CCMIN100212 - Laserfiche WebLink

the newer completely enclosed facilities that allow both energy capture (valued at around $50 per ton) and the production of soil amendments. Councilmember McGovern reported that through her work on the Community Monitoring Committee for the landfill she learned that they are interested in operating a composting facility and selling the soil amendments produced through that. She asked if any money from that enterprise would come back to Stopwaste.org or other recycling agencies. Mr. Wolf said no, but noted that many member agencies have arrangements to distribute free compost to their citizens through a variety of events. Councilmember Thorne requested more detail on the inspection process. Mr. Wolf stated that every account would be inspected once each six months. Any account failing inspection would be offered educational assistance and if accepted, would be inspected again six months later. Accounts declining assistance would be inspected in three months. Accounts failing a follow-up inspection would receive a warning for of non-compliance and be inspected again in thirty days. Continued non-compliant accounts would be considered for citation. When asked about the manpower required to conduct these inspections, he explained that Waste Management and Republic have elected to take on those duties in their jurisdictions, which lowers the burden on Stopwaste.org and helps to maintain their customer confidentiality. He noted that this is an option within the ordinance and that PGS might elect to conduct the inspections here in Pleasanton. When asked why Stopwaste.org would collect a fee for work being performed by others, Mr. Wolf explained that the benchmarking fee and measurements have nothing to do with the ordinance implementation requirements that these inspections satisfy. Councilmember Sullivan noted that the City originally opted out of the ordinance because of unknown costs. He asked Mr. Wolf to discuss the county-wide cost analysis it prepared on the program as well as the experiences of other jurisdictions who have implemented it to date. Mr. Wolf stated that Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, well known industry consultants, prepared a countywide analysis of the cost impacts of this specific ordinance using an analysis prepared for the State and then modified as needed to apply to Alameda County. The analysis found that there would be an average decrease in cost to customers and service providers of 2% to 7% as a result of implementing the ordinance. Current estimates indicate that Alameda County disposes of about $100 million dollars per year in recyclable or compostable materials through the landfill. If captured, the cost savings and revenue streams created could be used to pay for new equipment and other infrastructure, thereby lowering the overall cost to ratepayers. He stated that of the fourteen member agencies who have already implemented the program, twelve report no rate impacts. He acknowledged that Hayward reported a 0.5% increase and Fremont reported a 10% increase, though only a portion of that related to the actual ordinance. Councilmember Sullivan asked Mr. Wolf to elaborate on the enforcement and penalty process, particularly as it relates to concerns over the usurpation of local control. In working through the Stopwaste.org Board, he had the opportunity to hear from larger jurisdictions like San Diego and Seattle who felt the process was more educational than punitive. Mr. Wolf said that in developing the ordinance, they were very clear on the desire of member agencies to maintain local control and so created a structure where Stopwaste.org is the lead City Council Minutes Page 5 of 12 October 2,2012