HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/2002 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Study Session
September 24, 2002 - 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Heffernan, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor Ridgeway
Absent: O'Neil (excused)
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
Council Member Heffernan stated that he will be pulling Item 3
(Telecommunications Ordinance). He requested clarification on Item 12
(Emergency Information Demonstration Project) about the long term potential
liability to the City and how the privacy issues will be dealt with regarding
transmitting information over the internet or a wireless format.
2. RECYCLING PRESENTATION.
City Manager Bludau reported that Council Member Adams requested a study
session on recycling about three to four months ago. He stated that recycling is
an issue the City needs to look at every so often to see if it is doing the most it
can to meet Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requirements. He reported that, for the
first time since the beginning of its recycling program, the City met the 50%
recycling goal.
General Service Director Niederhaus introduced Management Assistant
Hammond and Refuse Division Superintendent Russo. He reported that Council
Member Adams provided him with questions that will be incorporated into the
presentation. He utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the recycling
program. He showed how things used to be done from 1930 to 1950 through the
use of burlap sacks and local agricultural facilities. He reported that, for the
next 40 years, the City transported directly to a County landfill. He indicated
that, when he first started with the City, recyling cost the City $5 /ton, but today
it is $22 /ton. He stated that the City refuse transfer station was built for
$250,000 in 1990 and the City purchased two trailers to haul the refuse to a
recycling facility. He indicated that, early this year, the transfer station was
refurbished. He reported that the City has the first and longest operating
recycling program in the County (started in 1973). He stated that a feasibility
study was conducted to build a waste -to- energy plant in 1982; AB 939 was
adopted by the California legislature in 1989; and the City started hauling loads
to CR &R's recycling facility in 1990. He indicated that the recycling facility
takes unsorted trash and sorts it for recyclables.
Mr. Niederhaus reported that the national landfill crisis drove AB 939. He
indicated that, in 1988, California was producing 38 million tons of solid waste
and 90% of it was being sent to landfills. He stated that it was projected that
California would exhaust its landfill capacity by the mid- 1990s. He noted that it
takes five to ten years to permit for a landfill that is located in the desert. He
Volume 55 - Page 387
INDEX
Recycling
(44)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
added that the landtills also pose a public health threat, particularly in those
days since they were not lined. He noted that the local landfill at Bonita
Canyon also closed at this time. Mr. Niederhaus explained that the purpose of
AB 939 is to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste to the maximum extent
possible and to improve the regulation at existing solid waste landfills. He
noted that AB 939 is an unfunded local government mandate and that this was
a quandary for the City because it does not charge residents for trash disposal.
Further, the bill included mandatory milestones in which 25% of the trash had
to be recycled by 1995 and 50% by 2000. He indicated that enforcement
provisions are severe and that local governments had to show a good faith effort
so they would not be fined.
Mr. Niederhaus stated that the City conducted its own waste characterization
study in 1990 since summer waste stream is affected by summer visitors. He
indicated that an outside consultant was utilized to monitor the City. He stated
that the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) was produced in 1991
and underwent an EQ,AC review. He indicated that the SRRE also included a
composting component for greenwaste, an education and public information
component, and a household hazardous waste component. He stated that
household hazardous waste is now handled by the County and the City pays
$1.54 /ton. He reported that any resident can go to the Huntington Beach or
Irvine location with up to 50 pounds of household hazardous waste and dispose
of it for free. Regarding the commercial solid waste recycling management
program, he stated that the City had no means of monitoring or controlling it to
meet the 50% goal, so it initiated a permit process so each hauler had an
individual permit and a requirement to start at 5% in 1990 and make their way
up to 25% by 1995. He indicated that the City conducted a study and discovered
that a franchise system was more important since it generated revenue. He
stated that the franchise haulers agreed to a ten year contract with the City. He
indicated that one of the things the City does to facilitate recycling on
commercial sites is to regulate the demolition of properties in the City.
Mr. Niederhaus reported that the City entered into a contract with CR &R, in
1990, for mixed -waste processing. He explained that, in mixed -waste
processing, the City picks up residential trash using City crews, takes it to the
corporation yard, consolidates it, and hauls it to a processing plant where the
trash is hand sorted. He indicated that the City looked at having individual
containers for plastics, aluminum, and paper but it was determined that this
system would be costly and involve too many truck trips. He reported that the
City issued its first permits to private haulers in 1990; the SRRE and Household
Hazardous Waste Element were approved in 1991; the greenwaste recycling
program commenced in 1995; the City surpassed the 25% requirement by 17% in
1995; the City amended the recycling contract in 1996, received a $189,000
rebate from the recycling contractor, extended its contract for six years, and got
a reduced rate; the City created ten year non - exclusive solid waste franchise
agreements with private haulers in 1996; and the City received the State award
in 2000 for achieving the 50% recycling goal.
Mr. Niederhaus indicated that the City's solid waste stream starts with the
27,000 residents. He stated that the trash then goes to the transfer station and
is loaded onto the transfer trailer. He indicated that about 20.2 tons/load goes
to the materials recovery facility (MRF) in Stanton. He reported that the trash
either goes through a recycling program, a greenwaste program, or directly to a
landfill. He noted that some of the larger trucks that can haul 10 to 12 tons can
Volume 55 - Page 388
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
sometimes go from the homes directly to the MRF. He reported that the City
collects about 40,000 to 42,000 tons /year of residential waste that goes to the
MRF and then to either a landfill or recycling facility. He stated that
commercial pickup stopped in 1996 due to Measure Q; however, about 37,754
tons of industrial waste (demolition of properties, road work, etc.) goes to a
recycling facility, is ground up, and turned into road base or building material.
Mr. Neiderhaus showed photos of a one -man operation at a resident's home, the
transfer trailer, the MRF sorting lines, baled aluminum, and landscape and tree
materials. He indicated that he heard it takes five to six weeks by the time
someone drinks from an aluminum can before it turns back into the same
material. He referenced the diversion rate chart from 1995 to 2001, but stated
that he cannot explain the drop in 1997. He reported that, in 2000, the City
recycled 49.4% but the City was given credit for 50 %. He stated that
Management Assistant Hammond conducted preliminary calculations for 2001
and believed that the City will reach its 50% goal again. He pointed out that the
City is performing well enough without additional recycling programs.
Mr. Neiderhaus noted that the City tried to use the automated collection system
for residential refuse in 1993; however, there was objection to the size and shape
of the containers which resulted in the budget authorization being withdrawn.
He stated that the City may some day see the trash rail - hauled to Eagle
Mountain by Palm Springs. He added that, pursuant to Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) Rule 1193, every trash truck that is bought after
July 2000 has to be powered by an alternate fuel. He stated that the non-
exclusive franchise system review will start mid -2005 and that the City looked
into using the MRF in Huntington Beach.
Mr. Niederhaus indicated that they are proposing a voluntary source - separated
recycling program as a way to address the residents who want to sort their
trash. He displayed a diversion rate chart of other cities in the County. He
explained that Lake Forest was incorporated in 1992 and had a low base year.
Further, Villa Park only has residential areas and is doing well with source -
separated recycling.
Mr. Neiderhaus stated that one of the main reasons mixed -waste recycling was
chosen in 1990 was due to the high percentage of rental properties. He
indicated that the City would have to deal with a very high education campaign
due to resident turnover. Further, the City wanted to reduce costs and truck
traffic, and mixed -waste processing offered this. He reported that source -
separation requires extra containers and that 40% to 60% of the homes cannot
accommodate the larger containers. He pointed out that the City would have
ended up paying over $60 /container, plus purchasing automated trucks. He
indicated that they feel that a source - separated program would not be as
effective for the City as it would be in communities with more owner - occupied
dwellings. He noted that they are evaluating the Newport Coast program that
uses two containers.
Mr. Niederhaus stated that, in order to go to a voluntary source- separated
program, they would advocate that the residents separate their materials and
pay a collection fee since this is not budgeted. He noted that the City charges a
recycling surcharge already and, if there were a voluntary program, there would
be an additional collection fee. He stated that no additional City funds would be
needed, except for the purchase of the recycling containers ($1201home). He
Volume 55 - Page 389
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
believed that a minimum of 500 participants would be needed to have the
program. He reported that it costs about $15.45 /month and the estimated
diversion rate is about 26 %. He stated that their assumptions for the voluntary
program tried to factor in the least expensive manner using the City's resources.
He indicated that the service can be contracted out for a similar or higher cost.
He reported that residents are currently charged $2.46 for the recycling portion
of waste collection. He stated that 40,500 tons /year are processed at a cost of
$1.6 million and services 27,000 households /week.
Mr. Niederhaus reported that the average rate for Orange County cities that use
the source- separated program is 45.86% versus 50% for cities that use the
mixed -waste process. He noted that it costs more for the mixed -waste program,
but the cost is offset since it is paid by the residents. He stated that a recycling
brochure is produced once a year with CR &R which instructs residents to keep
their wet and dry waste separated so it can be recycled easier.
In response to Mayor Ridgeway's questions, Mr. Niederhaus confirmed that the
40,500 tons /year only reflects residential waste collected by the City. He
explained that there is another 8,000 to 9,000 tons collected by private
companies at multi - family dwellings. He stated that the City does not pay this
fee and is not involved in the billings, except for the recycling surcharge.
Council Member Adams asked if the voluntary program would consist of a
recycling container and a waste container. Mr. Niederhaus confirmed, reporting
that the City would have about 125 homes signed up per day, and that the
recyclables would be collected on the same day as their regular trash. He
indicated that the recycling container would still be picked up manually since
the City does not have automated trucks.
In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, Mr. Niederhaus stated
that the calculation to determine the City's recycling rate is extremely complex.
Assistant City Manager Kiff noted that Villa Park's residential recycling is 65%
while the City's recycling is 30 %. Further, the fee for a source - separated
program is about $12.89; however, the residents are paying $15.86 if you add
the per household refuse charge and the recycling fee. He believed that it is too
early to tell what is happening in Newport Coast regarding how much trash was
assigned to it and whether it is being appropriately calculated. Mayor Ridgeway
noted that the largest component of Villa Park's material is landscape material
and believed it is a bad comparison to Newport Beach.
Council Member Glover stated that, normally when staff gives a report, there is
no counterpoint and believed that it is a bad idea.
Mr. Kiff utilized a PowerPoint presentation and stated that the two types of
recyclers are sorters and the non - sorters. He indicated that "co- mingled" means
that either clean recyclables are mixed into a single bin or wet refuse is mixed
with recyclables. He indicated that the diversion rate depends on the
calculation assigned by the California Integrated Waste Management Board in
1998 and that other factors were applied to it later (i.e. employment, CPI,
taxable sales, and population). He stated that landfills tally where the waste
carriers collected the waste from and, at the end of 12 months, the City needs to
be at 50% (about 117,000 tons). He noted that the City was at 121,000 tons in
2000 (48.5 %). Mr. Mff believed that the pitfalls of the 50% goal are that
Volume 55 - Page 390
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
IWI17�ti:1
landscapers and contractors who work in many cities report all the tonnage into
the city's tally in which they last worked. Further, the MRF managers
sometimes do not sort for recyclables depending on the tonnage coming in for
the day. He pointed out that the CR &R contract only requires them to sort 25%
of the residential waste stream. He emphasized that the City is relying on
commercial and industrial waste to meet the 50% goal.
Mr. Kiff stated that what was important to the group he worked with was to
meet the 50% diversion by minimizing the amount of waste going to the landfill
and increasing the amount salvaged; doing this in a cost - effective way; teaching
future generations to recycle and to use recyclable products; and protecting
workers and the City from exposure to hazards. He indicated that their
concerns with today's system are that quality recyclable materials are often
rendered unusable in the home when it is combined with wet waste; the MRF
sometimes does not sort after the holidays; greenwaste is sometimes lost; people
may not be teaching good stewardship of the environment to children; the
hazard issues; and what happens if CR &R's 25% does not come through.
Mr. Kiff stated that, in looking at alternatives, they determined that the cost
should not impact residential budgets and more traffic should not be generated.
He noted that it would be difficult to go to a three bin system because of the size
of the roads and residents' yards. He pointed out that the current contract with
CR &R sets the 25% rate for 5+ years and the market is weak for some
recyclables. He stated that the alternatives they discussed include 1) a Citywide
three bin curbside system in which wet waste, co- mingled clean recyclables, and
greenwaste would be separated; 2) a three bin program in specific
neighborhoods; 3) a two bin system using the MRF in which wet and co- mingled
recyclables are separated; 4) keeping the same system, but pay CR &R for a
higher diversion; 5) keeping the same system, but have a more aggressive
greenwaste program; 6) keeping the same system, but separate the different
waste into different colored bags; 7) keeping the same system, but educating the
public better; and 8) keeping the same system as is. He stated that they
recommend that Council move forward with Alternative 6 or 7. He indicated
that a better public education campaign could help keep the recyclables
salvageable and that progress can be evaluated after a certain amount of time.
He added that Council may want to consider a new Council Policy that increases
the diversion rate in any new contract because the City may be at risk if
commercial and industrial haulers are not recycling. Further, the Policy could
also require the MRF to use processed waste and direct staff to implement a
better education campaign.
Mr. Niederhaus stated that Mr. Kiff was not aware that there is a provision in
the CR &R contract that allows the City to raise the level to 50% at a cost of
$15 /ton and that the City can exercise this provision at any time. He indicated
that this cost can be passed onto the homeowner because it is recycling related.
He believed the cost would be about $4 rather than $2.46.
Council Member Glover requested that the City Manager ensure that staff has
everything together before addressing Council in the future. She believed that
allowing the City to put two staff members against each other in a presentation
is not in the best interest of the City. City Manager Bludau stated that the
presentations could have been smoother, but emphasized that the purpose of
today's study session was to cover the issue of recycling and the options.
Volume 55 - Page 391
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
In response to Council Member Proctor's questions, Mr. Niederhaus stated that
the last slide showed total numbers. Further, Villa Park is totally residential,
unlike other cities that have commercial and industrial portions in their solid
waste stream. Regarding Newport Coast, he reported that the exact tonnage
that the City collected or that Waste Management gave the City was used in the
calculations. He confirmed that mixed -waste recycling for residential waste
accounts for 23% to 30 %.
Dennis Baker believed that the counterpoint was refreshing. He stated that
Europe uses large, centrally located dome containers that are color -coded for
recyclables. He indicated that the domes have a big hook on top in order to pick
it up, place it on a flat bed truck, and replace it. He noted that other devices
have been used for over 20 years in Europe. He expressed his concern that it is
difficult for people to get rid of their household toxics. He concluded by stating
that it is a discouragement to pay more money to voluntarily recycle. He stated
that the City needs to make it easy for citizens to do the right thing.
Stephanie Barger, Executive Director of Earth Resource Foundation, stated that
she appreciated the thorough explanation of what is happening with recycling
and the options. She indicated that we live in a generation of "stuff', and
emphasized that recycling is Environmentalism 101 and that we are so far
behind. She stated that Tustin switched to source recycling and hoped that
within six month they would have 50% of the trash recycled, but this actually
happened in two weeks. She added that another city did source recycling and
saved so much money that the citizens received money back. She believed that
the City could make it work. Ms. Barger reported that Illinois sorts everything
and picks up batteries, paint, paperclips, etc. once a month. Regarding the
diversion rates, she stated that she has a concern about the percentages and
does not feel they are close to accurate. She added that she has been to the
landfill and has seen hundreds of plastic bags there. She stated that she would
like the City to give the citizens the opportunity to source recycle, believing that
it is educational since people could look at their waste stream and decide if they
can reuse, reduce, return, or eliminate waste.
Mayor Ridgeway believed that, if the City conducts more education and proceeds
with source- separation, CR &R can easily meet its 25% goal.
Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive, stated that she appreciates that Council
conducted a study session on recycling. She indicated that it is a matter of
whether people are doing the right thing and teaching children and
grandchildren the right things. She stated that she tries to separate at home
and put her clean recyclables in a paper bag, but everything ends up together in
the trash truck. She believed that the City could eliminate the areas that have
high renter levels from participating in the source - separating program and
make separating mandatory for the other single- family residential areas. She
stated that CR &R has a contract with the City for 5' /z years, but believed that it
may be possible to amend the contract so some of the waste is taken to the dirty
MRF and some to the clean MRF since it is within the same company.
Ms. Skinner pointed out that there may also be a privacy issue with having
people go through the trash, noting that her credit card number had been stolen
before.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to continue this issue to
the October 5, 2002, study session.
Volume 55 - Page 392
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT - 6:07 p.m.
INDEX
,txx:rx- xx���:tiMM:tx�i,xt:a
The agenda for the Study Session was posted on September 18, 2002, at
3:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building.
Recording Secretary
Mayor
City Clerk
Volume 55 - Page 393