 236 0 614 0Total Weight per Business per Month for those RECEIVING TAAverage PU Weight Before TAAverage PU Weight After Technical AssistanceImprovementNo. Area Site Name
Exhibit B
Page 138 of 221
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun12345678910Total Weight per Business per Month for those RECEIVING TAAverage PU Weight Before TAAverage PU Weight After Technical AssistanceImprovementNo. Area Site Name75 MoragaMORAGA AUTO CARE INC.5973no 580 300 448 422 362 376 612 0 465 078 MoragaMORAGA PROFESSIONAL BUILDING107147no 200 140 752 414 591 148 133 0 429 080 MoragaRANCH HOUSE CAFE147123YES 540 320 800 404 538 150 318 0 338 082 MoragaMORAGA POST ACUTE95 No Data No Data 1,660 1,040 856 1,180 611 542 557 0 1,061 083 MoragaAEGIS SENIOR CARE HOME120112YES 820 640 893 1,156 573 439 629 0 887 085 MoragaBERG SENIOR SERVICES LLC175200no 1,300 1,420 1,648 1,388 868 696 1,954 0 1,659 089 OrindaCHEVRON STATIONS CVN097407 CB75 No Data No Data 300 260 263 407 120 215216 0 534 091 OrindaTRH HOLDINGS13080YES 260 760 298 149 244 131 46 0 254 092 OrindaALLEN & ASSOC OFFICE BLDG9188YES 480 340 356 279 180 169 373 0 498 093 OrindaMCDONNELL NURSERY97241no 360 520 357 613 567 390 880 0 590 094 OrindaALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL CTR7066YES 620 440 463 561 379 207 337 0 381 096 OrindaWELLS FARGO WFA199270 REC15078YES 680 520 521 298 249 172 235 0 74 097 OrindaBROOKWOOD PROPERTIES112109YES 540 460 604 537 287 180 367 0 285 0100 OrindaHAIST PROPERTIES7691no 460 800 709 1,078 356 370 463 0 437 0101 OrindaMAYA MEXICAN GRILL92 No Data No Data 640 1,000 865 521 275 434 578 0 662 0102 OrindaMICHAEL & MONICA GUASCH237180YES 1,040 640 906 373 321 441 935 0 687 0103 OrindaNATIONS HAMBURGERS124171no 660 460 1,174 412 252 275 433 0 934 0104 OrindaORINDA HARDWARE177191no 2,300 1,880 1,402 1,858 708 1,155 1,887 0 2,933 0106 WC JPAU S BANK BLDG9776YES 660 350 0 210 290 80 0 0 0 0107 WC JPA1660 OLYMPIC HOLDINGS, LLC164 No Data No Data 240 540 140 60 0 340 0 0 0 0108 WC JPAGERMAN AUTO CLINIC72110no 210 200 150 300 520 350 0 0 0 0110 WC JPACOFFEE SHOP LP219136YES 1,540 1,780 160 400 1,540 1,460 1,600 0 238 0111 WC JPALAKESHORE LEARNING STORE70 No Data No Data 120 160 180 0 000000112 WC JPAPURCELL INTERNATIONAL8160YES 320 160 180 150 0 60 0 0 0 0113 WC JPACOMCAST WALNUT CREEK13394YES 160 260 200 240 300 340 260 0 160 0114 WC JPAUSCG / COSMO PROF 884197117no 230 410 200 320 390 520 0 0 160 0115 WC JPACHEVRON CVN095595 2YD SSR84 No Data No Data 380 0 220 0 000000116 WC JPAPOST OFFICE-W C10478YES 470 100 220 200 890 390 130 0 310 0117 WC JPACALIFORNIA DEPART OF MOTOR VEH68133no 180 0 240 140 280 100 93 0 220 0119 WC JPACIVIC FELINE CLINIC133106YES 340 260 260 430 740 380 350 0 150 0120 WC JPADERE INVESTMENT & ASSOC89107no 400 177 270 160 400 160 470 0 320 0121 WC JPABIG O TIRE #52725573no 570 205 270 260 610 540 890 0 286 0122 WC JPA801 YGNACIO LLC143 No Data No Data 800 520 300 280 580 420 550 0 390 0123 WC JPAPUBLIC STORAGE PUB008368 1YDR15875YES 860 320 300 100 50 0 0 0 0 0124 WC JPASMOG & DASH133108YES 360 374 310 290 590 330 0 0 0 0127 WC JPABOX STOP137115YES 520 330 340 410 560 270 0 0 0 0128 WC JPADISCOUNT TIRE CAN21 4YD FR110108YES 640 100 340 70 510 390 380 0 450 0129 WC JPACOLE OFC WALNUT CREEK LLC6865YES 220 40 350 280 460 160 390 0 520 0130 WC JPASHIRLEY NOOTBAAR154136YES 430 412 360 600 520 380 0 0 0 0131 WC JPADENALECT ALARM11395YES 230 60 380 60 360 520 220 0 320 0132 WC JPACOLE EUROPEAN CARS120135no 1,330 468 390 1,010 1,150 550 0 0 0 0134 WC JPAW C HONDA9454YES 200 0 440 0 260 220 0 0 0 0135 WC JPAKELLY MOORE PAINTS KMP#612147139YES 490 310 470 340 430 170 0 0 0 0136 WC JPAMICHAEL STEAD JEEP87150no 780 1,060 490 1,770 2,860 850 0 0 0 0137 WC JPAMIRAKU RESTURANT194181YES 690 451 520 1,040 660 680 750 0 370 0138 WC JPADOMINO'S PIZZA144162no 980 780 540 1,010 1,350 590 0 0 0 0141 WC JPATOYOTA OF WALNUT CREEK 8YD FR170 No Data No Data 940 590 580 820 000000142 WC JPATYRIS CORP152 No Data No Data 1,270 810 590 860 1,530 780 1,160 0 1,040 0143 WC JPAALISTO ENGINEERING GROUP125131no 400 220 600 180 650 200 0 0 0 0
Exhibit B
Page 139 of 221
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun12345678910Total Weight per Business per Month for those RECEIVING TAAverage PU Weight Before TAAverage PU Weight After Technical AssistanceImprovementNo. Area Site Name144 WC JPAOFFICE DEPOTMAX 006447 4YD REC160336no 640 340 610 1,050 1,310 910 0 0 00145 WC JPAE-TECH COLLISION115162no 460 320 620 100 780 610 290 0 520 0149 WC JPACHEVRON STATION #93072 RECYCLE131122YES 1,050 553 650 980 880 710 0 0 0 0150 WC JPATWELVE 20 CLUB170127YES 1,430 1,260 670 1,240 1,410 880 1,070 0 890 0151 WC JPAMAX'S MUSCLE & TANNING229230no 530 440 670 380 670 1,440 750 0 230 0152 WC JPABUTTERCUP GRILL & RESTAURANT216171YES 910 710 700 890 1,310 1,380 1,25001,1970153 WC JPA24 HOUR FITNESS TFH000885 3YD126 No Data No Data 920 520 700 560 1,010640 0 0 0 0154 WC JPA590 YVR ASSOC120 No Data No Data 610 594 700 280 620 650 540 0 1,680 0155 WC JPAWENDY'S222241no 1,630 1,018 720 1,810 2,130 1,880 2,100 0 1,599 0156 WC JPAMASERATI OF WALNUT CREEK110113no 540 520 790 330 550 120 0 0 0 0157 WC JPAAOWR - BLACK BEAR RESTAURANT186101YES 540 407 790 470 730 830 1,040 0 8060160 WC JPACHEVRON CVN094640 3YD SSR121121no 490 443 850 720 1,170 360 0 0 0 0161 WC JPACITRUS MARKET PLACE121160no 1,240 590 870 950 2,310 1,370 1,600 0 1,760 0162 WC JPAWAYNE STEAD CADILLAC103116no 1,130 270 900 1,450 1,580 760 0 0 0 0163 WC JPABURGER KING #6579147123YES 870 717 950 1,160 1,160 570 0 0 0 0164 WC JPAPALM COURT PARTNERS185168YES 740 740 980 720 560 700 840 0 220 0165 WC JPASTANFORDS RESTAURANT266 No Data No Data 900 1,440 1,080 1,460 2,280 1,800 1,540 0 0 0166 WC JPACREEKSIDE OAKS141 No Data No Data 628 934 1,221 1,919 1,989 788 0 0 0 0167 WC JPAPINKYS PIZZA363270YES 1,550 780 1,240 390 1,130 1,200 1,740 0 1,790 0169 WC JPAPANCOAST PIZZA270 No Data No Data 2,549 1,563 1,390 2,029 1,914 1,289 1,652 0 0 0170 WC JPAPROFESSIONAL CENTER HLDG CORP166220no 1,100 700 1,440 40 0 140 0 0 0 0172 WC JPAKEVINS NOODLE HOUSE264221YES 2,650 1,520 1,580 2,410 3,840 1,550 0 0 0 0174 WC JPACIG-LEI YGNACIO ASSOCIATES LLC160148YES 2,330 1,337 1,630 2,940 3,440 3,880 2,180 0 3,099 0176 WC JPAGENESIS AUTO UPHOLSTRY #7227 No Data No Data 300 334 1,650 310 640 430 0000177 WC JPAPARK CENTER PLAZA211107YES 2,350 783 1,680 2,040 7,320 2,340 2,195 0 1,500 0180 WC JPATULLIO'S RESTAURANT282306no 3,340 1,420 2,320 3,910 3,810 3,250 2,430 0 1,849 0181 WC JPAPETSMART 2475156153YES 1,600 1,070 2,470 550 560 420 730 0 920 0183 WC JPAGENERAL PLUMBING SUPPLY173192no 3,120 1,816 2,720 2,910 2,970 2,050 0 000184 WC JPAATT GEARY MARKET PL, LLC196127YES 2,990 2,360 3,760 3,000 2,890 2,7502,870 0 3,979 0185 WC JPACHEVRON CVN099206 2YD REC132105YES 1,860 832 5,590 990 1,400 1,590 1,280 0 1,790 0AREAAverage PU Weight Before TAAverage PU Weight After TAImprovementCounty176 158 YES 812 516 758 914 1,252 1,059 969 0 1,184 0Danville217 152 YES 1,549 1,196 1,302 1,380 1,173 1,398 1,364 0 0 0Lafayette165 187no 797 907 847 811 488 446 507 0 920 0Moraga105 111no 669 569 699 627 455 302 558 0 660 0Orinda119 129no 695 673 660 591 328 345 563 0 689 0WC JPA151 141 YES 950 619 851 819 1,161 795 547 0 472 0WC 400159 147 YES 879 631 735 737 1,128 758 585 0 421 0TOTAL157 149 YES 931 712 836 823 978 747 641 0 508 0** Those rows hidden are businesses that received not weight dataTotal Weight per Business per MonthExhibit B
Page 140 of 221
FINAL REPORT
Evaluation of Collecting, Hauling, and
Processing Food Waste in
Eastern Placer County
Prepared for:
County of Placer
Facility Services Department
11476 C Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
(530) 886-4918
Presented by:
SCS ENGINEERS
3117 Fite Circle, Suite 108
Sacramento, CA
(916) 361-1297
January 2016
File No. 01215205.00
Offices Nationwide
www.scsengineers.com
Exhibit B
Page 141 of 221
Eastern Placer County Food Waste Study Report
Final Re port
Evaluation of C o llecting, Hauling , and Pr ocessi ng Food Waste in
Easter n Placer C ounty
Prepared For:
County of Placer
Facility Services Department
11476 C Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
Prepared By:
SCS ENGINEERS
3117 Fite Circle, Suite 108
Sacramento, CA
(916) 361-1297
January 2016
File No. 01215205.00
Exhibit B
Page 142 of 221
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS .................................................................... 3
2.1 MATERIAL COMPOSITION MODELING ................................................................................... 3
2.2 EVALUATE FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 4
2.2.1 Eastern Regional Landfill/Eastern Regional Material Recovery Facility ..... 4
2.2.1.1 Material Flow Control and Contractual Obligations ............................... 5
2.2.1.2 Waste Flow Projections ................................................................................. 6
2.2.1.3 Operations and Capacity ............................................................................. 7
2.2.2 Organics Projections .............................................................................................. 9
2.2.3 Recycling Laws, Regulations and Program Changes .................................... 10
2.2.4 Local Participation .............................................................................................. 12
2.2.5 Products and By-Product Markets .................................................................... 12
2.2.6 Long-Term Projections of Feedstock and Markets ........................................ 13
2.2.6.1 Feedstock Projections ................................................................................... 13
2.2.6.2 Market Projections ........................................................................................ 13
2.3 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS AND CRITERIA .............................................................................. 14
2.3.1 Project Constraints............................................................................................... 14
2.3.1.1 Land Use and Topography ......................................................................... 14
2.3.1.2 Site Boundary and Surrounding Uses ........................................................ 15
2.3.1.3 Site Access and Roads ................................................................................. 15
2.3.1.4 Existing Scale ................................................................................................. 16
2.3.1.5 Landfill Gas ................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1.6 Drainage and Water Quality .................................................................... 16
2.3.1.7 Leachate Control ........................................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Project Criteria .................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2.1 Facility Location Criteria.............................................................................. 17
2.3.2.2 Technology Criteria ...................................................................................... 18
2.3.2.3 County Criteria .............................................................................................. 19
2.3.3 Scoring System .................................................................................................... 20
3.0 SITE AND SYSTEM EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 21
3.1 EVALUATE SITE LOCATION OPTIONS .................................................................................. 21
3.1.1 Identification of Potential Sites ......................................................................... 21
3.1.2 Scoring and Ranking of Initial Sites ................................................................. 22
3.1.3 Site Visit Observations ....................................................................................... 23
3.1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 25
3.2 POTENTIAL PROCESSING METHODS ................................................................................... 28
3.2.1 Overview of Organics Processing Technologies............................................ 28
3.2.2 Technology Background Information and Operating Aspects .................... 29
3.2.2.1 Composting .................................................................................................... 29
3.2.2.2 Digestion ......................................................................................................... 32
3.2.2.3 Mechanical/Thermal Treatment ................................................................. 33
3.2.3 Existing Facilities and Capacity ........................................................................ 34
3.2.4 Potential Barriers to Technology Development ............................................. 35
3.2.4.1 Environmental Laws....................................................................................... 35
Exhibit B
Page 143 of 221
3.2.4.2 Economics ........................................................................................................ 35
3.2.4.3 Lack of markets ............................................................................................. 35
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF FEEDSTOCK AND PRODUCT MARKETS ............................................... 36
3.3.1 Potential Feedstock ............................................................................................. 36
3.4 POTENTIAL MARKETS FOR PRODUCTS ................................................................................ 37
3.4.1 Compost/Soil Amendment ................................................................................. 37
3.4.2 Liquid Digestate .................................................................................................. 38
3.4.3 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ..................................................................... 38
3.4.4 Dry Fluff for Energy or Agriculture .................................................................. 38
3.5 MARKET PRICING FOR PRODUCTS....................................................................................... 39
3.5.1 Compost / Soil Amendments ............................................................................. 39
3.5.2 Liquid Digestate .................................................................................................. 39
3.5.3 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) ..................................................................... 40
3.5.4 Dry Fluff ................................................................................................................ 40
4.0 PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS ...................................................................... 41
5.0 COST ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 42
5.1 FINANCIAL BASELINE ............................................................................................................... 42
5.2 COST MODEL WORKSHEETS ................................................................................................. 42
5.3 ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 43
5.3.1 Base Assumptions ................................................................................................ 43
5.3.2 Specific Assumptions - By Collection Option .................................................. 43
5.3.3 Specific Assumptions – By Processing/Haul Scenario .................................. 44
5.4 REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, EXPENSES AND CUSTOMER FEES ......................................... 46
6.0 EVALUATION AND scoring OF TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................... 48
6.1 Scoring methodology ............................................................................................................... 48
6.2 scoring Results ............................................................................................................................ 48
6.2.1 Technology Scoring ............................................................................................. 48
6.2.2 Combined Technology and Siting Scoring ...................................................... 49
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables
No. Page
1. Estimated Organics Tonnage 4
2. 2014 Annual ERL / ERMRF Tonnage 7
3. 20 Year Projection – Incoming ERL Tonnage 10
4. 20 Year Projection – Annual ERL Tonnage 13
5. Scoring and Ranking of Initial Sites 22
6. Preferred and Possible Sites 23
7. Site Evaluation Conclusions 26
8. Estimated Number of Organics Processing Facilities in the U.S. 34
9. Number and Capacity of Organics Processing Facilities 35
Exhibit B
Page 144 of 221
10. Potential Feedstock Generators 36
11. Potential Markets 37
12. Existing Market Prices for Compost Products 39
13. Estimated Capital and Annual Costs 47
14. Technology Scoring Results 49
15. Ranking of Technologies and Sites 50
16. Estimated Collection and Processing Costs 52
Exhibit B
Page 145 of 221
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The County of Placer (County) contracted with SCS Engineers (SCS) to provide an evaluation of
the alternatives available for collecting, hauling, and processing food waste in the eastern portion
of Placer County (Tahoe Area). The driver behind this study was the approval of Assembly Bill
1826 (AB 1826), which requires communities to divert organic waste1 from landfills, and the
development of an organics management program by January 1, 2016.
The evaluation included the following steps:
Model the waste characterization to estimate and project the types and quantities of
organic material generated in the region.
Identify site constraints and criteria for consideration when evaluating and deciding on a
new organics processing technology.
Evaluate site location options and develop a pro/con matrix.
Research potential technologies, and score and develop list of viable options.
Assess feedstock and product markets.
Identify permitting requirements and regulations.
Develop a cost model to assist with the evaluation.
The key findings from this study are:
An estimated 6,000 tons of organic material (food scraps, yard trimmings and lumber) is
generated from businesses and multi-family dwellings in eastern Placer County.
A growth rate of 2% per year over 20 years was established for all incoming tonnage at
the Eastern Regional Landfill (ERL) and Material Recovery Facility (MRF).
Three types of technologies were analyzed: composting (windrow, aerated static pile and
in-vessel composting); digestion (wet and dry); and mechanical / thermal treatment
(autoclave and masher / dryer).
Based on the scoring and weighting criteria established for the project, the autoclave, and
windrow and aerated static pile composting technologies ranked the highest.
The Eastern Regional MRF-Upper Area site ranked highest for development of an
organics processing facility, with the Airport Site second. For the short-term, the R.T.
Donovan site would be the primary recommended location for transporting organic
materials to and from Eastern Placer County.
1 Organic waste includes food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, and nonhazardous wood waste.
Exhibit B
Page 146 of 221
The capital costs ranged from an estimated $1.3 million for windrow composting to an
estimated $6.1 million for dry digestion.
This report details the research and evaluation performed, and provides recommendations on the
type of organics processing technology that best suits the unique dynamics, criteria and
constraints for the area.
Exhibit B
Page 147 of 221
2.0 BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This section includes the methodology and results of the material composition modeling, the
evaluation of future conditions, and establishment of the criteria, constraints and scoring
methodology to evaluate and recommend organics processing within the Eastern Placer County
area.
2.1 MATERIAL COMPOSITION MODELING
In order to plan for the collection and processing of food waste in Eastern Placer County, an
estimate was made of the types and quantities of materials that are presently available and may
be available in the future. There were two components to this research: (1) identification of the
volume of organic material generated by individual business to understand which businesses
would need to comply with the new California organics legislation, AB 1826; and (2) calculation
of the total volume of the commercial organic waste stream, in order to estimate the amount of
organic material that could be available for an organics processing facility. To complete this
task, SCS evaluated the potential volume of commercial organics generated within Franchise
Area 32 by reviewing data from the Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (TTSD) organics pilot
project, reviewing the list of organic commercial businesses used for the pilot, and performing a
modeling exercise that provided estimated percentages and weights, by material type, for each
business.
The estimated commercial organics tonnage is presented in Table 1. The data was extrapolated
by using the characterization modeling data, the total tonnage reported by TTSD and their
estimated commercial waste percentage. The research focused specifically on tonnages for food
scraps, yard trimmings and lumber, in accordance with the definition of AB 1826. There are five
areas serviced by TTSD with the potential for organics to be collected and hauled to an organics
processing facility. The estimated tons for each area are included in Table 1.
2 Eastern Placer, El Dorado, and Nevada County, Alpine Meadows, Squaw Valley and Northstar Ski Resorts
Exhibit B
Page 148 of 221
Table 1. Estimated Quantities of Organic Materials
According to this analysis, the estimated quantity of food scraps that could potentially be
generated from the commercial sector is 6,000 tons per year. This is based on the assumption
that the CalRecycle 2014 generator study data is similar to the area dynamics, and a 100%
customer participation rate. A more conservative approach was adopted for the project planning,
and assumed 3,000 tons per year of food scraps would be collected and processed.
2.2 EVALUATE FUTURE CONDITIONS
This section provides data on future conditions for a new organics recycling program,
specifically focusing on any opportunities, challenges and constraints for the Eastern Regional
Landfill (ERL) and Eastern Regional Material Recovery Facility (ERMRF) property.
Additionally, the existing and projected quantities of organic materials generated in the study
area are discussed, in order to evaluate the existing and potential feedstock for the project. The
information is based on a review of available data on the history and existing conditions of the
site, conversations with County stakeholders, and information from Placer County.
2.2.1 Eastern Regional Landfill/Eastern Regional Material
Recovery Facility
The Eastern Regional Landfill and Eastern Regional Materials Recovery Facility (ERL/EMRF)
facility is a critical component in the development of organics processing in Eastern Placer
County. The facility could potentially be involved in a number of aspects of the project,
including transport, storage, processing and sale of finished material. An understanding of the
facility and the current contracts for solid waste collection and disposal will assist in identifying
and projecting what may be needed to accommodate an organics processing system in Eastern
Placer County.
TTSD Estimated
Commercial
Tonnage
Estimated
Total
Organics
Tonnage
Total
Annual
Food
Scraps
Total
Annual
Yard
Trimmings
Total
Annual
Lumber
Eastern Placer
County (All)24,531.81 12,744.46 6,310.40 1,109.86 1,129.27
El Dorado 190.68 95.26 47.11 6.43 11.79
Nevada County 612.36 305.08 120.40 28.76 10.44
Placer 2 689.94 338.68 147.53 36.98 24.22
Placer 3 14,136.55 7,382.09 3,694.47 632.64 797.35
Truckee 8,902.28 4,623.34 2,300.89 405.05 375.48
Exhibit B
Page 149 of 221
2.2.1.1 Material Flow Control and Contractual Obligations
In order to understand the long term availability and commitment of material entering
ERL/ERMRF, a review of all hauler and material guarantee contracts was conducted. The
collection and hauling contracts that are currently directing material to ERL / ERMRF are:
El Dorado County
In 1994 El Dorado signed a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with the County of
Placer for a 20 year term to provide material to the ERL/ERMRF. This MOU has
expired, and no new MOU is currently being considered.
El Dorado County has a franchise agreement with Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal
(TTSD) for the West Shore service area. The current term expires on December 31,
2016. TTSD negotiated a 7-year replacement contract, which was signed in 2015.
This extended the current contract to 2024. The area contains some businesses located
beyond the concentrated Placer County Area 3 collection area, and 700-1,200 highly
seasonal and geographically diverse residential customers (service is non-mandatory).
El Dorado has an estimated 602 annual tons, which is 1% of the total material
entering the facility.
Nevada County
Nevada County has no contract with the County of Placer.
Nevada County has a franchise agreement with TTSD for the Eastern portion of the
service area. The current term expires on June 30, 2018. There are several businesses in
this area, and approximately 800 year-round mandatory residential customers.
Nevada County generates 3% (1,929 annual tons) of the total material entering the
facility.
Placer 2
Placer 2 has no contract with the County of Placer or TTSD.
Placer 2 generates 3% (2,169 annual tons) of the total material entering the facility.
Placer 3
The ERL/TTSD franchise agreement that was signed in June 2015 and expires on June
30, 2022, provides TTSD with the management and operation of the ERL/ERMRF, as
well as hauling all material within the County of Placer Franchise Area 2 and 3 (service
is mandatory).
•There are three residential Public Utility Districts (PUDs): Squaw Valley; Alpine
Meadows; and Northstar, all located within the confines of Placer County Area
3.TTSD services the commercial businesses located in these PUDs under the
Exhibit B
Page 150 of 221
Placer County franchise agreement. Residential service is contracted annually
between TTSD and each PUD. It is worth noting that all three PUDs pay the
franchise fee on residential service to Placer County, in exchange for inclusion in
Placer County programs. Squaw Valley is currently in the process of pursuing
self-incorporation.
Placer 3 generates 58% (44,475 annual tons) of the total material entering the
facility.
Town of Truckee
In 1994, the Town of Truckee signed an MOU with the County of Placer for a 20 year
term to establish a guaranteed waste stream and related revenue to fund construction and
ongoing operations and maintenance at ERL/ERMRF. The MOU expired in 2014. An
extension was put in place until a new MOU is developed, however either party can
terminate the MOU with 6 months’ notice.
The Town of Truckee has a collection franchise agreement with TTSD; the current term
expires on June 30, 2018. The services are mandatory, and include all residential and
commercial accounts.
The estimated annual tonnage from Truckee is 28,006 tons or 36% of the total
material entering the facility.
2.2.1.2 Waste Flow Projections
The quantities of material taken to the facility by TTSD or self-hauled are shown in Table 2. El
Dorado County and Placer 3 have extended contracts (through 2024 see 2.2.1.1, second bullet
under El Dorado County and 2022, respectively), guaranteeing approximately 60% of the current
incoming material for the next 8 to 10 years. Both Nevada County and Truckee have a guarantee
for the next two years.
Exhibit B
Page 151 of 221
Table 2. 2014 Annual ERL / ERMRF Tonnage
To develop and operate an organics processing facility cost effectively, it is highly desirable to
have a dedicated flow of material to the facility. Extension of both the County of Placer MOU
and the TTSD contracts with the Town of Truckee would guarantee the material will continue to
be brought to ERL / ERMRF for at least another 10 years. This will provide the tonnage used in
this report as the basis for starting and continuing an organics processing operation.
2.2.1.3 Operations and Capacity
Ongoing operations at the ERL/ERMRF site include receiving, processing, transferring, and
marketing of solid waste and recyclables, vehicle maintenance and repair, and post-closure
maintenance of the closed landfill. The site also houses the administrative operations of Tahoe
Area Regional Transit. Planned improvements to the ERL/ERMRF include facility upgrades to
the MRF, which were included in the June 2015 updated permit and new contract between the
County and TTSD, and the addition of a second scale. In addition, a biomass energy facility was
proposed to be developed on the southern portion of the site, however development is pending,
based on the ability to negotiate a power purchase agreement with the electric utility.
The implementation of organics processing in Eastern Placer County will impact the site and day
to day operations at the ERL/ERMRF site. The magnitude of the changes will depend on the
selected processing method, and whether it is located on or off-site. A discussion of potential
impacts to the site from organics processing are discussed in the following sections.
Traffic at the site will be impacted, depending on how the organic material is collected, the
extent of onsite processing of the material, and if new material is brought to the site in addition
to the current TTSD and self-haul materials. The increase in car, truck or long-haul vehicles
accessing the site is not anticipated to be significant, because of the low volume of food scraps
and other organics to be handled.
Presently there are two food scraps collection methods under consideration: 1) a truck dedicated
to collecting food scraps placed in a separate bin; and 2) a “yellow bag” program that would
TTSD Contract
Expiration Dates Material ERL / MRF Tonnage for
All In-coming Material
Total Annual
Tons for
TTSD Only
Percentage
of Entire
Amount
Mixed Waste / Inerts
(TTSD)44,897.27
TOTAL 77,172.65
El Dorado
12/31/2016, contract
may be extended to
2024 601.95 350.20 1%
Nevada County June 30, 2018 1,929.32 1,122.43 3%
Placer 2 No Contract 2,168.55 1,261.61 3%
Placer 3 June 30, 2022 44,474.60 25,874.30 58%
Truckee June 30, 2018 28,005.95 16,293.22 36%
Eastern Placer
County (ALL)
100%Mixed Waste / Inerts
(Self Haul)32,275.38
Exhibit B
Page 152 of 221
require businesses to place food scraps in the colored bag with their normal trash containers. If
the material is source-separated, it will require one additional truck on a daily basis, which will
either take the materials to a 3rd party compost facility, or to the ERL/ERMRF site for
processing. If the “yellow bag” program is selected, existing routing will be continued, and no
additional truck will be needed.
If organic materials are brought to the ERL/ERMRF, the traffic will enter the facility, be
weighed at the scale house, and transported to the appropriate processing area. The type of
collection method used, and the final destination of the materials, will determine where, on the
site, the materials will be transported. If the final destination for the materials is offsite
processing, then the material will be transferred through the ERMRF. If the materials are to be
processed onsite, bagged materials will most likely be initially handled in the MRF, and then
transported to the processing facility. If the materials are collected source separated in a
dedicated truck, they could be dumped directly at the organics processing facility tipping area.
The onsite traffic flow for incoming organics will depend on the location of the organics facility,
and how and where the material is processed. Assuming a low volume of food scraps, the
change to the onsite traffic flow is anticipated to be minimal.
Operations at ERL/ERMRF will be modified, depending on which collection process is selected
(separate bin for food scraps or yellow-bag program). If the material is taken offsite for
processing, the food scraps collected in separate bins and dedicated truck would be direct hauled
to the facility and there would be no changes to the operations at ERL/ERMRF. If the yellow bag
program is used, the TTSD truck will drop the bags at the ERMRF. Considerations for this
collection method include: labor requirements for handling the bags; whether the bags would be
processed on the MRF line, and the available capacity for this; or if the bags can be separated
from the refuse on the tipping floor.
If an organics processing facility is developed at the ERL/ERMRF site, an efficient method will
need to be developed to ensure the food scraps are not a source of odors or an attraction for bears
and other animals or pests. If handled in the ERMRF, the facility may need to be retrofitted with
automatic doors. If handled outside (such as windrow composting), the addition of electrified
fencing and/or fencing with automatic gates may be necessary. These methods have been
successfully utilized at other composting facilities, including Mariposa County, California,
Northeast Indiana Solid Waste Authority, and Yellowstone National Park. In Pitkin County,
Colorado, they have found that immediately windrowing the materials successfully deters the
attraction of animals or other pests.
Capacity of the organics processing facility will be determined based on the technology selected,
and the types and quantities of materials to be processed. The siting analysis prepared for the
project indicates the ERL/ERMRF site has adequate space for the development and operation of
the organics processing technologies presently under consideration, and will be able to
accommodate anticipated growth as well.
Permitting for organics processing onsite will be addressed separately in this report, however it is
noted that modification of the existing solid waste facility permit will be required. The solid
waste facility permit was updated in June 2015, and allows for peak daily tonnage of 440 tons
Exhibit B
Page 153 of 221
per day (TPD) for disposal and transfer, and 360 TPD for “other” materials, including sludge,
separated and comingled recyclables, non-hazardous municipal waste, agricultural wastes,
construction and demolition waste, tires, appliances, non-friable asbestos, and dead animals.
Currently the facility receives an average of 130 TPD of incoming material from self-haul
(mixed waste, inerts and buy back) and 173 TPD from TTSD, totaling 303 TPD of incoming
material. At this current volume of incoming materials, there is approximately 500 TPD of
available capacity at the facility.
2.2.2 Organics Projections
In order to evaluate the potential for the facility to host an organics processing facility, a
projection of the future incoming tons was prepared, based on a 10 year average of the quantities
of materials brought to the site. This analysis indicated an increase of 2% per year of incoming
material. Utilizing this annual growth factor, projections were developed for a 20 year planning
period (Table 3). As indicated in Table 3, it is estimated the incoming material will increase to a
high of 460 TPD by 2035. The existing permit would allow for this additional quantity of
materials to be received at the site.
Exhibit B
Page 154 of 221
Table 3. 20 Year Projection – Incoming ERL Tonnage
2.2.3 Recycling Laws, Regulations and Program Changes
California organics laws and regulations have changed over the past few years, and new
requirements will affect the management of organics materials in Eastern Placer County. A brief
description of these laws is included below, and their implementation will be further addressed in
the Organics Management Plan prepared for the County.
AB 1826: Mandatory commercial organics recycling, requiring businesses to recycle
organics and multi-family dwellings (MFDs) to recycle the yard trimmings. An organics
management plan must be in place by January 1, 2016. The following phases of the law
establish the thresholds for compliance:
• Phase 1: All businesses (and MFDs with 5 units or more) that generate 8 cubic
yards (cy) or more per week of organics must have organics recycling in effect by
April 1, 2016.
Annual Mixed Waste, Inert Tons and Buy Back Center Tonnage -
at a 2% increase in volume each year
Estimated Tons
Per Day
2014 78,757 303
2015 80,332 309
2016 81,939 315
2017 83,578 321
2018 85,249 328
2019 86,954 334
2020 88,694 341
2021 90,467 348
2022 92,277 355
2023 94,122 362
2024 96,005 369
2025 97,925 377
2026 99,883 384
2027 101,881 392
2028 103,919 400
2029 105,997 408
2030 108,117 416
2031 110,279 424
2032 112,485 433
2033 114,735 441
2034 117,029 450
2035 119,370 459
Exhibit B
Page 155 of 221
• Phase 2: All businesses (and MFDs with 5 units or more) that generate 4cy or
more per week of organics must have organics recycling in effect by July 1, 2017.
• Phase 3: All businesses (and MFDs with 5 or more units) that generate 4cy or
more of municipal solid waste must have organics recycling in effect by January
1, 2019.
• Phase 4: CalRecycle will assess results and decide if further requirements and
enforcement is needed.
AB 1594: Any green material defined as alternative daily cover does not constitute
diversion through recycling and would be considered disposal effective January 1, 2010.
AB 1045: Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination
with CalRecycle, the State Water Resources Control Board, the State Air Resources
Board, and the Department of Food and Agriculture, to develop and implement policies
to aid in diverting organic waste from landfills by promoting the composting of specified
organic waste and by promoting the appropriate use of that compost throughout the state.
AB 876: Commencing August 1, 2017, requires a county or regional agency to include
in its annual report to CalRecycle an estimate of the amount of organic waste in cubic
yards that will be generated in the county or region over a 15-year period, an estimate of
the additional organic waste recycling facility capacity in cubic yards that will be needed
to process that amount of waste, and areas identified by the county or regional agency as
locations for new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities capable of safely
meeting that additional need,
If these assembly bills pass, the following would be required:
AB 1103: Would require a person who transports a certain amount of food waste to be
registered by CalRecycle. The bill would require a registered transporter to maintain a
record of food waste transported that contains specified documents and information, and
to certify, under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the record. By expanding the
application of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
AB 590: Would provide cost sharing strategies to help biomass power generators to
renew expiring power purchase agreements in order to maintain the current level of
biomass power generation in the state and revitalizing currently idle facilities in
strategically located regions. In the last 12 months California has closed five biomass
power generation plants. This assembly bill would try to create a more solid
infrastructure for continued use.
SB 498: Adds non-combustion conversion technologies, such as gasification, pyrolysis,
and anaerobic digestion, to the biomass conversion definition. Allows 10% diversion
credit for AB 939 compliance to include non-combustion conversion technologies.
Exhibit B
Page 156 of 221
Enforcement by CalRecycle for AB 341 and AB 1826 could become more stringent in the future.
Depending on how successful businesses and communities are with implementing programs, and
how much progress is made toward meeting state-wide diversion goals, CalRecycle may
establish enforcement regulations that could make the County responsible for compliance.
2.2.4 Local Participation
There is strong interest from the local community to develop some type of food waste diversion
program. Due to the local demand for a food waste program, County staff has worked with ERL
and TTSD to study the potential for collection of food waste, and developed a pilot program to
collect food waste from a select sample of TTSD commercial customers. The study, conducted
in the fall of 2014 and winter of 2015, included 12-15 participants, and provided valuable
information for analysis and implementation of a full scale program.
The success of an organics collection and processing program in Eastern Placer County will
require cooperation and participation of all stakeholders, including the County, TTSD,
commercial businesses, citizens, and other entities. The community dynamics may present
future challenges depending on the overall understanding of the process and system, and level of
input into collection and processing of organic materials. Concern’s regarding local conditions
such as odors, wildlife, and traffic, as well as space requirements, materials handling
requirements, and costs for service may create some apprehension towards an organics program.
It is recommended to develop and implement a stakeholder outreach and participation program
to provide information and obtain input in order to address the public’s concerns and to obtain
community acceptance and buy-in of the program.
2.2.5 Products and By-Product Markets
Long-term markets for the materials produced from the organics process will depend on the local
and regional demand for the materials. According to existing composting operators RT Donovan
and Full Circle, there is a seasonal market for the materials produced from their operations. It is
recommended that ERL and/or the County develop a formal process and seek contracts with
potential users, including the ski resorts, city/county agencies, landscapers and others who use
material on a regular basis. It is recommended the County and/or ERL develop a
business/marketing plan for the facility and the products. The business plan would include a
marketing plan, operational plan, and financial plan, as well as a discussion of the decision
making criteria that would be used to approve the plan.
Some of the important issues to be addressed in the business plan include the following:
Existing and potential feedstocks, including consideration of composting pre-consumer
and post-consumer food scraps,
Existing and potential products, including identification of potential users
Financing options and pricing structure, with considerations of local and regional
competition
Potential partnerships, including private and public entities.
Exhibit B
Page 157 of 221
2.2.6 Long-Term Projections of Feedstock and Markets
2.2.6.1 Feedstock Projections
An estimate of the quantities of organic materials that will be available over the 20 year planning
period was calculated based on data provided by TTSD of MSW received at ERL/ERMRF
between 2004 and 2014. The volumes fluctuated dramatically, from a decrease of 15% to an
increase of 6%. Based on the data analysis, and input from TTSD and the County, a growth rate
of 2% per year over 20 years was established.
Table 4 includes the 2014 actual quantities of materials received, including mixed waste, inerts
and the buyback center, with projections for each year through 2035. The commercial food
scraps tonnages were estimated based on the model developed by SCS, which used CalRecycle
waste composition data, TTSD commercial account information, and comparison with 2014
annual tonnages. The projections presented in Table 3 assume the CalRecycle business sector
data closely reflects the TTSD service area, and 100% participation by businesses.
Table 4. 20 Year Projection – Incoming Annual ERL Tonnage
2.2.6.2 Market Projections
Compost will improve the quality of almost any soil, and for this reason it is most often
considered a soil conditioner. Compost improves the structure and texture of the soil, enabling it
to better retain nutrients, moisture, and air for the betterment of plants. The use of wood mulch
Mixed Waste Inerts Buy Back Center
Commercial Food
Scraps
2014 55,128 20,045 1,585 6,310
2015 56,230 20,446 1,616 6,436
2016 57,355 20,855 1,649 6,565
2017 58,502 21,272 1,682 6,696
2018 59,672 21,697 1,715 6,830
2019 60,865 22,131 1,750 6,967
2020 62,083 22,574 1,785 7,106
2021 63,324 23,025 1,820 7,248
2022 64,591 23,486 1,857 7,393
2023 65,883 23,956 1,894 7,541
2024 67,200 24,435 1,932 7,692
2025 68,544 24,923 1,970 7,846
2026 69,915 25,422 2,010 8,003
2027 71,313 25,930 2,050 8,163
2028 72,740 26,449 2,091 8,326
2029 74,195 26,978 2,133 8,492
2030 75,678 27,517 2,175 8,662
2031 77,192 28,068 2,219 8,836
2032 78,736 28,629 2,263 9,012
2033 80,311 29,202 2,309 9,192
2034 81,917 29,786 2,355 9,376
2035 83,555 30,382 2,402 9,564
2% increase in volume each year
Year
Exhibit B
Page 158 of 221
and wood chips also offers clear benefits for improving soil and generally performs at least three
basic functions:
Reduces soil water losses
Suppresses weeds
Protects against temperature extremes.
Compost produced by commercial facilities is often mixed with sand or soil and sold as topsoil.
Compost may also be sold to topsoil companies who blend the compost with other materials
before sale.) Mixing compost with sand or soil to produce topsoil increases the value of the
product, and allows the material to be sold at a higher price.
A number of entities were contacted in an effort to determine the potential users of compost in
the Tahoe Truckee area. In general, there are opportunities to market compost or a blended
topsoil product to landscapers, topsoil companies, nurseries, other small businesses, and local
residents, if the material is of high quality and priced competitively. There may also be
opportunities to market larger quantities of product to specific projects (e.g., construction
projects), but these opportunities will be available on a case-by-case basis.
Various state and regional agencies were contacted to obtain information regarding the need for
and marketing of compost. Although there may be some possibilities of marketing compost to
contractors hired for specific CalTrans and Nevada DOT projects, the total market for compost
by these agencies is unknown at this time.
2.3 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS AND CRITERIA
The first step in identifying a viable organics processing technology would be to define project
constraints and criteria which provide a consistent and equitable screening system for the Eastern
Regional MRF (ERMRF) site, as well as other viable options for placement of an organics
processing technology. The following information is based on the review of available data on
the history, as well as the existing conditions.
2.3.1 Project Constraints
Project constraints, which are considered limitations or restrictions to the site that will inhibit
siting the organics processing technology, provides initial direction concerning viable options for
placement of the organics processing technology. The following details provide the known
constraints at the ERL (which may also be applicable to off-site locations).
2.3.1.1 Land Use and Topography
The ERMRF is a closed Class III solid waste management unit on a 292-acre site. The Facility
formerly served as a sanitary landfill for the communities on the north and west shores of Lake
Tahoe, Truckee, and the vicinity. The Facility was operated by a private company, Eastern
Regional Landfill, Inc., from 1973 until June 1995, when it stopped receiving wastes for disposal
and a solid waste transfer station was constructed at the site.
Exhibit B
Page 159 of 221
The southwest portion of the site is developed with the existing ERMRF transfer station, scale,
and maintenance building. The southeast portion of the site includes facilities operated by Tahoe
Area Regional Transit (TART). A recent investigation uncovered a previously unknown area of
fill between the maintenance building and the landfill. There is little open space in the southern
portion of the site, and therefore this area is not considered suitable for development of an
organics processing facility.
The middle of the site contains the former landfill area, which included two separate elongated,
southeasterly trending fill areas, approximately 20 acres each. The fill areas rise approximately
75 to 100 feet above the surrounding topography with a maximum gradient of 3.5:1. The
existing landfill gas flare station is located between the two fill areas. The landfill was closed
with an enhanced prescriptive cover including a two-foot thick foundation layer of soil, a one-
foot thick low-permeability soil barrier layer, and a two-foot thick soil layer suitable to support
cover vegetation. The final cover was configured to assure positive drainage and eliminate
ponding, and includes provisions for offsite conveyance of waters associated with the 100-year
storm event. The fill area is not considered suitable for development of an organics processing
facility, due to potential settlement, location of the existing gas collection system, and need to
maintain integrity of the cover system.
North of the former landfill is approximately 30 acres of native, non-fill area which is relatively
flat, and undeveloped. The area is presently used for recycling and reuse activities, including
wood chipping, concrete and asphalt storage, screening of topsoil, and storage of pine needles.
The area is accessed by a gravel road on the western portion of the site. This area, particularly
the western portion, is considered suitable for development of an organics processing facility, as
it is native, relatively flat, and accessible by an existing gravel road. The existing recycling and
reuse activities in the area would need to be relocated and/or consolidated. (This area is the
original borrow area and is being reclaimed. The reclamation plan is currently being revised and
the plan contours may change. There may be a potential to incorporate a facility into the
reclamation plan.)
2.3.1.2 Site Boundary and Surrounding Uses
The site includes a total of 292 acres, of which 65 acres were permitted for landfilling. The
remaining acreage includes buffer areas to the west, north and east, which are native forest lands.
A network of forest service roads and trails surround the site, and are accessible and open to the
public. Although there is a fence around the site, and some of the forest service roads are gated,
the public can access the site from various points. In addition, wildlife, including bears and deer,
can also access the site. These conditions are considered a constraint for the development of an
organics processing facility.
2.3.1.3 Site Access and Roads
The site is located west of State Route 89 at the end of Cabin Creek Road, a two lane road with a
steep incline. A dedicated turning lane provides access to the site. The onsite roads leading up
to and slightly beyond the scale are paved, however the roads in the northern portion of the site
are gravel. During the winter, the area receives an average of 17 feet of snow. Winter
conditions can make travel on both Cabin Creek Road and onsite roads difficult. Improvements
Exhibit B
Page 160 of 221
to the onsite roads will be necessary to accommodate traffic to the northern portion of the site, in
order to accommodate an organics processing facility.
2.3.1.4 Existing Scale
The site currently has one at-grade scale that services both inbound and outbound vehicles.
Current operations result in opposing vehicles entering and leaving the site with the need to be
weighed. There are known constraints surrounding the current scale and scale house including
underground power lines, power poles, a propane tank, buried gas lines, and limited cueing
length entering and leaving the site.
The County is presently evaluating the potential of adding an additional scale for the purpose of
minimizing cueing distance entering and leaving the site during normal and peak traffic,
eliminating opposing traffic to improve safety, and increasing efficiency in weighing vehicles,
using one scale operator, if possible. Relocation and/or modification of the existing scale house
is also a possibility, however the existing scale will not be moved. The analysis and
recommendations will be completed in the Fall of 2015.
2.3.1.5 Landfill Gas
The site is equipped with a landfill gas (LFG) collection system that consists of 25 vertical gas
extraction wells in waste and 11 Soil Vapor Remediation wells on the southern limits outside the
waste mass. The LFG control system also includes a network of collection header pipe and
condensate management components that deliver LFG to a flare station for destruction. The LFG
header lines are sloped to collect gas condensate at engineered three sump locations. The
collected gas condensate is destroyed by flame combustion using the LFG. The system has been
in operation since 1997 when it was installed. As is expected with closed landfills, over time
since operation began, both the quality and quantity of LFG produced by the waste has been
steadily declining. At the onset of system operation the LFG facility combusted an average of
1100 cubic feet of landfill gas per minute at a relative methane content of 35 percent whereas
today the methane content has declined to approximately 22 percent with a nominal flow rate of
75 cubic feet per minute. These flow rates are maintained to prevent the migration of methane
into the air or surrounding soils.
The LFG monitoring network at the Facility to verify that migration is not occurring consists of
ten perimeter gas monitoring probes and four interior gas monitoring probes. The probes are
monitored regularly to verify that the collection system is preventing migration laterally through
soils and away from the landfill.
2.3.1.6 Drainage and Water Quality
The water quality monitoring network at the Facility includes groundwater, surface water,
vadose zone, and leachate monitoring stations. Vadose zone monitoring is performed using a
pair of lysimeters beneath the northern refuse mound (one of the pair is no longer functioning)
and a pair of background lysimeters east of the landfill. Surface water is monitored at six
locations where runoff from the site occurs and at both an upgradient and a downgradient
location at the Truckee River.
Exhibit B
Page 161 of 221
The ground water monitoring network includes three background wells, at upgradient locations
along the west side of the landfill, and five compliance monitoring wells, positioned at
downgradient locations along the south and east sides of the landfill. Ground water in the
unconfined, shallow aquifer flows in the unconsolidated Donner Lake Till which overlies low
permeability Bald Mountain Latite. The flow direction is to the east and southeast. Isolated
perched water zones exist within the glacial till, but the heaviest flow appears to be at the base of
the till, directly on top of the underlying volcanic rock. The existing ground water monitoring
network is predominantly in this unconfined, shallow aquifer (i.e., MW-7, MW-8, MW-9, MW-
10, and MW-15).
2.3.1.7 Leachate Control
Leachate control is provided at the northern mound with an underlying network of leachate
collection pipes that were placed in shallow gravel-filled trenches below, and around the
perimeter of the refuse. Collected leachate flows by gravity to a storage tank east of the refuse
mounds. Leachate is pumped from the storage tank to the sewer system along the south side of
the property where it is conveyed to the Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency’s wastewater
treatment plant in Martis Valley for treatment. No leachate control is provided under the
southern mound. Neither landfill mound includes bottom liners.
2.3.2 Project Criteria
The selection and siting of a organics processing facility entails a number of key factors,
including availability of land in relation to site requirements, traffic and access issues, proximity
to sensitive receptors, air and water quality issues, land use, solid waste facility and other agency
permitting, public understanding and acceptance, and additional local and regional issues.
In order to select a technology and site, a set of criteria will be developed for consideration of the
placement and selection of the organics processing technology. The criteria will be used to
develop a scoring methodology to objectively evaluate the suitability of a technology and
prospective sites, and to assess whether the site can accommodate the development of the
proposed facility.
A set of three criteria will be developed based on the facility location, technology, and County
requirements. The criteria will be used for the Eastern Regional Landfill site, as well as other
potential sites are described below:
2.3.2.1 Facility Location Criteria
Facility location criteria include all details specifically related to the boundaries and physical
attributes of the site, such as:
Land Use and Location: This category includes the properties size, general plan and
zoning designation, and existing land use, as well as proximity to compatible facilities,
such as solid waste, wastewater, or electric generating facility. This category also
addresses proximity to sensitive receptors, including residences or schools, as well as
location near US Forest service land and trails, or other protected environmental areas.
Exhibit B
Page 162 of 221
Access and Transportation: This category includes the regional and local access to the
site, including highways and local roads. The category also evaluates the distance to the
centroid of waste generation, in this case eastern portion of Placer County, garbage
collection Franchise Area 3 (Tahoe Area).
Site Size and Space Availability: This category includes the size of the site, and the
availability of space in relation to the potential layout and orientation of the facility.
Factors to consider include ability to handle public use, areas for unloading, loading,
mixing, processing, buffer space, and storage of products. The overall footprint of the
facility will also be included in this category.
Site Ownership and Acquisition Options: This category includes the existing ownership
of the site, and the availability of the site for purchase or lease. Also the existence of any
limiting easements.
Vector, Bird and Animal Control: The need for vector, bird and other animal controls, in
addition to the existing fencing around the site will be evaluated.
Aesthetics: Although it appears the site is largely out of direct sight to neighbors, the
facility will be assessed for the potential impacts to existing views and vistas, and the
need to provide screening.
Permitting: This category includes the types and timing of obtaining the requisite permits
for the facility development and operations. Permits may include land use, solid waste
facility, air quality, stormwater groundwater.
2.3.2.2 Technology Criteria
Technology site criteria shall include all details specifically related to what is important for siting
of organics processing, such as:
Utilities: This category includes the availability of utility services on the property,
including electricity, water, and heating, as well as utility usage, to determine the internal
use of utilities, including water required, water reuse, internal power generation to cover
their parasitic (internal facility) needs, and use of other auxiliary utilities. Electricity
output and connection to main grid, and potential conversion to CNG.
Wastewater Generation: The amount and characteristics of wastewater generation from
the facility will be assessed to determine if on-site storage is needed, and if the existing
force main can handle it, or other disposal arrangements (trucking) are necessary.
Air Emissions and Odors: The technology’s air emissions and air emission controls will
be assessed to determine potential for unique air quality issues. The technology’s
processes will be assessed for the potential to emit odor that would potentially present
adverse impacts to the operator and to the surrounding areas.
Operating Facilities: These criteria will assess the number of “commercial” sized
reference facility(ies) that are operating, what quantity and type of feedstock they are
Exhibit B
Page 163 of 221
operating upon, and whether they are operating in the US or internationally.
Qualifications of the technology vendor would also be evaluated, including description of
company and structure, legal history (that is public), and environmental compliance. The
assessment also will include providing operating costs from the vendor for use in a later
segment of the analysis and their typical contractual terms and conditions.
Environmental/Sustainability Issues: This category evaluates the issue of carbon
footprint/greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts. Sustainability issues include waste diversion,
generation of renewable energy, creation of “green jobs”, incorporation of LEED
building standards, and corporate sustainability policies.
Marketability of products: This category will include a review of the suitability of by-
products to see if viable markets are established for the proposed by-products.
Technical feasibility: This criterion includes mass and energy balances, process flow
diagrams, general description and information on all components of the facility (from
pre-processing to feed systems, conversion systems, water treatment systems,
environmental controls, nuisance controls, operational procedures, etc.). It will be
important to garner any and all “real” operating data instead of “theoretical” information
that is typically provided.
2.3.2.3 County Criteria
The County criteria includes what is important and necessary for the County to address and
ensure the goals and objectives of this project are met, such as economic feasibility, cost-
effectiveness, and ability to generate revenue.
Economic Feasibility: This component will evaluate the financial viability of the
technology, including the development and permitting costs to assess the percentage of
the total capital costs they represent. The construction costs compared to the construction
costs of the other technologies. O&M costs including personnel, maintenance, etc. and
identifying costs for residuals disposal.
Cost-Effectiveness: This category evaluates elements relating to the financial viability of
the technology. The capital costs and unit operating costs are both evaluated based on
dollars per ton. The capital costs play a large factor in whether or not the project can be
built.
Ability to Generate Revenue: This category evaluates the ability of the technology to
generate revenue and the marketability of the products. Technologies will be scored on
whether or not they provided adequate descriptions of product specification(s) and
marketability. The anticipated revenues for the end products (recyclables, energy,
compost, etc.) will be rated from a high, medium, low scale once all of the responses are
tabulated. Technologies that produce energy as a by-product will be evaluated on how
much usable energy they are able to produce, and whether or not the product can be
included in the renewable portfolio standard (RPS).
Exhibit B
Page 164 of 221
2.3.3 Scoring System
SCS developed a scoring system based on assigning a weight and point value to each criteria
identified during the constraints and criteria evaluation. The scoring system was split into three
primary areas: facility, county and technology. In each of these areas, the evaluation criteria
metrics were applied for each potential site and weighting factors were included to rank the
potential sites from highest to lowest score. The top ranked site is not necessarily the best site.
The ranking only serves to provide the County a sense of which site appears to have more
attributes and less potentially adverse impacts. For the list of categories and their scoring and
ranking system, refer to Appendix A. This scoring system was used during the site and system
evaluation process described below.
Exhibit B
Page 165 of 221
3.0 SITE AND SYSTEM EVALUATION
The successful siting of an organics processing technology facility incorporates a number of key
factors, including availability of land in relation to site requirements; traffic and access issues;
proximity to sensitive receptors; air and water quality issues; land use, solid waste facility, and
other agency permitting; public understanding and acceptance; and additional local and regional
issues (e.g., bear-resistant bins, odor control, etc.). All of these factors were taken into
consideration when evaluating the potential to site a facility in the Placer County area. A short
list of potential sites was generated and evaluated for suitability for an organics processing
technology. This process and a list of the potential sites are highlighted below.
3.1 EVALUATE SITE LOCATION OPTIONS
The purpose of this section was to identify potential locations for processing of organics
generated in Eastern Placer County. The data and information gathered was used to inform and
support the final recommendations for the project. The following was performed:
Identify a short list of potential sites
Evaluate the sites for suitability for organics processing
Filter out unacceptable sites
Develop a short list of sites to visit and conduct site visits
Develop a pro/con matrix of short-listed sites
Preparing findings and recommendations of the preferred sites
3.1.1 Identification of Potential Sites
The first step of the site evaluation process was to identify an initial list of potential sites that
could accommodate an organics processing facility. Key factors that were used to identify
potential sites included the following:
Land use and location: compatible with existing and surrounding land uses
Access: Accessible by existing road network
Proximity to waste generators
Adequate space for proposed operations
Property Ownership
Availability of infrastructure
Exhibit B
Page 166 of 221
Using these factors and input from the County, Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal and members of
the Foodwaste User group, the initial list of sites included the following:
A. Eastern Regional MRF – upper area
B. Eastern Regional MRF – lower area
C. Full Circle Soils and Composting, Carson City, NV
D. RT Donovan Co, Sparks NV
E. Truckee-Tahoe Airport
F. Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
3.1.2 Scoring and Ranking of Initial Sites
Applying the selection criteria developed, the initial list of sites was scored, and unacceptable
sites were filtered out. The results of the scoring are shown in Table 5. The scoring resulted in a
refined list of sites, categorized as “preferred” or “possible” sites. The “possible” category of
sites will only be assessed further in the event the sites in the “preferred” category are not
feasible. The preferred and possible sites are listed in Table 6.
Table 5. Scoring and Ranking of Initial Sites
Points
Scored
Total Score
(Points x
Points
Scored
Total Score
(Points x
Points
Scored
Total Score
(Points x
Points
Scored
Total Score
(Points x
Points
Scored
Total Score
(Points x
Points
Scored
Total Score
(Points x
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 1
No 2
Yes 1
No 2
TOTAL 39 32 34 34 36 26
2 6 2 6 1 3
1 3
Aesthetics: Potential for negative
impacts to views and vistas 3 2 6 2 6 2 6
1 3 1 3 1 3Need for Vector, Bird, and Animal
Control 3 1 3 1 3
1 3 1 3 1 3
1 3
Property Owned by Agency 3 2 6 2 6 1 3
2 6 2 6 2 6Adequate space for proposed
operations 3 2 6 1 3
1 2 2 4 2 4
2 6
Located in proximity to waste
generators 2 2 4 2 4 1 2
2 6 2 6 2 6Access: Accessible by existing road
network 3 2 6 2 6
2 8 2 8 1 4
F. Tahoe-Truckee
Sanitation Agency
C. FACILITY LOCATION CRITERIA
Land use and location: compatible with
existing and surrounding land uses 4 2 8 1 4 2 8
Criteria Weight Scoring Details Point
Scale
SITE EVALUATION SCORING
A. ERMRF-Upper Area B. ERMRF-Lower Area C. Full Circle D. RT Donovan E. Truckee Tahoe
Airport
Exhibit B
Page 167 of 221
Table 6. Preferred and Possible Sites
Using this shortlist of sites, the site evaluation process was then focused on the preferred sites,
for further evaluation and consideration.
3.1.3 Site Visit Observations
Site visits were conducted at three of the top four sites on September 21 and 22, 2015, and
November 10, 2015. A visit to Full Circle, was not possible, however an in-depth discussion
with the facility operators was conducted via telephone on September 21, 2015. The purpose of
the site visits was to confirm there were no unexpected conditions or obvious information errors
or gaps in the site data, and to better qualify the pros and cons associated with each site. The
site visits included an evaluation of physical conditions of the site, and discussions with the
facility operators. Summaries of the observations from the site visits are included below:
Eastern Regional MRF – Upper Area
The Eastern Regional MRF is located at 870 Cabin Creek Road, Truckee, CA. The Upper Area
of the Eastern Regional MRF site that was evaluated for potential development of an organics
processing facility includes the northwest portion of the site, where the existing processed wood
is stockpiled. This area is approximately 11 acres in size, and relatively flat. According to
interviews with persons familiar with the site, this area had been used as a borrow area for the
former landfill cover operations, and is comprised of fill, however no solid waste was disposed
in this area. There are no landfill gas or groundwater monitoring wells in the immediate area
under consideration. The Upper Area is accessible via the existing paved road that extends from
the scale house for approximately 1,600 feet, and then the dirt road for the remaining distance to
the upper area. Electricity is available on the ERMRF site, to approximately the flare station,
however service will need to be extended to service the upper area. Existing operations in the
Upper Area will need to be re-located on-site to accommodate development of organics
processing. Ample room is available for the development of a windrow, static pile or in-vessel
composting, or a small Anaerobic Digester or autoclave processing facility.
Eastern Regional MRF- Lower Area
The Lower Area of the Eastern Regional MRF site that was evaluated for potential development
of an organics processing facility includes the area near the caretaker house, and storage shed
area, to the west of the existing MRF. This area is approximately 2 acres in size, and relatively
flat. The area has been used for storage and housing, but has no history of landfilling. There are
no landfill gas or groundwater monitoring wells in the immediate area under consideration. The
Lower Area is accessible via paved road from the scale house, and is located within a few
PREFERRED POSSIBLE
Eastern Regional MRF - upper area Eastern Regional MRF - lower area
Truckee Tahoe Airport Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
R.T. Donovan Co
Full Circle Soils and Composting
Exhibit B
Page 168 of 221
hundred feet of the scale and MRF. Electricity service is presently available in this area of the
Eastern Regional MRF site. The Lower Area is limited in size, and is therefore not considered
adequate for development of an organics processing facility.
R. T. Donovan Co.
The R.T. Donovan Co. is a permitted composting facility located at 11600 Pyramid Way, Sparks,
Nevada, approximately 50 miles northeast of Truckee, CA. The facility is accessible via US 80
or from US 395 via McCarron Boulevard. The facility is approximately 140 acres in size, and is
the only permitted commercial composter in Washoe County, Nevada. The facility accepts tree
trimmings, grass clippings, leaves, and food scraps brought to the site by local residents and
businesses, and produces a variety of topsoil, soil mixes and compost. RT Donovan does not
provide collection services or delivery of materials. The accepted green materials are ground
and then composted in open windrows. The facility is considering the development of an aerated
static pile trial operation. The tipping fees at the facility range from $36 per cubic yard of green
materials to $45 per ton for food scraps. They prefer materials to be brought in loose, not in
bags, and minimal compostable food service ware, such as plates, cups and utensils. Their
biggest concern is contamination of materials with non-compostables, such as glass and plastics.
The facility has indicated there is adequate room to expand their operations to accept materials
from Eastern Placer County, including green waste and food scraps (vegetable and animal
products).
Full Circle Compost (via telephone interview)
Full Circle Compost operates the composting facility at the Northern Nevada Correctional
Center, located at 1721 Snyder Ave, in Carson City, Nevada, approximately 70 miles southeast
of Truckee via US 80 east and US 580 south. The facility operates on approximately 20 acres at
the Correctional Center, and is permitted for open windrow composting by the Nevada
Department of Environmental Protection. The permit was recently expanded (additional 15,000
cubic yards) to allow the facility to handle more pine needles, which are used to blend with other
products. The facility accepts ground wood waste, manure, green material, mineral rock
powders, recycled sod, topsoil and silt tailings, and food scraps, (including pre-and post-
consumer). The operation produces a variety of soil mixes, compost, and custom blends. Full
Circle does not provide collection or delivery of materials. The tipping fees range from $50 per
ton for green materials and $65 per ton (or $36 per cubic yard) for food scraps. They prefer
materials to be brought in loose (not in bags), and compostable service wear and food
contaminated paper is also acceptable. Loads contaminated with unacceptable materials (glass
and plastic) may be subject to additional charges. Full Circle has indicated there is available
capacity to handle organics from Eastern Placer County, and they are willing to work with the
County to establish a contract that best needs the requirements of all the interested parties.
Truckee Tahoe Airport
The Truckee Tahoe Airport District Board of Directors is interested in exploring the potential of
siting a regional organics processing facility that could also be used as an educational center for
students and residents. The Airport District owns property off of Joerger Road. The property
consists of a total of 40 acres, 25 of which is flat, open area, located between property owned by
the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA) and Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary District. Adjacent to
this property is approximately 5-6 acres of land owned by the TTSA. The TTSA is interested in
the airport property for use for spray fields. There is the possibility of the Airport District and
Exhibit B
Page 169 of 221
TTSA initiating a land swap, giving the Airport District property for potential lease to the
County for development of an organics processing facility. The property is separated from the
runway by an earthen berm, and power and water service is available or nearby.
3.1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
The conclusions of the site evaluation are summarized in Table 7, including the site screening
scores, Pros and Cons of each site, an overview of the types of facilities that could be considered,
and the recommendations relevant to each site.
As indicated on Table 3, the Eastern Regional MRF-Upper Area site is recommended for
development of an organics processing facility. This recommendation is based on the following
factors: the site has adequate space; an existing permit that can be revised to incorporate organics
processing; it is located in close proximity to the waste generating source; it has been used for
municipal solid waste operations continually since 1973; it is owned by the County; has
infrastructure in place; and operations will not affect surrounding land uses. The site could
accommodate the development and operation of turned windrow, static pile, or in-vessel
composting, or small anaerobic digestion or autoclave technologies. The costs and benefits of
development of an organics processing facility at this site will be completed prior to the final
report recommendations.
If the County determines not to develop a facility at the Eastern Regional Landfill or MRF site,
the Airport District site should be considered for potential development of a facility. The site
would be contingent on the land swap between the Airport District and TTSA, and the County
and Airport District would need to enter into a lease agreement for use of the property by the
County. The site could accommodate the development and operation of covered aerated static
pile or in-vessel composting, or small anaerobic digestion or autoclave technologies. The costs
and benefits of development of an organics processing facility at this site will be completed prior
to the final report recommendations.
For the short-term, the R.T. Donovan site would be the primary recommended location for
transporting organic materials to from Eastern Placer County. This site is the easiest to access
from Truckee of the two existing, regional composting facilities. The facility has adequate space
to handle organics from Eastern Placer County, and has indicated interest in providing this
service to the county. Specifics that would need to be determined include, but are not limited to,
tipping fee, acceptable material types, contamination rates, and delivery schedules. The costs
and benefits of development of an organics processing facility at this site will be completed prior
to the final report recommendations.
Exhibit B
Page 170 of 221
Table 7. Site Evaluation Conclusions
Eastern Regional
MRF-Upper Area
Eastern Regional
MRF-Lower Area
Truckee Tahoe
Airport
Full Circle
Compost R.T. Donovan
Site Screening
Score 39 32 36 34 34
Pro’s • County owned
property
• Adequate space
• Existing Solid
Waste Facility
• Infrastructure in
place
• Local to
generating source
• County owned
property
• Existing solid
waste facility
• infrastructure in
place
• Local to
generating
source
• Local to
generating sources
• Opportunity for
education center
• Existing or
available utilities
• Opportunity to
collaborate with
Airport District
• Fully permitted
composting
facility
• Accepts green
materials and
food scraps
• Adequate
capacity to
handle Eastern
Placer organics
• Will take
material in bags
• Fully permitted
composting
facility
• Accepts green
materials and
food scraps
• Adequate
capacity to
handle Eastern
Placer organics
• Located 50
miles from
Truckee (closer
than Full
Circle)
Con’s • Will require
moving some
existing
operations
• Upgrades to on-
site roads will be
required
• Measures to
secure operations
from bears
• Area too small
for most
operations
• Measures to
secure
operations from
bears should be
considered
• Will require land
swap with TTSA
• Will require lease
agreement with
Airport District
• Will require new
Compostable
Materials
Handling Facility
Permit
• Located 70
miles from
Truckee
• Round trip
trucking
approximately
3 hours
• Privately
owned facility
• Located 50
miles from
Truckee
• Round trip
trucking
approximately
2 hours
• Privately
owned facility
Exhibit B
Page 171 of 221
Eastern Regional
MRF-Upper Area
Eastern Regional
MRF-Lower Area
Truckee Tahoe
Airport
Full Circle
Compost R.T. Donovan
should be
considered • Wil require CEQA
and local land use
review and
approvals
• Does not
provide
collection
• $36/cy tipping
fee for green
material
• $65/ton tipping
fee for food
scraps
• Does not
provide
collection
• May not take
material in bags
• $36/cy tipping
fee for green
material
• $45/ton tipping
fee for food
scraps
Types of
Processing That
Could Be
Considered at the
Site
• Turned windrow
• Static piles
• In-vessel
• Small AD
• Autoclave
• Autoclave
• Small AD
• Covered aerated
static piles
• In-vessel
• Small AD
• Autoclave
• Permitted for
windrow
processing
• Considering
aerated static
pile pilot
• Permitted for
windrow
processing
Recommendation Development at this
site should be
considered.
Development at this
site is not
recommended for
further evaluation.
Development at this
site should be
considered
Use of this site is
recommended for
further evaluation.
Use of this site is
recommended for
further evaluation.
Exhibit B
Page 172 of 221
3.2 POTENTIAL PROCESSING METHODS
There are many technology options for managing most organic materials in the waste stream,
each striving to optimize the biological conditions in the mass of material to achieve the most
uniform, mature product in a reasonable amount of time. When evaluating alternative processing
methods or technologies, key criteria are reviewed and assessed to understand the viability of the
technology and process with the specific local dynamics. This section provides an overview of
all the technology’s identified, their potential development barriers, and discussion of feedstock
and product markets in the Eastern Placer County area.
3.2.1 Overview of Organics Processing Technologies
The organics processing technologies that are considered appropriate for the County’s feedstock,
criteria, and constraints can be broken down into three main categories: composting, digestion,
and mechanical/thermal treatment. Within each, there are some sub-types which include:
1. Composting
Windrow Composting (i.e., turned windrows)
Aerated Static Pile (ASP) Composting
Aerobic In-Vessel Composting
2. Digestion
Dry Anaerobic Digestion
Wet Anaerobic Digestion
3. Mechanical/Thermal Treatment
Autoclave
Masher/Dryer
A detailed comparison and evaluation of the various processing technologies is provided in
Appendix B. Information on each category and sub-type are reviewed and organized by a list of
elements, some of which include:
Technology provider background, experience and process
Plant description, compatibility with proposed organics streams and volumes
Facility footprint, utilities and labor required
By-products and energy/biogas production
Air and waste water emissions
Exhibit B
Page 173 of 221
Facility expansion potential, potential changes in technology or permitting regulations
that may impact the technology
The information provided in these tables has been gathered and condensed by SCS from a
variety of sources including SCS clients, experienced professionals within SCS, industry trade
journal articles, presentations, review of vendor websites and technical information therein, and
discussions with vendors. This overview, in combination with technology vendor specifics and
processes reviewed, provide the details necessary for evaluating the technology and the viability
to be considered within Placer County.
3.2.2 Technology Background Information and Operating Aspects
There are a number of organic material processes that include minimal to large investment
including additional equipment. These processes include composting, digestion and mechanical /
thermal treatment. This section provides background on each organics process and their
operational aspects including a list of technology vendors. A typical organics processing plant
usually involves several major pieces of specialty equipment which often are manufactured by
different companies, combined with other basic features such as buildings and concrete pads that
are easily provided by general contractors. However, the trend in the industry is for the end user
(in this case the end user is Placer County) to contract with a single entity for delivery of an
entire plant. That contracting mechanism is discussed later in this section.
Some specialty companies that have developed the actual processing technology and/or
manufacture/ or supply equipment that employs the technology include the following listed
below. Many of the organics processing technologies were developed by companies based in
Europe. Some of those companies have expanded operations to the U.S. We have limited the
list to those companies that appear to have a U.S. base of operations. However, this does not
necessarily mean the plant components from these vendors are currently manufactured in the
U.S. SCS does not endorse any of the companies listed. The list is not exhaustive and there are
many more companies out there in the industry that can be added once the County has decided
on the technology.
3.2.2.1 Composting
All composting is an aerobic process, meaning air (oxygen) is introduced, either passively, or
actively using mechanical means and the processing is conducted with air present. This is a
basic distinction between composting and anaerobic digestion, which operates without the
presence of oxygen.
Composting produces no net energy; however, the resulting product of the process is a nutrient-
rich soil amendment that in some cases can be used as a fertilizer or fertilizer ingredient.
Composting reduces the original volume of feedstock by up to approximately 75%.
Windrow Composting
Windrow composting is typically carried out on a pad constructed of asphalt, concrete, or a low
permeability soil layer. Incoming food scraps are generally mixed with ground-up green waste
(e.g., the bulking agent) and formed into long parallel piles up to 8 or 9 feet high spaced from 4
to 20 feet apart. The rows are periodically turned with a loader or a specialized turner, and
Exhibit B
Page 174 of 221
moistened, at least once per week, over the course of several months. This promotes air transfer
through the pile, reduces compaction, and assists in maintaining a consistent moisture level for
biological activity to decompose the materials. Because the piles are exposed, fugitive odors can
quickly become an issue if the pile parameters are not monitored closely.
A variation of this method uses a biological enzyme added to the piles that stimulates the
existing bacteria. The piles are typically covered with an additional layer of mulch to activate
the enzyme. The piles are only turned once or twice in this variation before they are moved to
the final curing stage.
After the initial curing, the piles are moved to another area of the pad where they will be
aggregated into larger stockpiles for final curing. These piles will typically not be turned and
will cure for an additional few months. The final product is typically put through a mechanical
screen that separates out bulking material and pieces of compost that are larger than the desired
size (e.g., anything over ½ inch). These pieces are then put back through the process. Upon
completion of this phase, the compost is fully cured and ready to be marketed. The total
processing time can vary from 3 to 6 months.
Windrow Composting Technology Vendors: This technology is very basic and lends
itself to applying standard best practices that have been developed over the years and are
available from many state and Federal agencies. The major pieces of equipment may
include a mechanized windrow turner and product trommel screen. Some companies
providing this equipment include:
Turners
• Backhus (c/o Ecoverse Industries Ltd.), Avon, Ohio 440-937-3225
• Scarab International, White Deer, TX 806- 883-7621
• Komptech USA, Inc., Westminster, CO 720-890-9090
Power Screens
• McCloskey International, California, 651-829-7883
• Vermeer Corporation, Pella, Iowa, 641-628-3141
Aerated Static Pile
The aerated static pile method of composting method involves the active addition of air with a
mechanical air pump. In this technology, the windrow piles are placed on a pad, over parallel
rows of piping that is perforated with small holes. A mechanical pump is used to either produce
a slight vacuum in the piping which draws air through the piles, or the air pump can be used to
draw in fresh air and pump it through the piping into the windrow piles.
The mechanical aeration reduces the time for curing and ensures that a more uniform level of
oxygen is maintained in the piles. Thus, a larger volume of material can be processed versus the
basic windrow method. This method does not require the piles to be turned.
Odor management with this composting method is critical, and depending on the air flow
direction, may use stand-alone filters consisting of a thick bed of wood chips through which the
process air is blown, or special fabrics (i.e., GoreTex®) that covers the piles and assists in
restricting odor migration. Total processing time varies from 2 to 4 months.
Exhibit B
Page 175 of 221
Aerated Static Pile Technology Vendors: This system is more complex than windrow
composting and requires different equipment to manage the material. Some companies
providing this technology include:
McGill Environmental Systems, New Hill, NC 919-362-1161
W.L. Gore & Associates, www.gore.com
Engineered Compost Systems, Inc., Seattle, WA 206-634-2625
In-Vessel Composting
In-vessel composting typically involves placing the feedstock into a large diameter structural
tube, or in a series of concrete bunkers, tunnels, or enclosed containers, and subjecting the
material to some mechanical processing. The tube configuration, known as rotary drum (RDR),
consists of a long, downward sloping and insulated tube that is closed on both ends, sits on
rollers, and is turned slowly with an electric motor. The tube usually contains fins inside the
shell to flail and shred the material as it slowly makes it way to the lower end of the tube by
gravity and the turning action. Air is introduced into the lower end of the tube with an air pump
and once it exits the tube is exhausted through a wood chip air filter. After several days of
processing, the tube is stopped and the material removed and placed in open windrows and cured
for several weeks. After that time, the material is fully cured and ready to be marketed.
In the bunker/ tunnel/container version, the feedstock is placed in long, parallel rectangular
bunkers with a concrete floor and walls, or a long completely enclosed rectangular container. In
the bunker/tunnel versions, the material remains static and is periodically turned in-place with a
mechanical rotor/tiller that travels the length of the bunker on rails fixed atop the walls. Air is
drawn through the pile to maintain the aerobic condition and is filtered similarly to the tube
method. Total processing time varies from approximately 1 to 2-1/2 months. In the enclosed
version, the material is mixed with an internal, slowly rotating blade or paddle, however, the
material does not move from one end of the container to the other, until new feedstock is
introduced, and then material is pushed out the discharge end.
In-Vessel Composting Technology Vendors: Two general types of technologies are
prevalent, including the rotary drum (RDR) and the tunnel/or bunker or enclosed. Some
companies providing systems for this technology include:
Tunnel / Bunker
• Siemens Industry Inc., Hoffman Estates, IL, Ms. Allison Britt, 847-713-
8477
• Hot Rot Organic Solutions (hybrid RDR and bunker), Gerald Tibbo, 902-
452-9411
• Engineered Compost Systems, Inc., Seattle, WA 206-634-2625
Rotary Drum
• DT Environmental, Lynden, WA 800-701-3632
• B W Organics, Sulphur Springs, TX 903-438-2525
• Wright Environmental Management, Inc. Richmond Hill, ON Canada
905-881-3950
Exhibit B
Page 176 of 221
3.2.2.2 Digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process conducted in a vessel or tank where air is excluded from
the process and the process is actively heated to maintain a temperature ideal for the
microorganisms, typically in the 50 to 55 degrees Celsius range. In an AD system, there is a net
energy product. As the waste decomposes, it produces biogas, which typically has a methane
content of approximately 50 to 80% depending on the process. The methane is an energy source
and can be converted to provide electrical power, heat, or compressed natural gas vehicle fuel.
Wet Digestion
The relatively high liquid content and relatively low solids content of sludge and manures have
made them adaptable to digestion in tanks. The processing of municipal sludge has been
conducted in liquid digester tanks for many decades and at municipal waste water treatment
plants. In the past 10 to 15 years, manure has also been processed, mostly on farms, in tanks
with and without sludge. Only in the last few years have food scraps been added to the
feedstocks processed in tanks. The solid waste industry refers to these digesters as “wet”
digesters, or the "low" solids process.
When food scraps are a feedstock, they are typically a secondary feedstock, and are ground-up
initially to slurry, then pumped into a holding tank where they are mixed with other feedstock.
This slurry then goes into a larger, heated digestion tank, where the bacteria decompose the
slurry. The resulting biogas is captured, cleaned and used for energy. The by-product, some
liquids and a fibrous solid, can be separated and the solids composted and the liquid used as a
soil amendment. This technology is not usually the technology of choice where only food scraps
Wet Digestion Technology Providers: Some companies that have developed and/or
refined the wet digestion process technology and specific equipment include the
following.
Quasar Energy Group, Cleveland, OH, 216-986-9999
Harvest Power, Waltham MA 781-314-9500
Clean World, Goldriver CA 800-325-3472
All of these vendors have facilities operational in the last several years with new projects under
design/construction in the U.S.
Dry Digestion
Another variation of the basic anaerobic digestion process that has evolved to a reliable
technology for processing food wastes in Europe in the last 20 years is known as the “dry” or
"high solids" process. This same process has come to the U.S. in the last 5 years or so.
The dry digestion process can be conducted in a single stage, or in two stages. The latter
provides digestion in two distinct stages: 1) a hydrolysis stage; and 2) a methanogenesis stage.
The two-stage process is more complex and initially a higher cost, however, it has some definite
advantages, including shorter processing time, greater throughput, higher methane
concentration, better efficiency, and a lower cost per unit volume of waste processed.
Exhibit B
Page 177 of 221
In the single stage process, food scraps are placed directly into one of several parallel concrete or
steel chambers where they form an elongated pile. The chamber door is sealed, a vacuum pump
removes the remaining air and the digestion process starts. As the pile is decomposing, liquid
leachate is collected and continually sprayed back over the pile to maintain correct moisture.
Biogas is withdrawn and collected in a gas holder, usually sitting atop the chambers. After
approximately 21 to 28 days the decomposition is complete, the resulting solid material (i.e., the
digestate) is removed and taken for composting. The biogas is processed similarly as in the wet
digestion process.
In the two-stage process, the food scraps are initially loaded into a chamber as in the single stage
and are processed in a similar manner, however the process time is much shorter because the
hydrolysis period is very short. The partially digested solids are mixed and discharged into
another sealed vessel where the methane is formed. After approximately 14 days the
decomposition is complete, the resulting solid material (i.e., the digestate) is removed and taken
for composting. The compost process takes from 50 to 60 days.
The biogas is processed similarly as in the wet digestion process. However, because of the
higher methane content in the two-stage (approximately 65 to 80%) compared to 50 to 65% in
the single-stage, the biogas clean-up is more efficient and less costly.
This technology is marketed by several firms, mostly originating in Europe where the technology
has been in use for a few decades. An average net energy output for the dry digestion
technology is approximately 200 kilowatt hours per ton (kwh/ton).
Dry Digestion Technology Providers: Some companies that have developed and/or
refined the dry digestion process technology and specific equipment include the
following.
Harvest Power, Waltham MA 781-314-9500
Organic Waste Systems (OWS), 513-535-6760
BIOFerm Energy (Viessmann technology) , 608-467-5523
Eisenmann, 815-900-1443
Zero Waste Energy (KOMPOFERM and SMARTFERM technology), 415-265-
1339
All of these vendors have facilities that have either started operation in the last several years or
are under design/construction in the U.S.
3.2.2.3 Mechanical/Thermal Treatment
Some additional technologies have appeared in the market that are focused on food scrap
processing including autoclave and a masher-dryer.
Autoclaving is a process conducted in a vessel, where the feedstock is subjected to high
temperature, steam pressure, and mechanical turning action that convert the food scraps to liquid
and a fibrous solid. The process reduces the volume of material by approximately 85%, and
recovers recyclables either with pre-sorting or screening following processing. The product is
Exhibit B
Page 178 of 221
approximately 95% organic, and when dried, can be composted or used as an energy source.
The product can be pelletized for use in a boiler, with a heating value of approximately 7,550
BTU per pound, which is greater than wood pellets. The technology has a relatively small
footprint, and can be combined with an existing Transfer Station and/or MRF, utilizing existing
pre-sorting. shredding, and screening equipment.
The masher-dryer initially grinds up the food scraps into small pieces and then uses heat to
dehydrate the solids and then sizing equipment to produce a uniform shaped nugget. The
nuggets are marketed as an animal feed supplement.
Mechanical / Thermal Treatment Technology Providers: These vendors have recently
started operations in the last year, are under design/construction or looking to establish a
market in the U.S.
Autoclave
• WastAway, McMinnville, TN 800- 431-9571
• NOWON, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Masher / Dryer
• Sustainable Alternatives Feed Enterprises (SAFE) Andrew Keratzides
775-682-4325
3.2.3 Existing Facilities and Capacity
An estimate of the number of commercial-scale operating plants in the U.S. using the
technologies reviewed is provided in Table 8. There are hundreds more operations using the
various composting technologies than compared to those using digestion technologies for
organics (i.e., food scrap) processing. Turned windrows account for the largest segment,
followed by ASP, and then in-vessel. And of the third category, Mechanical / Thermal, there are
only a few operating facilities in the U.S.
Table 8. Estimated Number of Organics Processing Facilities in the U.S.
Windrow
Composting
Aerated
Static
Pile
In-Vessel Wet
Anaerobic
Digestion
(1)
Wet
Anaerobic
Digestion
(2)
Dry
Anaerobic
Digestion
(3)
Mechanical
/Thermal
Autoclave
Mechanical
/Thermal
SAFE
process
>300 >50 <10 <5 >25 >30 1 1
(1) Utilizing food scraps only
(2) Utilizing other organic feedstock (i.e., manures, sludge, etc.) but including food scraps
(3) Possibly utilizing other organic feedstock (i.e., agricultural residual) but including food
scraps
Exhibit B
Page 179 of 221
Table 9 summarizes the 2014 survey information from BioCycle magazine of the number and
capacity (tons per year) of organics processing facilities in the U.S.
Table 9. Number and Capacity of Organics Processing Facilities
The approximate 3,000 TPY of organics that the County may have available is within the largest
segment of existing facilities.
3.2.4 Potential Barriers to Technology Development
Organics processing technologies and their future development are not immune to changes in
environmental laws, the economy, and the availability of markets. Potential barriers to the
development of any technology include:
3.2.4.1 Environmental Laws
California’s mandatory organics recycling law necessitates the development of new facilities to
process organics. The State Air Resources Board, which has jurisdiction over the
implementation of AB 32, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction legislation, has indicated
they may support landfill bans of organics if progress is not made on greenhouse gas emission
reductions. Furthermore, elimination of diversion credit for use of greenwaste as Alternative
Daily Cover in 2020 will also necessitate the need for additional facilities to handle this material.
3.2.4.2 Economics
Competing against “cheap” landfill space and low oil /natural gas prices may put some new
organics energy conversion technologies out of the market. In regions where the price offered by
power companies to purchase power generated from alternative energy producers is based on the
cost of oil and natural gas may have the same effect. This can significantly impact the long term
economics of power production projects.
3.2.4.3 Lack of markets
Although composting has been around for decades the widespread acceptance and use of the
product has been not nearly as good as expected. Although the scientific case for the benefits to
agriculture appear to be clear, the agricultural market in some areas of the U.S. cannot justify the
extra cost of the product, or do not believe they have a need for the extra benefits that compost
provides. We also have been told by some large agri-businesses that they need large, consistent
quantities of compost, something that the private or municipal market has not been able to
provide. And in one case in southern California, where an authority is co-composting biosolids
with food scrap organics, the resulting compost has been shunned by the local farmers, for fear
of contaminating the crop and risk to the public.
Capacity (tons per year)<5,000 <20,000 Over 20,000
Number of facilities 2,354 713 218
Exhibit B
Page 180 of 221
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF FEEDSTOCK AND PRODUCT MARKETS
An important aspect of the project was to identify the availability of potential food waste residue
generated within Eastern Placer County (County) from sources outside of Tahoe Truckee Sierra
Disposal (TTSD) services, and to assess the viability of potential markets for all by-products that
are generated for each of the organics processing technologies being considered. This
information is based on discussions with County stakeholders, online research performed, and
phone conversations with potential generators and purchasers of material to fully assess the
feasibility and opportunities available.
3.3.1 Potential Feedstock
In addition to food scraps generated from the County municipal solid waste (MSW) stream, other
sources of feedstock for the organics processing technologies should be considered. These
additional sources will help maximize the use of the facility, provide additional tipping fee
revenues, assist other businesses or municipalities in the region to implement organics recycling,
and add volume to the system during seasonal fluctuations of organic materials.
The following generators were identified and contacted to determine if they produce a suitable
feedstock (ranging from yard trimmings to biosolids) for the organics processing technologies,
and if they were interested in working with the County.
Public Works Departments (including fire districts and schools)
Landscapers
Golf courses
Boarding stables
Recreational facilities
Following an initial interview, if the generator was identified as a potential opportunity,
additional questions were asked in order to develop a comprehensive list of feedstock sources.
The information summarized in Table 10, including the material type and potential volume
available, the distance from Truckee and the number of businesses interested and not interested,
and total number contacted.
Table 10. Potential Feedstock Generators
According to the initial research performed, there are 10,400 cubic yards of yard trimmings,
18,200 cubic yards of wood waste, and 1,300 cubic yards of biosolids available for consideration
Material
Estimated
Cubic Yards
Per Week
Estimated
Cubic Yards
Annually
Distance
from
Truckee
(miles)
# of
Businesses
Interested
# of
Businesses
Not
Interested
# of
Businesses
Did Not
Return Call
Total
Businesses
Contacted
Yard Trimmings 200 10,400 10 to 90 3 1 7 11
Wood Waste 350 18,200 10 to 50 3 0 0 3
Bio Solids 25 1,300 10 to 50 2 1 1 4
Total 575 29900 10 to 90 8 2 8 18
Exhibit B
Page 181 of 221
and transport to a new facility. There were a significant number of businesses that did not return
calls and may be an opportunity for feedstock.
3.4 POTENTIAL MARKETS FOR PRODUCTS
Another critical component to assessing whether a specific technology will be a feasible option is
to understand the products of each technology and if there are markets for the products that will
offset the costs and potentially create a revenue source for the facility. There are four products
that would be generated from the technologies under consideration:
1. Compost / soil amendment
2. Liquid digestate used as liquid fertilizer
3. Compressed Natural Gas
4. Solid pulp for Refuse Derived Fuel
Depending on the availability of vendors who would want to purchase the material and the
amount they will need, this initial research will help assess the likelihood that markets are
available.
A summary of the market information is included in Table 11, including the product type,
existing demand, location in relation to Truckee, and the potential interest of businesses that
were contacted.
Table 11. Potential Markets
3.4.1 Compost/Soil Amendment
According to the research performed, there are five key users that would consider purchasing
compost from the County if a superior product is produced. The product would be used for
water conservation and for adding nutrients into soils. The potential users include:
Public Works Departments (including Department of Transportation and schools)
Landscapers
Golf courses
Farms
Nurseries
Material
Estimated Cubic
Yards Per Week
Used
Distance
from
Truckee
(miles)
# of Businesses
Interested
# of
Businesses
Not Interested
# of
Businesses
Did Not
Return Call
Total
Businesses
Contacted
Compost / Soil Amendment 2,031 13 to 85 11 7 0 18
Compressed Natural Gas 0 0 to 37 1 2 1 4
Dry Digestate 0 87 1 0 0 1
Liquid Digestate 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solid Pulp - Refuse Derived Fuel 0 87 1 0 0 1
Exhibit B
Page 182 of 221
The research revealed 11 out of the 18 contacts paid between $20-$99 per cubic yard for
compost, and the number of purchases ranged from several times a month to several times per
year.
It should be noted that local and state governments can help drive market demand, as well as
provide demonstration projects promoting the benefits of products generated from the waste
conversion technologies it utilizes. The California drought provides an opportunity for Placer
County to use local ordinances that impose water conservation requirements and to ensure
landscaping maintenance practices are aligned with local conditions and existing environmental
constraints. Mandates can include the use of mulch in areas of exposed soil to reduce
evaporation and the use of soil amendments to increase the water holding capacity of the soil at
County buildings, schools, and roadways. Soil amendments can also be applied to lands that
have been ravaged by fire, aiding in their restoration.
3.4.2 Liquid Digestate
Liquid fertilizer, made from waste processing technologies, has not been widely introduced into
mainstream soil amendment markets in the Placer County area. After contacting various
industries identified as likely candidates for the use of liquid digestate, many representatives
interviewed were not familiar with its composition or did not understand the benefits of its use to
consider purchasing and applying to their soils. It is recommended that the County consider
outreach and education to highlight uses and benefits, to introduce potential users to the product.
Potential uses include:
Farms
Brownfield Site Restoration
Parks
Athletic Fields
3.4.3 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Companies that would benefit from easy to obtain sources of CNG for their fleet in the Truckee
area are Waste Management (WM) which is located in Reno and Tahoe Area Regional Transit
(TART), located in Truckee. WM is interested to discuss, however the distance from Reno to
Truckee would not be cost-effective. TART could access a pump station at ERL/ERMRF, and
this potential use should be investigated further.
3.4.4 Dry Fluff for Energy or Agriculture
Fluff from the autoclave technology is a potential feedstock for electricity production or
agricultural use. Biomass to energy, an industry currently centered on burning woody debris, is
exploring the potential of adding the mostly organic solid pulp to their portfolio of fuel types. In
addition, the fluff has the potential to be used in agricultural applications, including as a soil
binder or amendment.
Exhibit B
Page 183 of 221
3.5 MARKET PRICING FOR PRODUCTS
To provide a comprehensive market analysis, it is important to understand product pricing for
materials currently sold in the region. Research was performed to identify the existing markets
for the products that will be generated, including compost, liquid digestate, CNG and fluff,
3.5.1 Compost / Soil Amendments
The local vendors, products and current market prices are shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Existing Market Prices for Compost Products
As indicated in Table 12, compost is sold between $30 and $129 per cubic yard. Other prices are
comparable to those currently being charged at ERL/ERMRF.
3.5.2 Liquid Digestate
SCS was unable to uncover any businesses in the Eastern Placer County area that currently sell
liquid digestate as a fertilizer. Therefore, we were not able to receive a price for the commodity
that is local.
Two sources that market their by-product from a wet anaerobic digestion process were found in
Oakland and Los Angeles: East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD) and Kellogg Garden
Products (Kellogg). EBMUD’s digestate comes predominantly from wastewater biosolids with a
small fraction from source-separated commercial organics (food scraps) from municipal sources.
Currently, 75% of the digestate is “beneficially used” as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC), and the
remainder is applied to non-food crop land (“land application”). EBMUD pays approximately
$30-$35 a ton for trucking and land application.
While these two outlets, ADC and land application, are fairly typical, Kellogg produces and
markets compost and fertilizer from the Los Angeles Sanitation District’s bio solids. Kellogg is
a private company which purchases SoilPro made from composted bio solids (sewage sludge)
and manufactures a variety of lawn and garden soil products which include Nitrohumus,
Gromulch, Amend and Topper. The product is bagged and sold to homeowners and landscapers
through retail centers in California and other states. About 70% of Kellogg’s total annual sales
are of composted biosolids products which represents about 250,000 cubic yards per year.
Supplier
Home Depot
(Reno, NV)
Full
Circle
RT
Donovan
Tahoe Sand &
Gravel
Oxborrow
Trucking
Reno Rock
Transport
Product Cu/Yd Ton Cu/Yd Cu/Yd Cu/Yd Cu/Yd Cu/Yd Cu/Yd
Compost $128.79 $99.00 $35.00 $35.00 $30.00
Topsoil $25.00 $20.00 $30.00 $22.00
Wood Chips $9 - $35 $4.00
Pine Needles $7.00 $4.00
Mulch $1.50 - $6 $65.00 $18.00
Bark $1.50 - $3 $18.00 $53.00 $40.00 $46.00
Tahoe Truckee Sierra
Disposal (TTSD)
$48.00 (mix)
Exhibit B
Page 184 of 221
3.5.3 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
No businesses interviewed in the Eastern Placer County area would provide their pricing for
CNG. A search using the internet3, identified a CNG refueling station at 1901 Airport Road
South Lake Tahoe that sells CNG for $3.60 per GGE (Gallon Gasoline Equivalent) and the
PG&E Auburn Service Center at 333 Sacramento Street Auburn that sells CNG for $2.65 per
GGE.
An alternative to selling gas from a refueling station would be to work with the local utility,
Southwest Gas Supply, to add CNG to their pipeline. There are a number of anaerobic digestion
facilities that have tried to pipe CNG and electricity back through the utility. In some cases it
works and in others it is challenging to finalize a contract.
3.5.4 Dry Fluff
IHi Power Service Corporation was contacted to see about the possibility of their Lincoln
California facility taking dry fluff at their biomass facility. They are currently not permitted to
accept material generated from food waste, however would be interested to discuss further if the
autoclave technology is chosen.
3 http://www.altfuelprices.com/station_map.php
Exhibit B
Page 185 of 221
4.0 PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS
Development of a new organics processing facility in the County would include a number of
permits and approvals from State and local agencies. A new facility would require a
Compostable Materials Handling Facility Permit from the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). This is applicable for a green materials composting
facility that has more than 12,500 cubic yards of feedstock, compost, or chipped and ground
material on-site at any one time. In order to obtain the permit, a number of documents must be
prepared, reviewed and subsequently approved by the regional regulatory body, in this case the
County Department of Environmental Health, acting as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
for CalRecycle. The permit will be concurred upon by CalRecycle. The documents include the
Permit Application and the Report of Composting Site Operation.
In addition, a Finding of Conformance with the County Siting Element (CSE) must be approved.
The CSE requires that prior to the development of such facilities, the facility proponent must: (1)
show the project is consistent with the CSE; (2) undergo a vigorous site specific assessment and
permitting process at the Federal, State, and local levels; and (3) address all environmental
concerns as mandated by CEQA. The local task force would determine whether a particular
project is consistent with the CSE and its Siting Criteria through a Finding of Conformance
process.
All compostable material handling operations and facilities must prepare, implement and
maintain a site-specific odor impact minimization plan. A complete plan must be submitted to
the LEA with the permit application. The Odor impact minimization plan provides guidance to
on-site operation personnel by describing, at a minimum, the following items. If the operator
will not be implementing any of these procedures, the plan must explain why it is not necessary.
The facility would also undergo review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and evaluation of potential significant impacts associated with construction and
operation of the facility would determine whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration or full
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. Potential impacts could include Air
Quality, Odors, Traffic, and Land Use, to name just a few. If development of an anaerobic
digestion is proposed, the project could utilize the EIR prepared by the State for that purpose.
Local land use approval for a project would also be required, including consistency with the
General Plan and Zoning ordinance. Issues such as location in a County Community Standards
District, proposed operation type, and type and quantity of materials to be handled are all factors
that would be evaluated to determine the land use approval process for a proposed organics
management facility. The authority for determining the consistency with the General Plan lies
with the government of the local jurisdiction in which the project is located or to be located. As
such, the siting and protection of the areas identified for future use as solid waste facilities are
subject to the land use regulations (e.g., General Plan, Zoning, and Land Use Permits) of the
local jurisdictions.
Exhibit B
Page 186 of 221
5.0 COST ANALYSIS
The purpose of the cost analysis was to evaluate food waste collection and processing options. A
cost model was developed based on the analysis and results from the research and analysis
previously performed, and financial data from Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (TTSD). The
following information describes the financial baseline for current conditions, cost model
findings, projected revenue requirements and customer fees, and overall findings.
5.1 FINANCIAL BASELINE
The SCS team compiled background information provided by TTSD, including the organics pilot
study and operating information, such as existing labor, fuel, and electrical rates, hauling
expenses and haul distances. This information was reviewed and then used in the cost model to
establish a current financial baseline for services and customer fees within Eastern Placer
County.
5.2 COST MODEL WORKSHEETS
Using the financial data and background information gathered from TTSD and the organics
processing technology companies, and the hauling/processing scenarios, a cost model was
developed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the financial requirements for each scenario
analyzed. The model can be found in Appendix C and summarized below.
The first section of the cost model compares the costs by account on an annual and monthly basis
(picked-up once a week) for the nine (9) processing/haul scenarios. Each scenario includes two
collection options; A) bin collection and B) yellow bag collection.
The second, third and fourth sections model the bin and yellow bag collection options and the
organics pilot study including results as provided by TTSD.
The fifth through thirteenth section models the nine (9) hauling/processing scenarios which
include:
1. Processing – Windrow
2. Processing – ASP
3. Processing – In Vessel
4. Processing – Dry AD
5. Processing – Wet AD
6. Processing – Autoclave
7. Haul – Full Circle
8. Haul – R. T. Donovan
9. Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises (SAFE)
Exhibit B
Page 187 of 221
Each sheet includes the assumptions, cost estimates and projected revenues (as appropriate) for
the particular collection option, processing and haul scenarios. The annual costs for collection,
hauling, processing, and tip fee, as appropriate for each scenario, is accumulated on the
Summary Sheet of the model. These figures are totaled to arrive at an annual cost by scenario
for each of the two (2) collection options for comparison purposes. The annual cost was then
converted to a monthly cost per account (picked-up once per week), based upon TTSD
assumptions as discussed below.
5.3 ASSUMPTIONS
The model contains many assumptions which are clearly identified within each of the
worksheets. The major assumptions, described below, are either; 1) base assumptions common
to all parameters of the model; or 2) specific assumptions only assumed for a particular
collection option or processing/haul scenario.
5.3.1 Base Assumptions
Total food waste available: 6,000 tons per year (tpy)
Capture rate: 50%
Total food waste collected: 3,000 tpy
Days collected per year: 260 days/year
Pounds (lbs.) per customer per pick-up: 300 lbs. (based on TTSD pilot study data of 400
lbs. per customer per pick-up at 75% full)
Capital cost financing: 5% interest rate, 20 years, 5% cost of capital to finance
Contractor overhead: 10%
Contingency: 15%
5.3.2 Specific Assumptions - By Collection Option
A. Bin Collection – a system of collecting source separated food scraps by TTSD as represented
in their pilot program and offered only to commercial customers that generate food waste.
Cost: $137.13 per customer per month based on pilot study and assumptions of
maximum 32 customers per route and 6.08 tons per vehicle.
B. Yellow Bag Collection - a system comprised of distributing yellow bags to commercial
customers participating in the food scraps program. The customers will fill the yellow bags
with food scraps, seal and place the bags in their standard commercial waste containers.
TTSD will pick up the regularly scheduled waste containers, which will include a mix of
commercial waste and yellow bags. The loads will be transported to ERL/ERMRF, where
the yellow bags will be segregated from the waste for further processing
Pounds (lbs.) per yellow bag: 30 lbs.
Number of pick-ups per day: 77
Exhibit B
Page 188 of 221
Yellow bag sorting cost: $20 per ton based upon similar operations
5.3.3 Specific Assumptions – By Processing/Haul Scenario
1. Windrow Processing - open air windrow process, where piles of organics are continually
turned until composted and then moved to another area for curing, screening and final
compost production and marketing.
Wood chips required: 6,000 tpy
Operating days: 7 days per week
Required area: 2.8 acres
Personnel: 1
Equipment: Windrow turner, bobcat, screen
2. Aerated Static Pile (ASP) Processing - open air process, where windrows are placed over a
fixed aeration system which aerate the piles until composted and moved to another area for
curing, screening and final compost production and marketing.
Wood chips required: 6,000 tpy
Operating days: 7 days per week
Required area: 2.8 acres
Personnel: 1
Equipment: Aeration pipe, fittings and blowers, bobcat, screen
3. In-Vessel Processing – organic materials are fed through a vessel that processes it into a
compostable material which is then moved to another area for curing, screening and final
compost production and marketing.
Wood chips required: 910 tpy
Operating days: 7 days per week
Building: 32’ x 210’ fabric building
Personnel: 1
Equipment: Vessel , bobcat, screen
4. Dry Anaerobic Digestion Processing – organics are delivered to a bunker with no air
(anaerobic) and are kept in this bunker until the material degrades to almost a compost-like
material, while the system is collecting biogas and converting this gas into electricity for
sale to the grid. The dry digestate will be moved to another area for curing, screening and
final compost production and marketing.
Wood chips required: 2,000 tpy
Exhibit B
Page 189 of 221
Operating days: 7 days per week
Required area: 1.3 acres (only for non-enclosed improvements)
Personnel: 1
Equipment: Dry Anaerobic equipment (fermenters, blowers, pumps, biofilters, CHP
system), windrow turner, bobcat, screen
Revenues: Electrical sales
5. Wet Anaerobic Digestion Processing - organics are delivered to a tank, made into slurry and
subjected to a process to that of a waste water digester. The biogas is also collected and
converted to electricity or other fuel; a digestate is produced that can be dried, composted,
and cured.
Wood chips required: none
Operating days: 7 days per week
Building: 2,500 sf
Required area: 1.0 acres (only for non-enclosed improvements)
Personnel: 1
Equipment: Wet Anaerobic equipment (vessels, buffer tanks, screw press, digester,
pumps, valves, flare, CHP system), bobcat
Revenues: Electrical sales
6. Autoclave Processing - organic materials are fed into a series of tanks, subjected to steam
and high temperature which sterilizes the material and creates a fluff or biomass type
material. When dry, the product can be used as a fuel, sold as fibers, or used in
agricultural application.
Wood chips required: none
Operating days: 7 days per week
Building: 5,000 sf
Required area: 1.0 acres (only for non-enclosed improvements)
Personnel: 1
Equipment: Autoclave equipment (conveyors, autoclaves, boiler, steam generator,
water system, screen), bobcat
Product: Fluff; reduces volume of incoming material by 83%.
7. Full Circle Haul - transfer food scraps to Full Circle compost facility in Carson City, NV.
Round trip to Carson City: 4 hours (including load/unload)
Exhibit B
Page 190 of 221
Payload: 20 tons per vehicle
Haul cost: $120 per hour
Tip fee: $65 per ton
8. RT Donovan Haul - transfer food scraps to Donovan compost facility in Sparks, NV.
Round trip to Sparks: 3 hours (including load/unload)
Payload: 20 tons per vehicle
Haul cost: $120 per hour
Tip fee: $45 per ton
9. Sustainable Alternative Feed Enterprises (SAFE) - commercial source separated food scraps
are taken to the “spoke” facility where contaminants are screened out and produced into a
mash. The mash is delivered to the main “hub” facility for further refining into animal
feed product.
Wood chips required: none
Operations: Food waste collected and delivered to spoke (assumed near TTSD or
ERL/MRF) for processing; processed material then delivered to Hub (assumed near
Sparks)
Facilities: Spoke for processing and clean-up of food waste; Hub for processing into
final product for sale
Product: Animal feed. Reduces raw food waste feedstock to 25% of original
quantity.
5.4 REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, EXPENSES AND CUSTOMER
FEES
SCS utilized the cost model to evaluate the revenue requirements to support the potential food
waste collection and processing options on an annual basis. The revenue requirement represents
what must be collected to pay system expenditures necessary to support the targeted levels of
service while meeting financial obligations. The revenue requirement includes current and/or
potential capital expenditures of the various collection and processing options. These results are
summarized in the Summary sheet in the model and shown in Table 13.
Exhibit B
Page 191 of 221
Table 13. Estimated Capital and Annual Costs
Technology/Processing Capital Costs O&M
Windrow Composting
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,277,000$ 400,000$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)508,000$
Aerated Static Pile Composting
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,336,000$ 374,000$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)487,000$
In-Vessel Composting
Total Annual Cost ($/year)2,250,000$ 118,280$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)308,280$
Dry Anaerobic Digestion
Total Annual Cost ($/year)6,137,000$ 452,000$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)969,000$
Wet Anaerobic Digestion
Total Annual Cost ($/year)7,001,000$ 333,000$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)923,000$
Autoclave Processing
Total Annual Cost ($/year)5,300,000$ 263,000$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)710,000$
Full Circle Haul
Total Annual Cost ($/year)-$ -$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)-$
Donovan Haul
Total Annual Cost ($/year)-$ -$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)-$ -$
SAFE System
Total Annual Cost ($/year)5,580,000$ 225,000$
Total with Annualized Capital Costs
(5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)772,000$
Exhibit B
Page 192 of 221
6.0 EVALUATION AND SCORING OF TECHNOLOGIES
6.1 SCORING METHODOLOGY
The methodology used to score and rank the technologies combined attributes of the technology
with county requirements, and the land use and siting issues. The scoring system assigned a
point value to each criteria, either 0, 1, or 2. A score of 2 would represent a favorable
assessment, and 0 representing a much less favorable assessment or no suitability/compatibility.
Scoring is a combination of the understanding of factual information and collective judgment.
So, differences between a technologies that receives a score of 2, versus one that receives a 1 for
a criteria, may be for all practical purposes similar and for that criteria, one technology is not
“better” than another.
The evaluative criteria are weighted because some criteria are more important, or could be
considered more or less accommodating for a technology. The individual weighting factors
range from 0 to 5. The actual assignment of a weighting factor for each of the criteria can be a
relatively straightforward or more involved process. For the purposes of this assessment, SCS
will assign weighting to each factor based on its judgment and experience; however, as the
County proceeds to the final technology selection stage, it may wish to refine the weighting
factors based on community input.
Weighting factors, like the point score system, are part objective and part subjective and should
be understood to have a range even though it is a specific number. For example, a weighting
factor of 4 for a criteria, could conceivably, given other opinions, vary from say 3 to 5.
For each criteria, a weighted score was generated. The score is the product of the point assigned
times the weight for that criteria. The scores for each potential technology was then summed to
obtain a total score for the technology.
6.2 SCORING RESULTS
6.2.1 Technology Scoring
The results of the technology and County criteria scoring are shown in Table 14. As indicated,
in some cases, two or more technologies will have scores that are very close, yet, the limitations
of the ranking procedure only allows for one site to be ranked first. In reality, some technologies
ranked other than first may potentially be as appropriate as the first ranked technology, given the
inherent limitations and uncertainties in data interpretation and judgments, that cannot be totally
eliminated in the process, and are reflected in the scoring and weighting aspects.
Exhibit B
Page 193 of 221
Table 14. Technology Scoring Results
6.2.2 Combined Technology and Siting Scoring
The technology scoring information was then combined with the siting scoring to obtain a
ranking of technologies with sites. These results are shown in Table 15. As indicated in red,
combining the ERMRF- Upper Area site with the windrow or ASP composting technology
ranked the highest, and next highest were the autoclave at the ERMRF –Upper Area or windrow
or ASP at the Airport site.
Although this approach attempts to limit the potential for bias or subjectivity in the scoring and
ranking, the ranking and final selection of a site and a technology can be highly controversial.
Ultimately, as the process moves toward a final decision, the process may be subjected to intense
political pressures that can have relatively little to do with the evaluative criteria herein and can
significantly delay or even stop the process entirely.
54 54 57 53 52 54 31
Net energy production
B. COUNTY CRITERIA 20 20 13 16 13 17 23
TOTAL 74 74 70 69 65 71 54
10 10 10
TECHNOLOGY SCORE
WINDROW
COMPOSTING
ASP
COMPOSTING
IN-VESSEL
COMPOSTING
DRY
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION
WET
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION
AUTOCLAVE SAFE
A. TECHNOLOGICAL
8
5
Years of operating history 8 8
10 10 10
8 044
Status of technology
4
Landfill diversion (percent by weight
of feedstock sent to landfill) 10 10
8 4 4
5 01010
Feedstock Material
2 2
10
888
2 2
Quantity of water required 2 2
2 2 2
1 221
Zero Waste Discharge Facility
Power requirements 2 2
2
1 2
0 0 0
2 2 2
0000
RPS eligibility 0 0 0
Emissions within Federal and State
regulations 8 8 8
3 3 6
0444
8888
6
Creation of Green Jobs 1 1 1
6 6 6
2111
Potential to emit Odors
Capital costs ($/ton of daily capacity)8 8 4 8
Unit operating cost 0 0 0
4 4 8
0000
3
By-Product revenue 0 0 0
3 0 3Tipping fee (based on reference
facility(ies))6 6 3
6
Energy Revenue 0 0 0
0 0 3
6
Criteria
6 6 3
0
Markets for By-Products 6 6 6
3 3 0
Exhibit B
Page 194 of 221
Table 15. Combined Scoring of Technologies and Sites
Windrow
Composting ASP Composting In-Vessel
Composting
Dry Anaerobic
Digestion
Wet
Anaerobic
Digestion
Autoclave SAFE
74 74 70 69 65 71 46
ERMRF-Upper Area 39 113 113 109 108 104 110 93
ERMRF-Lower Area 32 106 106 102 101 97 103 86
Full Circle 34 108 108 104 103 99 105 88
RT Donovan 34 108 108 104 103 99 105 88
Truckee Tahoe Airport 36 110 110 106 105 101 107 90
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation
Agency 26 100 100 96 95 91 97 80
TECHNOLOGY SCORE
SITE SCORE
Exhibit B
Page 195 of 221
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the scoring and ranking, and the project team’s experience working on
similar projects, it is recommended the County pursue a two phase approach to organics
processing. This phased approach will enable the County to comply with the requirements of
AB 1826, while allowing time for the development of a new processing facility. The first phase
would be implemented in January 2016, and it is anticipated Phase 2 could begin in mid-2016,
with anticipated completion by the middle of 2018. The two phases are described below:
Phase 1: Contract for Collection and Hauling of Food Waste for Composting at Remote
Location
Under this phase, TTSD will collect food waste from existing customers. The material will be
hauled to RT Donovan in Reno for composting. Based on the financial analysis, this is
considered the most effective method for meeting AB 1826 requirements in the short-term. The
County can utilize this approach while initiating and undertaking Phase 2.
Phase 2: Develop processing facility in Eastern Placer County.
Based on the results of the technology screening, county criteria, and siting criteria, it appears the
most appropriate technology is either covered aerated static pile or in-vessel composting, to be
located either in at the Eastern Regional MRF or on the Airport District site. Composting is a
proven technology that has been in practice for many years, and the County could either operate
themselves, or contract out for the operation of a composting facility.
The Autoclave technology also scored very high in comparison to the other technologies. The
Autoclave technology could provide a solution to the County for processing organics, with the
benefit of either reducing the volume of material that is required to be hauled from the area, or
producing an energy product that could be used internally at the facility, or could be sold to other
users. It is recommended the County include this technology in its considerations for
development.
Although the SAFE technology scored low, it could provide an opportunity for the County to
have a local solution to its food waste diversion needs, with options to either operate themselves
or contract out for the collection and operation.
For all technologies, the estimated costs are seen in Table 16 and include all collection (based on
3,000 tons per year, 32 customers per route or 6.08 tons/vehicle, and all material taken to
ERMRF), processing (capital costs annualized based on 5.0%, 20 yrs., 5% financing cost), haul
and tip fees, depending on the option. Each of the monthly fees are based on one time a week
collection with an estimated 300 pounds of material serviced (average provided by TTSD) based
on 3,000 tons annually collected.
In order to select the technology and site that is most cost-effective and appropriate for the
County, the next step in the process will be for the County to prepare a request for proposals and
solicit responses from firms experienced with these types of processes, and evaluate the potential
for siting at either location.
Exhibit B
Page 196 of 221
Table 16. Estimated Collection and Processing Costs
Technology/Collection & Processing Type Bin Collection
Windrow Composting
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,151,000$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)249$
Aerated Static Pile Composting
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,130,000$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)245$
In-Vessel Composting
Total Annual Cost ($/year)951,280$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)206$
Dry Anaerobic Digestion
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,572,000$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)341$
Wet Anaerobic Digestion
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,518,000$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)329$
Autoclave Processing
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,353,000$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)293$
Full Circle Haul
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,195,000$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)259$
Donovan Haul
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,046,000$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)227$
SAFE System
Total Annual Cost ($/year)1,359,000$
Cost per month per account (1x) ($/mo)294$
Exhibit B
Page 197 of 221
APPENDIX A
SCORING MATRIX
Commercial 2
Demo/Pilot 1
None 0
>5 years 2
2-5 years 1
<2 years 0
High 2
Medium 1
Low 0
Food and Green Material 2
Food Only 1
Other 0
>90%2
80%-90%1
<80%0
Yes 2
No 0
<100 gal/ton 2
100-300 gal/ton 1
>300 gal/ton 0
<200 kWh/ton or
10% of parasitic load 2
200-400kWh/ton or
10%-15% of parasitic load 1
>400kWh/ton or
>15% of parasitic load 0
Net energy production >600 kWh/ton 2
400-600 kWh/ton 1
<400 kWh/ton 0
2 Yes 2
No 0
Yes 2
No 0
High 0
Medium 1
Low 2
0 0
0-5 1
>5 2
Potential to emit Odors 3
Creation of Green Jobs 1
Power requirements 1
3
RPS eligibility
Emissions within Federal and State
regulations 4
Landfill diversion (percent by weight of
feedstock sent to landfill) 5
Zero Waste Discharge Facility 1
Quantity of water required 1
Years of operating history 4
Vendor Qualifications (company structure;
legal history; environmental compliance)3
Feedstock Material 4
Criteria Weight Scoring Details Point Scale
A. TECHNOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Status of technology 5
Exhibit B
Page 198 of 221
B. COUNTY CRITERIA
<$200,000/ton 2
$200,000-$400,000/ton 1
>$400,000/ton 0
<$50/ton 2
$50-75/ton 1
>$75/ton 0
<$55/ton 2
$55-$100/ton 1
>$100/ton 0
>$80/ton 2
$50-80/ton 1
<$50/ton 0
>$0.08/kWh 2
$0.05-$0.08/kWh 1
<$0.05/kWh 0
Local 2
Regional 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 2
No 1
Yes 1
No 2
Yes 1
No 2
Property Owned by Agency 3
Need for Vector, Bird, and Animal Control 3
Aesthetics: Potential for negative impacts
to views and vistas 3
Access: Accessible by existing road
network 3
Located in proximity to waste generators 2
Adequate space for proposed operations 3
Energy Revenue 3
Markets for By-Products 3
C. FACILITY LOCATION CRITERIA
Land use and location: compatible with
existing and surrounding land uses 4
Unit operating cost 3
Tipping fee (based on reference
facility(ies))3
By-Product revenue 3
Capital costs ($/ton of daily capacity)4
Exhibit B
Page 199 of 221
APPENDIX B
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION TABLES
Exhibit B
Page 200 of 221
TABLE 1DETAILED COMPARISON OF PROCESSSING METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIESAUTOCLAVE• Mechanical pretreatment and screening required• Closed vessel decomposition by heat and pressure and shearing action• Liquid and solid residuals byproducts• Only one known provider of fully operational facility o WastAway• Only one functional facility in the U.S. (TN, opened 2003) • Another facility in Aruba• TN facility is co-op (Publically owned)• Organic waste is preshredded and prescreened• Additional screens for further size reduction• Waste introduced continuously into an autoclave o 375 deg. F o 125 psi. • Final "Fluff" screened and dried for resale as an RDFType of TechnologyTechnology Provider (example vendors provided)Provider Background, Experience, and ResourcesVendor Contracting Mechanism (i.e., Design-Build-Own-Operate (DBOO), Licensing Only, etc.)Basic Process and Plant Description• Mechanical pretreatment often required• Bulk tank environments. • Biogas is captured for process use or to sell• Anaerobic decomposition of organics• Example providers include o Waasa o Biotechnische Abfallverwertung GmbH & Co. KG (BTA) o STRABAG Umweltanlagen (formerly Linde-KCA)• Very few providers for wet AD of food waste• As of 2008, projects mostly located in Europe• Only 3 wet AD systems for MSW in North America (Canada)• Example wet AD provider experience: o Waasa (26 years) o BTA (30 years) o STRABAG Umweltanlagen (20 years)• Typically DBOO• Feedstock prescreened• Slurry pumped into a homogenization tank, then anoxic tank• Aerobic decomposition of organics• Post-digester may be required for further breakdown of digestate and for biogas collection• Dewatering of solids byproduct is necessary• Windrows are not turned• Can be open or covered• Aerated mechanically (via air pump)• Aerobic decomposition of organics•Operation can be self-provided or contracted• Example aerated static pile (ASP) providers include o O2 Compost, o Engineered Compost Systems o Harvest Power• Many vendors at locations nationwide• Relatively wide variety of vendors and equipment• Most equipment information is readily available online• Vendor can Own-Operate• County can Own-Operate• Air is forced through the windrow with blowers and tubing • Aerobic decomposition of organics• Windrows turned regularly for aeration by purpose-built machinery• Aerobic decomposition of organics• Can be self-provided or contracted• Example compost turner providers: o Backhus o Scarab o Komptech• Many vendors at locations nationwide• Widely practiced technology, allowing for large variety of providers and equipment• Most equipment information is readily available online• Vendor can Own-Operate• County can Own-Operate• For compost windrows up to (10’x10’)• Turned regularly by machinery • Turning provides aerobic breakdown of wasteORGANIC PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIESSAFE• Food scrap collection at business, placed in truck with auger, taken back to facility for further processing into mash and decontamination, mash sent to processing facility and made into feed.• Sustainable Alternatives Feed Enterprises• Only one location in Santa Clara that has one spoke and one hub. A pilot was started for the City of San Jose and Sunnyvale for residential services in Fall 2015.• Vendor pays for truck retrofit and on-site decontamination and masher. TTSD can operate the hauling and processing side. • Vendor can be a partial owner of dehydration and feed processor (hub). • 10ft width by 55ft length for on-site processing, 10,000 sqft for dehydration and feed processor (hub). • Material from County taken to hub and processes, average 50 tons a day.• Organic feed in anoxic, enclosed tunnel/chamber • Leachate is captured and sprinkled over feed• Biogas is captured and for use/sell• Anaerobic decomposition of organicsCRITERIAWINDROW COMPOSTINGASP COMPOSTING IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING DRY ANAEROBIC DIGESTION WET ANAEROBIC DIGESTION• Example providers include o ZWED o BioFERM o Harvest Power o Eisenmann o Organic Waste Systems o Kompogas AG• Many projects in Europe• Larger vendors demonstrate at least a decade of experience• Approximately 5 systems operating in U.S. • Example provider experience: o Organic Waste Systems (27 years) o Waste Recovery Systems (34 years) o Kompogas (20 years)• Typically DBOO• Some institutions Own-Operate• Organics are introduced either vertically or horizontally • Plug-flow process• Inoculation or mixing of initial feed may be required• Atmospheric air is evacuated from chamber and biogas reintroduced into chamber• Steam and process water may be used to dilute feed as needed• Residual solids can be pressed and dewatered for cake production• Composting in a container or building (long tubes, and tunnels) • Aeration provided mechanically (via air pump) • Aerobic decomposition of organics• Supplemental windrow composting optional• Example providers include: o Christiaens Group o Rotocom o NaturTech Composting Systems o Engineered Compost Systems• Vendors mostly from Europe or North America• Majority of vendors demonstrate at least 5 years experience• Several vendors demonstrate over a decade of experience• Very few facilities processing food waste and of small capacity• Typically design-build-own-operate (DBOO)• Compostable organics placed in a closed container o Continuous feed or batch feed • Container turned, agitated, or aerated to provide aeration• Aerobic decomposition of organicsExhibit B Page 201 of 221
TABLE 1DETAILED COMPARISON OF PROCESSSING METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIESAUTOCLAVEORGANIC PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIESSAFECRITERIAWINDROW COMPOSTINGASP COMPOSTING IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING DRY ANAEROBIC DIGESTION WET ANAEROBIC DIGESTION• Potential for up to 80% volume reduction• High energy useYes.• WastAway - McMinnville, TN (25,000 - 30,000 tpy, operating since 2003)• One fully functional plant in the U.S.A • Another fully functional plant in ArubaStated Material and Energy Balance; and Volume ReductionLaboratory and Pilot Scale PlantsOperating Commercial Plant(s) of Comparable Capacity Number and Location of Operating Facilities• Biogas output: 170 - 250 kwh/ton• Digestate output: 0.85 ton/tonYes.• Zero Waste Energy Company - San Jose, CA operating since December 2013• Monterey Regional Waste Authority (20 TPD) operating since 2014• 33 AD (wet and dry) facilities identified in U.S.• BioFERM has provided more than facilities globally• Dozens operating throughout Europe o some large (i.e. greater than 150,000 TPY)Yes.• Quasar Energy (Ohio) JC Biomethane - Junction City, OR (30,000 tpy, operating since mid 2013)• 33 AD (wet and dry) facilities identified in U.S.• Most wet AD facilities in the U.S. designed for the treatment of organics along with of biosolids, manures and green wastes• Total volume reduction approximately 75%Yes.• LRI Landfill Compost Factory - Puyallup, WA (75,000 tpy)• Several small facilities processing less than 5 tpd. • Two large plants in Cobb County, GA and Sevier County, TN.Yes.• Many nationwide• Hundreds in various location of the U.S. • Typically 5,000 tpy to 20,000 tpy• Total volume reduction approximately 75%• For every ton of food waste approximately 200 gallons of water and 20-30 gallons of FOG is removed. For every 4 tons of food scraps you will get 1 ton of dry product bagged at facility.Yes.• One in Santa Clara• One in Santa Clara • 40-60 tons a day of clean food scrap, technology is scalable.• Total volume reduction approximately 75%Yes• Biogas output: 110 - 160 kwh/ton• Digestate output: 0.85 ton/ton• 0.4 ton CO2 emissions offset per ton food waste processed • 22,000 tons CO2 offset for proposed throughput) compared to composting.• Many nationwide• A few dozen in various locations of the U.S.Exhibit B Page 202 of 221
TABLE 2DETAILED COMPARISON OF PROCESSSING METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIESCompatibility with Proposed Organic Material Stream(s)Compatibility with Proposed Organic Materials VolumesFacility Footprint RequiredSupporting UtilitiesLabor requirementsPrimary Equipment and StructuresThey require 1 – 2 FTE maximum to manage the operation at the “Spoke”. SAFE would manage the “Hub”. • Retrofitted truck and contaminant unit on site. ORGANIC PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIESSAFE• Typical feed compatible with the proposed waste stream.• Will need to scale down a bit for current food scraps tonnage.• 10ft width by 55ft length for on-site processing, 10,000 sqft for dehydration and feed processor (hub). • Spoke – electrical, a plug in system• Hub – involve electricity and gas – will get us that information• Continuous feed recommended for optimal microbial vitality • Will likely require mixing with other organics stream to achieve design C:N ratio• Wet AD process is more susceptible to toxics diffused in liquid media,• Will likely require mixing with other organics stream to achieve design C:N ratio• Junction City wet AD system is capable of operating on 80% food wasteCRITERIAWINDROW COMPOSTING ASP COMPOSTING IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING DRY ANAEROBIC DIGESTION WET ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AUTOCLAVE• Autoclave hydrolysis only demonstrated on MSW waste streams• Should also provide breakdown of solely food residuals, but not yet demonstrated• Typical feed compatible with the proposed waste stream• Food waste will likely require mixing with other organics to achieve design C:N ratio• Typical feed compatible with the proposed waste stream• Waste stream will likely require mixing with other organics stream to achieve design C:N ratio• Can process organics with higher composition of food residuals• Will likely require mixing with other organics stream to achieve design C:N ratio• No demonstrated compatibility for solely food residuals• One known plant operating at 15,000 tpy• Typically less than 50,000 tpy• Capable of handling proposed volume with adequate acreage• Capable of handling proposed waste stream volume• Demonstrated processing of greater than 100,000 tpy• Capable of handling proposed waste stream volume• Demonstrated processing of greater than 100,000 tpy• Capable of handling proposed waste stream volume• Typically 10,000 tpy to 100,000 tpy • Capable of handling proposed waste stream volume• Typically 3,000 tpy to 250,000 tpy 1-2 acres for processing area only• Compatible with those present at the proposed site• Compatible with those present at the proposed site• Compatible with those present at the proposed site• Compatible with those present at the proposed site• Compatible with those present at the proposed site• Compatible with those present at the proposed site•10-12 acres for processing area only8-12 acres for processing area only• 8 acres for processing area only • 8 acres for processing area only • 8 acres for processing area onlyApproximately 3-5• Compost turner or loader• Compost screen• Impervious padding• Leachate control system• Tubing• Blowers• Leachate control system• Concrete pad• Compost screen• Composting vessel (vertical or horizontal)• Tunnel• Chamber• Drum• Agitated bed• Auger• Blowers• Piping for aeration• Pre-screening pumps• Conveyors• Augers• Dry-digester vessel and gas collection apparatus• Blowers• Biogas filters• Dewatering screws/presses/centrifuges• Digestate collection piping• Pumps• Tanks• Pre-screening pumps, conveyors• Augers• Dry-digester vessel and gas collection apparatus• Blowers• Biogas filters• Dewatering screws/presses/centrifuges• Digestate collection piping• Pumps• Tanks• Vessel• Steam boiler• Conveyors• Approximately 3-4 personnel • Approximately 3-4 personnel• Approximately 3-4 personnel • Approximately 5- 10 personnel • Approximately 5- 10 personnelExhibit B Page 203 of 221
TABLE 2DETAILED COMPARISON OF PROCESSSING METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIESORGANIC PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIESSAFECRITERIAWINDROW COMPOSTING ASP COMPOSTING IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING DRY ANAEROBIC DIGESTION WET ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AUTOCLAVEBy-Products: Volume, Potential Markets, and PricingNet Energy/Biogas ProductionAir and Wastewater Emissions ManagementSafety Aspects• Dry meal and FOG• None• Equipment training (compost turners)• Site security (fencing, cameras, etc.)• Robust fire control system is required• Site security (fencing, cameras, etc.)• A number of fires have occurred at composting operations. Robust fire control system is required• Site security (fencing, cameras, etc.)• Confined space entry• Machinery more complex than windrow composting operations • May require additional training for safe operations• A number of fires have been reported for composting operations. A robust fire control system is required• Site security (fencing, cameras, etc.)• Confined space entry• Skilled plant operators with thorough understanding of AD processes are required for safe and optimal plant operation• Site security (fencing, cameras, etc.)• Confined space entry• Skilled plant operators with thorough understanding of AD processes are required for safe and optimal plant operation• Solid pulp, “Fluff,” that can be dried for energy production or agricultural use• Resource Derived Fuel (RDF) with energy content of 4,000 - 9,000 BTU per pound of final product• Volatile emissions/odors/dust control• Dust suppression and control• Screening materials• Leachate and residue must be managed properly• Volatile emissions/odors/dust controls• Dust suppression and control• Screening materials• Leachate and residue must be managed properly• Air and leachate managed more easily• Biofilter systems used to clean air • Leachate collection systems used for leachate management• Volatile emissions (i.e. Biogases) can be harvested• Liquid digestate recycled or disposed of• Dewatered cake can be further processed to be sold as compost• Volatile emissions (i.e. Biogases) can be harvested• Liquid digestate recycled or disposed of• Dewatered cake can be further processed to be sold as compost• Biogas for direct use, sale, or refinement to CNG• Liquid digestate (liquid fertilizer)• Residual solids (additional processing and addition of green waste creates Compost)• N/A• N/A• N/A• Biogas output: 170 - 250 kwh/ton• 1- 3 scf biogas/lb wet weight• Estimated biogas energy production from 150 to 200 kwh/ton wet weight• Biogas output: 110 - 160 kwh/ton• 2 - 4 scf biogas/lb. wet weight• Compost - fertilizer for agricultural crops• Average price: $21/yard• Compost - fertilizer for agricultural crops• Average price $21/yard• Compost - fertilizer for agricultural crops• Biogas for direct use, sale, or refinement to CNG• Biogas for direct use, sale, or refinement to CNG• Residual solids (additional processing and addition of green waste creates Compost)• Liquid from Mash• Site security (fencing, cameras, etc.)• Machinery / Auger operations • May require additional training for safe operations• Volatile emissions/odors• Dust suppression and control• Leachate• Site security (fencing, cameras, etc.)• Confined space entry• Heat and pressure components must be managed properly• Exposure to process emissions must be reducedExhibit B Page 204 of 221
TABLE 3DETAILED COMPARISON OF PROCESSSING METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIESPotential Changes in Technology that May Impact the Organics Program.Potential Changes in Permitting Regulations that May Impact the TechnologyFacility Expansion PotentialPotential Collection Vehicle Fuel Application• N/A - no biogas is captured during process.ORGANIC PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIESCRITERIAWINDROW COMPOSTING ASP COMPOSTING IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING DRY ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AUTOCLAVEWET ANAEROBIC DIGESTION• Food residuals wet AD facilities relatively new• Relatively high potential for technology improvement • Greater general risk because of novelty• If amended with biosolids, land application restrictions may apply for dewatered cake• Stricter wastewater regulations could also affect reuse of digestate• Potential change relatively low• Well established since 1970's • Fairly standardized• Research ongoing for harvesting of composting heat• Potential change relatively low• Well established for several decades• Fairly standardized, though means of aeration may vary• Research ongoing for harvesting of composting heat• Some potential for process change• Practiced for decades • Leachate and emissions collection methods refined• Research ongoing for harvesting of composting heat• Newer technology than wet AD• The process is continually refined • Potential for improved technologies in future years, as demand increases• Relatively high potential for technology improvement• Short-term risk due to novelty of process• Technology in early development stage – room for technology improvement• Management of volatile emissions (greenhouse gases) could become more stringent• Management of volatile emissions (greenhouse gases) could become more stringentSAFE• Food residuals with this process is relatively new • Relatively high potential for technology improvement• Short-term risk due to novelty of process• Technology in early development stage – room for technology improvement• None know of, this process is typical of other food processing techniques (hub). • Potential for stricter storm water regulations.• Ability to add additional spokes or increase the hub.• N/A - no biogas is captured during windrow composting• N/A - no biogas is captured during ASP composting• N/A - no biogas is captured during in-vessel composting• Typically biogas from 1 ton organics produces energy equivalent of 60 L diesel fuel• Biogas output quantity likely insufficient to justify CNG vehicle fueling capital costs• N/A - autoclave apparatus is not equipped to collect residual gases• Expansion limited primarily by on-site acreage• Growth is possible if food collection is conducted effectively• Expansion limited primarily by on-site acreage• Growth is possible if food collection is conducted effectively• Can be expanded as space allows by adding additional modules • Growth is possible if food collection is conducted effectively• Yes - expansion would be possible if tonnage increased.• Ability to add additional units.• Overall process capacity based on a fixed design capacity• Some flexibility in the composition of the organics stream for additional food residuals • Typically biogas from 1 ton organics produces energy equivalent of 60 L diesel fuel• Biogas output quantity likely insufficient to justify CNG vehicle fueling capital costs• N/A - leachate and emissions can be readily handled• If amended with biosolids, land application restrictions may apply for dewatered cake• Stricter wastewater regulations could also affect reuse of digestate• Stricter emissions controls could apply in futureExhibit B Page 205 of 221
APPENDIX C
COST MODEL
Exhibit B
Page 206 of 221
Processing TechnologyWindrowDesign BasisInput tons per year (tpy)2016Food waste3,000 Wood chips6,000 Other organics- Total initial operations (tpy) 9,000 For initial operationsDays per year operational365Tons per day for initial operations - rounded (tpd)25 For initial operationsBuilding enclosures (sf)Not required for windrow operationFood waste receiving and unloading enclosureFood waste storageProcessing equipmentUnload digestateMaintenance areaTotal building area (sf)0Non-enclosed improvements (sf)Receiving and unloading area3,000 Compost pad60,000 ~ 22 rows Material stockpile2,000 Mixing area5,000 Grinding area0 Assume material does not need grinding; small amount done by TTSDCuring pad22,500 Storage pad4,000 Finished compost screening area5,000 Equipment storage area500 Roadways4,000 Retention pond14,000 Total non-enclosed improvements 120,000 Total acres for non-enclosed improvements 2.8 Equipment RequirementsWindrow turner 1Bobcat 1Screen 1Operating BasisLabor requirements (total all shifts)NumberRate/w benefits ($/hr)Overtime factorShiftsHours/ShiftDays/YearManager- 50.00$ 1 18 365Supervisors/operator1 34.00$ 1 18 365 Need 2nd manager/operator for weekends/holidaysEquipment operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Rolling stock operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Mechanics (maintenance done off-site)- 47.18$ 1 18 260General laborers- 22.53$ 1 18 365OtherWater consumption (1000 CF/year)- High percentage of food waste supplies moistureEffluent requirement (1000 CF/year)- Retention pondPower requirement (kWh/year)29,000 Security lightsFuel requirement (diesel gals/year)15,000 EquipmentOperating Hours per Day8Exhibit B Page 207 of 221
Processing TechnologyWindrowAvailability (%)100% Windrow operation will be active 24/7Net electricity produced (kWh/year)- N/AElectrical sales rate ($/kWh)- N/AEconomic AnalysisCapital CostSite improvements & buildings (as needed) 702,000$ Total asphalt 12,000 Startup and acceptance testing (1 month of operations) -$ N/ATotal compact soil 108,000 Subtotal702,000$ Design (10%)70,000$ Construction management (4%)28,000$ Permitting (6%)42,000$ Contingency (15%)105,000$ Subtotal 947,000$ Land -$ Stationary equipment installed(w/spare parts) 50,000$ ScreenRolling stock 280,000$ Used scarab & bobcatTotal Capital Costs 1,277,000$ Annual Operations & Maintenance CostLabor 99,000$ Wood chip purchase 48,000$ Offset TTSD revenuesFacilities maintenance 5,000$ Rolling stock & stationary equipment maintenance costs 33,000$ Rolling stock replacement costs 35,000$ Stationary equipment replacement costs 6,000$ Utilities 4,000$ Security lightsFuel 60,000$ General & administration/legal,/accnt.5,000$ Insurance25,000$ EstimateProperty taxes -$ County propertySubtotal 320,000$ Contractor overhead (10%) 32,000$ Contingency (15%) 48,000$ Total O&M costs 400,000$ Annualized Capital Cost (5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost) 108,000$ Total Annual Cost 508,000$ Potential RevenuesPotential Materials Market Revenues ($/year)-$ Conservative, give away compostPotential Electricity Revenues ($/year)-$ N/ATotal potential revenues -$ Net Annual Cost 508,000$ NET ANNUAL COST ($/year) 508,000$ Exhibit B Page 208 of 221
2 Processing TechnologyASP (Aerated Static Pile)Design BasisInput tons per year (tpy)2016Food waste3,000 Wood chips6,000 Other organics- Total initial operations (tpy) 9,000 For initial operationsDays per year operational 365Tons per day for initial operations - rounded (tpd) 25 For initial operationsBuilding enclosures (sf)Not required for windrow operationFood waste receiving and unloading enclosureFood waste storageProcessing equipmentUnload digestateMaintenance areaTotal building area (sf)0Non-enclosed improvements (sf)Receiving and unloading area 3,000 Compost pad 60,000 ~ 71 rows, shorter for blower to workMaterial stockpile 2,000 Mixing area 5,000 Grinding area 0 Assume material does not need grinding; small amount done by TTSDCuring pad 22,500 Storage pad 4,000 Finished compost screening area 5,000 Equipment storage area 500 Roadways 4,000 Retention pond 14,000 Total non-enclosed improvements 120,000 Total acres for non-enclosed improvements 2.8 Other improvementsAeration pipe 4,615 Aeration fittings 577 Blowers 35Equipment RequirementsWindrow turner 0Bobcat 1Screen 1Operating BasisLabor requirements (total all shifts)NumberRate/w benefits ($/hr)Overtime factorShiftsHours/ShiftDays/YearManager- 50.00$ 1 18 365Supervisors/operator1 34.00$ 1 18 365 Need 2nd manager/operator for weekends/holidaysEquipment operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Rolling stock operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Mechanics (maintenance done off-site)- 47.18$ 1 18 260General laborers- 22.53$ 1 18 365OtherWater consumption (1000 CF/year)- High percentage of food waste supplies moistureEffluent requirement (1000 CF/year)- Retention pondPower requirement (kWh/year)63,000 Security lights & blowersFuel requirement (diesel gals/year)7,000 EquipmentExhibit B Page 209 of 221
2 Processing TechnologyASP (Aerated Static Pile)Operating Hours per Day8Availability (%)100% ASP operation will be active 24/7Net electricity produced (kWh/year)- N/AElectrical sales rate ($/kWh)- N/AEconomic AnalysisCapital CostSite improvements & buildings (as needed) 893,000$ Total asphalt 12,000 Startup and acceptance testing (1 month of operations)-$ N/ATotal compact soil 108,000 Subtotal893,000$ Design (10%)89,000$ Construction management (4%)36,000$ Permitting (6%)54,000$ Contingency (15%)134,000$ Subtotal 1,206,000$ Land -$ Stationary equipment installed(w/spare parts) 50,000$ ScreenRolling stock 80,000$ BobcatTotal Capital Costs 1,336,000$ Annual Operations & Maintenance CostLabor 99,000$ Wood chip purchase 48,000$ Offset TTSD revenuesFacilities maintenance 5,000$ Rolling stock & stationary equipment maintenance costs 20,000$ Rolling stock replacement costs 10,000$ Stationary equipment replacement costs 25,000$ Utilities 9,000$ Security lights & blowersFuel 28,000$ General & administration/legal,/accnt.5,000$ Insurance50,000$ EstimateProperty taxes -$ County propertySubtotal 299,000$ Contractor overhead (10%) 30,000$ Contingency (15%) 45,000$ Total O&M costs 374,000$ Annualized Capital Cost (5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost) 113,000$ Total Annual Cost 487,000$ Potential RevenuesPotential Materials Market Revenues ($/year)-$ Conservative, give away compostPotential Electricity Revenues ($/year)-$ N/ATotal potential revenues -$ Net Annual Cost487,000$ NET ANNUAL COST ($/year)487,000$ Exhibit B Page 210 of 221
3 Processing TechnologyIn-VesselBased on proposal from BDP Industries for Agitated Bay In-Vessel Composting System (ICS) - 2 (150 foot bays)Design BasisInput tons per year (tpy)2016Food waste3,000 Wood chips910 Other organics- Total initial operations (tpy) 3,910 For initial operationsDays per year operational 365Tons per day for initial operations - rounded (tpd) 11 For initial operationsBuilding enclosures (sf)Building for Vessel 6,720 32'x210' fabric buildingFood waste storageProcessing equipmentUnload digestateMaintenance areaTotal building area (sf) 6,720 Equipment RequirementsWindrow turner 0 Bobcat 1Screen 1Vessel 1Operating Basis Labor requirements (total all shifts)NumberRate/w benefits ($/hr)Overtime factorShiftsHours/ShiftDays/YearBDP Package (not incl biofilter floor) See Appendix for scope 600,000$ Manager - 50.00$ 1 1 8 365 @4,000 sf Biofilter incl concrete, floor and 200,000$ Supervisors/operator 1 34.00$ 1 1 8 365 Screen 150,000$ Equipment operators - 30.60$ 1 1 8 365 Small Loader 100,000$ Rolling stock operators - 30.60$ 1 1 8 365 SubtotalMechanics (maintenance done off-site) - 47.18$ 1 1 8 260 1,050,000$ General laborers - 22.53$ 1 1 8 365 PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOtherWater consumption (1000 CF/year) - High percentage of food waste supplies moisture Effluent requirement (1000 CF/year) - Retention pond Design/Permitting 150,000$ Power requirement (kWh/year) 350,000 Security lights & vessel Construction Supervisor (6 months) 90,000$ Fuel requirement (diesel gals/year) 7,000 EquipmentSubtotalOperating Hours per Day 8240,000$ Availability (%) 100% In-Vessel operation will be active 24/7 Net electricity produced (kWh/year) - N/ATOTALElectrical sales rate ($/kWh) - N/AIncludes all freight but no taxes 2,000,000$ Economic AnalysisCapital CostSite PreparationSite Preparation50,000$ 1 acreUtility Interconnection200,000$ Electrical, Sewer, Water est.250,000$ Compost BuildingBuilding 210,000$ 32'x210' fabric buildingConcrete 110,000$ HVAC/Aeration Duct Material and Labor 50,000$ Misc Equip Material and Labor 30,000$ 400,000$ Exhibit B Page 211 of 221
3 Processing TechnologyIn-VesselMCC (Motor Control Room)220,000$ 200 sf pre-fab bldCuring/Screening Pad30,000$ 1,000 sf asphaltAmendment recycle/storage10,000$ 1,000 sf Major Process EquipmentBDP Package (not incl biofilter floor) 650,000$ with frieght $50,0004,000 sf Biofilter incl concrete, floor 200,000$ Screen 150,000$ Small loader100,000$ 1,100,000$ Professional Services Design/Permitting 150,000$ Construction Supervisor (6 months) 90,000$ 240,000$ Total Capital Cost 2,250,000$ Annual Operations & Maintenance CostLabor 40,000$ Wood chip purchase 7,280$ Offset TTSD revenuesBuilding maintenance 15,000$ Equipment maintenance 15,000$ Electrical 36,000$ Fuel 5,000$ Water/SewerTBDTotal O&M costs 118,280$ Annualized Capital Cost (5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)190,000$ Total Annual Cost 308,280$ Potential RevenuesPotential Materials Market Revenues ($/year)-$ Conservative, give away compostPotential Electricity Revenues ($/year)-$ N/ATotal potential revenues-$ Net Annual Cost308,280$ NET ANNUAL COST ($/year)308,280$ Exhibit B Page 212 of 221
4 Processing TechnologyDry AD (Anaerobic Digestion)Design BasisInput tons per year (tpy)2016Food waste3,000 Wood chips2,000 Other organics- Total initial operations (tpy)5,000 For initial operationsDays per year operational365Tons per day for initial operations - rounded (tpd)14 For initial operationsBuilding enclosures (sf)Building Food waste storageProcessing equipmentUnload digestateMaintenance areaTotal building area (sf)- Non-enclosed improvements (sf)Receiving and unloading area2,500 Compost pad22,500 ~ 11 rows Material stockpile1,000 Mixing area- Grinding area0 Assume material does not need grinding; small amount done by TTSDCuring pad12,000 Storage pad1,500 Finished compost screening area4,000 Equipment storage area500 Roadways4,000 Retention pond9,500 Total non-enclosed improvements57,500 Total acres for non-enclosed improvements1.3 Equipment RequirementsWindrow turner1Bobcat1Screen1Dry Anaerobic Equipment Package 1Operating BasisLabor requirements (total all shifts)NumberRate/w benefits ($/hr)Overtime factorShiftsHours/ShiftDays/YearManager- 50.00$ 1 18 365Supervisors/operator1 34.00$ 1 18 365 Need 2nd manager/operator for weekends/holidaysEquipment operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Rolling stock operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Mechanics (maintenance done off-site)- 47.18$ 1 18 260General laborers- 22.53$ 1 18 365OtherWater consumption (1000 CF/year)- High percentage of food waste supplies moistureEffluent requirement (1000 CF/year)- Retention pondPower requirement (kWh/year)230,000 Security lights & Dry AD SystemFuel requirement (diesel gals/year)10,000 EquipmentOperating Hours per Day8Availability (%)100% Dry AD operation will be active 24/7Net electricity produced (kWh/year)805,920 Electrical sales rate ($/kWh)0.05$ Exhibit B Page 213 of 221
4 Processing TechnologyDry AD (Anaerobic Digestion)Economic AnalysisCapital CostSite improvements & buildings (as needed) 4,264,000$ With Dry AD Package Total asphalt 10,500 Startup and acceptance testing (1 month of operations)38,000$ Total compact soil 46,000 Subtotal4,302,000$ Design (10%) 430,000$ Construction management (4%) 172,000$ Permitting (6%) 258,000$ Contingency (15%)645,000$ Subtotal5,807,000$ Land -$ Stationary equipment installed(w/spare parts) 50,000$ Screen Rolling stock280,000$ Used scarab & bobcatTotal Capital Costs6,137,000$ Annual Operations & Maintenance CostLabor99,000$ Wood chip purchase16,000$ Offset TTSD revenuesFacilities maintenance 5,000$ Rolling stock & stationary equipment maintenance costs71,000$ Rolling stock replacement costs35,000$ Stationary equipment replacement costs6,000$ Utilities 35,000$ Security lights & Dry AD SystemFuel 40,000$ General & administration/legal,/accnt.5,000$ Insurance50,000$ EstimateProperty taxes -$ County propertySubtotal362,000$ Contractor overhead (10%)36,000$ Contingency (15%)54,000$ Total O&M costs 452,000$ Annualized Capital Cost (5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)517,000$ Total Annual Cost 969,000$ Potential RevenuesPotential Materials Market Revenues ($/year)-$ Conservative, give away compostPotential Electricity Revenues ($/year)40,000$ Total potential revenues40,000$ Net Annual Cost929,000$ NET ANNUAL COST ($/year)929,000$ Exhibit B Page 214 of 221
5 Processing TechnologyWet AD (Anaerobic Digestion)Stirred TankDesign BasisInput tons per year (tpy)2016Food waste3,000 Wood chips- Other organics- Total initial operations (tpy)3,000 For initial operationsDays per year operational365Tons per day for initial operations - rounded (tpd)9 For initial operationsBuilding enclosures (sf)Building 2,500 Food waste storageProcessing equipmentUnload digestateMaintenance areaTotal building area (sf)2,500 Non-enclosed improvements (sf)Total site improvement area24,000 Concrete area8,000 Paved area (including roads10,000 Mixing area- Grinding area- Curing pad- Storage pad- Finished compost screening area- Equipment storage area- Roadways- Retention pond- Total non-enclosed improvements42,000 Total acres for non-enclosed improvements1.0 Equipment RequirementsBobcat110,000 gal liquid buffer tank1Food waste receiving area1Food waste hygienization system180,000 gal horizontal primary digestion vessel1Screw press1Presscake storage bunker1350,000 gal vertical secondary digester1Hardware, pumps, valves1Instrumentation and controls1Biogas handling system1Biogas bypass flare1Engine generator1Operating BasisLabor requirements (total all shifts)NumberRate/w benefits ($/hr)Overtime factorShiftsHours/ShiftDays/YearManager- 50.00$ 1 18 365Supervisors/operator1 34.00$ 1 18 365 Need 2nd manager/operator for weekends/holidaysEquipment operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Rolling stock operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Mechanics (maintenance done off-site)- 47.18$ 1 18 260General laborers- 22.53$ 1 18 365Exhibit B Page 215 of 221
5 Processing TechnologyWet AD (Anaerobic Digestion)OtherWater consumption (1000 CF/year) - High percentage of food waste supplies moistureEffluent requirement (1000 CF/year) 183 Power requirement (kWh/year) 394,000 Security lights & Wet AD SystemFuel requirement (diesel gals/year) 4,000 EquipmentOperating Hours per Day 8Availability (%) 100% Wet AD operation will be active 24/7Net electricity produced (kWh/year) 967,104 Electrical sales rate ($/kWh) 0.05$ Economic AnalysisCapital CostSite improvements & buildings (as needed) 4,998,000$ With Wet AD Package Total asphalt 10,000 Startup and acceptance testing (1 month of operations +)128,000$ Prepare site 24,000 Subtotal5,126,000$ Total concrete 8,000 Design (10%)513,000$ Construction management (4%)205,000$ Permitting (6%)308,000$ Contingency (15%)769,000$ Subtotal6,921,000$ Land -$ Stationary equipment installed(w/spare parts) -$ Rolling stock80,000$ Total Capital Costs7,001,000$ Annual Operations & Maintenance CostLabor99,000$ Wood chip purchase-$ Offset TTSD revenuesFacilities maintenance 5,000$ Rolling stock & stationary equipment maintenance costs8,000$ Rolling stock replacement costs 10,000$ Stationary equipment replacement costs -$ Utilities 59,000$ Security lights & Wet AD SystemFuel 16,000$ Effluent disposal14,000$ General & administration/legal,/accnt.5,000$ Insurance50,000$ EstimateProperty taxes -$ County propertySubtotal266,000$ Contractor overhead (10%)27,000$ Contingency (15%)40,000$ Total O&M costs 333,000$ Annualized Capital Cost (5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)590,000$ Total Annual Cost 923,000$ Potential RevenuesPotential Materials Market Revenues ($/year)-$ Conservative, give away compostPotential Electricity Revenues ($/year)48,000$ Total potential revenues48,000$ Net Annual Cost875,000$ NET ANNUAL COST ($/year)875,000$ Exhibit B Page 216 of 221
6 Processing TechnologyAutoclaveDesign BasisInput tons per year (tpy)2016Food waste3,000 Wood chips- Other organics- Total initial operations (tpy) 3,000 For initial operationsDays per year operational 365Tons per day for initial operations - rounded (tpd) 9 For initial operationsBuilding enclosures (sf)Building 5,000 Food waste storageProcessing equipmentUnload digestateMaintenance areaTotal building area (sf)5,000 Non-enclosed improvements (sf)Total site improvement area24,000 Concrete area4,000 Paved area (including roads10,000 Mixing area- Grinding area- Curing pad- Storage pad4,000 Finished compost screening area- Equipment storage area- Roadways- Retention pond- Total non-enclosed improvements 42,000 Total acres for non-enclosed improvements 1.0 Equipment RequirementsBobcat 1Feed Conveyor 1Autoclave 1Boiler and steam generator 1Burner and heat exchanger for hot oil recirculation 1Water eduction and circulation system 1Receiving conveyor for processed materials 1Screening system 1Instrumentation and controls 1Operating BasisLabor requirements (total all shifts)NumberRate/w benefits ($/hr)Overtime factorShiftsHours/ShiftDays/YearManager- 50.00$ 1 18 365Supervisors/operator1 34.00$ 1 18 365 Need 2nd manager/operator for weekends/holidaysEquipment operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Rolling stock operators- 30.60$ 1 18 365Mechanics (maintenance done off-site)- 47.18$ 1 18 260General laborers- 22.53$ 1 18 365OtherWater consumption (1000 CF/year)- High percentage of food waste supplies moistureEffluent requirement (1000 CF/year)80 Power requirement (kWh/year)37,000 Security lights & Dry AD SystemExhibit B Page 217 of 221
6 Processing TechnologyAutoclaveNatural gas requirements (1000 CF/year)225 Fuel requirement (diesel gals/year)4,000 EquipmentOperating Hours per Day8Availability (%)100% Autoclave operation will be active 8 hrs/dayNet electricity produced (kWh/year)- Electrical sales rate ($/kWh)-$ Economic AnalysisCapital CostSite improvements & buildings (as needed) 3,744,000$ With Autoclave Package Total asphalt 10,000 Startup and acceptance testing (1 month of operations +) 122,000$ Prepare site24,000 Subtotal3,866,000$ Total concrete 4,000 Design (10%)387,000$ Construction management (4%)155,000$ Permitting (6%)232,000$ Contingency (15%)580,000$ Subtotal 5,220,000$ Land -$ Stationary equipment installed(w/spare parts) -$ Rolling stock 80,000$ Total Capital Costs 5,300,000$ Annual Operations & Maintenance CostLabor 99,000$ Wood chip purchase -$ Offset TTSD revenuesFacilities maintenance 5,000$ Rolling stock & stationary equipment maintenance costs 8,000$ Rolling stock replacement costs 10,000$ Stationary equipment replacement costs -$ Utilities 6,000$ Security lights & Autoclave SystemNatural gas5,000$ Fuel 16,000$ Effluent disposal6,000$ General & administration/legal,/accnt.5,000$ Insurance50,000$ EstimateProperty taxes -$ County propertySubtotal 210,000$ Contractor overhead (10%) 21,000$ Contingency (15%) 32,000$ Total O&M costs 263,000$ Annualized Capital Cost (5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost) 447,000$ Total Annual Cost 710,000$ Potential RevenuesPotential Materials Market Revenues ($/year)-$ Conservative, give away compostPotential Electricity Revenues ($/year)-$ Total potential revenues -$ Net Annual Cost710,000$ NET ANNUAL COST ($/year)710,000$ Exhibit B Page 218 of 221
7 Haul Method
Design Basis
Collection tons per year (tpy)2016
Food waste 3,000
Other -
Total (tpy) 3,000
Economic Analysis
Haul Cost
RT to Carson City plus unload (hrs) 4
Payload of transfer trailer (tons) 20
Transfer trailer cost ($/hour) 120$
Haul cost ($/ton) 24.00$
Annual haul cost ($) 72,000$
Tipping Fee
Cost per ton 65.00$
Annual tip fee ($) 195,000$
Cost per 1X monthly pick-up/per month 57.85$
Annual Cost 267,000$
To Full Circle
Exhibit B
Page 219 of 221
8 Haul Method
Design Basis
Collection tons per year (tpy)2016
Food waste 3,000
Other -
Total (tpy) 3,000
Economic Analysis
Haul Cost
RT to Sparks plus unload (hrs) 3
Payload of transfer trailer (tons) 20
Transfer trailer cost ($/hour) 120$
Haul cost ($/ton) 18.00$
Annual haul cost ($) 54,000$
Tipping Fee
Cost per ton 45.00$
Annual tip fee ($) 135,000$
Cost per 1X monthly pick-up/per month 40.95$
Annual Cost 189,000$
To Donovan
Exhibit B
Page 220 of 221
9 Scenario
Design Basis
Collection tons per year (tpy)2016
Food waste 3,000
Other -
Total (tpy)3,000
Economic Analysis
Facility Capital Cost
Site work, water, electrical and gas 350,000$
SAFE equipment (Hub & 1 Spoke)5,500,000$ All inclusive according to SAFE
Total Capital Costs 5,850,000$
Annual Operations & Maintenance Cost
Haul Cost
RT to Sparks plus unload (hrs) 3
Payload of transfer trailer (tons) 20
Transfer trailer cost ($/hour) 120$
Haul cost ($/ton) 18.00$
Annual haul cost ($)54,000$
Facility Cost
Total Hub & 1 Spoke O&M costs 225,000$ $75/ton
Annualized Capital Cost (5.0%, 20 yrs, 5% fin cost)493,000$
Total Annual Cost 772,000$
Potential Revenues
Potential Materials Market Revenues ($/year)56,000$ 1/4 of input tons @$75/ton
Total potential revenues 56,000$
Net Annual Cost 716,000$
NET ANNUAL COST ($/year) 716,000$
SAFE
Exhibit B
Page 221 of 221
SELF-DEALING TRANSACTION DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to conduct business with the County of Fresno (hereinafter referred to as
“County”), members of a corporation’s board of directors of the Consultant, must
disclose any self-dealing transactions that they are a party to while providing goods,
performing services, or both for the County. A self-dealing transaction is defined
below:
“A self-dealing transaction means a transaction to which the corporation is a party and
in which one or more of its directors has a material financial interest”
The definition above will be utilized for purposes of completing this disclosure form.
INSTRUCTIONS
(1) Enter board member’s name, job title (if applicable), and date this disclosure is
being made.
(2) Enter the board member’s company/agency name and address.
(3) Describe in detail the nature of the self-dealing transaction that is being
disclosed to the County. At a minimum, include a description of the following:
a.The name of the agency/company with which the corporation has the
transaction; and
b.The nature of the material financial interest in the Corporation’s
transaction that the board member has.
(4) Describe in detail why the self-dealing transaction is appropriate based on
applicable provisions of the Corporations Code.
(5) Form must be signed by the board member that is involved in the self-dealing
transaction described in Sections (3) and (4).
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
(1) Company Board Member Information:
Name: Date:
Job Title:
(2) Company/Agency Name and Address:
(3) Disclosure (Please describe the nature of the self-dealing transaction you are a party to):
(4) Explain why this self-dealing transaction is consistent with the requirements of Corporations Code 5233 (a):
(5) Authorized Signature
Signature: Date:
Exhibit C
Page 2 of 2