Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-12; City Council; 12031; COUNTYWIDE BALLOT PROPOSITION TO BAN SOLID WASTE INCINERATIONx AB # 12, 0 31 rI MTG, 1/12/93 DEPT. cc TITLE: DEPT. H CITY AT CITY MC COUNTYWIDE BATLOT PROPOSITION TO BAN SOLID WASIX INlClNERATiON 3 r N 0 w m al 3 u -rl d E a, 0 [I) W a $ $ al a 2 0 4 I m m 0 2 d -d U rl 3 2 a -0 0 (d. n dol *d rl c) G(d -d 3Q 0 0 rJl al U a odl u-d m \ 4 a c\l rl \ z 0 i= 0 a 6 z 3 0 0 /j -7 cw OF CARLSBAD - AGEWA BILL I RECOMMENDED ACTION! Adopt Resolution No. 9 3 -1 0 requesting the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to 1 Proposition on the June, 1994 ballot which would ban incineration as an appropriate solid management technology for San Diego County. ITEM EXPLANATION: When the County of San Diego acted to abandon the contract and permits for the waste-to- incinerator at San Marcos landfill, it appeared to many that incineration of trash would no 101 considered for San Diego County. However, that may not be the case. In August of 1989 the Board of Supervisors directed their staff to examine alternative management technologies in more depth. Pursuant to the Board's direction, County staff has proc with the process to examine alternative technologies. On August 12, 1992 the Board auth distribution of an RFP which is intended to select a vendor to construct 200,500 or 1,000 tons L waste processing/disposal projects serving the Sycamore and Otay landfill wastesheds. Prior to F 1992 County staff had evaluated qualifications of many vendors and recommended nine firms to the RFP should be submitted. The technologies to be considered for construction are: cornposting and several incineration technologies. The appropriate County staff reports are at as Exhibit 2 for your review. Although the County's efforts do not seem to involve the north county area, Mayor Lewis rt concerned about the use of solid waste incineration as an appropriate technology for solid management anywhere in San Diego County. From both a cost and clean air perspective, solid incineration is not good for San Diego County. This issue was recently discussed by the North County Solid Waste Coalition and the coalition mc decided to ask their respective city councils to adopt resolutions requesting the Board of Supe to place an item on the June, 1994 ballot which would have the effect of preventing the use c waste incineration in San Diego County. Coalition members also voted to ask Mayor Le correspond with all the county mayors and request that their city councils also adopt a resolution. Mayor Lewis has sent the attached letter (Exhibit 3) to each mayor in the county an requests that the City Council consider adopting the attached resolution asking the Board of Supe: to place the question of incineration on the June, 1994 ballot for voter consideration. FISCAL IMPACX: There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of the recommended action. EXHIBlTS: 1. Resolution No. 9 3 - 10 2. Countystaff reports 3. Letter to county mayors I ? I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 2 5 26 27 28 * 0 RESOLUTION NO. 93-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVESORS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PLACE A PROPOSITION AMENDING THE COUNTY CHARIER TO BAN SOLID WASE INCINERATION ON THE JUNE, 1994 BALLOT. WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors acted to abandon the construction of a solid waste incinerator at the San Marcos Landfill; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has directed staff to pursue alternative technologies for solid waste handling and disposal; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors will be considering incineration as an appropriate solid waste management technology for solid waste generated in the Otay and Sycamore landfill wastesheds; and WHEREAS, the City of San Diego, by a vote of the people, has effectively banned incineration in the City of San Diego; and WHEREAS, several other cities by resolution of their city councils have opposed incineration of solid waste; and I WHEREAS, cost and air pollution implications render solid waste incineration as an inappropriate technology for San Diego County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: The Board of Supervisors, County of San Diego, is requested to place a proposition on the June, 1994 ballot which would ban solid waste incineration as an appropriate solid waste management technology for San Diego County, unless I/ > I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 il) it can be proven that incineration is the environmentally preferred and least costly alternative. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City J of Carlsbad at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of January 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin and Nygaard NOES: Council Member Finnila ABSENT: None ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cler I ?CAS: 3: i. Y 0 a - 3; 4- a '=r> prnn*s uc,*Le fL-xl"O COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO $&& CHIEF ADMI'NISTRATIVE OFFICE AGENOA ITEM +Sav 3 aog < .iJN. I@; ,OhN r&arr SP.0 UL CATE: February 4, 1992 TO : Board of Supervisors SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project SUMMARY: Issue Should the Board direct staff to distribute the attache Request for Qualifications for Alternative Technologies, an include both burn and non-burn technologies? Recommendation CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: I. Direct staff to distribute the attached Request fc Qualifications for Alternative Technologies. Fiscal Impact The recommended accion has no fiscal impact. Alternatives Do not solicit Qualifications on alternative was cechnologies that burn waste and consider only non-bu technologies. alternative technologies. Do not issue the RFQ to solicit interest BACXGROUND On August 22, 1989, your Board conducted a workshop, presented management technologies were summarized, and a workbook k presented. At the conclusion of the workshop, your Board direct the CAO to examine alternative technologies in greater depth. 1 Director of the Department of Public Works, with the City of : Diego officials, toured several facilities. Brawn, Vence and Associates (BVA), in which alternative was Exhibit 2 I 0 v SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project On November 28, 1989 your Board expressed support for the Pris Industry Authority Waste Recycle Energy Plant proposal and direct the CAO to neyotlate the terms. Also on November 28, 1989, private party indicated willingness to commence an Environment Impact Report toward implementing a recycling facility that w: process 1000 tons per day of waste. At that time your Board directed that the CAO work with priv industry and develop a Request for Qualifications for alternat technology projects by private industry. To date staff has procured engineering and legal support negotiations with the PIA and concurrently procured a consult to develop a Request for Qualifications for alternat technologies. Staff contracted with CalRecovery Syst Incorporated, a California based waste management consultant, develop an RFQ, and a draft RFP for alternative burn and non-k technologies. A draft RFP and a completed RFQ were submitted the consultant, to staff on October 8, 1991. In early Decem1 Purchasing and Contracting provided their review of and inpu' the RFQ. The completed RFQ is attached. Staff proposes a two step process to solicit proposals from pri industry. The first step will be to issue a Request Qualifications (RFQ) to identify firms that have the experience financial capability to implement successful alternative tu disposal projects. Staff proposes to present the short lis successful respondents to the Board in June, 1992. At that a workshop will be held on the short listed technologie directed by your Board. The workshop format will pr~vide information and be a forur local environmental groups and representatives of alterni technologies to discuss the potential use of various techno1 in San Diego County for your Board's consideration. The second step Wall be a Request for Proposals (RFP) issu those firms qualified in the RFQ process. Staff has been COmr a list of interested industry representatives that cuxx numbers almost 200 firms. As directed by your Board, staff will return to the Board in 1992 with a report on the RFQ results and a proposed RFP whici be issued to respondents who were qualified through th process. The following discusses the proposed specifications in the at RFQ . 2 e e V - SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project On November 28, 1989 your Board expressed support for the Pris Industry Authority Waste Recycle Energy Plant proposal and direct the CAO to negotiate the terms. Also on November 28, 1989, private party indicated willingness to commence an Environment Impact Report toward implementing a recycling facility that wi process 1000 tons per day of waste. At that time your Board directed that the CAO work with priva industry and develop a Request for Qualifications for alternati technology projects by private industry. TO date staff has procured engineering and legal support f negotiations with the PIA and concurrently procured a consult2 to develop a Request for Qualifications for alternatj technologies a Staff contracted with CalRecovery SystE Incorporatea, a California based waste management consultant, develop an RFQ, and a draft RFP for alternative burn and non-br technologies. A draft RFP and a completed RFQ were submitted, the consultant, to Staff on October 8, 1991. In early Decembc Purchasing and Contracting provided their review of and input the RFQ. The completed RFQ is attached. Staff proposes a two step process to solicit proposals from privi industry. The first step will be to issue a Request Qualifications (RFQ) to identify firms that have the experience ( financial capability to implement successful alternative wa! disposal projects. Staff proposes to present the short list successful respondents to the Board in June, 1992. At that t a workshop will be held on the shart listed technologies directed by your Board. The workshop format will provide information and be a forum local environmental groups and representatives of alternat technologies to discuss the potential use of various technolog in 5an Diego County for your Board's consideration. The second step will be a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued those firms qualified in the RFQ process. StafZ has been compil a list 02 interested industry representatives that curren numbers almost 200 firms. As directed by your Board, staff will return to the Board in Ju 1992 with a report on the RFQ results and a proposed RFP which w be issued to respondents who were qualified through the The following discusses the proposed specifications in the attac process a RFQ . 2 D 0 0 SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project Request for Qualifications Specifications The attached RFQ includes a project description which allows for burn and non-burn facilities. It includes project specifications such as: - 200 - 1000 ton per day facility size - Public or private site - Full risk assumption by developer - Revenue sharing with the County - Disposal of process residual handled by developer The RFQ includes the following evaluation criteria for the vendor: - Vendor operating history and capabilities - Project technology and system design - Management structure and financial strength The RFQ provides the following information on the County's: - Waste disposal tonnages at County landfills - Waste composition data - Local recycling statistics - - Map showing existing County disposal facilities County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance with implementation schedule Your Board is being asked to authorize distribution of the Alternative Technologies RFQ. The Board should note that the following issues will 'require resolution in order to proceed in the future with the RFP. Staff will be working during the RFQ proces! to analyze these issues and provide the Board with alternativc policy options and staff recommendations. - In which areas of the County may an alternativl - May a facility be located on a County owned landfill technology be located? other County held land, or on private land? = What level, if any, of waste quantity commitment Wil the County be willing to make? What level, if any, of cost and investment risk will tt County accept? e What level of responsibility for obtaining financir will the County accept? - 3 1 0 SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project - What level of external and public review will i required above and beyond established permitti: requirement? Force in the process? - What will be the role of the cities and the AB 939 Ta proposed Schedule for Alternative Technology Solicitation Proce In September, 1991 the CAO submitted a status report to the ~oe of Supervisors which included a schedule for the alternati technology project. Subsequently, Purchasing and Contractj recommended some revisions to the RFQ which delayed completion the RFQ. The revised schedule is shown in the Attachment. Staff will return to the Board with firms identified in the process, and a proposal to complete the RFP in June of 1992. recommended RFP proposal ranking will be presented to your Bo by November, 1992. Respectfully Submitted, NORMAN W. HICKEY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFF1 4 v a W SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project - What level of external and public review will be required above and beyond established permitting requirement? - What will be the role of the cities and the AB 939 Task Force in the process? Proposed Schedule for Alternative Technology Solicitation Process In September, 1991 the CAO submitted a status report to the Board of supervisors which included a schedule for the alternative technology pro] ect. Subsequently, Purchasing and Contractinc recommended some revisions to the RFQ which delayed completion of the RFQ. The revised schedule is shown in the Attachment. Staff will return to the Board with firms identified in the RF( process, and a proposal to complete the RFP in June of 1992. i recommended RFP proposal ranking will be presented to your Boar1 by November, 1992. Respectfully Submitted, NOW W. HICKEY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE1 4 I \. 0 0 *. Attachment ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT SCHEDULE (12/18/91) ESTIMATED DATE 2/04/92 2/92 Issue RFQ 3/92 Receive Statement of Qualifications 4/92 Identify Qualified Firm 6/92 Board hearing; present qualified firms and proposal for the completion of the RFP, including procurement of consultant if necessary 8/92 Issue RFP 10/92 11/92 Board hearing on Request for Qualifications Develop Short List of proposals Return to Board with proposal recommendation -BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0 AGENDA ITEH INFORMATION SHEET SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT SUPV. DIST.: ALL COUNTY COUNSEL APPROVAL: Form and Legality (X) Yes ( ) N/A ( ) standard Form ( ) Ordinance ( ) Resolution AUDITOR APPROVAL: (X) N/A ( ) Yes 4 VOTES: ( ) Yes (X) No FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW: ( 1 Yes (X) No CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL: ( ) Approved (X) N/A CONTRACT NUMBER(S1: N/A PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: 8/13/91 (71) Directed CAO to investigate other alternatives and tC back to the Board. 11/28/89 (27) Directed CAO to work with private industry and develo for alternative technology projects by private industry. 8/22/89 (84) Directed CAO to examine alternative technologies in Zpth. BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE: 1-76, Solid Waste Disposal A-72, Board of Supervisors' Agenda and Related Processes. M-23, Support of Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facilities CITIZEN COMMITTEE STATEMENT: CONCURRENCE (S 1 : CONTACT PERSON: William A. WOrrell, (SDB) ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works Februarv 4. 19 9a DEPARTMENT AUTHORfZED RePRESENTATIVE MEETING DATE 1 e BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0 AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SHEET SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT SUPV. DIST. : ALL COUNTY COUNSEL APPROVAL: Form and Legality (X) Yes ( ) N/A ( ) Standard Form ( ) Ordinance ( ) Resolution AUDITOR APPROVAL: (X) N/A ( ) Yes 4 VOTES: ( ) Yes (X) No FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW: ( ) Yes (X) No CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL: ( ) Approved (X) N/A CONTRACT NUMBER (S 1 : N/A PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: 8/13/91 (71) Directed CAO to investigate other alternatives and to 2: back to the Board. 11/28/89 (27) Directed CAO to work with private industry and develop a for alternative technology projects by private industry. 8/22/89 (84) Directed CAO to examine alternative technologies in gr 5pth. BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE: 1-76, solid Waste Disposal A-72, Board of Supervisors' Agenda and Related Processes. M-23, Support of Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facilities CITIZEN COMMITTEE STATEMENT: CONCURRENCE (S 1 : CONTACT PERSON: William A. Worrell (SDB) ~RIGINATING DEPART MENT: Public Works pebkuarv 4. 1992 DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MEETING DATE __ - .%. 0 ,.. c- GE=UCC c 5A '*:*.a o,.,. < su5A* GOC~~~ 7- -0 ol.~.,c. LEO* c WILL, .O"... o,,..,c 10-* HA~OO~ * .*- O,,..,<I -nmw Tu- *(e?.+ YI 1 um CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFlC ;#x& *.' A+ 'c i/ pr?:j?V AGENDA ITEM *3 c :c\' J- )&I --e DATE : August 12, 1992 TO : Board of Supervisors SUBJECT: SUMMARY: Alternative Technology Project (All Districts) Reference On February 4, 1992 (14) your Board approved the distributic of a Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) for Alternatit Technologies. Your Board is asked to approve $32,000 to extend the Count consultant contract with CalRecovery, Inc. to complete . Request for Proposals and assist the COuntY in Selecting firm(s) for negotiation of a contract award. Your Board is asked to authorize the distribution of tl Final Request for Proposals (RFP) to the firms on the R short list. Recommendation CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: 1. 2. 3. Accept presentations from short listed firms. Receive public testimony from interested parties. Authorize the Director of Purchasing and Contracting negotiate and execute amendments to County Contract b y//Gspw, for an amount not to exceed .$32,000, to ass] the County in the development and evaluation of t Request for Proposals (RFP) Approve the project requirements and direct staff complete and distribute the Request for Proposals (R for Alternative Technologies to the RFQ short list. Direct staff to return to your Board in 90 days with alternative technology proposal. 4. 5. w SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project (~11 Districts) Fiscal Impact: Funds for this Project are budgeted. The funding source is ti- solid Waste Enterprise Fund (SWEF). If approved, this request wil result in $32,000 current year cost, and no annual cost, and wi: require the addition of no staff years. BACKGROUND On August 22, 1989 (84), your Board conducted a workshop, presents by Brown, Vence and Associates (BVA), in which alternative was management technologies were summarized, and a workbook w presented by BVA. At the conclusion of the workshop, your Boa directed the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to exami alternative technologies in greater depth. The Director of t Department of Public Works, with City of San Diego officials, k toured several facilities. In addition, your Board directed t CAO to provide, in a workshop mode, an opportunity f environmental advocates and representatives of the alternati technology industry to debate 'the use of alternative technolog. in San Diego County. On November 28, 1989 (27), your Board expressed support for . Prison Industry Authority (PIA) Waste Recycle Energy Plant propo and directed the CAO to negotiate contract 'terns with the P Staff procured engineering and legal services and is curren negotiating with the PIA. Also on November 28, 1989, a private party offered a proposal prepare an Environmental Impact Report to implement a recycl facility which would process 1000 tons per day of waste. response, your Board directed that the CAO work with prit industry to develop alternative technology projects Staff initiated a two-step process to solicit pzsposals private industry. The first step was to solicit Request Qualifications (RFQ) to identify firms experienced and financi capable of implementing successful alternative waste techno projects. The second step is to issue a Request for Propo (RFP) to a short list of respsndents to the RFQ.. Staff contra with CalRecovery, Inc., a California-based waste manage consultant, to develop an RFQ and an RFP for alternative burr non-burn technologies. Request fox Qualifications The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was completed and approve distribution by your Board on February 4, 1992. Eighteen resp' were received on March 24, 1992. CalRecovery provided staff a recommended RFQ short list and report on May 11, 1992. The ! list is presented below, and the report is attached. 2 1 I. a W SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact: Funds for this project are budgeted. The funding source is the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (SWEF). If approved, this request will result in $32,000 current year cost, and no annual cost, and will require the addition of no staff years. BACKGROUND On August 22, 1989 (84) , your Board conducted a workshop, presented by Brown, Vence and Associates (BVA), in which alternative waste management technologies were summarized, and a workbook was presented by BVA. At the conclusion of the workshop, your Board directed the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to examine alternative technologies in greater depth. The Director of the Department of public Works, with City of San Diego officials, has toured several facilities. In addition, your Board directed the CAO to provide, in a workshop mode, an opportunity for environmental advocates and representatives of the alternative technology industry to debate the use of alternative technologies in San Diego County. On November 28, 1989 (27), your Board expressed support for the Prison Industry Authority (PIA) Waste Recycle Energy Plant proposal and directed the CAO to negotiate contract 'terms with the PIA. Staff procured engineering and legal services and is currently negotiating with the PIA. Also on November 28, 1989, a private party offered a proposal tc prepare an Environmental Impact Report to implement a recyclinc facility which would process 1000 tons per day of waste. 11 response, your Board directed that the CAO work with privat industry to develop alternative technology projects. Staff initiated a two-step process to solicit proposals frc private industry. The first step was to solicit Request fc Qualifications (RFQ) to identify firms experienced and financial: capable of implementing successful alternative waste technoloc projects. The second step is to issue a Request for Proposa (RFP) to a short list of respondents to the RFQ.. Staff contract with CalRacovery, Inc., 8 California-based waste manaqeme consultant, to develop an RFQ and an RFP for alternative burn a non-burn technologies. R8qU8st for Qualifications The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was completed and approved : distribution by your Board on February 4, 1992. Eighteen respon were received on March 24, 1992. CalRecovery providedestaff Wi a recommended RFQ short list and report on May 11, 1992. The sh list is presented below, and the report is attached. Alternative Technology Praject (All Districts) 2 J * * 0 BO&JECT; Alternative Technology Project (All Districts) SHORT LIST OF RFQ REBPONDENTS Qualified Vendor Technology * American Ref-Fuel Mass-burn JWP, Inc. MRF, compost Ogden Products, Inc. Mass-burn, RDF Conditionally Qualified Vendor American Consultation Services, ~nc. Compost, recycling NRG Resource Recovery, Inc. MRF, RDF, compost OTVSD/American Interntl. Enterprises MRF, compost,WTE Reuter, Inc. Compost, RDF, recyc Wheelabrator Environmental Syst., Inc. MRF, compost, WTE Mass-burn: incineration of non-processed mixed waste MRF: material recovery facility, recycling facility RDF: incineration of pre-processed combustible waste Compost: production of any of a variety of soil amendments Recycling: generally refers to a KRF, or related technoloq The Conditionally Qualified category includes vendors that wer areas. The deficiencies are not considered so significant as i disqualify the vendors from receiving the RFP. During the Rl process, the proposals from the conditionally qualified vendoi would be evaluated especially in those areas identified i deficient in the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) process. TI deficiencies are discussed in the attached report, page 5, ai listed below: Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. MRF basically qualified, but were deficient in one or more importar American Consultation Services, Inc.: limited experience prime contractor; limited/incomplete financial informatioi NRG Resource Recovery, Inc.: no guarantor listed; limite incomplete financial information OTVSD/American International Enterprises: no direct sol wasto experience for joint venture members; no guaranl listed; limited, incomplete financial information Reuter, Inc. : little detail on similar facilities or pro]( team members; uncertain financial stability Wheelabrator Environmental Syst., Inc.: little detail similar facilities or project team members 3 e 0 SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project (All Districts) Vendors were not qualified initially if they did not prc sufficient information to meet the following evaluation critc Evaluation Criteria Maximum PC 1. Vendor's overall capabilities 2. Compliance with RFQ requirements 4. Overall management structure 3. Project technology and system design 2 5. Financial strength 2 6. Degree of experience related to the task 2 7. Record of environmental compliance 8. Diversion of waste from landfill for similar L d facilities: amount and composition of project res idue Total 1c Each vendor was contacted in writing on April 28, 1992, rega deficiencies in the Statement of Qualifications submitted by team. Vendors were git.sn an opportunity to provide suppleme information no later than 2 pm, May 7, 1992. Vendors werc qualified if they did not respond, or responded insufficient the request for information. The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of the firms proposals were found to be not qualified for this project. Bedminster Bioconversion Corporation CR&R, Inc. Facilities Systems Engineering Corporation Hansa Tech International, Inc. Hipp Engineering Ltd. Simon Waste Solutions, Inc. A selection committee of County staff has also reviewec submittals and concurs with CalRecovery's recommendations. Request for Proposals CalRecovery, fnc. has prepared a draft Request for Proposals and the RFQ. Their current contract does not contemplat completion of the RFP, therefore your Board is being ask authorize an amount not to exceed $32,000 fer CalRecovery, 11 complete the RFP and evaluate responses. 4 s 0 0 SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project (All Districts) Vendors were not qualified initially if they did not provic suffrclent information to meet the following evaluation Crlterii Evaluation Criteria Maximum Point 1. VendQr'S overall capabilities 50 2. Compliance with RFQ requirements 40 3. Project technology and system design 200 5. Financial strength 200 6. Degree of experience related to the task 200 7. Record of environmental compliance 50 8. Diversion of waste from landfill for similar 200 4. Overall management structure 60 facilities; amount and composition of pro] ect res idue Total 1000 Each vendor was contacted in writing on April 28, 1992, regardi deficiencies in the Statement of Qualifications submitted by the team. Vendors were qivsn an opportunity to provide supplementa information no later than 2 pm, May 7, 1992. Vendors were n qualified if they did not respond, or responded insufficiently the request for infornation. The following is a list, in alphabetical order, of the firms whc proposals were found to be not qualified for this project. Bedminster Bioconversion Corporation CR&R, Inc. Facilities Systems Engineering Corporation Hansa Tech International, Inc. Hipp Engineering Ltd. Simon Waste Solutions, IRC. A selection committee of County staff has also reviewed 1 submittals and concurs with CalRecovery's recommendations. Request for Proposals CalRecovery, Inc. has prepared a draft Request for Proposals (R1 and the RFQ. Their current contract does not contemplate ' completion of the RFP, therefore your Board is being asked authorize an amount not to exceed $32,000 for CalRecovery, Inc. complete the RFP and evaluate responses. 4 m e a - ~UBJEC~: Alternative Technology Prajeet (All Districts) Project Requirements Staff proposes that the following list of project requirements bc included in the final RFP. 11 addresses issues that may be policy related. These requirement: may be waived or modified during negotiations if it is in th, County's interest to do so. This list is not all inclusive. Technical : Request three size options (200, 500, of 1000 tons/pe Require private site; draft Board Policy scheduled t be before your Board on September 8, 1992, allows th option of private ownership of alternative technolog facilities Require disposal of process residual be handled t developer; direct cost of disposal will be paid by th County Require that developer be responsible for all permittin and licensing Require that facility divert waste from the landfill(5 that counts toward AB 939 diversion goals - day 1 - L - - Financial: Require revenue sharing for recovered materials ai energy between the developer and the County Require Vender Parent Guarantor Or Letter Of Credit ft the project Require that the County has authority to appro' financing Require developer to be responsible f'or marketing - - e - Risks - Request that vendor take Force Majeure Risk; requi vendor to identifylyustify risks that it Will not BSSC Require vendor to take operation and construction ri! Offer a County oput or pay" or guaranteed waste delive contract, subject to waste flow control - - 5 a 0 SUBJECT! Alternative Technoloyy Project (All Districts) county Information: As in the RFQ, the RFP will indic preference for siting the facility as convenient1 possible to the Otay and Sycamore landfill wasteshed a The County will ahso provide to proposers the foil information on the County's waste disposal system: - Disposed waste composition and tonnages at c - Local recycling statistics - County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance with - Map of existing County disposal facilities - Information on planned County facilities; Intec The following is the proposed schedule for the RFP process: landfills implementation schedule Waste Management Plan/CoSWMP ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT SCHEDULE DATE MXLEST ONE 08/12/92 Board hearing on RFQ short list, Presentations k 08/21/92 Complete and Issue RFP 10/21/92 Receive responses to RFP 11/12/92 Complete 'review of responses to RFP 11/ 19/ 9 2 Present RFP recommendat ion to Pub1 ic Works Ady Board 11/24/92 Return to Board with recommendation to negotiate Contract for Alternative Technology respondents and, change order to complete RFP Respectfully Submitted, DAVID E. JANSSEN CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE ~PFICER BY LARI SHEEHAN DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFIC 6 e e - SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Project (All Districts) county Information: As in the RFQ, the RFP will indicate a preference for siting the facility as conveniently as possible to the Otay and Sycamore landfill wasteshed areas. The County will also provide to proposers the following infomation on the County's waste disposal system: Disposed waste composition and tonnages at Count! Local recycling statistics County Mandatory Recycling Ordinance with implementation schedule Map of existing County disposal facilities Information on planned County facilities; Integrate Waste Management Plan/CoSWMP - landfills - - - - The following is the proposed schedule for the RFP process: ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT SCHEDULE DATE MrLESTONE 08/12/92 08/21/92 Complete and Issue RFP 10/21/92 Receive responses to RFP 11/12/92 11/19/92 11/24/92 Board hearing on RFQ short list, Presentations by R1 respondents and, change order to complete RFP Completa'review of responses to RFP Present RFP recommendation to Public Works Adviso Board Return to Board with recommendation to negotiate and contract for Alternative Technology Respectfully Submitted, DAVID E. JANSSEN CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE ~FFICER BY LARI SHEEW DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 6 r 0 e '1 BOARD OF 8UPgRVISORB AGENDA ITEM c INFORKATION SHEET SUBJECT? ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT SUPV. DIST.: ALL COUNTY COUNSEL APPROVAL: Form and Legality (X) Yes@( ) N/A ( ) Standard Form ( ) Ordinance ( ) Resolution AUDITOR APPROVAL: ( ) N/#Yes 4 VOTES: ( ) Yes (X) No FINmCIu WAGWENT RmIm: frc (x) Yes ( 1 No CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL: ( ) Approved (X) N/A CONTRACT NUMBER(8)t N/A ~REVIOUG RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: 2/4/92 (14) Distribute Request f= Qualifications for Alter Technologies. BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE: 1-76 Solid Waste Disposal A-72, Board of Sfiervisors a Agenda and Related Processes. M-23, Support of olid Waste Resource Recovery Facilities CITIZEN COMMITTE 8 AT-: CONCURRENCE(8): # pepartment of Purchasing and Contracting ATTACH~ENT ( 8) Alternative Technalagy Select ion COlnlUittee Recomment . "Design, Construction, Financing, and Operation of a Solid Resource Recovery System for San Diego County, Califdrnia" by CalRec ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works ON: Roger F. Walsh (KAL) S50/694-2231 0-3 3 2 Aucrust 12. 1992 MEETING DATE 0 e FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Level of Mandate for the Program/Servict Lev 0 Mandated/Handated 0 Oiscret Pub1 ic Works Solid Waste r;3 Mandattd/DiscrctioMry Q Discret Level of Mandate for this Prapasal/Sefvice 1 0 Mardaf ed/Manda red 0 biscrct 1;3 MaMrteci/Discretiomry E/ Dircrct * bcpar tmn t Program Budget Page No. Z4t-250 ALTERNATlVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT Pr oposa ( FUTURE YEA1 (a) (b) (C) OF PROPOSAL BUDGET - Budgeted Proposed Change Proposcd Revised (d) Amunt For in Budgeted Proposal AmOWIt Budget. (a*b) Year Current Year 1st Subsequent Direct Cost S 32,000 f 0 f 32.000 f 0 R cvcnue f 32.000 f 0 f 32,000 f 0 NET GENERAL FWD COST I 0 t 0 f 0 1 0 a 0 0 0 Staff Years Sources of Revenue for Proposed Change and Subsequent Years: f f t s Space-Related IqJaCtS: wilt this proposal result in any additional space requirements? I] Yes [XI No If yes, how will these requirements be accanadrted? (Attach additionrl sheets as required) S&ort/Othcr Department Irrpacts: NONE (Attach mdditfwl sheets as required) Rmurks: (Attach additional sheets as required) Approval of this action will authorize an amdamt to County Contract NO. bl6S8(CalRlcovr~, I%.), Mt 10 eXCL4 and evaluate the RFP for AiterMtive Technology. The fuding Source is the Solid Waste Enterprise fad (OR( Activity SR9195). This action will k funded entirely from the Solid Uaste Enterprise Fvd 8d will have no inpKt F the Cow n a 0 e FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT Level of nardate for the Progrim/servicr Level IS * 0 Hardrted/Mandated 0 OiStfetr Onary/Har 1;7 HaMatmt/Discrct iorury 0 oi scretionary/O i s Pubtic wrks Soltd Waste Dcpar tment Program Level of Mandate for this Propod/Scrvice Levei IS: Budget Page No. 2L1-250 a Marda t ed/Mlndrtcd 0 Oiscretionrrylna T;;J MmdJt.d/o i scrrt i wry a oi rcrrt i w\rry/D 1 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT Pr oposa 1 FUTURE YEAR ES' (a) (b) (C) OF PROP0 SAL IF AI BUDGET - 8udgeCd PrOp0S.d ChJnge Proposed Revised (d) &mount For in Budgeted Current Year 1st Subrrqwnt 2nd Proposal Amount Budget. <a*b) Year Y eaf s - Direct Cost f 32.000 L 0 f 32.000 t 0 R evcnue f 32.000 t 0 t 32.000 t 0 L t 0 I 0 t 0 t 0 I, NET GENERAL FUND COST Staff Years 0 0 0 0 - Sources Of Revmuo for Proposed Change and S~b~equent rears: S t s- t s I- Space-Related Inpacts: If yes, how will these requirements be accanodrted? (Attach additiWl sheets as required) St&ort/Other Dep8rtment tmp.cts: (Attach ditiorut sheets as rrquirad) Will this proposal result in My rdditiwi spree rrquiremmtr? [I Yes (x1 YO NONE Remarks: (Attach additional sheets as rquirrd) Approval of this action wit\ authorize an ammdamt to C-ty Contract No. JlbS&talR.eovrry. In.), nSt tb eXCd 132 ad evrlmte the RFP for AlterMtive Te&mo\ogy. The fuding source is the Solid U8SW EnttWiSe fd (WG.*5 Activity SR91951. This action will k fvrdcd mtirely frca the Solid Waste Enterprise Fud 8d uill h8Ve rn i-t rpor, the CMtY'S I t e 0 * December 1, 1992 Mayor Tim Nader City of Chula Vista P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91 91 2 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CLEAN AIR CHARTER AMENDMENT Dear yF-7 T When the County of San Diego acted to abandon the contract and permits for the waste-to- energy incinerator at San Marcos landfill, it appeared to many that incineration of trash would no 1989, the Board of Supervisors directed their staff to examine alternative waste management technologies in more depth. Pursuant to the Board’s direction, County staff has preceded with the process to examine alternative technologies. On August 12, 1992, the Board authorized distribution of an RFP which is intended to select a vendor to construct 200, 500 or 1,000 tons per day waste processing/disposal projects serving the Sycamore and Otay landfill wastesheds. Prior to August, 1992, County staff had evaluated qualifications of many vendors and recommended nine firms to which the RFP should be submitted. The technologies to be considered for construction are: MRF’s, cornposting and several incineration technologies. The appropriate County staff reports are attached for your review. Although the County’s efforts do not seem to involve the north county area, we remain concerned about the use of solid waste incineration as an appropriate technology for solid waste management anywhere in San Diego County. Both from a cost and clean air standpoint, solid waste incineration is not good for San Diego County. This issue was recently discussed by the North County Solid Waste Coalition and the Coalition members determined ta ask their respective City Councils to adapt resolutions requesting the Board of Supervisors to place an item on the June, 1994 ballot which would have the effect of preventing the use of solid waste incineration in San Diego County. Coalition members also voted to ask me to correspond with all the county mayors and request that their City Council’s also adopt a similar resolution. A draft of a suggested resolution is attached for your consideration. longer be considered for San Diego County. However, that may not be the case. In August of Exhibit 3 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1 989 - (61 9) 434-2830 e e f, ? L Mayor Tim Nader December 1, 1992 Page 2 Accordingly, I am requesting that you ask your City Council to adopt a resolution asking the Board of Supervisors to place the question of incineration on the June, 1994 ballot for voter consideration. When your City Council acts, please ask your City Clerk to send me a copy of the resolution. Ad*& Sincerely, CLAUDE A."BUD LEWIS Mayor Attachment ma c: City Council Board of Supervisors City Manager Letter also sent to: Mayor Tim Nader, City of Chula Vista Mayor Mary Herron, City of Coronado Mayor Rod Franklin, City of Dei Mar Mayor Joan Shoemaker, City of El Cajon Mayor John Davis, City of Encinitas Mayor Jerry Harmon, Ciw of Escondido Mayor Mike Bixler, City of Imperial Beach Mayor Art Madrid, City of La Mesa Mayor Brian Cochran, City of Lemon Grove Mayor George Waters, City of National City Mayor Dick Lyons, City of Oceanside Mayor Don Higginson, City of Poway Mayor Susan Golding, City of San Diego Mayor Lee Thibadeau, City of San Marcos Mayor Jack E. Dale, City of Santee Mayor Gloria McClellan, City of Vista Mayor Margaret Schlesinger, City of Solana Beach . Q (Y B c A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CCTY OF P CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE WARD OF SUPER.SOR!S OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO PLACE A PROPOSITION AMENDING THE COUNTY CHARTFRTO BAN SOLID WASE INCINERATION, ON THE JUNE, 1994 BALLOT. WHEREAS, The County Board of Supervisors acted to abandon the construction of a solid waste incinerator at the San Marcos landfill; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has directed staff to pursue alternative technologies for solid waste handling and disposal; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors will be considering incineration as an appropriate solid waste management technology for solid waste generated in the Otay and Sycamore landfill wastesheds; and WHEREAS, the City of San Diego by a vote of the people has effectively banned incineration in the City of San Diego; and WHEREAS, several other cities by Resolution of their City Councils have opposed incineration of solid waste; and WHEREAS, cost and air pollution implications, render solid waste incineration as an inappropriate technology for San Diego County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of A California, as follows: The Board of Supedsors, County of San Diego, is requested to place a proposition on the June, 1994 ballot which would ban solid waste incineration as an appropriate solid waste management technology for San Diego County.