10c
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Scholl Canyon Landfill Operations, Closure, and Wasteshed Analysis Update
1. Motion authorizing the Director of Public Works to formally request an adjustment of refuse disposal rates at the Scholl Canyon Landfill (SCLF) active site based on the inside wasteshed 10% discount scenario, consistent with the requirements of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), subject to consultation with and concurrence by the County Sanitation District (District) and the County of Los Angeles (County).
2. Motion authorizing the Director of Public Works to formally request the District to resubmit the SCS-revised postclosure cost estimate to CalRecycle and other oversight authorities for approval.
3. Motion authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute a contract amendment to Contract No. 8002842 with SCS Engineers, to increase the contract amount by $30,000 to perform post-closure maintenance updates, provide regulatory support with CalRecycle, and site usage planning.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 3, 2026 Calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10c2
6 6
5 5
The City Council previously had provided direction to close SCLF as soon as possible, however, circumstances over the last few years have kept changing. For example, the current incoming tonnage has declined to one fourth of the permitted (3,400 tons per day) capacity, while operating costs and post-closure maintenance costs keep increasing. In February 2025, a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) was awarded to Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt Engineers Inc, dba SCS Engineers (SCS), to conduct a study of the feasibility of opening the SCLF wasteshed to normalize revenue and expenses, to determine if a CEQA analysis in relation to opening the wasteshed would be required, and to perform a post-closure cost analysis comparing different final cover systems to reduce post-closure maintenance costs. After a thorough analysis and considering several alternatives SCS recommends offering private haulers a 10–20% reduction in tipping fees as an incentive to deliver more of their waste within the existing wasteshed, which would increase net cash flow for SCLF and may accelerate closure timelines.
Additionally, SCS believes a CEQA analysis is unlikely beyond a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) if the existing wasteshed were to be opened and that the project could safely fall into a CEQA exemption. Finally, converting the current designed final cover from a flexible membrane liner/geosynthetic clay liner composite cover to an evapotranspirative cover system would significantly decrease post-closure maintenance estimates and costs. At this stage of the analysis, an amendment to the contract with SCS would allow them to provide continued consulting services on the city’s behalf related to preparing for the eventual landfill closure.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the motion authorizing the Director of Public Works to formally request an adjustment of refuse disposal rates at SCLF active site based on the inside wasteshed 10% discount scenario, in accordance with the JPA and subject to concurrence by the County Sanitation District and the County of Los Angeles; further approve the motion authorizing the Director of Public Works to request that the District resubmit the SCS-revised postclosure cost estimate to CalRecycle and other oversight authorities for approval; and approve the motion executing a contract amendment to Contract SCS Engineers for support services, and increase the contract amount by $30,000.
ANALYSIS
The SCLF first opened in 1961 as an unrestricted regional landfill and is owned by the City and operated by the District and the County under a JPA. The JPA governing the SCLF establishes the framework under which the City, the County, and the District jointly manage landfill operations. It outlines responsibilities for setting disposal rates, overseeing closure and post-closure activities, and ensuring that major operational and financial decisions are made with concurrence from all parties.
In 1987, Glendale passed an ordinance establishing a restricted wasteshed for SCLF, meaning only solid waste generated from Glendale, Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge, South Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre and portions of Los Angeles County would be accepted at the landfill. Ongoing decreases in daily disposal tonnage, increasing operating and post-closure costs, and a desire to promptly close the site have 10c3
6 6
5 5
compelled City to examine the SCLF operations and closure estimates with a wasteshed analysis.
The remaining landfill life is dependent on disposal rates and the airspace utilization factor, which varies based on operational practices, waste settlement, and other conditions. LACSD reported an estimated closure date of July 2029 based on its September 2025 calculation; however, this estimate does not account for declining disposal rates or updated density factors. Based on recent tonnage trends and airspace utilization derived from LACSD’s quarterly aerial survey data, the City now anticipates that closure operations are likely to begin within the next five to seven years.
As part of the City’s effort to evaluate long-term landfill management strategies, SCS has been tasked with examining the financial, regulatory, and technical implications of potential wasteshed changes and alternative closure cover designs. Their scope of work included assessing the fiscal balance between revenues and expenses under different 10c3
6 6
5 5
wasteshed scenarios, conducting environmental review under CEQA for a possible wasteshed expansion, and comparing post-closure costs of the current composite liner system with evapotranspirative cover alternatives.
Tipping Fee and Wasteshed Analysis
SCS performed the analysis based on the following objectives:
Assess the interest of regional haulers in bringing waste to the SCLF Identify tipping fee ranges that haulers would find attractive to bring waste to SCLF
Test several tonnage and tipping fee scenarios to determine financial feasibility of discounted tipping fees
Determine how much the SCLF’s closure timeline could be accelerated based on the tonnage in each scenario.
Several regional haulers were contacted during the course of the study: 1. Athens Services; 2. NASA Services; 3. Republic Services; 4. Universal Waste Systems (UWS) and 5. Waste Management. Most of the haulers indicated interest in bringing waste to SCLF, including waste from within the restricted wasteshed, as well as from outside the wasteshed. The haulers indicated tipping fees between $50-$85 per ton would be attractive for bringing waste to SCLF. The current tipping fee at SCLF is $95 per ton.
Using data from the City on existing tonnage and capital and operational expenses, as well as the information from haulers on the quantities of waste they could potentially send to the facility, several tonnage and tipping fee scenarios were tested to determine financial feasibility of discounted tipping fees. These scenarios were also used to determine how much SCLF’s closure timeline could be accelerated based on the tonnage in each scenario.
Based on the results of the analysis, it is recommended the City consider offering current haulers within the existing wasteshed a discounted tipping fee for all waste coming to SCLF. Any discount in the range of 10%-20% will generate net cash flow for the SCLF while incentivizing haulers to direct more waste towards the SCLF, instead of other nearby disposal facilities, such as the Mid-Valley Landfill, Antelope Valley Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill, Calabasas Landfill, and Sunshine Canyon Landfill. Greater discounts for haulers incentivize them to redirect waste to Scholl Canyon, and expanding the wasteshed further increases expected net cash flows. Additionally, accepting additional tonnage from inside the wasteshed will reduce the timeline for closure of the landfill (4.8 to 5.1 years), compared to the current closure estimates of 5.6 to 7.4 years. Furthermore, should the wasteshed be opened, accepting available tonnage from outside the wasteshed will further reduce the timeline for closure of the landfill (3.6 to 4.4 years). At the maximum permitted capacity of 3,400 tons per day, the landfill would close within two years.
10c4
6 6
5 5
If the City Council’s direction is to proceed with opening the wasteshed, the next step will be to work with the City Attorney’s Office on revising the existing wasteshed policy under § 8.56.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code for Council’s approval to reflect on the proposed changes.
On a quarterly basis, the District separately pays the City a “Host Fee” as well as a “Lease Payment” related to landfill operations. The Host Fee payment is 25% in addition to the base fees charged for the disposal of solid waste at Scholl Canyon landfill. The Lease Payment is equal to 40% of the gross receipts. However, if surplus revenue is not enough to cover the Lease Payment, the JPA allows the Sanitation Districts to adjust this payment amount down and defer the Lease Payment. Therefore, when the landfill operates in a deficit, Glendale is paid the Host Fee while the Lease Payment is deferred.
The net revenues and landfill closure acceleration timelines for accepting both in- wasteshed and outside-wasteshed waste for each of the discount scenarios are shown in the Summary of Scenarios below:
Summary of Scenarios
Status Quo (October 2024 - September 2025)
Annual Tonnage 239,065
Annual Net Revenue -$2,302,692
Landfill Closure Timeline (yrs) 5.6 * - 7.4 yrs
City Payment per year: $4.95M /yr
Total City Payment until closure $27.7M - $36.5M **
* Current Net Available Cash balance is $12.9M, possibly running out within 5.6 yrs with negative -$2.3M/yr. City received ONLY host fee. ** If cash runs out, City could only receive 5.6 yrs of host fee. If no net revenue like FY24 and reach full capacity, City could receive 7.4 yrs.
Inside Wasteshed
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Discount 10% 15% 20%
Expected Tonnage (ton/year) 314,532 - 337,548 * 338,292 - 364,092 365,400 - 395,004 Estimated Annual Net Revenue($) 573,828 - 1,963,872 394,152 - 1,829,172 157,848 - 1,663,164 Landfill Closure Timeline (years) 4.8 - 5.1 4.4 - 4.8 4.1 - 4.4 Estimated City Payment per year: $7.5 M - $8.5M /yr**
Total City Payment until closure $38.2 M - $41.0M
* LACSD provided O&M expense amount for 10% discount, matching SCS estimate on Annual Net Revenue. ** Under Scenario 1, Net revenue will turn positive, with 40% paid to City as Lease Payment. Scenario 2 & 3 could be calculated if data provided.
Inside and Outside Wasteshed
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Discount 10% 15% 20%
10c5
6 6
5 5
Expected Tonnage (ton/year) 370,572 - 443,064 437,220 - 521,220 517,080 - 613,608 Estimated Annual Net Revenue ($) 3,958,308-8,336,400 5,896,608 - 10,568,784 7,870,488 - 12,778,728 Landfill Closure Timeline (years) 3.6 - 4.4 * 3.1 - 3.7 2.6 - 3.1 Estimated City Payment per year: $10.1 M - $13.5M/yr**
Total City Payment until closure $44.4 M - $48.6M
* LACSD provided O&M expense amount for 10% discount, matching SCS estimate on Annual Net Revenue. ** Under Scenario 1, Net revenue will turn positive, with 40% paid to City as Lease Payment. Scenario 2 & 3 could be calculated if data provided.
The landfill’s operating and compliance costs currently absorb all disposal fee income, leaving negative net revenue (-$2.3M as of 2025). Offering a modest discount could increase waste tonnage, and although each ton yields slightly less revenue, the added volume spreads costs more efficiently and each incremental ton remains profitable. This approach enhances overall net revenue; city payment & shortens the closure timeline.
The wasteshed study conclusions and recommendations are listed below:
• Four of the five haulers have indicated interest in bringing additional waste the SCLF, including waste from within the wasteshed and waste from outside the wasteshed.
• Under Scenario 1 with a 10% discount, accepting tonnage from within the wasteshed is projected to reduce the landfill closure timeline to approximately 4.8 to
5.1 years.
• Under Scenario 1 with a 10% discount, also accepting tonnage from outside the wasteshed is projected to reduce the landfill closure timeline to approximately 3.6 to
4.4 years.
• At the maximum permitted capacity of 3,400 TPD, the landfill would close within two years.
• Electing a 10% discount provides the greatest net revenue and an accelerated closure schedule. If the expected available waste from inside the wasteshed is brought to SCLF, annual net revenue would range from $574,000 to $1.9 million.
With all expected available waste from outside the wasteshed, that figure would range from $3.9 to $8.3 million.
To ensure consistency with the JPA, any adjustment of refuse disposal rates at the SCLF should be formally requested by the City’s Director of Public Works, with concurrence required from both the District and the County. Additionally, if tipping fees are decreased and additional tonnage is drawn from within the wasteshed, the increased volume will most likely raise operational demands and costs. Based on the District’s input, this additional tonnage has minimum impact on current operations with a constant O&M expense amount for all three tonnage discount scenarios.
However, if the proposed discounted tipping fees are not approved by the District and County, the existing rates would remain unchanged. The current JPA is set to expire shortly, and the City is evaluating options to either renew the JPA with the District, potentially with revised terms, or pursue a competitive proposal process with a new operator, which would allow the City to establish pricing and operational terms directly.
Landfill Final Closure Cover Analysis and End-Use Scenarios 10c6
6 6
5 5
State law, the Public Resources Code (§§ 43500–43610.1) and Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 6, requires landfill operators to demonstrate the availability of financial resources for closure and 30 years of post- closure maintenance. The most recent post-closure cost estimate submitted by the District to the regulatory authorities, including CalRecycle, identifies a total obligation of approximately $86.9 million. Because the existing closure fund balance is insufficient to meet this requirement, the City has committed to providing an annual revenue pledge to CalRecycle over the next 30 years to satisfy the post-closure financial assurance obligation. This estimate is based on the use of a composite final cover system consisting of a flexible membrane liner and geosynthetic clay liner (FML/GCL).
Areas capped with a FML/GCL may accommodate a broader range of end uses, including buildings, paved access roads, parking areas, utility corridors, and solar facilities, provided development is supported by engineered protective soil layers and designed to avoid liner penetration. These areas can support structural improvements when proper load distribution, drainage control, and long-term cap protection measures are incorporated into the design.
As part of long-term planning for SCLF, staff recommend updating the post-closure cost to incorporate an alternative final cover design that would reduce post-closure maintenance costs. SCS evaluated alternative closure options and recommended replacing the composite cover with an engineered evapotranspiration (ET) cover. The ET cover provides equivalent regulatory compliance while offering significant long-term savings by reducing maintenance requirements.
An ET cover is a landfill closure system that relies on engineered soil layers and vegetation to manage precipitation through storage and plant uptake rather than impermeable barriers. For ET cover areas, appropriate end uses may include passive parkland, wildlife habitat, interpretive trails, environmental education features, and low- impact solar facilities, provided soil compaction is minimized, drainage patterns are preserved, and vegetation is properly maintained. These areas are generally not suitable for buildings, permanent structures, heavy vehicle traffic, or activities requiring significant grading or irrigation, as such uses could compromise soil moisture balance, vegetation performance, drainage integrity, and long-term regulatory compliance.
Replacing the composite cover with an ET cover is projected to reduce the post-closure cost from $86.9 million to $62.9 million, which closely aligns with the City’s post-closure fund balance of $63.5 million as of December 2025.
Notably, both cover systems are already in place at SCLF. The inactive improved portion of the landfill currently supports a golf course, tennis courts, and baseball fields.
In addition, several inactive areas totaling approximately 16.9 acres are used for soil stockpiling and Fire Department training activities. Portions of the landfill slopes are also capped with an ET cover, demonstrating the successful performance and suitability of both cover types at SCLF.
Following their initial analysis, an amendment increasing the SCS Engineers contract 10c7
6 6
5 5
amount by $30,000 is needed for continuing consulting services at SCLF. Specifically, they are needed to assist with monitoring and reporting on the District’s post-closure activities. Additionally, staff intends to use this consultant to provide regulatory compliance guidance and future site planning services.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
No public outreach is required at this time, as the proposed actions are administrative and operational in nature. Any future changes affecting public access or site use would be subject to appropriate community engagement and regulatory review.
FISCAL IMPACT
Electing a 10% in-wasteshed discount would increase annual payments to the City from the current $4.95 million to approximately $7.5–$8.5 million. On a cumulative basis through closure, total City payments to the General Fund would increase from an estimated $27.7–$36.5 million to approximately $38.2–$41.0 million.
The contract amendment with SCS Engineers will cost $30,000 which was not included in the FY 2025-26 budget, but can be absorbed within the existing contractual services budget as outlined below. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$30,000 GL: 43110-5300-PWD-7522-P0000 Refuse Disposal Fund Department Cost Center Program
Public Works Landfill Management
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The proposed plan considers bringing waste to the SCLF from within and outside the wasteshed. The City’s Environmental Information Form (EIF) was prepared to determine what further CEQA analysis, if any, will be necessary for the proposed plan and no potential adverse environmental impacts were identified in the EIF. SCS has therefore determined that a CEQA analysis is unlikely beyond a MND, as they believe the project could safely fall into a CEQA exemption because it will not increase the existing daily permitted capacity of the landfill. Additionally, the routes of the potential waste, both from within and outside the wasteshed would utilize the only existing access route to the landfill. Much of the waste that is proposed to be brought to the landfill would be transported from transfer stations using transfer vehicles that use compressed natural gas (CNG). Using a transfer truck replaces three to four collection trucks, significantly reducing the number of heavy vehicles accessing the SCLF. SCS also conducted a preliminary value-added analysis of a potential expansion at the SCLF and estimated that adding approximately 10 million metric tons of capacity would cost between $32–$40 million and require at least five years to permit and construct. 10c8
6 6
5 5
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This requirement is not applicable to this report.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not authorize the Director of Public Works to request an adjustment of refuse disposal rates at the SCLF active site, decline to authorize a request for the District to update the closure plan with an alternative final cover, and take no action at this time on adopting a recommendation regarding the opening of the
wasteshed. This would delay potential cost savings from alternative closure cover designs, prevent adjustments that could stabilize landfill revenues and expenses, delay the landfill closure timeline and leave the question of opening the wasteshed unresolved.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer Luke Chen, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Scholl Canyon Landfill Wasteshed Study and 2025 Post Closure Maintenance Cost Estimates dated September 11, 2025