The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/21/1989, 3 - RECYCLING IMPROVEMENT PLAN ,1►►1i1111pwl§ city of san Luis osispo March h 1, , 21989 A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I NUMe9 FROM: David F. Romero, Public Works DirTor PREPARED BY: David Elliott, Administrative Anal \ ,/ CAO RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Accept the draft Recycling Improvement Plan and approve it as a preliminary guide for the city's recycling activities 2) Direct staff to solicit contract proposals for coordinating the recycling improvement efforts outlined in the draft Recycling Improvement Plan BACKGROUND In its 1986 solid waste management plan, the county board of supervisors acknowledged that because of rapidly filling landfills and more stringent state environmental regulation of land- fills, San Luis Obispo County must begin to more actively manage its solid waste. On September 22, 1986 the council passed Resolution No. 6093 approving the county's solid waste management plan and requesting more emphasis on resource recovery (including recycling). On December 16, 1986 the council passed Ordinance No. 1084 granting San Luis Garbage Company a franchise for collecting solid waste within the city. This ordinance required San Luis Gar- bage Company and the city to prepare a recycling improvement plan. On December 15, 1987 the CAO executed an agreement between the city and the Cal Poly Founda- tion for preparation of a recycling improvement plan by two Cal Poly graduate students in plan- ning: Robert Katzenson and Mary Billington Whittlesey. On October 15, 1988 the students submitted the completed draft of the-Recycling Improvement Plan. After staff review, copies of the draft were distributed to the council in February 1988. SUMMARY OF THE PLAN The draftRecycling Improvement Plan first proposes two recycling goals for the city. Then it identifies barriers to reaching these goals and recommends objectives for overcoming bar- riers and achieving goals. Finally it lists possible sources for financing recycling improve- ment. Goals: Recycle 25 percent of the city's solid waste stream within two years of adopting the plan (existing Ieveh 10 percent) Recycle 50 percent of the city's solid waste stream within five years of adopting the plan Barriers: Inconsistent recycling operations Insufficient financial commitment to recycling Ineffective education and promotion of recycling Lack of opportunity for some residences and businesses to recycle Weak and unstable markets for recyclable materials d�/ ��HniIIIII�U I�' ��I81 city of san tui s osI spo 11i;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Recycling Improvement page 2 Objectives: Adopt the Keep America Beautiful litter reduction/recycling program Promote a recyclable waste stream Measure and regulate recycling activities Coordinate recycling education and promotion activities Establish and subsidize organic waste recycling activities Encourage state and local government offices to recycle Expand and improve the SORT program Consider mandatory recycling if other objectives don't work Possible Financing Sources: Garbage service rate surcharge Solid waste franchise fee surcharge City-paid tipping fees State grants The first proposed recycling goal (recycle 25 percent of the city's solid waste stream within two years) seems reasonable. Reaching this goal would mean recovering aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, scrap metal, tires, and waste oil -- all fairly easy to collect. Federal policy recommends that municipalities reach this level of recycling, while some state policies sug- gest rates ranging from 30 to 50 percent. The second goal (recycle 50 percent within five years) appears more difficult and far-reach- ing. (The plan calls it "ambitious, yet realistic.") Reaching this goal would.mean recover- ing construction/demolition debris and organic material -- kitchen and yard waste. These mate- rials are much more difficult to collect and reuse. ACCOMPLISHING RECYCLING OBJECTIVES For each objective recommended the Recycling Improvement Plan lists various methods for accomplishing the objective. Some of these methods are one-time applications, while others are ongoing. All of them require time or money or both. If the council finds any of the recommended goals and objectives reasonable and worthwhile, it must decide how to coordinate and manage them so that adequate resources can be budgeted for 1989-91. We propose five options: 1) Contracting with an outside organization. 2) Assigning coordination tasks to existing staffnnembers. 3) Hiring a contract employee. 4) Hiring a permanent employee. 5) Encouraging the county to work on county-wide objectives. 1) Contracting with an outside organization. Under this alternative, we would solicit pro- posals from outside firms and agencies to manage recycling activities. Advantages: -flexibility to add, subtract or terminate activities -ease of paying for performance -brief startup �cr— '��►�►�H��illllp�p �� city or san tuts OBISpo 00198 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ( Recycling Improvement page 3 Disadvantage: -possible conflicts of interest (promoting vs. conducting recycling activities) Costs: -no startup costs -moderate ongoing costs (amounts difficult to estimate) 2) Assigning coordination tasks to existing staffinembers. We now have two positions which manage resource conservation: a water conservation coordinator (basic position in the water engineering and administration program) and an energy conservation coordinator (temporary posi- tion in the buildings program). Recycling coordination involves similar duties and responsibi- lities: coordination, regulation, education, promotion, and measurement. Typically, a new activity like water conservation or energy conservation takes much effort to start but less effort to maintain once the ball gets rolling. Also, water conservation seems to be fairly seasonal. Perhaps we could unite several activities, including recycling, under one coordina- tor. Advantage: -brief startup Disadvantages: -lack of recycling experience among existing staffinembers -possible short-term work overloads Costs: -no startup costs -low ongoing costs (about $5,000 per year) 3) Hiring a contract employee. We have typically used this method to launch new program activities. Past examples are wastewater source control, water conservation, and energy con- servation. Advantage: -flexibility to modify or terminate activities Disadvantage: -lack of office space Costs: -high startup costs (about $10,000) -high ongoing costs (about $35,000 per year) 4) Hiring a permanent employee. Advantage: -ability to recruit highly qualified job applicants Disadvantages: -lack of office space -lack of flexibility to modify or terminate activities Costs: -high startup costs (about $10,000) �_ -high ongoing costs (about, $35,000 per year) ��►n�► i��Illllp�p ��0�11 City Of San IDIS OBISPO WNGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Recycling Improvement page 4 5) Encouraging the county to work on county-wide objectives. For two reasons it makes sense for the county to be working on objectives like regulation, promotion, education and measurement. First, the primary current purpose of recycling is to extend landfill life, and landfill management is a county responsibility. Second, pooling county-wide recycling effort gains efficiencies and economies of scale, particularly if one employee or a small staff can perform the duties. Advantage. -no cost Disadvantages: -no contractual or managerial control over performance -no emphasis on particular local problems Costs: none STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Accept the draft Recycling Improvement Plan and approve it as a preliminary guide for the city's recycling activities 2) Direct staff to solicit contract proposals for coordinating the recycling improvement efforts outlined in the draft Recycling Improvement Plan Because we want flexibility to tailor our recycling efforts directly to our resources and needs, contracting out may be the best way to manage our recycling activities. The problem is that we don't know how it might be done or how much it might cost. Soliciting proposals should give us two important pieces of information. First, through their proposals and interviews, responding firms and agencies can advise us about the feasibility of the proposed recycling.goals and objectives. Second, cost estimates submitted with proposals can help us better judge contracting out against other options. With this information we could modify and adopt the Recycling Improvement Plan as the city's official recycling policy. We could then accurately budget the resources to begin implementation. attach: Recycling Improvement Plan (Previously distributed February, 1989) i