Form A
PROPOSER’S STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION
1. Full Name of Business Concern (Proposer):
Principal Business Address:
2. Principal Contact Person(s):
Name:
Phone Number:
3. Form of Business Concern:
Corporation | Partnership | Joint Venture | LLC | Other
4. Provide names of partner(s) or officer(s) as appropriate and indicate if the individual has the authority to sign in name of Proposer. Provide proof of the ability of the individuals so named to legally bind the Proposer.
Name, Title Address
Name, Title Address
If a corporation, in what state incorporated:
Date Incorporated:
Month Day Year
5. If a Joint Venture, LLC, or Partnership, date of Agreement:
GreenWaste Recovery, LLC
408-283-4800
Clete Elms, CEO
2540 N First St, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95131
2540 N First St, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95131
James Redmond, CFO 2540 N First St, Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95131 31 January 2024
Manuel Gouveia
800
Form A
PROPOSER’S STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION
6. List all subcontractors participating in this Collection Agreement:
Name: Address:
a) ___________________________ _____________________________________________ b) ___________________________ _____________________________________________ c) ___________________________ _____________________________________________ d) ___________________________ _____________________________________________
7. Outline specific areas of responsibility for each firm listed in Question 6 above. Please include total hours or percentage of time subcontractor will spend.
a) ___________________________________________________________________________ b) ___________________________________________________________________________ c) ___________________________________________________________________________ d) ___________________________________________________________________________
8. Identify the provisions of any agreement between parties which assigns legal or financial liabilities or responsibilities:
___________________________________________________________________________
9. If responding firm(s) are a partially or fully-owned subsidiary of another firm, or share common ownership with another firm, please identify the firms and relationships. ___________________________________________________________________________ GreenWaste Recovery, LLC is a subsidiary of MIP V Waste, LLC 801
802
Form C.1
CART SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each service offered if any details vary by service)
1. Select services provided: 2. Will the container be new or used? Garbage New
Recyclable Material Used
Organic Waste (Yard Trimmings and Food
Waste)
3. Manufacturer: ____________________________________
4. Product name or model number: __________________________________
5. Material of Construction: ____________________________________
6. Recycled Content (percentage): ____________________________________
7. Manufacturing Method (rotational molding, injection molding, other): ___________________________ Container Size 35-gal 65-gal 95-gal
8. Color
9. Durability (in service years)
10. Cost of Each Container
11. Manufacturer’s Warranty
x x
Otto Environmental Systems
Carts
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
35% SB-1383 Compliant
Injection Molding
10 Years 10 Years 10 Years
10 Years 10 Years 10 Years
Black Black Black
$39.75 $44.75 $49.75
803
Form C.1
CART SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each service offered if any details vary by service)
1. Select services provided: 2. Will the container be new or used? Garbage New
Recyclable Material Used
Organic Waste (Yard Trimmings and Food
Waste)
3. Manufacturer: ____________________________________
4. Product name or model number: __________________________________
5. Material of Construction: ____________________________________
6. Recycled Content (percentage): ____________________________________
7. Manufacturing Method (rotational molding, injection molding, other): ___________________________ Container Size 35-gal 65-gal 95-gal
8. Color
9. Durability (in service years)
10. Cost of Each Container
11. Manufacturer’s Warranty
Otto Environmental Systems
Carts
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
35% SB-1383 Compliant
Injection Molding
10 Years 10 Years 10 Years
10 Years 10 Years 10 Years
Blue Blue Blue
x
x
$39.75 $44.75 $49.75
804
Form C.1
CART SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each service offered if any details vary by service)
1. Select services provided: 2. Will the container be new or used? Garbage New
Recyclable Material Used
Organic Waste (Yard Trimmings and Food
Waste)
3. Manufacturer: ____________________________________
4. Product name or model number: __________________________________
5. Material of Construction: ____________________________________
6. Recycled Content (percentage): ____________________________________
7. Manufacturing Method (rotational molding, injection molding, other): ___________________________ Container Size 35-gal 65-gal 95-gal
8. Color
9. Durability (in service years)
10. Cost of Each Container
11. Manufacturer’s Warranty
Otto Environmental Systems
Carts
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
35% SB-1383 Compliant
Injection Molding
10 Years 10 Years 10 Years
10 Years 10 Years 10 Years
x
x
Green Green Green
$39.75 $44.75 $49.75
805
806
Form C.2
BIN SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each service offered if any details vary by service)
1. Select services provided: 2. Will the container be new or used? Garbage New
Recyclable Material Used
Organic Waste (Yard Trimmings and Food
Waste)
3. Manufacturer: ____________________________________
4. Product name or model number: __________________________________
5. Material of Construction: ____________________________________
6. Recycled Content (percentage): ____________________________________
7. Manufacturing Method (rotational molding, injection molding, other): ____________________________ Container Size 1-yd 1.5-yd 2-yd 3-yd 4-yd 5-yd 6-yd
8. Color
9. Durability (in service
years)
10. Cost of Each Container
11. Manufacturer’s Warranty
x
Mclaughlin Waste Equipment Inc.
Nestable container
14 Gauge Construction 12 Gauge bottom
Prime Steel
Welded
Green Green Green Green Green Green Green
2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years 2 Years $602.60 649.03 745.01 838.63 937.12 $1,102.21 $1,271.47 807
808
809
810
Form C.3
ROLL-OFF CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each service offered if any details vary by service)
1. Select services provided: 2. Will the container be new or used? Garbage New
Recyclable Material Used
Organic Waste (Yard Trimmings and Food
Waste)
Construction and Demolition
3. Manufacturer: ____________________________________
4. Product Name or Model Number: ____________________________________
5. Material of Construction: ____________________________________
6. Recycled Content (percentage): ____________________________________
7. Manufacturing Method (rotational molding, injection molding, other): ___________________________ Container Size 10-yd 15-yd 20-yd 30-yd 40-yd
8. Color
9. Durability (in service
years)
10. Cost of Each Container
11. Manufacturer’s Warranty
Waste Equip
10 YD HVY DUTY REG TOCK BOX - ROLL OFF
Hardox R - 450 Steel
35%
Arch Welding
10 YD Green
$5,768.16
10 years
10 years
X
X
811
Form C.3
ROLL-OFF CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each service offered if any details vary by service)
1. Select services provided: 2. Will the container be new or used? Garbage New
Recyclable Material Used
Organic Waste (Yard Trimmings and Food
Waste)
Construction and Demolition
3. Manufacturer: ____________________________________
4. Product Name or Model Number: ____________________________________
5. Material of Construction: ____________________________________
6. Recycled Content (percentage): ____________________________________
7. Manufacturing Method (rotational molding, injection molding, other): ___________________________ Container Size 10-yd 15-yd 20-yd 30-yd 40-yd
8. Color
9. Durability (in service
years)
10. Cost of Each Container
11. Manufacturer’s Warranty
X
X
McLaughlin Waste Equip Inc.
18 YD HVY DUTY REG ROCK BOX - ROLL OFF
Hardox R - 450 Steel
35%
Arch Welding
18 YD Green
10 years
$8,473.59
10 years
McLaughlin Waste Equip Inc.
22 YD HVY DUTY REG ROCK BOX - ROLL OFF
Hardox R - 450 Steel
35%
Arch Welding
22 YD Green
10 years
$8,704.42
10 years
812
Form C.3
ROLL-OFF CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each service offered if any details vary by service)
1. Select services provided: 2. Will the container be new or used? Garbage New
Recyclable Material Used
Organic Waste (Yard Trimmings and Food
Waste)
Construction and Demolition
3. Manufacturer: ____________________________________
4. Product Name or Model Number: ____________________________________
5. Material of Construction: ____________________________________
6. Recycled Content (percentage): ____________________________________
7. Manufacturing Method (rotational molding, injection molding, other): ___________________________ Container Size 10-yd 15-yd 20-yd 30-yd 40-yd
8. Color
9. Durability (in service
years)
10. Cost of Each Container
11. Manufacturer’s Warranty
X
X
McLaughlin Waste Equip Inc.
18 YD HVY DUTY REG ROCK BOX - ROLL OFF
Hardox R - 450 Steel
35%
Arch Welding
18 YD Green
10 years
$8,473.59
10 years
McLaughlin Waste Equip Inc.
22 YD HVY DUTY REG ROCK BOX - ROLL OFF
Hardox R - 450 Steel
35%
Arch Welding
22 YD Green
10 years
$8,704.42
10 years
813
Form C.3
ROLL-OFF CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each service offered if any details vary by service)
1. Select services provided: 2. Will the container be new or used? Garbage New
Recyclable Material Used
Organic Waste (Yard Trimmings and Food
Waste)
Construction and Demolition
3. Manufacturer: ____________________________________
4. Product Name or Model Number: ____________________________________
5. Material of Construction: ____________________________________
6. Recycled Content (percentage): ____________________________________
7. Manufacturing Method (rotational molding, injection molding, other): ___________________________ Container Size 10-yd 15-yd 20-yd 30-yd 40-yd
8. Color
9. Durability (in service
years)
10. Cost of Each Container
11. Manufacturer’s Warranty
X
X
McLaughlin Waste Equip Inc.
14 YD HVY DUTY REG ROCK BOX - ROLL OFF
Hardox R - 450 Steel
35%
Arch Welding
14 YD Green
10 years
$6,402.00
814
Form D
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
(Complete 1 form for each vehicle of service provided if any details vary by service)
1. Select Service:
Garbage Recyclable Material Organic Waste Other:
______________
New or Refurbished
2. Manufacturer and Model
a. Cab and Chassis _____________________________
b. Body _____________________________
c. Engine _____________________________
d. Transmission _____________________________
3. Cab and Chassis:
a. Cab Height _____________________________
b. Number of Axles _____________________________
c. Overall Length with Body Mounted _____________________________
4. Body:
a. Type of Body _____________________________
b. Rated Capacity _____________________________
c. Practical or Net Capacity _____________________________ d. No. of Collection Compartments ____________
e. Net Capacity of Each Compartment ___________ cubic yards f. Overall Body Length ___________ inches
g. Body Height ___________ inches
h. Body Width ___________ inches
5. Weight ____________ GVW (lbs.) ____________ Tare (lbs.)
6. Turning Radius: ____________
7. Owned, leased, or other? ____________
8. Purchase/lease cost of each vehicle $ _____________
9. Fuel type ____________
10. Fuel usage __________ mpg
11. Average fuel per fill __________ gal/fill
12. Average fills per day __________ fills/day
13. Average fills per week (M-F) __________ fills/week
14. Emissions rating
a. CO ___________ g/bhp/hr.
b. HC (total hydrocarbons) ___________ g/bhp/hr.
c. NOx ___________ g/bhp/hr.
d. Particulate Matter ___________ g/bhp/hr.
15. Safety Features
16. Color
17. GPS Monitoring & Tracking Features
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
FORM I
REFERENCES
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Solid Waste Management Collection Services
City of West Sacramento, California
The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of three public agencies for which Proposer has performed work of a similar scope and size within the past three years. If the instructions on this form conflict with the references requested in the scope of work, the scope of work shall govern. Complete this form accordingly. Fill out this form completely and upload it with your Proposal.
1. Name and Address of Owner / Agency
Name, Email, and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Proposer Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed
2. Name, Email, and Address of Owner / Agency
Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Proposer Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed
3. __________________________________________________________________________ Name, Email, and Address of Owner / Agency
Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Proposer Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed
The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all brokers and sureties from whom Proposer intends to procure insurance bonds:
Solid waste, recycling, & organics collection
services and processing
Solid waste, recycling, & organics collection
services and processing
C&D processing, debris box,
and front-load collection services Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
CIA CA License #4333879, Ashley Victory, Client Manager, 103 Powell Court, Suite 200, Brentwood TN 37027, (615) 515-6009 Rachel Simpo, 916-808-4837
George Rodericks, City Manager, 650-752-0504
Town of Atherton, [email protected], 80 Fair Oaks Lane, Atherton, CA 94027 Matthew Abraham, Associate Management Analyst, [email protected], 408-918-1989 Santa Clara County South and East Service Districts, County of Santa Clara, 553 Berger Drive, San Jose, CA 9511 City of Sacramento, [email protected], 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 $4,270,000
$13 Million (combined)
Open Market
823
PUBLIC COMMENT
PROVIDED VIA EMAIL
ITEM 20
August 19, 2026
Comments received by 3:30 p.m. the day of the City Council meeting are provided to the full City Council and staff prior to the meeting. Comments are also published on the City website. These comments are not read aloud during the meeting. 824
825
826
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Liz Vaage
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:14 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment: 8/19 Council Meeting, Item 20
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please accept the following as public comment for 8/19/2026 City Council Agenda Item 20.
I appreciate that the City is providing an addiƟonal opportunity for public input before taking acƟon on the proposed GreenWaste contract.
I share the Environment and UƟliƟes Commission’s concern that meaningful community engagement should have occurred much earlier in a process that will affect virtually every household and business in West Sacramento for the next ten years.
As a West Sacramento resident, I have been extremely saƟsfied with Waste Management. In my experience, service has been reliable, responsive, and consistently high quality. For that reason, I am concerned about moving away from a provider that is performing well, parƟcularly when doing so will result in increased costs to residents.
I understand from the staff report that current customer rates have been subsidized by the City and that some level of rate increase is necessary regardless of the provider selected. However, that makes it even more important for the Council and the public to clearly understand how much of the proposed increase is necessary to eliminate that subsidy and how much is aƩributable to the selecƟon of GreenWaste and the services included in its proposal.
The staff report idenƟfies several enhancements under GreenWaste, but residents should be able to determine whether those enhancements jusƟfy the addiƟonal cost. Some proposed changes may not be enhancements for every customer.
For example, residenƟal bulky waste collecƟon would decrease from two pickups per year to one. At the same Ɵme, WM already provides service that many residents consider excellent.
I also think the evaluaƟon warrants addiƟonal public discussion. WM and GreenWaste offered very similar supplementary financial value over the agreement term, with WM's proposal actually slightly higher according to the staff report. Yet GreenWaste ulƟmately scored substanƟally higher based in significant part on qualitaƟve criteria such as communicaƟon, sustainability, and the proposed service approach. Those factors certainly have value, but affordability should carry considerable weight when every resident will be required to pay these rates.
This is parƟcularly important given the cumulaƟve impact of recent increases on West Sacramento households.
Residents are already absorbing increases in water and sewer rates, along with a recently approved sales tax increase.
Even when each increase can be individually explained, the City should also consider their combined impact on household budgets.
Before approving a ten-year agreement, I respecƞully ask the Council to provide residents with a clear, side-by-side explanaƟon of what we would pay under GreenWaste versus WM, what services would materially differ, and what addiƟonal benefit residents receive for any addiƟonal cost.
Thank you,
827
2 Elizabeth Vaage
828
829
2 leaves. If the number of bins is reduced or if we are charged significantly more for each, leaves will just be left in the street because there will be no disposal alternative.
I have only this morning started to look at the entire document. However, it feels like the recommended company is more concerned with "fluff" such as putting a sticker on my can if I do a good job. I am not in grade school, and I don't need to have a star put on my container! What I want is the waste that I generate collected in a timely manner for the best possible rate. I don't want to pay for cartoon characters to visit schools. I want my garbage collection simplified. I don't want or need to receive mailers or reminders that I am ultimately paying for and end up creating more waste.
Which brings me to a point that no one has addressed. If we change, all of the bins that we currently use will be replaced with bright shiny new. How much waste will that create? I believe I read the new carts are something like 20% recycled. That seems like a huge waste as does trucking recyclables to Galt for processing which is approximately 3.8x farther than the Yolo landfill.
I urge you to push back on this contract until the public can be heard completely at a public hearing. I currently have a petition to the council that has been signed by over 55 individuals in just over 12 hrs.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
830
831
832
California Alliance for Community Composting
530 Divisadero Street, Suite 470
San Francisco, CA 94117
Date: August 17, 2026
West Sacramento City Council
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, California 95691
Subject: Support for GreenWaste Recovery - City Council Meeting on August 19th Dear City Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong support for a solid waste collection agreement between the City of West Sacramento and GreenWaste Recovery. We have committed to collaborating with them to provide local community-based organizations with financial and technical assistance for developing and enhancing small-scale compost operations. These sites will educate the public about composting and compost uses, improve soil health and local food production, and serve as GreenWaste Recovery’s compost giveaway hubs.
Between 2021-2025, CACC supported the development of three community compost sites in West Sacramento operated by We Grow Urban Farm (700 Cummins Way) and Three Sisters Gardens (317 5th St and 485 Regatta Ln). Both organizations have demonstrated strong knowledge, commitment, and community engagement in their programming. West Sacramento will benefit directly from GreenWaste's services and their investments in supporting the continuation of these impactful projects.
Sincerely,
Kourtnii Brown
Co-Founder and CEO, California Alliance for Community Composting [email protected]
834
2 Thank you for your time, leadership, and dedication to serving our community.
Sincerely,
Nancy Boemer
West Sacramento Resident
835
836
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Judie Martinez
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:17 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Waste Management has done a great job!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable City Clerk, City Manager, City Manager Assistant, and City Council, Why is it that residents are finding out about the possible City Services contract change from WM to Green ?, via Facebook?!
We who live in “the Oaks” district require 4 green waste cans per week! I have 6 heritage trees that provide a beauƟful canopy of shade & enhancements to the environment, and a ton of leaves, branches & twigs that fall to the ground constantly. The new proposal is ridiculous! Who of you thought this was a good idea? Was the public informed? Will it benefit the residents? Is it true there will be a big raise in the costs to us ciƟzens? Who is benefiƫng from this change of contracts???? You should be ashamed for allowing this to happen. Your jobs are to benefit the taxpaying residents not your own personal journey. If not, you should not be siƫng where you are! Respecƞully,
Judie MarƟnez
West Sacramento, CA 95691
837
838
2 In addition to the unreasonable price increase, the proposal indicates replacement containers— which are typically needed because the collection trucks damage them, accidentally dump them in the truck, or they are stolen — would now cost residents $124.55 each!! Under the current contract, replacements are included in the bundled price. Damage to the containers is nearly always due to wear and tear and the rough handling of the automated equipment on the truck.
The practical result of these higher fees is likely to be that residents deposit leaves and organic yard waste in the street, creating flooding and traffic hazards. Unless the City of West Sacramento intends to institute an independent leaf collection program, these costs and risks will fall on the community. This alternative—and other cost-mitigation options—could and should have been explored with residents before the RFP was issued.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mike & LaVonne Coen
839
840
Mather Airport ● 10425 Norden Avenue ● Mather, CA 95655 ● (916) 876-7568 ● www.CaliforniaCapitalAirshow.com August 10, 2026
Honorable Members of the West Sacramento City Council
Members of the Environmental & Utilities Commission
City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
RE: Support for Atlas Disposal, RFP 25-091, Solid Waste Collection Services Dear Council Members and Commissioners,
My name is Darcy Brewer, and I serve as CEO of the California Capital Airshow. I am writing to express my support for Atlas Disposal as the City considers the award of its Solid Waste Collection Services contract.
I don't write this as a casual observer. Two of Atlas's senior leaders, General Manager Terrence McNamara and President Dave Sikich, serve on our board of directors, which means I have seen this company's culture up close for years. And it's a culture that doesn't just come through a sponsorship check, but through the way its leadership shows up, follows through, and stays engaged. That perspective is part of why I feel comfortable putting my name behind this letter.
Atlas has been a longstanding community partner of the Airshow, sponsoring the event every year since 2008, nearly the entire life of this organization. That support goes beyond financial sponsorship. Atlas brings its own sustainability program directly onto the flight line each year, helping the tens of thousands of attendees who come through our gates sort their waste correctly across landfill, recycling, and compost streams.
That is not a requirement of sponsorship. It is Atlas choosing to extend the same diversion and environmental stewardship work it does under contract with its municipal partners to a large public event where it has no contractual obligation to do so at all.
One year stands out to me in particular. In 2011, the Airshow was facing serious financial challenges that put the event itself at risk. Atlas did not treat that as our problem to solve alone. The company chose not to bill us for its services that year,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Terrence McNamara
Atlas Disposal
CHAIR
Timothy Murphy
North State Building Industry
Association
VICE CHAIR
Dr. Brian Aguilar
Physicians for a Healthy
California
SECRETARY
Michael Faust
Velocity Strategies
TREASURER
Abel Barrientes
Major General, USAF (Ret.)
Shelly Blanchard
Cordova Community Council
Matthew Ceccato
Office of Congressman Ami Bera
Stephen Clark
Sacramento County
Department of Airports
Brandon Darnell
Visit Sacramento
Grant Deary
Deary Enterprises
Felipe Fuentes
Pacific Coast Capitol Advisors, Inc.
Robert W. Heidt, Jr.
Sacramento Metro Chamber
of Commerce
Samantha Lieuwen
City of Rancho Cordova
Robert J. Martinelli
Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Glen Rickelton
Sacramento County
Department of Airports
Micah Runner
City of Rancho Cordova
Marc Sapoznik
Visit Rancho Cordova
Dave Sikich
Atlas Disposal
841
Mather Airport ● 10425 Norden Avenue ● Mather, CA 95655 ● (916) 876-7568 ● www.CaliforniaCapitalAirshow.com absorbing the cost itself so we could significantly reduce our financial burden and still deliver an excellent show for the community. Nobody required that of Atlas. They made that choice because they were, and still are, a genuine partner, not just a vendor.
I have watched Atlas apply that same follow-through to every commitment it has made to our organization, and I have no reason to believe it would behave any differently as a franchise partner to a city. A company's character shows most clearly in the commitments nobody is requiring it to keep. Atlas's work with the Airshow, in good years and in a hard one, is exactly that kind of commitment, and I believe it speaks directly to how Atlas would serve West Sacramento.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions.
Sincerely,
Darcy Brewer
Chief Executive Officer
California Capital Airshow
842
Rancho Cordova Area Chamber
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
916-273-5700 | RanchoCordova.org
18 August 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the West Sacramento City Council, On behalf of the Rancho Cordova Area Chamber, I offer our strong endorsement of Atlas Disposal and share, from firsthand experience, what this company has meant to our Cordova community.
I have personally known and worked with Atlas’s owners and senior leadership for over fifteen years. I have consistently seen Atlas approach its role in a community as far more than a service provider. They become a partner that is accessible, responsive, invested, and willing to contribute beyond the scope of a contract.
Atlas is headquartered in Rancho Cordova, and that local presence matters. Their leadership is part of our community. Company owners have served on the Rancho Cordova Area Chamber Board of Directors, and senior Atlas staff have served in our highest levels of leadership, including as Chair of our Board. They have given their time, expertise, and resources to help strengthen our business community.
That commitment is reflected throughout the company. Atlas hires locally, supports local businesses and organizations, participates in community events, and encourages employees to engage in the places where they live and work. They understand that being entrusted to serve a city also means investing in that city.
Just as importantly, Atlas has earned our confidence through the quality of its work. They are professional, reliable, and accountable. When issues arise, their leadership is engaged. In my experience, they value relationships and understand that long-term success depends on delivering a service well and on earning and maintaining the trust of residents, businesses, and community leaders.
As you consider this important decision, I encourage you to look not only at what a company proposes to provide but also at the kind of community partner it will be for years to come. In Atlas, you gain a company whose leadership understands that serving a community creates an obligation to be part of that community.
The Rancho Cordova Area Chamber is proud of our longstanding relationship with Atlas Disposal, and I recommend them without hesitation.
Sincerely,
Diann H. Rogers
President & CEO
843
THE VOICE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA | AGC-CA.ORG August 10, 2026
Honorable Members of the West Sacramento City Council
Members of the Environmental & Utilities Commission
City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
RE: Support for Atlas Disposal, RFP 25-091, Solid Waste Collection Services Dear Council Members and Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of AGC of California, the state's leading trade association representing the commercial construction industry, to express our strong support for Atlas Disposal as the City considers the award of its Solid Waste Collection Services contract.
AGC of California has called West Sacramento home for nearly two decades, and we understand firsthand what it means for a company to be genuinely invested in this city rather than simply doing business within its limits. Atlas Disposal is a member of AGC, and among our membership and the broader construction community, Atlas has built a reputation that goes well beyond the quality of its collection service. Atlas is known for meeting its obligations and then doing more, consistently going beyond the minimum requirements of a contract to support the communities it serves.
That commitment shows up in how Atlas operates day to day. Atlas is active in the community, not as an occasional sponsor but as a consistent presence. The company has built strong, lasting relationships with the partners, contractors, and local organizations it works alongside, and its staff live in the same communities they serve, which shapes a level of accountability and responsiveness that is difficult for an outside operator to replicate.
I should note that AGC's own West Sacramento office is not currently served by Atlas. That is not for lack of preference on our part. Given the choice, we would move our own account to Atlas without hesitation.
As a membership organization,
responsiveness matters to us the same way it matters to our members on a jobsite: when we call, we want to reach someone local who understands our account and can resolve an issue quickly, not a distant call center. Atlas's service also reflect a straightforward, business-friendly approach, with no added charges for routine service needs like container delivery, exchange, or setup. While that may not seem like a critical set of terms on paper, is the kind of detail that matters to an organization managing an office rather than a large operation. We say this as a business that would welcome the chance to become an Atlas customer ourselves.
844
THE VOICE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA | AGC-CA.ORG As an organization headquartered in West Sacramento and one that speaks for a significant part of the local business community, AGC of California believes Atlas Disposal is the right company to serve this city.
We ask the Commission and the Council to give full weight to Atlas's demonstrated local commitment and its track record of service as you finalize this decision.
Sincerely,
Peter Tateishi
CEO
AGC of California
845
846
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Richard Risher
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 8:49 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Council meeting, agenda item 20
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I’m wriƟng to voice my opposiƟon to the city staff’s proposal to sign a 10 year contract with GreenWaste. There is nothing posiƟve in this contract for the residents of West Sacramento. Significantly higher monthly fees with less service.
The 96 gallon carts are too big for many residents to move when full. GreenWaste hauling trash out of the county creates a larger carbon footprint just to menƟon a few.
I am outraged that city staff fast tracked this from bid request to selecƟon of the vendor without any input from the community. City staff also ignored the recommendaƟon of the environment and uƟliƟes commission. This is not how democracy works. Elected officials and city staff are in those posiƟons to do the will of the people who elected them.
Respecƞul,
Rick Risher
West Sacramento, Ca
Sent from my iPhone
847
848
2 A large concern for me and my family is that GreenWaste is proposing to offer a bundled service that will be substantially reduced from that currently offered by WM. Specifically, the trash bin would be smaller and the bins provided for organic waste would be reduced to a single, unless the resident chooses to pay for additional at a rate of over $45 per bin per month. I live in a neighborhood with many trees. In the fall, we frequently fill all of our bins. If only a single bin is provided, I expect that most will choose not to pay for additional bins and leaves will be left in the streets to block drains. The city would have been made aware of this concern if they had simply asked.
Tomorrow night I expect that you will hear from many residents and businesses that likewise are concerned and frustrated that their needs were not considered. I am asking you to not move forward with the negotiated contract and instead ask that staff negotiate a 1 or 2 year contract extension with WM. During that time, a more inclusive evaluation of vendors and stakeholders' needs can be performed.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Johnson
849
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Sally Rastani Talaga
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:52 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Environment and Utilities Commission comment Agenda item 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern,
I would like to request that the city council votes NO on the proposed waste disposal contract with Greenwaste and extends the Waste Management contract for another year or two to give the city Ɵme to negoƟate beƩer terms and rates for the residents and businesses of West Sac. Our property taxes and water rates have significantly risen and this addiƟonal waste services rate hike will be difficult for many households to manage. The city needs to be looking at the best interest of its residents and considering value and price of services as a priority before accepƟng any new service contracts if it would like to aƩract conƟnued growth and build a thriving community. Otherwise, West Sacramento will become less and less desirable as it becomes unaffordable for many.
Thank you,
Salumeh Talaga
LongƟme Southport Resident
> On Aug 9, 2026, at 9:58 AM, Sally Rastani Talaga wrote:
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> I have recently learned of the city’s intenƟon to vote on a new waste management provider and contract; however, this decision has significant impact for all of us living in West Sacramento and should be considered by all residents before making such decisions. I would like to request that any acƟon is tabled unƟl a full public hearing on this maƩer can be held.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Salumeh Talaga
> (Longstanding Southport Resident)
850
851
852
853
2 Thank you for your consideration.
Alicia Scull
Bridgeway Lakes, West Sacramento
854
855
2 city grows. I'm asking the Council to award this contract to a company that has grown the same deliberate way West Sacramento has, and that has already proven it can do the work, not just talk about it.
Thank you for your consideraƟon, and for the chance to share this with you directly. I am glad to answer any quesƟons the Council or staff may have.
Sincerely,
Dave Sikich
Vice President &
Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors
Office: 916.288.2787
Email: [email protected]
“Large enough to meet your needs. Small enough to care.” 856
857
2 I believe the City should stop and evaluate the project under the conditions that exist today.
Southport is experiencing a tremendous amount of additional growth.
River Park is not the only project we need to consider.
The Liberty Specific Plan was approved in 2025 and allows up to 1,503 residential units.
The Yarbrough Master Plan calls for approximately 3,004 dwelling units.
And River Park itself involves approximately 2,284 residential units under the current agreement.
That is potentially nearly 6,800 homes from just these three major Southport projects.
Those projects cannot be evaluated independently.
The City needs to look at the cumulative impact on roads, bridges, traffic, fire protection, police services, emergency medical services, 911 communications, utilities and evacuation.
I am particularly concerned about emergency response.
I spent my career in the West Sacramento Fire Department.
I know what happens when emergency responders are delayed by traffic, inadequate access or insufficient resources.
An additional home does not just represent another house.
It represents additional calls for service.
It represents additional people who may need police, fire or emergency medical assistance.
It represents additional demand on the 911 system.
And it represents additional vehicles on the same roads that emergency responders have to use.
As someone who served as Chair of the Yolo Emergency Communications Agency Board, I also understand the demands placed on the 911 communications system.
I am not saying that River Park by itself will overwhelm our emergency communications system.
What I am saying is that the City should have current data demonstrating that our emergency services and communications system have adequate capacity for the cumulative growth planned for Southport.
That analysis should be completed before the City grants another extension.
Transportation is another major concern.
Southport has limited ways in and out.
858
3 Every new subdivision adds vehicles to the same transportation network.
We need to know:
Can the existing roads handle the cumulative traffic? Are the roads being improved quickly enough?
Are additional bridges needed?
Will emergency vehicles be able to move through Southport during peak traffic? Are there adequate alternate routes if a major road or bridge becomes unavailable? These are not theoretical questions.
For a fire department, a few extra minutes getting to a serious incident can make a very real difference.
The City should not approve thousands of additional homes and then try to catch up with transportation improvements afterward.
Infrastructure should precede growth—not continually follow it.
Flood protection and evacuation deserve the same level of scrutiny.
Southport’s flood-control system has changed significantly since the original River Park agreement was approved.
And the City itself says the River Park project is being modified because of the Southport levee project.
I believe the Council needs to know exactly what the current flood-protection and evacuation requirements are for the future Southport population.
If there is a major emergency, how do we get thousands of people out? Which roads are evacuation routes?
How much traffic can those routes handle?
What happens if one of the primary routes is blocked?
How quickly can police, fire and EMS get into Southport while residents are trying to get out? Those are questions that should be answered before additional homes are approved—not after people are living in them.
I also want to address District 4.
I understand that Councilmember Verna Sulpizio Hull has recused herself from this matter because of her proximity to the development.
I respect that decision.
859
4 But District 4 is the district most directly affected by the continued growth in Southport.
Because its representative cannot participate in this decision, I believe it is even more important that the remaining Council members carefully consider the interests and concerns of Southport residents.
Finally, I am not asking you to stop growth.
I am asking you to make sure we are doing it responsibly.
Before extending an agreement that began in 2008, I believe the City should have current answers to some basic questions:
Do we have enough roads?
Do we have enough bridge capacity?
Do our police and fire resources have the capacity to serve the additional population? Does our 911 communications system have the capacity?
Do we have adequate flood protection?
Do we have a realistic evacuation plan for the population we are planning to put in Southport? And perhaps most importantly:
Are we building the infrastructure before we build the homes? The City has changed dramatically since 2008.
Southport has changed dramatically since 2008.
The River Park project has changed dramatically since 2008.
Our flood-control system has changed.
And the amount of development planned around River Park has changed dramatically.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to deny another extension of the River Park Development Agreement.
Instead, I ask the Council to require a comprehensive current review of the project and its cumulative impact on Southport before allowing it to move forward.
If the developer wants to continue a project that originated 18 years ago, the residents of West Sacramento deserve to have that project evaluated according to the conditions and public-safety needs of West Sacramento in 2026—not 2008.
Thank you.
860
5 Gary Fredericksen
861
862
863
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Susan Aguirre
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 6:47 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Council Meeting Agenda Item #20
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a seven year West Sacramento resident I have been very pleased with our waste management service. I have never had an issue and the interacƟons with personnel have been pleasant.
Last week on Monday August 10, 2026, I was informed through a Facebook post about the city looking into other providers. Upon reviewing the informaƟon about the possible providers I can conclude that staying with our current provider is best for my household. Furthermore, the city staƟng that it covers a porƟon of our waste bill I urge the city to renew the contract with Waste Management Regards,
Susan Aguirre
Marston Street Resident
Susan Aguirre
864
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Missy
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 9:36 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Env. & Util Commission comment Agenda item 2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Tomorrow, Monday Aug 10, the public will actually have their first opportunity to speak regarding a new provider and contract for garbage and recycling services. The city seemed to start at go and jump 3 spaces ahead and now wants to approve a contract.
The proposed contract appears to increase the cost while decreasing amount of services. I believe that any acƟon needs to be tabled unƟl a full public hearing can be held, and fundamentally oppose any acƟon that would decrease services while increasing cost to the ciƟzens.
Keep Waste Management and do NOT hire Atlas.
Michelle Babcock
865
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Susan Aguirre
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 4:15 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Alcala, Norma
Subject: Renew Waste Management Contract
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a seven year West Sacramento resident I have been very pleased with our waste management service. I have never had an issue and the interacƟons with personnel have been pleasant.
Today, Monday August 10, 2026, I was informed through a Facebook post about the city looking into other providers.
This comes as an unfortunate surprise. Upon reviewing the informaƟon about the possible providers I can conclude that staying with our current provider is best for my household. I urge the city to renew the contract with Waste Management.
Regards,
Susan Aguirre
Marston Street Resident
866
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Lora Jameson
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 2:37 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: City council agenda item on GreenWaste contract CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please provide the following comment on tonight’s agenda item regarding the GreenWaste contract to the City Council members.
We encourage City Council members to vote no on the proposed contract with GreenWaste. The contract is not good for the residents of West Sacramento. Cost and quality of services should be top priority in scoring. We understand that costs are going up. The proposed contract shows the prioriƟes are with the city’s pocket book, not the residences. As a household that rouƟnely needs to uƟlize all four green waste bins, we will need to pay more than $138 per month to receive the same services we now pay $29 a month for. Please reject this contract and redo the bid scope with input from the community.
Thank you,
Lora and Kenric Jameson
867
868
869
2 upgrade to our daily service. At the end of the day, the act of rolling a trash bin to the curb remains identical. Residents are essentially being asked to pay a high premium to absorb administrative shifts and private billing structures. If competing haulers submitted lower bids that meet compliance needs without draining our wallets, those options must carry the heaviest weight.
I ask the Council to send this proposal back and re-weight the evaluation metrics to put West Sacramento residents first. Please protect our household budgets, listen to the public, and reject this rate hike.
Thank you for your time, your leadership, and for keeping the financial wellbeing of our community at the center of your final decision.
Sincerely,
Angela Einweck
870
City of West Sacramento
August 19, 2026
Presented by Ryan Burnett and
Kate Scholz
Solid Waste Workshop for
Contract with GreenWaste
871
Waste Hauler Contract
1 Purpose of Tonight’s Workshop
Gather feedback from the public and City Council.
Next Steps
September 1st - Community Engagement Open House
(City Hall, 6:00 – 8:00p).
Staff recommendation to City Council at future meeting. 872
Current provider collects waste, recycling, and organics. Has been under contract since 1987, with contract set to expire June 2027.
There has not been a competitive procurement since the City was incorporated.
Why is this important? Efficiencies, new State mandates, technological advances, competitive costs, customer service.
History of Waste Collection in the City
2 873
Rates, Billing & Short-term Rate Assistance
3 Customers currently receive one utility bill from the City. ⎻ In the new agreement, the selected hauler will conduct billing City has historically set customer-facing rate. Last rate increase implemented July 1, 2021.
Current collection agreement allows for 4% annual increase, typically passed through to customers through rates.
With no rate increase since 2021, nearly 22% compounded increase in assistance paid by City directly to WM.
⎻ The amount of the shortfall is estimated to be $1,900,000 for FY 2026/27. The City will continue to receive a franchise fee from the waste hauler to manage waste service related to City costs but will not have the ability to continue short-term rate assistance. 874
Utility Rate Study vs. RFP/Procurement Process
4 Topic Utility Rate Study Waste Hauler
Procurement
Primary purpose Establish rates based on
cost of service Select the best-qualified hauler
Legal framework Proposition 218 City procurement rules
City Council role Active throughout; adopt rates
after the required hearing.
Policy direction;
final contract award after
internal procurement process.
Public engagement Integral to the entire process. Before RFP release and again before final contract approval.
Transparency
during technical
work
High Limited
875
Set customer rates sufficient to fund full cost of
providing service (eliminate 22% City short-term
assistance)
Increased rates based on increased costs for waste
hauler
Requirements to meet State obligations
Rates will increase regardless of selected provider
5 876
Nov 25
Public
Survey
Sept. – Oct. 2025
Purpose of RFP & Timeline up to Proposal Submittal
6 RFP
Released
November 6, 2025
Proposals
Due
January 30, 2026
Receipt of resident &
business feedback
regarding service
Ongoing
RFP
Development
September -
November 2025
Performance
Review
March -
July 2025
Why? A competitive process results in innovation,
right-sizing of pricing structures, and overall best value of services for the community.
Mar 25 April 25 May 25 June 25 July 25 Aug 25 Sept 25 Oct 25 Dec 25 Jan 26 877
Pre-RFP Data and Input Gathering
7 Performance Review Survey
Corrective actions recommended:
• Synchronize account records
• Improve service reliability
• Address Smart Truck issues
• Improve diversion
• Perform outreach and reporting
obligations
• Shift billing to contractor
Takeaways from feedback:
• Prioritize service reliability
• Improve customer service
• Improve method for monitoring and
enforcing contamination
• Increase awareness of available
programs
• Keep Christmas Tree Pick-Up
• Keep Bulky Waste Pick-Up
• Keep Bagged-Leaf Collection
878
As part of the RFP, a new Draft Franchise Agreement
(contract) was created, considering State regulations,
ongoing customer feedback, performance review,
customer survey, costs, and City sustainability goals.
Updated Contract Terms
8 Maintained Programs Altered Programs New Programs
• Ten-year term
• Weekly garbage, recycling,
and organics
• On-premises (backyard)
service for those
experiencing disabilities
• Extra flattened cardboard
• Bagged leaf waste
• Single family “bundled”
service (recycling &
organics included)
• Contamination and overage
• On-call HHW
• Minimum mandatory
service levels for
multifamily and commercial
• Bulky item collection
• Increased diversion
requirements
• Low-income discount
• Billing from Contractor
• Curbside battery collection
• Mandatory personnel roles
dedicated to City
• Prescriptive community
technical assistance
requirements
• Materials available in
Russian (in addition to
English and Spanish)
879
RFP clearly stated how proposals would be evaluated.
Evaluation Criteria
9 Criteria Why?
Quality of Service, Experience, &
References
Reliability of service greatest priority in survey
Billing service transition experience and strategy
Establish strong partner to meet State requirements
Proposed Operational Services
Routing that prioritizes reliable service delivery
Priority of monitoring program identified in survey and performance review
Sustainability City CAAP & strategic priority of climate and energy resiliency SB 1383 obligations
Communication, Outreach, &
Customer Service
Customers currently under-informed of available services and wanting improved customer service support
Need for accessible payment options in billing transition SB 1383 obligations
Service Rates & Value Balance priority of cost with State requirements, survey feedback and performance review
880
Proposal Submittal through Today
10 City Council
Strategic Planning
February 6, 2026
Environment & Utilities
Commission
August 10, 2026
Evaluation of
Proposals &
Interviews
February – April 2026
Negotiations w/
Highest Ranked
Proposer
May – July 2026
Receipt of resident &
business feedback
regarding service
Ongoing
Proposals
Due
January 30, 2026
City Council
Workshop
August 19, 2026
Jan 26 Feb 26 March 26 April 26 May 26 June 26 July 26 Aug 26 Sept 26 Oct 26 Nov 26 881
Evaluation Panel consensus scoring identified
GreenWaste Recovery as the highest-ranked
proposer.
Proposal Evaluation
11 882
Proposal Key Differentiators
12 Atlas GreenWaste WM
Quality of
Service,
Experience &
References
• Local company
• 1 local exclusive agreement
• Library of diversion tactics
• Highly enthusiastic
references
• Network of equipment &
technology
• References suggested
challenges
Proposed
Operational
Services
• Existing operational base in
Sacramento
• Some programs insufficiently
contemplated
• New Sacramento yard to be
established
• Detailed transition plan
• Bulky item reuse
• Local Woodland operations
• Incumbent
• Programs less tailored than
desired
Sustainability
• RNG • RNG
• Support City’s CAAP
• Recycling facility further away
• CNG
• Own recycling facility
Customer
Service,
Reporting &
Outreach
• Local and walk-in service
• Limited information regarding
databases and reports
• Local and walk-in service
• Strong educational
resources
• Overall tailored approach
• Robust database
information
• Region-based CSRs
• Advanced tracking systems
• No walk-in service or cash
payment
• Capped public education
budget, $50k
Low Income
Discount
• 2.19%-3.5% • 20% • 15%, capped at 10% of
population
883
Top 2 Proposers: Select Program / Service Differences
13 GreenWaste WM
Basic single-family
bundle
Bundle size was included in RFP and Draft Franchise Agreement and was consistently proposed across all proposals
Service Reliability Lower # of route hours per driver. Continuation of existing service.
Bulky Program Developed reuse program in direct response to City's requested scope.
No effective reuse plan provided
or discussed.
Contractor’s office
Sacramento;
Billing specialist can be placed at City Hall &
accept cash payment.
Woodland;
Digital payment only (no cash payment);
no payment drop box referenced.
Contamination and
Overage
Human-driven rather than technology-driven
program. Grace period and concrete tactics
for positive reinforcement.
Unknown (required negotiations);
Continuation of SmartTruck program, which
currently has customer dissatisfaction.
Call metrics
ASA: 32 seconds
Call Abandonment: 3.9%
Average Hold Time: 35 seconds.
ASA: 78.3 seconds
Call Abandonment: 3.14%
Average Hold Time: Not provided.
Battery collection Service day on top of cart +
on-call HHW service. On-call HHW service only.
Outreach Proactive, behavior-based social change;
City feedback opportunities.
Digital foundation + traditional outreach;
WM Recycle Right program.
884
GreenWaste will offer permanent employment to all
qualified staff employed by the current provider at pay and benefit rates meeting or exceeding prior amounts.
Host information sessions, conduct active recruitment. Emphasis on maintaining route assignments for
employees (familiarity).
GreenWaste: Community Workforce
14 885
Community Benefits Program
⎻ Center for Land-Based Learning
⎻ Mosaic West Sac
⎻ CACC Community Compost Hubs
Community event sponsorships
⎻ $25,000 per year
Scholarship program
⎻ College-bound seniors - $10,000 per year
Exemplary customer award
Internship opportunities
State compliance support
GreenWaste: Additional Community Value
15 886
Initial proposal rates were higher than negotiated
rates.
Evaluation Panel (Step 1) evaluated the proposals,
then staff (Step 2) negotiated with the highestranking proposer to improve terms/value before bringing forward the contract.
⎻ This two-step process was identified in the RFP in order to ensure the best possible value for the community, weighing both service quality and cost.
Negotiations
16 887
During the City's post-evaluation negotiations, the
recommended proposer incorporated service enhancements
responsive to community feedback raised publicly before the Environment & Utilities Commission.
GreenWaste: Services in response to public feedback
17 1 2 3 Single family
bundle with two
recycling and four
organics
Availability of
2x 32-gal recycling
or organics in
place of standard
bundle
No-charge for
On-Premises
services for
seniors (65+)
4 Extend
low-income
discount to
seniors
5 Add 2nd annual
curbside clean up
to match current
service
888
Single-Family Residential – Base Service Bundle
32-gal Garbage
+ +
• Basis for monthly rate.
• Can increase to 64- or 96-
gal at an increased rate
• Can reduce to 32- or 64-
gal (no impact to rate).
• Additional carts available
at an additional rate.
• Can reduce to 20-, 32- or
64-gal (no impact to rate).
• Additional carts available at
an additional rate.
18 *(2)* 96-gal Recyclables *(4)* 96-gal Organic Waste
889
Multi-Family Dwellings – Base Service Bundles
• Establishes minimum monthly rate.
• Available from 32-gal to 6 CY.
+
Minimum mandatory recyclables and
organics included, varies by number of units
96-gal
Recyclables
64-gal
Organic Waste
19 890
Commercial– Base Service Bundle
• Establishes minimum monthly rate.
• Available from 32-gal to 6 CY.
+
Minimum mandatory recyclables and
organics included. Note: Commercial
recyclables and organic waste are not
exclusive services.
96-gal
Recyclables
32-gal
Organic Waste
20 891
Rates
21 Units Current,
Customer
Current,
City Atlas GreenWaste WM
32 Gal 2,802 $23.37 $26.84 $28.65 $32.70 $30.05
$27.29 $29.71
64 Gal 10,210 $29.14 $33.48 $35.73 $35.64 $34.16
$30.50 $32.38
96 Gal 2,263 $37.19 $42.72 $45.60 $52.02 $40.10
$44.53 $47.26
Low Income
32 Gal
-
$27.65 $26.16* $25.54
$22.39 $23.77
64 Gal $34.73 $28.51* $29.04
$24.40 $25.90
96 Gal $44.60 $41.61* $34.09
$35.62 $37.81
Single Family bundle, Current Rates + All Proposers
* GreenWaste has offered to extend low-income rates to senior citizens 892 Rates
22 Current,
Customer
Current,
City Atlas GreenWaste* WM
2 CY garbage,
5 – 10 units $125.91 $144.64 $346.00 $175.66 $240.04 $150.36 $159.60 4 CY garbage
11 – 20 units $251.83 $289.28 $400.03 $351.33 $368.91 $300.74 $319.20 Multifamily bundle, Current Rates + All Proposers
Includes minimum required services across all proposers 893
Rates
23 Current,
Customer
Current,
City Atlas GreenWaste WM
2 CY garbage $124.27 (+) $130.74 (+) $381.53 $173.32 $136.88 $148.36 $157.48
4 CY garbage $248.58 (+) $261.48 (+) $435.56 $346.65 $253.87 $296.73 $314.95
Commercial bundle, Current Rates + All Proposers
Includes minimum required services across all proposers + no pricing currently available for organics; non-exclusive, not bundled currently
*recycling and organics are non-exclusive
894
Rate Phase-in Options
Two rate phase-in options provided for City
Council consideration (three years each).
Option 1 provide lower rates in early years of contract Option 2 provide proportionately lower rates over the full life of the contract.
24 $30.50
$35.26
$40.76
$32.38
$36.10
$40.25
$28.00
$30.00
$32.00
$34.00
$36.00
$38.00
$40.00
$42.00
7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029
Current Customer Rate Hauler > City Rate
64-gal residential bundle
Monthly rate ($)
Option 1895 Option 2
Community Input & Engagement
25 Public
Survey
Sept. – Oct. 2025
City Council
Strategic Planning
February 6, 2026
Environment & Utilities
Commission
August 10, 2026
City Council
Workshop
August 19, 2026
Open
House
September 1, 2026
Council Item
TBD
Proposition 218
Process
TBD
Upcoming, TBD:
896
GreenWaste Recovery was the top proposer through
RFP, evaluations, and interviews.
⎻ Highest evaluation score.
⎻ Stronger service commitments.
⎻ Community and regulatory benefits.
⎻ Negotiated value and service-matching to existing services. Gather feedback from the public and City Council.
September 1st - Community Engagement Open House
(City Hall, 6:00 – 8:00p).
Staff recommendation to City Council at future meeting.
Conclusion
26 897
Questions?
27 898
ATTACHMENT ONLY
THERE WILL BE NO STAFF REPORT
FOR THIS ITEM
ITEM # 22(E)(i)
899
1 Cusmir, Jennifer
From: Drozd, Doug
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 12:07 PM
To: Cusmir, Jennifer
Cc: Laurel, Aaron; Berlin, Amanda; Adame, Ariana
Subject: Future Agenda Item Request 8/19
Hi Jennifer,
For the 8/19 meeting, can we add the below to future agenda item requests? Thanks! Request to consider adding a proclamation recognizing the International Day of Peace to a future City Council meeting agenda. (Guerrero)
DOUG DROZD
Deputy City Manager
City Manager’s Office
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 3rd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Office: (916) 617-5326
Cell: (916) 769-4465
[email protected]
900