CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY JANUARY 28, 2025 6:00 PM
SAN DIMAS COUNCIL CHAMBER
CONFERENCE ROOM
245 EAST BONITA AVENUE
A public agenda packet is available for review on the City’s website www.sandimasca.gov or by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected].
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Emmett Badar, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Nakano, Councilmember Rachel Bratakos, Councilmember Ryan A. Vienna, Councilmember Eric Weber
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Members of the audience are invited to address the City Council on any item on this agenda.
Public comment will not be taken during each individual agenda item, except for public hearing items. Comments on public hearing items will be heard when that item is scheduled for discussion. Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the legislative body is prohibited from engaging in discussion on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. However, your concerns may be referred to staff or set for discussion at a later date. Each speaker will be limited to speaking once for up to (3) three minutes.)
STUDY SESSION
1. Evaluation of Solid Waste Services – Direction Regarding Negotiating a Potential Extension of Solid Waste Services Agreement with Waste Management or Issuance of a Request for Proposals for Solid Waste Services
ADJOURNMENT
Notice Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need assistance to participate in a city meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (909) 394-6216. Early notification before the meeting you wish to attend will make it possible for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II].
Copies of documents distributed for the meeting are available in alternative formats upon request. Any writings or documents provided to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public review Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30
City Council Study Session Agenda
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025 Page 2
p.m. and on Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Administration Department and San Dimas Library. In addition, most documents are posted on the City's website at www.sandimasca.gov.
Posting Statement: I declare under penalty of perjury that on January 24, 2025, I posted a true and correct copy of this agenda on the bulletin board in the Civic Center Plaza of City Hall at 245 E. Bonita Ave., and on the City's website www.sandimasca.gov/agendas-minutes/as required by law.
Debra Black January 24, 2025
Debra Black, City Clerk
Study Session
Agenda Item Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
From: Brad McKinney, City Manager
Prepared by: Lauren Marshall, Sr. Management Analyst
Subject: Solid Waste Services Evaluation
____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
The City of San Dimas is preparing for the expiration of its solid waste services agreement with the current waste hauler, Waste Management, on December 31, 2027. To explore future service options, the City engaged HF&H, a leading consultant within the waste disposal industry, who identified potential paths for City Council consideration:
• Option 1: Competitive Procurement: This may allow the City to explore better rates and terms, but carries risks such as service disruptions, procurement challenges, and unresolved regulatory uncertainties (e.g., California's Advanced Clean Fleet and Plastic Pollution laws).
• Option 2: Sole-Source Negotiation: Directly negotiating a new agreement with WM ensures service continuity but might limit flexibility, expose the City to potential rate increases, and not address regulatory challenges effectively. • Option 3: Three-Year Extension of Existing Agreement: This provides stability, time to assess upcoming regulatory impacts (such as zero-emission vehicles and packaging laws), and minimizes risks related to changing providers or contract terms.
Based on the analysis, City staff recommend pursuing Option 3: Three-Year Extension of Existing Agreement. This option offers the best balance of stability, regulatory compliance, and time to adapt to future changes in the industry. City staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to staff to pursue the negotiation of a three-year extension with Waste Management.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:
• Provide direction to staff to negotiate a three-year extension amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement for Solid Waste Management Services
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 2
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
A three-year extension to the current Agreement with Waste Management (WM) provides stability, ensures regulatory compliance, and offers time to navigate evolving industry trends and regulatory changes without the disruptions and risks associated with switching providers or negotiating a long-term agreement prematurely. The three-year extension will also allow the City to prepare for future changes in the waste management landscape, including the transition to Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) and new packaging regulations, while maintaining continuity of service for residents and businesses.
FISCAL IMPACT
Among the three options considered in the City's solid waste collection analysis, Option 3: ThreeYear Extension of Existing Agreement, is the most cost-effective choice for the City in the short term. Once an agreement extension expires, the City will need to consider additional future procurement costs. Below are the estimated fiscal impacts associated with the various contracting and procurement options for consulting negotiation and professional services:
• Option 1: Competitive Procurement: $250,000 to $300,000 • Option 2: Sole Source Negotiation of a New Franchise Agreement: $150,000 to $175,000 • Option 3: Three-Year Extension of Existing Agreement: $60,000 to $80,000
BACKGROUND
The City entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement for Solid Waste Management Services with WM on October 31, 2017, with a subsequent amendment on September 13, 2022.
The current term of this agreement will conclude on December 31, 2027. Under this franchise, WM is responsible for providing recycling, organics, and solid waste collection services to residential, commercial, multi-family, and industrial customers, along with additional diversion programs to ensure the City meets state regulatory requirements.
As the agreement nears expiration, the City of San Dimas engaged HF&H to evaluate various solid waste contracting and procurement options. HF&H was selected for this analysis not only because of its deep familiarity with the City—having previously assisted in drafting the City’s SB 1383 Action Plan, ongoing CalRecycle/SB 1383 assistance, and continued rate adjustment analysis support—but also due to its extensive expertise in the field.
HF&H's broad experience in solid waste contracting, negotiations, and procurement across California was a key factor in the City’s decision. With over 500 local jurisdictions served, HF&H is a recognized leader in solid waste procurements and has negotiated with nearly every collection company in the state. This wealth of experience is backed by a robust database of cost metrics, industry trends, and regulatory impacts. Notably, HF&H recently conducted a comprehensive rate analysis and survey for Los Angeles County, further enhancing its capacity to provide wellinformed recommendations in the local region. This expertise directly influenced HF&H's analysis of the contracting options available to the City.
HF&H anticipates that key regulatory changes—including the California Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation, the Plastic Pollution and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54), and the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SB 1383)—will significantly impact solid waste services and costs. These changes are expected to drive substantial infrastructure investments in both the near and long term, which will factor into the City's decision-making process for solid waste, recycling, and organics services.
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 3
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
Additionally, the most significant challenge to local jurisdictions from both a cost and technology risk perspective is the transition from conventional fuels to the new Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) standards required under ACF regulations for medium and heavy-duty vehicles. This transition involves equipment whose reliability at scale remains unproven, risking service interruptions on days when trucks are inoperable, and the capital costs can be up to twice that of traditional truck types. Furthermore, these costs will include infrastructure for charging or hydrogen fueling, which adds significantly to the financial considerations. The City remains committed to ensuring compliance with these regulations while maintaining high service quality and rate stability for the community.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Scope of Procurement/Contractual Analysis and Review
Starting in July 2024, staff engaged HF&H in several meetings to explore various solid waste contracting options. These discussions covered a range of approaches, including sole-source negotiations, competitive procurement processes, contract extensions (both short- and longterm), regional agreements, and the potential for creating distinct collection service districts within the City. Following these meetings, staff, with support from HF&H, surveyed neighboring communities to gain a broader understanding of local contracts, rates, and infrastructure opportunities in the region.
The City and HF&H also conducted several interview sessions with neighboring communities, as outlined below. The survey and interviews were limited to the information that agencies could publicly disclose. Additionally, HF&H leveraged recently available rate survey data, survey responses, and agreement documents to help inform their analysis.
Area Solid Waste Service Contract Arrangements
Staff requested that HF&H prepare a comprehensive analysis of the service arrangements for the cities of Pomona, Claremont, Covina, Glendora, Azusa, and La Verne. This evaluation included a review of baseline service rates, contract terms, rate adjustment methodologies, and options for contract extensions. Each jurisdiction was compared to the City of San Dimas across each of those evaluation areas.
In September 2024, the City and HF&H further engaged with representatives from the cities of Covina, Claremont, and La Verne to gain deeper insights into their contract terms, rates, and performance. This effort aimed to assess the effectiveness of existing agreements and address any recent transitional needs, where applicable. Table 1 below details and compares various key contractual service terms for the analyzed cities.
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 4
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
Table 1: Comparison of Selected Solid Waste Contract Terms Regional Analysis of Facilities and Collection Service Providers The map below illustrates the local infrastructure for recycling, organics, and solid waste used by neighboring communities, which are primarily serviced by WM, Athens Services, or directly by municipal agencies. It highlights the locations of materials recovery facilities (MRFs), organics processing facilities, transfer stations, and landfills. Due to the distance of regional landfills from the cities they serve, materials are typically transported via transfer stations or MRFs. As such, the strategic placement of these facilities is crucial, as it significantly influences operational efficiency and competitive pricing.
Service and Rate Terms Azusa Claremont La Verne Pomona San Dimas Population 49,000 36,000 49,000 52,000 32,000 146,000 34,003 Hauler AthensServices MunicipallyCollected WasteManagement AthensServices WasteManagement Residential 3-Container with64- GallonRefuseCart $ 43.99 $ 34.30 $ 44.82 (1) $ 44.26 (2) $ 31.41 $ 30.89 $ 38.22 Commercial 2CYTrash $ 228.00 $ 177.01 $ 212.34 $ 230.47 (2) $ 162.34 $ 298.81 $ 182.15 Commercial 2CYRecycling N/A NoCharge(3) $ 75.49 (4) N/A $ 36.67 $ 74.13 $ 98.52 Commercial Organics64-Gallon Cart $ 129.39 NoCharge(3) $ 135.17 $ 99.08 (2) $ 96.76 $ 91.56 $ 85.50 RateAdjustment Methodology CPIplus1%, maxof 10% CPI CPIplus1% (5) CPIplus1% (6) CPI CPI 75%CPI/Service 25%Disposal
RateAdjustment Cap 10% 3% 6% (7) N/A 5%
5%fortheService Component
Contract Term Evergreen(20-year) N/A Evergreen(25-year) Evergreen(20-year) 10-year 10-year 10-year Contract EndDate N/A N/A December 31, 2030 November 2033 December 31, 2027 (1) Rateonlyavailableto low-incomegenerators.
(2) RateeffectiveJuly1, 2023.
(3) Commercial customershaveunlimited recyclingand organics serviceat no additional charge. (4) Rateis for 1.5 CYbin.
(5)In addition to annual rateadjustment,ratehasaphase-in of $3.68 on residential ratesand $2.48 on commercial and multi-familyrates, phased-in fromJuly1, 2022 to July1, 2025. (6)In addition to theannual rateadjustment theCityimplemented afive-year phase-in for commercial ratesor 8%annuallybeginningJuly1, 2023. (7)If theAnnual RateAdjustment exceeds6%theCityand hauler will meet and conferto modifyrateadjustment calculations. (8) Jurisdictionsmayhavefees in addition to theirFranchiseFees, includingAB939Fee,SB1383Fees, andAdministrativeFees.
Intent toterminatecan
not beissuedpriorto
July1, 2038.
Intent toterminatecan
not beissuedpriorto November 1, 2029.
Other Contract Terms
Covina Glendora
N/A
AthensServices AthensServices Rates Effective 7/1/2024
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 5
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 6
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
Regulatory Impact
City staff and HF&H analysis included careful consideration of major developments in the industry and new legislation for City consideration, such as the pending conversion to ZEVs, horizon regulatory impacts (e.g., ACF, SB 54), and specific challenges the City is facing such as SB 1383 Recovered Organic Waste Product (ROWP) procurement.
California Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation (ACF)
The ACF regulation seeks to accelerate the transition of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to ZEVs.
It establishes mandatory requirements for the adoption of ZEVs within targeted fleets, including both public and privately contracted haulers, starting in 2024.
However, the transition is complicated by several factors, including technological limitations, regulatory uncertainties, and concerns over infrastructure availability and reliability. These challenges are particularly pronounced for heavy-duty ZEV trucks used in solid waste collection, which are currently twice the cost of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Additionally, the operational performance of ZEVs in solid waste collection is still unproven at scale, and there is limited national production capacity.
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) both comply with ACF regulations, but each faces distinct challenges. BEVs offer potential savings on fueling costs, but their effectiveness is limited by underdeveloped charging infrastructure and insufficient power grid capacity, which struggle to meet the demands of fleet operations. These challenges are compounded by the reliability issues of the current power grid, which can be disrupted during public emergencies, power outages, and other catastrophic events, further impacting energy supply. Additionally, BEV refuse trucks require several hours to fully charge, and they may struggle to complete typical routes—especially in inclement weather or on hilly, rough terrain— compared to Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) refuse trucks. The added weight of the battery also reduces payload capacity, limiting the amount of refuse that can be collected and transported. As a result, fleets may require more BEVs than ICE vehicles to maintain operational efficiency.
In contrast, FCEVs do not face the same limitations in load capacity and refueling time, as they can be refueled in minutes, similar to ICE vehicles. These attributes make FCEVs a more attractive option for refuse collection. However, the higher cost of hydrogen fuel ($4-7 per mile compared to $1-2 per mile for conventional fuels) increases operational expenses, presenting a significant barrier. These infrastructure and cost challenges are likely to drive up solid waste collection costs, complicating the transition to cleaner vehicle technologies.
As a result, the ACF regulations will require significant investments in both vehicle fleets and infrastructure, directly impacting the City's service contract. The City anticipates that this technology will develop over time, providing much better clarity on performance, costeffectiveness, and infrastructure development if decisions about this are delayed by 2-3 years.
The City’s discussions with WM reinforced that position, as WM is piloting individual trucks in certain markets to get experience and fully intends to comply with ACF, but is not yet prepared to commit to a full ZEV fleet.
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 7
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
SB 54 “Plastic Pollution and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act” Adopted in 2022, SB 54 establishes a comprehensive Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program aimed at managing packaging and single-use plastic food ware products across all sectors of the economy. Under this legislation, CalRecycle requires producers to ensure that all packaging and plastic food ware sold in California is recyclable or compostable and holds them further responsible for covering the costs associated with the collection and processing of these materials.
Local jurisdictions must accept and recycle materials covered under SB 54, necessitating close collaboration with their service providers, such as WM, to ensure compliance with these regulations. Jurisdictions will also need to seek reimbursement for eligible costs from packaging producers. It is expected that CalRecycle will finalize SB 54 regulations in early 2025, while the Producer Responsibility Organization will be tasked with developing an implementation and reimbursement plan by 2027. Subsequently, implementation, collection, and financial impacts from SB 54 may continue to remain uncertain over the next several years.
SB 1383 “Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy” Since 2022, SB 1383 has required the City to further enhance recycling and organic waste landfill reduction services and programs related to food waste, source separated recycling, food recovery, and Recovered Organic Waste Product (ROWP) procurement. The City has delegated most of its compliance requirements under SB 1383 to WM. Pursuant to the current Agreement, WM must materially comply with applicable laws as they may be enacted and amended during the term. As described in WM’s letter dated October 29, 2021, WM’s current provision of organics collection services and SB 1383 programming extends beyond the current terms of the agreement because of continued negotiations with the City.
Meeting with Waste Management
The City and HF&H met with WM on August 29, to discuss and assess opportunities and barriers related to the three options being considered by the City for recycling, organics, and solid waste collection service needs.
It is important to note, that as part of the analysis, the City and HF&H did not conduct direct negotiations with Waste Management, and any conclusions regarding future contracting arrangements, including the potential impact on rates, remain subject to further negotiations.
At the meeting, the City and HF&H discussed and had a mutual understanding of the following:
• A competitive RFP process was discussed between the City and WM. WM indicated a preference to avoid a competitive RFP altogether, with an opportunity to negotiate an extension.
• WM indicated a strong preference for extending the contract on a longer-term basis but would need to consider the rate impacts and how to deal with upcoming issues like the ACF/ZEV transition.
• WM and the City discussed the impact of near-term changes in the industry, like the ACF/ZEV transition and SB 54, and identified that it may be advantageous to do a shortterm extension to get a better understanding of those changes to reduce regulatory and technology risk under the new contract.
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 8
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
• WM indicated a willingness to continue under the current terms, including current PI provisions, for 3 more years if there are no significant changes to services. • A contract extension beyond three years would imply a ZEV transition to comply with the ACF regulations.
• The City indicated a desire for WM to continue to meet SB 1383 recovered organic waste product procurement during such an extension. WM said they would have to assess that request.
Options Available to the City
Based on the City and HF&H’s analysis of regulatory and contract conditions, the following were identified as the most likely options for City Council’s consideration:
Option 1: Competitive Procurement
Under Option 1, the City would initiate a competitive procurement process for an agreement to provide recycling, organics, and solid waste collection and processing services, to be effective on January 1, 2028. This process would allow the City to test the market for more competitive rates, service offerings, and contract terms.
Key Elements of Option 1 Competitive Procurement
• The expiration of the current agreement provides a clear opportunity for the City to conduct a competitive market test. This process would assess compensation, rates, and service offerings, ensuring the City secures the best value and terms available in the market. • The competitive procurement process will be structured to solicit updated contract terms and innovative solutions, particularly in response to increasing regulatory pressures and evolving customer demands. This would ensure that the City stays ahead of emerging trends and challenges in recycling, organics, and solid waste collection. • The competitive procurement process would span 18 to 24 months for execution, followed by an additional 6 to 12 months for contract transition. This extended timeline accounts for the complexity of the process, including the development of detailed specifications, evaluation of proposals, and the transition to new service providers, if applicable.
Option 1 Benefits
• Enhances the public perception of fairness, ensuring that all interested service providers can propose on the contract. This transparency helps demonstrate accountability in awarding a large, public contract.
• Would allow multiple companies to participate, potentially introducing new service providers who could offer unique or innovative approaches to the City’s recycling, organics, and solid waste programs.
• Rates and service terms would be determined through a competitive bidding process, which helps ensure that the City receives the best possible pricing based on current market conditions and competition.
• May open opportunities for regional contract partnerships, allowing the City to explore synergies with neighboring jurisdictions. This could lead to efficiencies and cost savings through consolidated service delivery or shared resources.
Option 1 Considerations
• The new agreement would need to be flexible enough to anticipate potential regulatory changes, including those related to SB 54 and ACF.
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 9
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
• New regulations such as ACF and SB 54 carry undetermined cost risks, and service providers may factor these uncertainties into their pricing and proposals, leading to potentially higher rates than necessary.
• Opportunity for the designation of “Collection Service Districts” within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries would be limited based on the size and service magnitude of the jurisdiction. Essentially, splitting the City into Collection Service Districts would require a larger City than San Dimas.
Option 2: Sole Source Negotiation of a New Franchise Agreement Under Option 2, the City would initiate negotiations with WM for a new longer-term (10-15 year) Franchise Agreement, focusing on the key terms that align with both the City's needs and evolving legislative requirements. This would include an extended term, regulatory compliance, new rates, and service guarantees.
Key Elements of Option 2 Sole Source Negotiation
• Negotiation of New Franchise Agreement Terms:
o The agreement would be renegotiated for a longer term (10 or 15 years), allowing for stability and long-term planning.
o Terms would include updated provisions for compliance with new regulations like SB 1383, SB 54, and ACF.
o New rates would be negotiated, including the updating of rate adjustment methodologies to address inflation, regulatory compliance costs, and changes in service levels.
o Service guarantees and compliance standards would be added and/or updated for clarity, minimizing risk, and ensuring performance.
• Sole Source Negotiation Process:
o The City would negotiate directly with WM, bypassing a competitive procurement process initially.
o A key feature of this approach is an "off-ramp" for transitioning to a competitive procurement process if sole-source negotiations do not lead to a successful agreement. This provides the City with flexibility if negotiations fail to reach a satisfactory outcome.
Option 2 Benefits
• Retains continuity of service from a known provider.
• WM already understands the City’s unique service requirements and customer needs, which can make the sole-source negotiation process smoother and more aligned with City objectives.
• Streamline through a sole-source procurement and provide for a quicker negotiation timeline.
• Reduces service disruptions or transition issues, by avoiding the transition to a new service provider.
• The sole-source negotiation would focus on updating existing terms, limiting service impacts to only those adjustments made through the negotiation process (as opposed to a complete overhaul that might come with a new provider or agreement).
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 10
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
Option 2 Considerations
• Prior to commencing a sole-source negotiation process, the City must set a target date and assign corresponding resources to pivot to competitive negotiations if negotiations fail.
• Limits flexibility in adjusting terms to market conditions. • Current uncertainty around regulatory changes (e.g., ACF, SB 54) may introduce cost risks to a sole-source negotiation, prior to maturity and implementation of regulations.
Option 3: Three Year Extension of Existing Agreement
Under Option 3, the City would consider extending its current agreement with WM for an additional three-year period, from January 1, 2028, through December 31, 2030. To maintain continuity of services, programs, and regulatory compliance, all parties must agree to the following terms in a timely manner to avoid a lapse of the current agreement.
Key Elements of Option 3 Extension
• Three-year extension of the existing Agreement with limited modifications to the contractual terms. The Agreement under a three-year extension would include the following:
o Retention of current rate adjustment methodology, which includes annual rate adjustments based on service and disposal components, in alignment with regional industry standards.
o Continued compliance with SB 1383 services and programs, as mandated by CalRecycle.
o Inclusion of additional contractual provisions requiring WM to procure ROWP to meet the City’s SB 1383 procurement targets. WM has agreed to procure ROWP for the 2024 targets as a courtesy; however, the extension may require formalizing this commitment. The City may also need to update the agreement to reflect other SB 1383-related organic waste programming provided by WM outside the current agreement.
Option 3 Benefits
• Continuity of service from a provider familiar with the City’s unique needs and customer base.
• Avoidance of a negotiation or RFP process that is prolonged or complicated by the uncertainty of pending regulations.
• Potential rate stabilization for the near term, compared to market rates and the potential future impacts of regulatory changes.
• Mitigation of the risks associated with transitioning to a new service provider. • Additional time to understand and adapt to the regulatory impacts of SB 54 and ACF regulations.
• No disruption to services for residents, businesses, and the City.
Option 3 Considerations
• Potential limitation on negotiating additional enhancements to the agreement, such as expanded services (e.g., bulky item collection), updated performance standards, or revised compensation terms.
• Constraints on the City’s ability to adjust agreement terms and rates in response to evolving market conditions in the short term
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 11
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
Based on the analysis, City staff recommends Option 3: “Three Year Extension of Existing Agreement”. This option provides stability, ensures regulatory compliance, and offers time to navigate evolving industry trends and regulatory changes without the disruptions and risks associated with switching providers or negotiating a long-term agreement prematurely. The threeyear extension will also allow the City to prepare for future changes in the waste management landscape, including the transition to ZEV’s and new packaging regulations, while maintaining continuity of service for residents and businesses.
Key Reasons for the Recommendation
1. Regulatory Flexibility and Mitigation of Risk: The upcoming regulatory changes, particularly with the California Air Resources Board ACF regulation, SB 54, and SB 1383, create uncertainty. Extending the agreement allows the City to navigate these evolving regulatory landscapes while reducing the immediate risks and costs associated with transitioning to a new service provider or negotiating a long-term franchise agreement that might not adequately address these future challenges. The three-year extension also provides time to plan for a cost-effective implementation of ACF requirements and the broader impacts of SB 54.
2. Time to Assess Technological and Market Trends: By opting for a short-term extension, the City gains valuable time to observe the full impact of regulatory changes, including the financial implications of and technology options for transitioning to ZEVs, and to assess market trends. This additional time will allow the City to negotiate future contracts with a clearer understanding of costs, technological advancements, and regulatory compliance needs.
3. Continuity and Stability: Extending the current agreement with WM for an additional three years ensures continuity of service. WM has met their obligations under the current agreement except for some short-term issues during COVID-19. Additionally, any change that may result in changing service days would need to be well considered, planned for, and noticed.
4. Avoidance of Prolonged Negotiations in the short term: A three-year agreement extension delays the need for a full negotiation in the short-term facilitating a buffer during current regulatory uncertainty. Given the basic terms of a three-year extension, minimal negotiation should be required. This option also provides additional time for the City to negotiate again with an exclusive provider once ACF and SB 54 are better understood, further limiting uncertainty within a future negotiation process. A three-year extension also stabilizes costs for the near term, protecting the City and its residents from potential market volatility or regulatory-driven price increases.
5. Continuity of SB 1383 Compliance: The City has already implemented programs, services, and rates to comply with SB 1383, with WM playing a pivotal role in the City’s organic waste diversion programs. The extension would formalize WM’s continued support for these regulations, including the procurement of recovered organic waste products to meet the City’s procurement targets. The extension also allows the City to assess the effectiveness of SB 1383 programs prior to potentially impacting costs associated with a new franchise agreement.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration:
Solid Waste Services Evaluation Page 12
For the Meeting of January 28, 2025
1. Competitive Procurement
A competitive procurement process offers the City an opportunity to explore more favorable rates, services, and contract terms by testing the market. However, this approach may introduce risk, including potential service disruptions and staff time required for both procurement and transition processes. Furthermore, regulatory uncertainties related to the ACF and SB 54 are unlikely to be resolved before the completion of the procurement process. As a result, there may be a need for unforeseen contract amendments or adjustments once a new agreement is in place.
2. Sole-Source Negotiation of a New Franchise Agreement This option entails negotiating a new, longer-term agreement directly with WM. While it ensures continuity with a known provider, it carries the risk of not addressing regulatory uncertainties related to the ACF and SB 54, which are unlikely to be resolved before completing a sole-source negotiation. As a result, the City Council may be asked to agree to a long-term contract without fully understanding the cost impact of these new laws.
Additionally, a sole-source approach may expose the City to potential rate increases, as it would bypass a market test for competitive pricing and limit the City's flexibility to adapt to evolving program and service needs in the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable
Respectfully submitted,
Lauren Marshall
Sr. Management Analyst