HomeMy WebLinkAbout136-15 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 136-15
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT
WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,980.00 FOR
ASSISTANCE WITH THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A
COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE PILOT PROGRAM AND A SINGLE STREAM
RECYCLING PILOT PROGRAM, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves
Amendment No. 1 to the contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $39,980.00 for
assistance with the design and implementation of a commercial food waste pilot program and a
single stream recycling pilot program.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget
adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution.
PASSED and APPROVED this 4' day of August, 2015.
APnv nvUr.
:FA
ATTEST:
By:�"
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk Treasurer
FAYE7TEViLLE:��w
:yam' 9,Qk �PF3
.yz �,,�
City of Fayetteville Arkansas k13West Mountain Street
'%. Fayetteville, AR 72701
(470)575-8323
Text File
Fife Number: 2015-0308
Agenda Date: 8/4/2015 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready
In Control: City Council Meeting t=ile Type: Resolution
Agenda Number: C. 1
KESSLER CONSULTING AMENDMENT NO. 1
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH KESSLER
CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,980.00 FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE DESIGN
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE PILOT PROGRAM AND A
SINGLE STREAM RECYCLING PILOT PROGRAM, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves Amendment No.
1 to the contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $39,980.00 for assistance with the
design and implementation of a commercial food waste pilot program and a single stream recycling pilot
program.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget
adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page f Printed on 713012015
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
€i15.0308
Legistar File ID
8/4/2{15
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
Brian Pugh 7/14/2015 Recycling & Trash Collection /
Transportation Services Department
Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
Approval of a Resolution to amend the scope of services with Kessler Consulting, Inc. to assist the City in conducting
a commercial food waste pilot and a single stream recycling pilot and to approve a budget adjustment of $39,980.
Budget Impact:
5500.5080.5314.00 Recycling and Trash
Account Number
14019/1
Project Number
Fund
Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
Project Title
Budgeted Item? No
Current Budget
$ 258,653.00
Funds Obligated
$ 258,652.50
Current Balance
$ Ci.50
Does item have a cost? Yes
Item Cost
$ 39,980.00
Budget Adjustment Attached? Yes
Budget Adjustment
$ 39,980.00
Remaining Budget$
5()0
V20140710
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Original Contract Number:
Comments:
Approval Date: Nall 4 d lu
CITY OF
pp Tayo11
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 11r+1EMO
ARKANSAS
MEETING OF AUGUST 4TH, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability and Resilience Director
Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Division Director
FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner
DATE: July 1, 2015
SUBJECT: Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilot Programs
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of a Resolution to amend the scope of services with Kessler Consulting, Inc. to assist
the City in conducting a commercial food waste pilot and a single stream recycling pilot and to
approve a budget adjustment of $39,980.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council passed Resolution Number 171-14 on September 16, 2014 to contract with
Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in order to attain a
waste diversion rate of 80%. Staff worked extensively with KCI to develop a final scope of work
that included:
• A baseline operational assessment of the current system,
• A waste audit and litter composition study with an option to partner with the University to
assess their solid waste generation and composition,
• An analysis of waste reduction and diversion options,
• Recovery scenarios modeling and financial evaluation,
• Policy recommendations,
• Development of the final solid waste master plan, and
• Master plan project coordination, community input process and final presentation.
DISCUSSION:
KCI, working with Recycling and Trash Division Staff, have completed the baseline operational
assessment and the waste composition study. Currently, KCI is working through waste
reduction and diversion options. At this time, Kessler Consulting is recommending that the City
develop two pilot programs to demonstrate the viability of commercial food waste composting
and single stream recycling as waste diversion options. Food waste and recyclables combine to
make up 45% of Fayetteville's waste stream. Conducting the pilot programs now will provide the
City with specific data on which to model the potential impacts of full-scale programs and also
enable the City to start seeing tangible results.
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
Kessler Consulting is proposing completing the two pilot projects for an amount not to exceed
$39,980. This project will be paid for with Recycling and Trash Division Enterprise Funds.
Attachments:
• Amendment 1 Kessler Contract
• Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of Work
• Resolution 171-14 — Resolution Authorizing a Contract with Kessler Consluting for a 10
Year Solid Waste Plan
• PO Kessler Pilot Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT FOR
SOLID WASTE CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND
KESSLER CONSULTING, INC.
BE IT KNOWN TO ALL:
Thai ;1e City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (the "City.') and Kessler Consulting, Inc. ('•KCI"),
on this day of 2015, hereby agree that the Contract for Solid Waste
Consulting Services dated Sept fiber 24, 2014, shall be amended to adopt and incorporate the
"City of Fayetteville, AR Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of
Work", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit ``A" and made a part hereof, in order for
KCI to assist the City in conducting a commercial food waste pilot program and a single stream
recycling pilot program with the cost of the services not to exceed $39,980.00.
The parties agree and understand that this Amendment is supplemental to their Contract
dated September 24, 2014, and that it does not alter, amend or abridge any of the rights,
obligations, or duties of the parties not expressly addressed herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their signatures to be set by
their authorized representative effective the date set forth herein above.
KESSLER CONSULTING, INC.
/V L -
itch Kessler, President
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ATTEST:
Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk -Treasurer
Exhibit A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots
Scope of Work
Following an initial evaluation of the City's existing solid waste management system and completion of a
waste composition study, Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) identified waste diversion opportunities that we
believe merit further evaluation through pilot programs. Conducting the pilot programs now, rather
than waiting for completion of the Master Plan, will provide city -specific data on which to model the
potential impacts of full-scale programs and also enable the City to start seeing tangible results. This
scope of work is to assist the City in conducting two pilots programs, one for commercial food waste and
the other for single stream recycling.
Scope of Services
Task 1 Food Waste Pilot
Purpose: Food waste makes up approximately 17% of commercial waste disposed, which is the
single largest component of the waste stream. The purpose of this pilot is to evaluate the
feasibility of using a Modified Static Aerated Pile (MSAP) composting system to incorporate
food waste into the City's existing yard waste composting operation, as well as to evaluate
a commercial food waste collection system.
Activities:
1. Review State requirements applicable to food waste composting pilot program.
2. Develop operations plan, implementation timeline, and other necessary documentation to
obtain ADEQ approval.
3. Provide technical assistance to City staff with collection logistics, as needed, including the
following:
• Selection of pilot participants.
• Estimating anticipated tonnage.
• Selection of appropriate collection containers.
• Development of education and outreach materials.
■ Educating pilot participants.
4. Provide technical assistance to City staff with MSAP composting logistics, as needed, including
the following:
* Identifying site requirements, equipment, and labor needs.
■ Identifying any site preparation needs.
■ Training and technical assistance for composting operations personnel.
5. Provide inoculant for the MSAP composting.
6. Provide technical assistance to City staff with monitoring requirements, as needed, including the
following:
■ Identification of data to be collected during the pilot.
■ Training composting operations personnel regarding data collection.
kessler consulting inc.
Viols Scope 1 rrne+ru vatc sa,it a s
City of Fayetteville, AR
Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of Work
■ Guidance on compost analysis.
■ Surveying/obtaining feedback from pilot participants.
7. Analyze pilot results and evaluate estimated cost and potential implications of full-scale facility
and operations.
Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing results of the food waste pilot and evaluating the
potential implications of full-scale implementation.
Task 2 Single Stream Recycling Pilot
Purpose: More than 26% of residential waste and 29% of commercial waste disposed consists of
recyclable paper and containers. In addition, the City's current system of curb -sorting
recyclables is highly inefficient from a collection perspective. The need to sort recyclables
by type prior to collection has also been an impediment to expanding multi -family and
commercial recycling. The purpose of this pilot is to evaluate the potential impacts of
converting to carted single stream recycling on recycling participation, tons of materials
collected, and collection efficiency.
Activities:
1. Work with City staff to develop the overall framework and timeline for the pilot.
2. Provide technical assistance to City staff with collection logistics, as needed, including the
following:
■ Selection of pilot participants, including curbside routes, multi -family complexes, and
commercial customers.
• Estimating anticipated tonnage.
■ Routing and collection logistics.
■ Identifying options for obtaining collection carts with RFID.
• Identifying options for obtaining RFID readers or other monitoring devises.
• Development of education and outreach materials.
■ Educating pilot participants.
3. Assist City staff with processing logistics, as needed, including the following:
Identifying processor.
Negotiating terms of agreement with private sector processor for term of the pilot.
Developing the agreed upon scope of work for inclusion in the agreement.
4. Provide technical assistance to City staff with monitoring requirements, as needed, including the
following:
■ Identifying data to be collected during the pilot.
■ Training City personnel regarding data collection.
■ Surveying/obtaining feedback from pilot participants.
5. Analyze pilot results, as well as evaluate estimated cost and potential implications of full-scale
implementation of single stream recycling.
Deliverables:
• Technical memorandum summarizing the results of the single stream recycling program and
evaluating the potential implications of full-scale implementation.
kessler consulting inc<
Pdots Scope 2 .rrnvrit ar%V,,s to •,ukftnn7
City of Fayetteville, AR
Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of Work
Because of the nature of this project and the potential variability in the level of effort required, KCI
proposes to conduct this scope of work on a time -and -materials basis for an amount not to exceed
$39,980. A budget breakdown by task is provided below. Services will be invoiced at the rates
indicated, which include all overhead and direct and indirect costs. Expenses (travel, etc.) will be billed
at cost without markup. KCI will submit monthly invoices with a written explanation of activities
completed that month.
KCI will initiate work upon notice to proceed. A proposed timeline will be developed, in conjunction
with City staff, for each pilot project.
CATEGORY (NAME)
HOURLY
RATE
Task 1
Task 2
TOTAL
HOURS
TOTAL
DOLLARS
Food Waste
Pilot
Single
Stream Pilot
Project Director
$185.00
8.0
12.0
20.0
$3,700
Project Manager
$140.00
30.0
42.0
72.0
$10,080
Senior Consultant
$125.00
10.0
22.0
32.0
$4,000
ConsultanIVAssociate
$95.00
56.0
76.0
132.0
$12,540
Research Analyst
$80.00
56.0
0.0
56.0
$4,480
Office Mana erffechnical Support
$60.00
4.0
4.0
7.0
$480
SUBTOTAL LABOR HOURS
164.0
156.0
320.0
SUBTOTAL LABOR DOLLARS
$16,970
$18,310
$35,280
DIRECT COSTS
TRAVEL
$2,400
$1,500
$3,900
SUPPLIES
$800
$800
CONTRACTED LABOR
¢n
SUBTOTALDIRECTCOST I $3,200 $1,500 P I $4,700
TOTALPROJECT BUDGET.
LABOR+ DIRECT COST $20,170 $19,810 $39,980
KCI looks forward to assisting the City in conducting the pilot projects, which will provide valuable, city -
specific information on which to base future program recommendations.
kessler consulting inc.%ibis Scope 3 Rl t Va;.t^r %Vat tC &oiu€!<3s;i
RESOLUTION NO. 171-14
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KESSLER
CONSULTING, INC. OF TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $264,890.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes
Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the
development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to exceed $264,890.00.
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a
budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A".
PASSED and APPROVED this 16'x' day of September, 2014.
ADDDnir' r)-
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
��• G Ox".
_U• FAYEfTEVILLE;'-
�rr���isti►�
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment Form (Legistar)
Budget Year Division: Sustainability & Resilience Adjustment Number
2014 Dept.: Chief of Staff
Requestor: Serina Tustin
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION:
$264,890 for Solid Waste Reduction, diversion and Recycling Master Plan. Funds are adequate in Solid Waste fund
balance for this adjustment.
COUNCIL DATE: 8/29/2O14
LEGISTAR FILE ID#: 2014-0396
Kev"Spr6 r
9/2/201,4 2:37 PM
Budget Director Date
TYPE:
DESCRIPTION:
GLDATE:
RESOLUTION/0RDI NANCE POSTED: /
TOTAL 264,890 264,890 v.20140716
Increase /Decrease) Project.Sub#
Account Number Expense Revenue Project Sub AT Account Name
5500.5080.5314.00 264,890 14019 1 EX Professional Services
5500.0950.4999.99
RE Use of Fund Balance
C:\Users\pnierengarten\AppDaia\Roaming\L5\Temp\e7d65663-fcc8-4541-9664-34fbda1837a2 1 of 1
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2014-0396
Legistar File ID
9/16/2014
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
Sustainability & Resilience /
Leif Olson 8/29/2014
Chief of Staff
Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of a Resolution to contract with Kessler Consulting in the amount of $264,890 to
complete a Master Plan to achieve an efficient and cost effective solid waste system that maximizes solid waste
reduction, diversion and recycling and puts the City on the path to achieve our goal of 80% waste diversion.
Approval of a Budget Adjustment.
Budget Impact:
5500.5080.5314.00
5500 - Solid Waste
Account Number Fund
14019.1 Solid Waste Reduction/Recycling Master Plan
Project Number
Budgeted Item? No
Does item have a cost? Yes
Budget Adjustment Attached? Yes
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Original Contract Number:
Corn s:
Project Title
Current Budget
Funds Obligated
Current Balance
Item Cost
Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget
260-13 P'1�Eo-
U7
Approval Date:
Zo `I. -w.1
CITY OF
pNVEle1r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ARKANSAS
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
TO: Mayor Jordan and City Council
THRU: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability and Resilience Director A)
CC: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director
FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner
DATE: August 28, 2014
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of a Resolution to contract with Kessler Consulting in the amount of $264,890 to
complete a Master Plan to achieve an efficient and cost effective solid waste system that
maximizes solid waste reduction, diversion and recycling and puts the City on the path to
achieve our goal of 80% waste diversion.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council passed Resolution Number 260-13 in December 17, 2013 to develop a
Request for Qualifications to hire a consultant to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in
order to attain a waste diversion rate of 80%. Staff developed a detailed project scope and
received a total of five project proposals from qualified consulting firms. A selection committee
made up of City Staff reviewed the proposals and interviewed the top three firms. Kessler
Consulting Inc. was selected by the committee to be the most qualified to develop the master
plan. Staff worked extensively with Kessler to develop a final scope of work that includes:
• A baseline operational assessment of the current system,
• A waste audit and litter composition study with an option to partner with the University to
assess their solid waste generation and composition,
• An analysis of waste reduction and diversion options,
• Recovery scenarios modeling and financial evaluation,
• Policy recommendations,
• Development of the final solid waste master plan, and
• Master plan project coordination, community input process and final presentation.
The consultant will present the final master plan and recommendations to the City Council at the
conclusion of the planning process.
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
Kessler Consulting is proposing completing the master plan within a 12 month timeline at a total
cost of $249,930 to the City of Fayetteville. Inclusion of the University of Arkansas` waste
composition study raises the total cost of the project to $264,890. The University will reimburse
the City $14,960 for the cost of their waste composition study. This project will be paid for with
Recycling and Trash Division Enterprise Funds.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KESSLER
CONSULTING, INC. OF TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $264,890.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes
Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the
development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to exceed $264,890.00.
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a
budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A".
PASSED and APPROVED this 16th day of September, 2014.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By:
By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
R
r
y
E
c
p
o o
�+
m
a
m
eo
J 0
a
w
sr
a
00
o
CD
Ui
@
e
tll
Q1 CO
Z
Z
O
Z
67
c
G
CO
_ Gs
R Q1 N Q
O
O O
w
O
d
-
3
(1)-
cx
F�-
d
N
0
F-
cJ
vpo
$ o s
. a
•3 M
U] Z O
N
•iy C]
"c
C Lt
h1
of
o m
�'
@
N
z
tY Oi O
@ o
O O O O O O O O 4
c o 0 o a o' 0 0 0
M !9
H to
V
w
W
to H! d! M cil U, v!
C
C-
U
2
iii
@
0 (0 0)
L s
y
@
IL
Q
O
�
3
R
�' w @
o
C
N
3
Q=
o o
m
d
d
'Q
w
m
moo` w
•w» m CA
t _
u] H s
a o
@
a m a eD
a_m
r
c
a
m
A
c
LL
0
r v
y
C-
o
R
a G
a
V @
n
•
O
rn
G
,
ii•
CO
C
c
O
Cl).
p @
C
U
N
CO
0
Cf
Sa-
CO
0)_U
om
V
R
•
ii
N
>
Q'
400
CONTRACT FOR
SOLID WASTE CONSULTING SERVICES
THIS CONTRACT, made this _ _v day of L 2014, is by and between the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas ("City"), whose address is 1 3 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas
72701, and Kessler Consulting, Inc. ("KCI"), a Florida corporation whose address is 14620 N. Nebraska
Avenue, Building D, Tampa, FL 33613.
1. SCOPE
For and in consideration of timely payment by the City of the compensation set forth below, KCI shall
provide the Scope of Services ("Services") specified in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, subject to the other terms and conditions set forth in this contract. The
Services to be provided may be changed by the mutual agreement of the parties hereto. The City shall
promptly provide KCI with any and all documents and information needed by KCI to provide the
Services. It is expressly agreed that KCI is an independent contractor of the City.
•The City reserves the right to request additional services from KCI. When approved by the City as an
amendment of the contract and authorized in writing prior to work, KCI shall provide such additional
requirements as may become necessary.
Changes, modifications, or amendments in scope, price, or fees to the contract shall not be allowed
without a prior formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor and the City Council in advance of the
change in scope, cost, or fees.
II. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The initial contract period shall commence on the date this contract is executed by the City and KCI,
whichever date is later, and shall terminate two (2) years after the commencement date, unless extended
by mutual agreement of the parties hereto.
111. COMPENSATION
The compensation to be paid by the City to KCI for providing the Services shall be as stated in Exhibit B,
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City shall pay KCI for completion of
Services on a time -and -materials basis for an amount not to exceed that specified in Exhibit B without
prior approval by the Mayor and City Council. Labor shall be invoiced based on the hourly rates
specified in Exhibit B and expenses shall be invoiced at cost, without mark-up. Labor rates may be
adjusted if the contract is extended beyond the initial two (2) years upon approval of a formal contract
amendment by the Mayor and the City Council.
If requested to provide additional services pursuant to Section 1, compensation for these additional
services shall be as negotiated between the City and KCI, as approved by the Mayor and City Council.
IV. METHOD OF BILLING AND PAYMENT
KCI may submit monthly invoices to the City requesting payment for services accomplished during each
calendar month. Monthly invoices will include breakdown of employees and hours worked, description
of activities performed, and reimbursable costs and expenses incurred. All invoices shall be due and
payable by the City to KCI within thirty (30) days of invoice receipt. Failure to pay compensation to
KCI, as and when required, shall -entitle KCI to immediately cease all services, and to terminate this
Page I of 5
KCI etyettatiike Cantracl_Final.
contract as set forth below. Any failure by the City to pay any sums due and owing KCI shall be a
material breach of this contract.
V. RIGHT TO AUDIT
The City reserves the privilege of auditing KCI's records as such records relate to purchases between the
City and KCI.
VI. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
City contracts and documents prepared while performing city contractual work are subject to the
Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If a FOIA request is presented to the City, KCI will do
everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed in the
Arkansas FOIA (A.C.A §25-19-101 et. seq.). Only legally authorized photocopying costs pursuant to
FOIA may be assessed for this compliance.
VII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Legal jurisdiction to resolve any disputes shall be Arkansas with Arkansas law applying to the case.
Venue for any legal dispute shall be Washington County, Arkansas.
VIII. TERMINATION
A. The City reserves the right to cancel this contract without cause by giving sixty (60) days
prior notice to KCI in writing of the intention to cancel or with cause if at any time KCI fails
to fulfill or aide by any of the terms or conditions specified.
B. Failure of KCI to comply with any of the provisions of this contract shall be considered a
material breach of contract and shall be cause for immediate termination of the contract at the
discretion of the City.
C. In addition to all other legal remedies available to the City, the City reserves the right to
cancel and obtain from another source, any items and/or services which have not been
delivered within the period of time from the date of order as determined by the City.
D. In the event sufficient budgeted funds are not available for a new fiscal period, the City shall
notify KCI of such occurrence and the contract shall terminate of the last day of the current
fiscal period without penalty or expense to the City.
E. If this contract is terminated for any reason, the City shall compensate KCI for all services
completed through the date of termination, together with all reimbursable costs and expenses.
Such payment to KCI shall be considered a payment on account, and shall not constitute
payment in full of all sums owed to KCI pursuant to this contract or otherwise.
IX. INSURANCE
KCI shall procure and maintain throughout the term of this contract the following insurance limits and
coverage and shall, upon executing this contract, provide the City with certificates of insurance
evidencing same, showing other party as Additional Insured on all coverage except workers'
compensation and professional liability. Such insurance shall include appropriate clauses and/or
endorsements pursuant to which the insurance companies shall waive its right of subrogation against the
City.
Page 2 of 5
lCt:l._F�a �?t�ti°i3fz C��rerac�t _I�irt�4
A. Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance, in accordance with
Chapter 440, Florida statutes, and/or any other applicable law requiring workers'
compensation, of not less than the following:
Workers' Compensation $1,000,000.00 limit each accident
Employer's Liability $1,000,000.00 limit disease aggregate
$1,000,000.00 limit disease each employee
B. Commercial General Liability Insurance, on forms no more restrictive than the latest
edition of the Commercial General Liability policy (CG 00 01) of the Insurance Services
Office, in the amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence to protect against claims
for damages for bodily injury, including wrongful death, as well as from claims of property
damages, which may arise from any operations under this contract, whether such operation be
by KCI or by the City or anyone directly employed by or contracting with KCI or the City.
C. Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of not less than $100,000.00
combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage liability to protect both parties
from claims for damages for bodily injury, including the ownership, use, or maintenance of
owned and non -owned automobiles, including rented automobiles whether such operations be
by KCI or the City or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by KCI or the City.
D. Professional Liability Insurance in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Any subconsultants shall provide certificates of insurance evidencing coverage and terms in
accordance with the insurance requirements outlined above.
X. ASSIGNMENT, SUBCONTRACTING, ACQUISITIONS AND/OR MERGERS
A. KCI and any subconsultants identified in KCI's proposal to the City shall perform services
pursuant to this contract. No other assignment or subcontracting shall be allowed without
prior written consent of the City.
B. In the event of a corporate acquisition and/or merger, KCI shall provide written notice to the
City within thirty (30) calendar days of KCI's notice of such action or upon the occurrence of
said action, whichever occurs first. The right to terminate this contract, which shall not be
unreasonably exercised by the City, shall include, but not be limited to, instances in which a
corporate acquisition and/or merger represent a conflict of interest or are contrary to any
local, state, or federal laws.
XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If a dispute arises out of or relates to this contract, or the breach thereof, the parties will attempt to settle
the matter through amicable discussion.
XII. ATTORNEY'S FEES
In the event of any demand, action or proceeding between the parties arising out of or relating to this
contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover any and all costs, including attorney's fees and
court costs, incurred in any investigations, actions, trials, appeals, mediations, arbitrations, bankruptcy
proceedings, collection proceedings, collection efforts, and supplementary proceedings.
Page 3 of 5
1<C'1,„ a e=vifle C€sntractFilial
XIII. UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES
KCI will not be liable in any way to the City for any delay or non-performance resulting from or arising
out of any act(s) of God, severe weather, strike, civil disorder, earthquake, any law, order, proclamation,
regulation, ordinance, demand or requirement of any governmental agency, or any other condition or
occurrence whatsoever beyond KCI's sole control.
XIV. SEVERENCE
In the event a portion of this contract is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unenforceable, the provisions not having been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unenforceable shall continue to be effective.
XV. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT
This contract embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the City and KCI, and there are
no other agreements and understandings, oral or written, with reference to the subject matter hereof that
are not merged herein and superseded hereby. No alteration, change or modification of the terms of the
contract, or any attachments, shall be valid unless made in writing signed by both parties hereto.
Page 4 of 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the KCI execute this
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
o: FAYETTEVILLE:
follows:
LI0NELD RD 24, Mayor
E. Smith, City Clerk/Treasurer
KESSLER CONSULTING., INC.
TCH KESSLER, President
JL
Date
Page 5 of 5
KO Faydio-M Ololstid Five]
EXHIBIT A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan
Scope of Work
Outlined herein is Kessler Consulting, Inc.'s (KCI) scope of work to assist the City of Fayetteville (City) in
developing a Master Plan aimed at achieving an efficient, cost-effective solid waste system that
maximizes waste reduction and recycling and puts the City on a path to attaining its goal of 80 percent
waste diversion. Achieving this goal will require new and expanded programs, innovative policies,
productive partnerships, and/or implementation of new technologies. It will require a fundamental shift
from waste management to resource management.
KCI anticipates subcontracting with the University of Arkansas Applied Sustainability Center (ASC) to
assist with discreet tasks and activities. In particular, we will seek to engage student participation in the
project, primarily in assisting with the waste composition study and stakeholder meeting logistics. In
addition, ASC will provide local knowledge and assist in exploring opportunities for collaboration
between the City and the University.
Scope of Services
Task I Baseline and Operational Assessment of Current System
Purpose: In this initial task, KCI will examine, inventory, and benchmark forfuture comparison the
City's existing solid waste programs and operations. We will review studies recently
completed for the City to avoid duplication of efforts. KCl will also conduct operational
assessments of the City's collection operations and the City -owned and operated transfer
station, recycle center, and compost facility. We will review any existing information and
performance metrics provided by the City, complemented by field observations as needed.
Analyzing existing solid waste and recycling systems will lay the foundation for all future
planning activities.
Activities:
1. Participate in a kick-off call with City staff to initiate the project and clearly define project
objectives.
2. Review and evaluate relevant information and data including, but not limited to, the following:
• Tonnage of solid waste, recyclables materials, yard waste, construction and demolition
debris (CDD), white goods, household hazardous waste, etc. generated by source (i.e.,
residential, commercial, etc.) and final disposition of these wastes and recycling
streams, whether at public or private facilities.
• Current solid waste contracts.
■ Current facility permits and operating plans.
• Solid waste system budgets and actual revenues and expenditures.
• Recordkeeping, data management, revenue assurance systems, and user fee structure.
• Current bond covenants.
• Current organizational chart of solid waste department.
• City Ordinances and other policies pertaining to solid waste and any recent planning
documents regarding solid waste.
• Inter -local agreements with Washington County or other municipalities, if applicable.
kessler consulting inc.
Scope of Work v2 A-1 mnovas we woe saluna�,s
Exhibit A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work
■ Existing education and outreach materials.
3. Develop population and waste generation projections for a 10 -year period, and identify factors
that will affect population growth and waste generation.
4. Conduct an onsite assessment, anticipated to last five days, to observe collection operations and
operations at the transfer station, recycle center, and compost facility. The assessment will
include the following:
• Group meeting with operational employees to gain a clear understanding of operations and
engage front-line staff in the evaluation process.
• Field -level observations, ride-alongs, and route -based data collection in cooperation with
front-line staff.
• Use of proprietary wireless and web -based technologyto collect real-time, on -route data
and measure route performance and to estimate recycling participation.
5. Analyze labor requirements, production, and current workforce levels in order to develop
staffing recommendations.
6. Analyze equipment replacement schedules.
7. Compare findings with industry standards.
8. Identify program components and options that could potentially lower costs, improve efficiency,
or otherwise help the City meet its objectives.
9. Identify tools to assist the City in measuring improvement progress over time.
10. Prepare a summary of Task'1 results and findings.
Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing the current solid waste system, results and findings
of the operational assessment, and 10 -year population and waste generation projections.
Task 2 Waste and Litter Composition Study
Purpose: KCI will conduct a study to determine the composition of waste generated within the City
that is delivered to the City's transfer station for disposal. Understanding the types and
quantities of materials contained in the waste stream is critical to developing effective
systems to divert these resources for recycling or composting. Waste composition data
also serves as a benchmark for comparing future system changes. Concurrently, KCI will
conduct a study to determine the composition of litter collected from various locations
throughout the City. The budget provided herein is for one sampling and sorting event
lasting five days in duration. The City may wish to conduct additional sorting events to
account for seasonal variability in waste composition.
The University of Arkansas (UA) has expressed interest in participating in the waste
composition study while KCI's team is mobilized for the City's study. The option of
including UA's waste as part of the study is discussed in Task 2A below.
Activities:
1. Request from the City and review four weeks of scale house data regarding inbound vehicles to
the transfer station, including source, vehicle number, time of arrival, and tonnage.
2. Request from the City and review the windshield litter survey conducted by City staff.
3. Develop a list of material categories into which waste will be sorted, ensuring that these
categories are consistent with the City's existing recycling program and any previous
composition studies.
kessler consulting inc.
Scope o.' Work v2 A-2
EnncvaC:sav�as¢a sclutia:tc
Exhibit A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work
4. Identify the generator sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, litter) that will be targeted in the
waste composition study.
5. Develop a sampling schedule, sampling and sorting protocol, and site safety plan for review by
City staff. KCI will work closely with City staff to develop the sampling schedule for litter since
the City will be responsible for mobilizing staff or volunteers to collect the litter from specified
areas, mark it, and deliver it to the sorting area.
6. Work with City staff to identify an appropriate sampling and sorting area. The City will be asked
to provide a covered area (an existing structure or a tent) under which the sorting team will
work and a loader and operator to pull samples, as directed by KCI's Sampling Supervisor, and
deliver them to the sorting area.
7. Obtain the necessary equipment for conducting the sorting event. The City will be asked to
provide four six-foot folding tables and recycling bins and other containers into which materials
will be sorted. KCI will provide all other safety and sorting equipment and a calibrated platform
scale.
8. Mobilize for the sorting event. KCI will provide a Sort Supervisor, Sampling Supervisor, and up to
seven sorters. KCI is working with ASC to hire students as the sorters, which will provide a rare
hands-on learning opportunity for the students.
9. Execute the sorting event. KCI's Sampling Supervisor will work with the loader operator to pull
representative samples from selected incoming loads of waste in accordance with the sampling
schedule. Samples will be transferred to the sorting area and stored on tarps until sorted. All
samples will be sorted into the defined material categories and weighed. KCl's Sort or Sampling
Supervisor will conduct all data recording. To ensure quality and safety, KCI will conduct a
training session, prior to starting work each day, to review safety and sorting procedures.
10. Analyze the data from the sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material
category for each generator sector, as well as for the City's overall waste stream. Data analysis
will follow the ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of
Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste (D5231-92; reapproved 2008).
11. Prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the results and findings of the study.
Deliverables:
• Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, sampling schedule, and site safety plan.
• Technical memorandum providing the results of the waste composition study.
Task ZA UA Waste Composition Study (optional task)
Purpose: This optional task will entail sampling and sorting waste generated on the UA campus. KCl
anticipates adding three additional days of field work, which will enable the KCl team to
sample and sort at least 24 samples of UA waste. To ensure the statistical validity of this
data, no more than three separate UA generator sectors will be included. Specific
generator sectors will be determined based on discussions with UA staff, but might include
classrooms, dormitories, and food service areas.
Activities:
1. Request from UA staff and review waste tonnage data, collection schedules, and other relevant,
available information needed to develop the sampling schedule.
2. Confirm with UA staff that the material categories list developed for Task 2 is acceptable.
3. Identify the generator sectors that will be targeted in the waste composition study.
kessler consulting inc.
Scope o; work v? A-3 wt e scivtiooc
Exhibit A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work
4. Develop a sampling schedule and provide the schedule and sampling and sorting protocol
developed in Task 2 to UA staff for review.
5. Work with UA staff ₹o ensure the necessary loads of waste will be directed to the sorting area
for sampling in accordance with the sampling schedule.
6. Execute the sorting event.
7. Analyze the data from the sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material
category for each generator sector, as well as for UA's overall waste stream (all generators
combined).
8. Incorporate the results of the UA study into the Task 2 technical memorandum.
Deliverables:
• Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, and sampling schedule.
• Section of Task 2 technical memorandum providing the results of the UA waste composition
study.
Task 3 Reduction and Diversion Options Analysis
Purpose: The purpose of this task is to evaluate proven recovery technologies and programmatic
approaches, and to identify those that offer the greatest potential material recovery and
waste reduction/diversion opportunities to the City. For example, collection options might
include wet/dry collection, dual stream recycling, cart -based single stream recycling,
compressed natural gas (CNG) collection vehicles, incentive -based contracts, and rewards
programs such as Recycling Perks. Processing technologies to capture or utilize material
resources include single stream, mixed waste, and wet/dry material processing, organics
processing technologies, and other emerging technologies that seek to minimize the
disposal of waste.
Activities:
1. Identify and conduct an initial evaluation of material recovery technologies and programs to
identify those most viable or having the greatest materials recovery and waste
reduction/diversion potential. Such evaluation will include reviewing recognized regional and
national programs, analyzing the potential applicability to the City, and conducting an initial
analysis of the economic feasibility.
2. Evaluate potential public and private strategic partnerships for leveraging expertise and
economies of scale.
3. Prepare a summary of this evaluation and identify material recovery technologies and programs
that warrant further consideration. Scenarios for future consideration may include
modifications to existing contracts and programs, as well as implementation of new
technologies and programs.
Deliverable: Technical memorandum of this initial evaluation of technology and program options.
Task 4 Recovery Scenarios Modeling and Financial Evaluation
Purpose: KCI will use a proprietary spreadsheet -based model to conduct a more detailed analysis of
high -recovery, integrated materials management system scenarios that the City desires to
consider further. This interactive model takes into consideration that changes in one
system component will have operational and financial impacts on other system
components. Based on a set of City -specific assumptions, the model will estimate the
• kessler consulting inc.
Scope of Work v2 A-4
sixncaracwe taste scienians
Exhibit A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work
capital and operating cost of each scenario, potential revenues, potential waste diversion
(material recovery), and site requirements. An appropriate fee structure will be linked to
the anticipated costs and benefits of new or expanded services to ensure a healthy and
sustainable enterprise fund. The scenario modeling and financial evaluation will also
consider the intrinsic value of the selected scenarios as it relates to the triple bottom line
so that the city has a comprehensive foundation for decision -making.
Activities:
1. Based on the results of Tasks 4, conduct a work session with City staff to identify material
recovery scenarios for further analysis.
2. Develop and confirm assumptions that will be used in the model.
3. Evaluate the identified scenarios using KCI's comparative model.
4. Conduct a financial analysis of the implications of selected scenarios to the City's existing solid
waste business model.
5. Prioritize the model results based on waste reduction/diversion potential and cost-effectiveness
to the City.
6. Review the model results with City staff to identify. selected scenarios for inclusion in the Master
Plan.
7. Develop rate structure modifications for scenarios selected by the City that will ensure the long-
term viability of the solid waste system and enterprise fund, as well as incentivize increased
recycling or waste diversion.
8. Develop recommendations for inclusion in the draft Master Plan, including a consolidated rate
structure and potential modifications to the City's solid waste business model.
Deliverable: Technical memorandum that includes the results of the detailed analysis of selected
scenarios and associated rate structure as recommendations for inclusion in the draft
Master Plan.
Task 5 Policy Recommendations
Purpose: The purpose of this task is to identify policies to implement and support the various
technology and program options selected in Task 5. Policies are the principles and
guidelines by which the City will reach its solid waste and resource management goals.
These policies will influence future decisions regardingthe solid waste system, thereby
translating these policies into compatible actions and programs. Examples of policies for
consideration include residential and/or commercial recycling mandates, disposal bans on
specific types of recyclable or compostable materials, bans of the use of certain types of
products (e.g., plastics bags, polystyrene containers), source separation standards,
minimum service standards, private sector participation, and regional cooperation.
Activities:
1. Define and evaluate policies that would encourage specific behaviors and/or complement the
technologies and programs selected in Task 5.
2. Identify policy recommendations that will best help guide the Citytoward meeting its goals and
objectives, while also ensuring the long-term financial viability of the solid waste system.
3. Review the draft policy recommendations with City staff and revise as needed.
Deliverable: Technical memorandum identifying policy recommendations.
kessler consulting Inc.
Scope of Work v2 A-5 ar�^cuaavw v,a>t� scl.eionc
Exhibit A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work
Task 6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development
Purpose: The results of the previous tasks and technical memoranda developed as part of these
tasks will be incorporated into a Master Plan. Based on review and discussions with City
staff, KCI will develop near -term and long-term recommendations deemed cost-effective
and operationally feasible on the scale required by the City.
Activities:
Develop a draft Master Plan that includes or addresses the following:
1. Baseline Summary:
Summary of the City's current solid waste system, including waste and recyclables
tonnage, flow, and management.
Population and waste generation projections over a 10 -year period and summary of
factors that affect these projections.
Operational assessments of City collection operations and City -owned and operated
facilities, along with initial recommendations for improvements.
2. Reduction and Diversion Options Evaluation:
■ Evaluation of proven material recovery technologies and programs.
• Results of the more detailed analysis of selected scenarios, prioritizing scenarios based
on waste reduction/diversion potential and cost-effectiveness.
■ Potential opportunities for partnership.
■ Discussion of impacts on the City's business model and recommended modifications_
3. Short-, Medium- and Long -Term Recommendations:
• Policies: Policy recommendations that provide the framework that derives sustainable
materials recovery and guides decision -making, program and facility development,
stakeholder engagement, and systems financing:
• Programs: Program recommendations that are cost-effective and deemed most viable
to substantially increase waste reduction and diversion, taking into account the
availability of sustainable markets for the recovered resources.
• Facilities: Proven technology and facility recommendations that are effective in
recovering material from the waste stream, have been demonstrated on a scale
commensurate with the City, and are financially viable.
• Education: Recommended marketing strategy and programs that will complement and
help ensure the success of the various policy, program, and facility recommendations.
Emphasis will be placed on strategies for affecting changes in behavior. A summary of
all community input (Task 8) will be included.
4. Financial Analysis:
■ Proposed business plan and financial implications (ranges from high to low) of the
Master Plan recommendations.
• Proposed rate structure intended to preserve the health and sustainability of the
enterprise fund.
Deliverable: Draft and final Master Plan integrating the technical memoranda from all other tasks.
• kessler consulting inc.
Scope of wort v? A-6
t`:�AYB'.=4'P Yl352G TG1t u"I
Exhibit A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work
Task 7 Project Coordination, Community Input, and Presentations
Purpose: Throughout this project, KCI will maintain frequent communication with City staff•
regarding project status and technical aspects of the work. We also will seek stakeholder
input through a variety of mechanisms including, but not limited to, workshops, meetings,
and surveys. Whenever possible, we will include a web -based option for providing input,
such as on-line access to town hall type meetings and on-line surveys. In addition, KCI will
present the final Master Plan to elected officials, the public, or other stakeholders.
Activities:
1. Participate in monthly project team calls.
2. Prepare a monthly summary of activities.
3. Coordinate and participate in up to three days of workshops and/or meetings with stakeholder
groups, the general public, and/or elected officials. KCl will arrange for stakeholders to have a
web -based option to provide input whenever feasible.
4. Develop and execute a stakeholder survey in a variety of formats, including a web -based survey
tool such as Survey Monkey.
5. Participate in up to two days of one-on-one and/or public meetings with City management and
elected officials, as deemed appropriate, to present, review, and discuss the final Master Plan.
Deliverables:
• Monthly summary of activities.
• Participation in up to three stakeholder workshops, meetings, or focus groups.
• Survey instrument.
• Technical memorandum summarizing survey results and other stakeholder input.
• Presentation of Master Plan.
Budget and Timeline
Because of the nature of this project and the potential variability in the level of effort required, KCI
proposes to conduct this scope of work on a time -and -materials basis for an amount not to exceed
$249,930, excluding Task 2A. The budget for Task 2A is $14,960. A detailed budget breakdown by task
is provided in Attachment B. Services will be invoiced at the rates indicated, which include all overhead
and direct and indirect costs. Expenses (travel, etc.) will be billed at cost without markup. KCI will
submit monthly invoices with a written explanation of activities completed that month.
KCI will initiate work upon notice to proceed. A proposed timeline is provided herein, which may be
modified as the project progresses.
KCI looks forward to assisting the City in developing a comprehensive Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion,
and Recycling Master Plan that seeks to maximize waste diversion while maintaining the long-term
financial viability of the City's solid waste and resource management system.
kessler consulting inc.
Scope o€ Work v2 A-7 iixrc,at Ve we soL eiora
Exhibit A
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work
Proposed Timeline
Tasks
Month
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
Sp
11
12
1 Baseline and Operational Assessment
='
2 Waste and Utter Composition Study
emu;
'
3 Reduction and Diversion Options Analysis
P° .
Recovery Scenarios Modeling and Financial
4
Evaluation
5 Policy Recommendations
6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development
''
.nl
7 Project Coordination, Community Input
'u
and Presentations
g
kessler consulting inc.
Scope of Mork v2 A-8 rersrvanw wait+sokiIiu1s
EXHIBIT B
City of Fayetteville, AR
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan
Proposed Budget
Taskt
Task2
Tash2A
Task3
Task4
Tae k5
Task6
Tas1c7
WidTask2A
WithoutTask2A
Recovery
Project
Optional UA
Reducdan &
L
Coordination,
Baseline &
Waste &Litter
81t*
Diveramn
Modeling &
1
Solid Waste
Community
HOURLY
Operational
Composition
Composition
Options
Financial
Policy
NasurPlan
Input&
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
CATEGORY 010010)
RATE
Assessment
Study
Study
Analysis
Evaluation
Rommonj
Qevelopment
Presentation
HOURS
DOLLARS
080055
DOLLARS
LABOR
$38500
10.0
4.0I
10.0
100
9.0
201
50.0
114.0
$21,180
11210
0,720
Project Director
$140.00
480
1641j
400
40.0
4010Ij
609
60.0
312.0
143,680
3040
$42,500
Peoiett Manager
$125.00
110.0
ODj
400
400
!I
20.0
OA
220.9
$28,500
228.0
828,9W
$color Consultant
$100.00
8010
280J
iJ
1704
170.0
ij
110.0
60.0
6920
$09,200
562.0
$08,200
CortsuNarR
$95.00
0.0
1590
50.0
0.0
0.0
OA
010
010
240.0
$19,000
150.0
$14,250
Consultant
185.00
140.0
0.0
010
0.0
0.0
QA
OA
010
140.0
$11,900
140.0
$)1,900
Consultant
$80-00
0,0
ij
ij
909
80.0
40.0
800
20.0
fi
$[6209
311.0
$25,284
rlecbaical Support $50.00
149
68A
24.0
10.0
10.0
10.0100
15SD
X1,060
1320
$1,920BOR
HOURS
402.0
714.0
100.0
350.0
3540
119.0
30tH
2020
2170.0
x,970
2064.0
$20%X30
=Aoalplyst
A00RDOLLARS
$43:060
$24,540
$9,010
$30,490
$3&450$44,330
$32600
S$3,700
$3.700
$22,300
$2,800
$6,000
$,700
$15,440
$1,000
$500
$1,500
$1,000
SUPPLIES
$4,200
02,520
40,120
$1,214
CONTRACTED LABOR
$1,000
$2,006
$500
$500
$1,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
SUBCONTRACTOR
$ti320
3604
$2,000
$540
$3.000
$1!,000
$35.900
$30,600.
Sf srorAL DIRECT COST
$4,7(41
$09,800
TOTAL PROJECTBUBGET
1 $47,760 $.35,490 I $t4,960I $16,958. $30,450 $19,030I $3 400I e64,9s9I *289.920
LABOR+DIRECT COST
kessler consulting inc.
$Capp. o1 Woak v2 B'1 mno*nwe rarr,. rahaiony
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2014-0408
Legistar File ID
N/A
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
Leif Olson 9/10/2014 Sustainability & Resilience /
Chief of Staff
Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
Administrative approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Arkansas Facilities
Management Department to contract with Kessler Consulting to complete a Waste Composition Study of 24
selected waste samples from no more than three separate UofA generator sectors.
Budget impact:
Account Number
Fund
Project Number Project Title
Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $ -
Funds Obligated $ -
Current Balance $ -
Does item have a cost? No Item Cost
Budget Adjustment Attached? No Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget $ - �}
V20140710
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # 171-14
Original Contract Number: Approval Date:
Comments:
CITY OF
7.avAe
vi e
ARKANSAS
TO: Mayor Jordan
Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Paul Becker, Finance Director
THRU: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability and Resilience Director
CC: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Division Director
FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner
DATE: September 19, 2014
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding — Recycling Master Plan with University of
Arkansas
RECOMMENDATION:
Administrative approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Arkansas
Facilities Management Department to contract with Kessler Consulting to complete a Waste
Composition Study of 24 selected waste samples from no more than three separate UofA
generator sectors. Generator sectors may include classrooms, dormitories and food service
areas.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council passed Resolution Number 171-14 on September 16, 2014 to hire Kessler
Consulting to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in order to attain a waste diversion rate
of 80%. One critical component of a solid waste and recycling plan is to conduct a waste
composition study in order to determine the precise makeup of the waste materials that are
being discarded in the landfill. This is accomplished by pulling sample waste containers from
different waste generating sectors and measuring the type and volume of the waste that is
currently being landfilled. Kessler Consulting will perform waste composition studies for both the
University and the City in order to provide quantifiable data on the type and volume of waste
generated by all sectors within the City.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
This Memorandum of Understanding prescribes that the University of Arkansas will reimburse
The City of Fayetteville $14,960 for the cost of their waste composition study.
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street wwwfayetteville ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
between
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
and
THE City of Fayetteville, AR
FY2015
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into and executed on the date indicated beside
the signature blocks, by and between the University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department and
the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
1. PURPOSE
The City of Fayetteville (City) is contracting with Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) of Tampa. FL to provide a
Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan for the City. The Master Plan is aimed at
achieving an efficient, cost-effective solid waste system that maximizes waste reduction and recycling
and puts the City on a path to attaining its goal of 80 percent waste diversion. The City's Contract with
KCI includes a task for a University of Arkansas (UA) Waste Composition Study which entails sampling
and sorting waste generated on the UA campus.
The purpose of this MOU is to establish the contractual relationship (scope, deliverables schedule and
price) between the City and UA to enable KCI to perform this work on behalf of the UA.
Regarding this agreement contact people for the City of Fayetteville will be:
Peter Nierengarten 479.S75.8272/pnierengarten@fayetteville-ar.gov
.-------------------------------------- ------- --- ------------.--------------Primary contact
name ph#/email
Jeff Coles 479.444.3499/jcoles@fayetteville-ar.gov
Alternate contact
name
Contact people at FMD are:
ph#!email
Carlos Ochoa __--_5_240S-/ cochoajr@uark.edu
Primary contact
name ph#Jemaii
Peggy Cromer 5-6593 / bcomer@uark.edu
-- ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------Alternate contact
name ph#!email
I1. SCOPE
KCI anticipates the UA Waste Composition Study requiring three days of fieldwork, which will enable the
KCI team to sample and sort at least 24 samples of UA waste. To ensure the statistical validity of this
data, no more than three separate UA generator sectors will be included. Specific generator sectors will
9/12/14
be determined based on discussions with UA staff, but might include classrooms, dormitories, and food
service areas.
Activities
T. Request from UA staff and review waste tonnage data, collection schedules, and other relevant,
available information needed to develop the sampling schedule.
2. Confirm with UA staff that the material categories list developed for Task 2 is acceptable.
3. Identify the generator sectors that will be targeted in the waste composition study.
4. Develop a sampling schedule and provide the schedule and sampling and sorting protocol
developed in Task 2 to UA staff for review.
5. Work with UA staff to ensure the necessary loads of waste will be directed to the sorting area for
sampling in accordance with the sampling schedule.
6. Execute the sorting event.
7. Analyze the data from the sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material
category for each generator sector, as well as for (JA 's overall waste stream (all generators
combined).
8. Incorporate the results of the UA study into the Task 2 technical memorandum.
Ill. DELIVERABLES
Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, and sampling schedule.
Technical memorandum providing the results of the City and UA waste composition studies.
VI. SCHEDULE
The UA waste composition study will be completed as part of task 2 of the City's Solid Waste Reduction,
Diversion and Recycling Master Plan. That plan is scheduled to begin in October 2014 and to follow the
propose time line below.
Tasks
Month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 Baseline and Operational Assessment
2 Waste and Litter Composition Study
3 Reduction and Diversion Options Analysis
4 Recovery Scenarios Modeling and Financial
Evaluation
5 Policy Recommendations
6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development
7 Project Coordination, Comm«nity Input,
and Presentations
9/12/14 2
V. PRICE
The total task budget for the UA Waste Composition Study is $14,960.
IV. TERMINATION OF SERVICES
Should either Party decide to terminate this MOU, a Notice of Discontinuation of Services must be sent to
the other party in writing at least 60 days prior to the date of termination. Included in the notice should
be the reason for the termination with a list of any discrepancies noted. Any equipment/ materials
purchased with University of Arkansas monies or transferred from the City of Fayetteville to Facilities
Management to use during the waste assessment, will be returned to the City of Fayetteville in their
current condition/status.
This Memorandum of Understanding supersedes any previous agreement(s). This MOU is effective upon
signature and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2015, or such time as a Notice of
Discontinuation of Services is executed by either party hereunto.
_ - ....�------------- Date_ ! L t ft
M, R. Johnson, Aso iate Vice Chancellor for Facilities
University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department
CITY OF FA TTEVI E
_-- _ Date- f
nel Jordan y
Attest:
i3y.. __-- ----- - - - -------- Date_--- --�
Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk/Treasurer
�tttttttt�rrrrfri
O,c;SG
FAYETTEVILLE
s (ANs
9/12/14
'Pttville
F9AlSNShffi
VENDOR NO. 24798
Kessler Consulting Inc
14620 N Nebraska Avenue
Buildingfl
Tampa FL 33613
Each Package Must Be Marked
Exactly As Shown Here
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
DATE
10/13/14
FOB Fyv
PURCHASE ORDER #
14-00004.15001
TERMS NET 30 DAY
Unit U Descri tion and
Qty. of Received Account Number Unit Price TOTALS
Issue
1.00 EA a) Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion 264890.00 —2-6.48.9A....-0
and Recycling Master Plan
Contract #2337
Per Res #171-14 RFP #14-08
5500.5080.5314.00 14019 1
QQQJQ. a4(i Li' (a)
/kk/9 /
II
SHIP TO: PLANNINGDEPT
CITY OF FAYETIEVILLE
125 W MOUNTAIN
FAYETTEVILLE AR 72701
z3�?g8od
Sales Tax Total:
Olson, Lei Purchase Order Total: -4890 U
DEPARTMENT VERIFICATION BY DATE ADDITIONALAPPROVAL
a
RECEIVED p! CHECK# DEPT HEAD APPROVAL / f if 1 ODES NOT MEET PURCHASING POLICY
AMOUNT TO PAY CONTRACT PAYMENT
OTHER
NP VERIFICATION APPROVED BY
PURCHASING VERIFICATION
PRICE CHANGE VERIFICATION PROJECT #
THIS PAYMENT$
PREVIOUS PAYMENTS) $
REtURN CHECK TO . _,.._.... TOTAL PYMT(S) $
SEND COPY TQ BALANCE $
DEPT. WHEN COMPLETE DELIVER TO ACCTS. PAYABLE
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment Form (Legistar)
Budget Year Division: Recycling & Trash Collection Adjustment Number
201
5 Dept.: Transportation Services
Requestor: Brian Pugh
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION:
Recycling and Trash Collection requests reallocation of funds to amend the Kessler contract for the addition of two
pilot programs not included in the original contract. Total request in the amount of $39,980.00
RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE
COUNCIL DATE: 8/4/2015
LEGISTAR FILE ID#: 2015-0308
KevLw Spv'tev'
7/14/2015 4:46 PM
Budget Director Date
TYPE:
DESCRIPTION:
GLDATE:
POSTED: /
TOTAL
Account Number
- _
Increase / (Decrease)
Expense Revenue
v.20150402
Proiect.Sub#
Project Sub AT Account Name
5500.5000.5304.00
(12,500) -
EX Travel & Training
5500.5010.5213.04
5500.50105226.00
(14,980) -
(12,500) -
EX Fuel
EX Container Maint Supplies
5500.5080.5314.00
39,980 -
14019 1 EX Professional Services
C;\Users\dmccoy\AppDota\Roaming\L5\Temp\720956d3-b6de-413b-9598-798c5305ae63 1 of 1
cNiA t5'1A \t Ck'j (oU' U'pj
About Single Stream Collection
httpJ/wapo.st/116O19X Washington Post
Wall Street Journal article April 2015, "Big Cracks in Glass Recycling"
National Public Radio did a story on single stream earlier this year. Susan
Collins from the Container Recycling Institute was interviewed. Once an
advocate for single stream, she now has evidence against it.
National Recycling Coalition, February webinar, "Paper and Plastic
Update" Webinars here .
Resource Recycling magazine, June 6th, Waste Management CEO says about
single stream, "We screwed up."
Proponents say single stream increases volume and participation. Participation in what? Isn't the goal to reduce
consumption and save natural resources.
Single stream proponents also talk about worker safety. Wouldn't you rather be standing 4 feet above one of Fvlle's
recycling bins so you could see that dirty diaper, instead of being a worker on sort line with that dirty diaper TWO feet
in front of your face, as it passes by on the assembly line.
Single stream proponents will tell you technology/the machines are improved and can take out the
contaminants. Listen to NRC Feb webinar. Envision Plastic rep tells of rejecting seven large loads from a large single
stream MRF because the machines do not catch things as well as the human eye.
Try to visit a facility unannounced... Couple years back group of us (from Fayatteville), were at a national
conference in Dallas. We went to see a single stream MRF. Bus driver got lost for TWO hours. Hmm. About ten
minutes after we finally entered the MRF, a garbage colleague nudged me and pointed to an 18 wheeler pulling away
from the facility. He asked if I knew what was in it. I said no. He said garbage. He said as we pulled up he saw them
finish loading it and close it up. Go visit unannounced.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
State of Arkansas
89th General Assembly
Regular Session, 2013
HR 1043
By: Representative Leding
HOUSE RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY REGARDING
MATERIALS COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING.
Subtitle
SUPPORTING TRANSPARENCY AND'
ACCOUNTABILITY REGARDING MATERIALS
COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING.
WHEREAS, municipal recycling programs designate various types of
materials to be separated from the waste stream with the intent that these
materials will be recycled by being reprocessed and returned to the
marketplace; and '
WHEREAS, a public trust exists when Arkansas citizens participate in
municipal recycling programs and these citizens rightfully expect that the
materials collected will in fact be recycled; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the materials collected for recycling by
municipal recycling programs are not being recycled, either because collected
materials are contaminated or there is no economically viable market for the
materials; and
WHEREAS, citizens of the Natural State deserve transparency and
accountability regarding the total volume of materials collected for
recycling by a municipal recycling program and the percentage of that volume
which is actually recycled and the percentage that is not recycled,
111111111101111
03-09-2013 21;12:48 MGF373
HR1043
I NOW THEREFORE,
2 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EIGHTY-NINTH GENERAL
3 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
4
5 That the General Assembly commends municipal recycling programs that
6 honor the public trust by providing documentation of the volume and
7 percentage of material that is actually recycled from the municipal program
8 as well as the volume and percentage of material which is not recycled; and
9
10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the General Assembly encourages all municipal
11 recycling programs to include transparency and accountability clauses in any
12 solid waste collection agreements in order to assure citizens that materials
13 collected for recycling are, in fact, being re -processed and returned to the
14 marketplace.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Z 03-09-2013 21:12:48 MGF373
Fayettevi I le's
Current Curbsort
system 2015
FayetteVi I le's X31 ue
ag (single stream)
system 19go's
Included glass
Current single
stream being used
in NWAR
Includes glass
r!rj
COMA/NERS
ii
Dual 'tream
Minus the glass
Plastic products are typically labeled with a number surrounded by the recycling symbol. These numbers and labels
identify both the type of resin used to make the plastic and the products' recyclability. Associated with the different types
of resin are potential health risks. The following table summarizes seven different types of commonly used plastics,
product examples, recyclability, and potential health risks.
USED FOR
RECYCLABILITY
HEALTH
NOTES
• soft drink, water, and other
PET {s recycled into: new
No known health issues.
PET is one of
beverage bottles
bottles, polyester for fabrics
the most easily
• detergent and cleaning
and carpet, fill for bumper
recycled plastic.
containers
cars and fiberfill for sleeping
• peanut butter and other
bags and jackets.
PET food containers and bottles
r ••iiuii#r-
• milk and water jugs Clear HDPE containers are No known health issues. HDPE is easily
• laundry detergents, easily recycled.back into new recycled.
shampoo, and motor oil containers.
containers Colored HDPE are converted
• shampoo bottles into plastic lumber, lawn and
HDPE • some plastic bags garden edging, pipes, rope,
and toys.
1WtIJA!IIViE1qJ.J:JI.J
•-
• clear food packaging, cling PVC is one of the least Many harmful chemicals are produced in Harmful
wrap recyclable plastic due to the manufacturing, disposal, or destruction chemicals
>3 • detergents and window additives. Potentially harmful of PVC including: created as a
cleaner bottles substances are also created • Lead byproduct of
• some plastic squeeze by its disposal. • DEHA (di(2ethylhexyl)adipate) PVC can also
Dioxins settle on
PVC bottles, cooking oil and •
%
peanut butter jars • Ethylene dichloride grassland,
• Vinyl chloride where they can
• vinyl pipes Effects of exposure to these chemicals be consumed
• shower curtains flay include: decreased birth weight, by livestock,
• flooring, home siding, and learning and behavioral problems in and accumulate
window and door frames children, suppressed immune function and in meat and
disruption of hormones in the body, cancer dairy products
and birth defects, genetic changes. that are directly
ingested by us.
- ••j11iJ•
• bread, frozen food, and LDPE is not usually recycled. No known health issues. While no known
grocery bags health effects
• most plastic wraps associated with
• some bottles the use of this
plastic are
LDPE known, organic
pollutants are
formed during
manufacturing.
• deli soups, syrup, yogurt and PP is not easily recycled. No known health issues.
margarine containers Differences in the varieties of
• disposable diapers type and grade, mean
L • outdoor carpet achieving consistent quality
during recycling is difficult.
• house wrap
PP • clouded plastic containers,
e.g. baby bottles, straws
Rigid Polystyrene Recycling PS is possible, but Styrene can leach from polystyrene. Over Try reusing
• CD cases not normally economically the long term, this can act as a neurotoxin. styrofoam
• disposeable cutlery viable. Studies on animals report harmful effects packing
Formed Polystyrene of styrene on red -blood cells, the liver, peanuts, and
kidney, and stomach organs1. polystyrene
P (Styrofoam) ' US Environmental Protection Agency (1992) "Styrene". Air cutlery where
• food containers Toxins Website. Retrieved on 3111/2008 from
http:Nwww.epa.govlltnlatwlhltheflsttyrene.hlrrm1 practical.
• packaging Styrene can be absorbed by food, and
• insulation once ingested can be stored in body fat. It
• egg cartons is thought that repeated exposure could
• building insulation lead to bioaccumulation2.
' WHO International Programme On Chemical Safely.
"Styrene". Environmental Health Criteria 26. Retrieved on
311112008
httpA/wawinchem.orgldocume�ts/ehclehc/ehc26.htm
1 1
• lids Mixed resin plastics like #7 Health effects vary depending on the resin The number of
• medical storage containers are difficult, if not impossible,• and plasticizers in this plastic that often studies
• electronics to recycle, includes polycarbonates. Polycarbonate documenting
L7plastic leaches bisphenol A (BPA) a known the detrimental
• most plastic baby bottles endocrine disruptor. By mimicking the effects between
OTHER• 5 -gallon water bottles action of the hormone, estrogen, bisphenol BPA and health
• "sport" water bottles A has been found to: effect the are increasing.
• metal food can liners development of young animals; play a role
• clear plastic "sippy" cups in certain types of cancer; create genetic
• some clear plastic cutlery damage and behavioral changes in a
variety of species.
bisphenol A is widespread --one study
found BPA in 95% of American adults
sampled3.
' Calafat, A.M., Kuklenyik, Z., Reidy, JA., Caudill, S.P.,
Ekong, J. & Needham, L.L. (2005) "Urinary Concentrations of
Sisphenol A and 4-Nonyiphenol in a Human Reference
Population" Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 391-
395. Retrieved 31/1/2008 from
htlp:llwww.e hpon8ne.orglmembers120041753417534.hlmI
• Avoid heating food in plastic containers. Heat can release chemicals so avoid heating food in plastic containers. For the same reason, only drink
cold liquids from plastic containers.
• Wash plastic containers in mild detergents. Harsh detergents help liberate chemical from plastics making the container much more likely to
leach chemicals into food.
• Avoid using plastic packaging where you can. For example, bring reusable bags when grocery shopping, and your own "to -go" containers when
dining out.
• Select safe plastics for food storage. Only use plastic containers with the recycling #1, #2, #4 and #5 for food storage. Consider switching to
glass storage containers since plastic containers can leach chemicals into the environment and your food as they age and become used.
Compiled by Sea Sludios Foundation www.seasludios.orq
Sources: Parlhgl?org, lusli(ule of Agrlculnoe and Trade Pc/icy, INN0 1rNornalrcina? Prngrarnme on Chemical Safely, US EPA
Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling model Page 1 of 3
Resource Recycling
Published on Resource Recycling (http://resource-recvclinci :com)
Home > Printer -friendly
Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside
recycling model
By Scott
Created 06/09/2015- 11:42
Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling model
' Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:42 1 scott
Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling
model
By Bobby Elliott, Resource Recycling
June 9, 2015
Leaders at four of the country's largest waste management companies told attendees of
last week's Waste Expo conference America's curbside recycling system is in need of a
dramatic overhaul.
While lending tentative optimism toward the waste industry as a whole, participants of
the "Heavy Hitters" panel stressed curbside recycling is no longer the cash cow it used to
be.
"It's the single -stream, high -volume residential stream that's completely broken," David
Steiner, CEO of Waste Management, commented. "We all screwed it up."
The issue was a major focus of the hour-long session held at the Las Vegas Convention
Center. The executives said low recycling fees and prevalent revenue -sharing with
communities fails to account for today's increasing processing costs associated with
single -stream programs and falling recycled commodity pricing.
"This is a crisis," Steiner said. "Never have we had prices as down as they are today."
Processing costs, meanwhile, are going up.
According to Ron Mittelstaedt, the CEO of Waste Connections, processing costs today
average $80 to $100 per ton for his company despite the fact that households typically
file:///C:/Users/PCFRON--i /AppData/Local/Temp/Low/QASUI G5N.htm 8/3/2015
Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling model Page 2 of 3
only see a $2 recycling fee per month. Disposal, meanwhile, costs Waste Connections
between $30 and $40 per ton and residents pay about $25 a month for the service.
All four leaders agreed collection and processing costs should be covered before sharing
surplus revenues with communities.
"If you're collecting, you've got to charge for collection," Joseph Quarin, CEO of
Progressive Waste Solutions noted. "If you're processing, you've got to charge for
processing."
"We're bearing too much risk in our balance sheet," Richard Burke, Advanced Disposal's
CEO, added.
Annual financial filings for all four of the publicly traded companies show recycling
revenues account for between 2 and 10 percent of overall revenues. Together, the
companies represented at the Waste Expo panel generate nearly half of the $65 billion
annual revenues of the waste management industry, panel moderator Michael Hoffman,
managing director of Stifel Financial, noted.
Despite the widespread support for the re -working of municipal contracts to make them
more hauler -friendly, Waste Connections leader Mittelstaedt cautioned such changes
might be difficult to implement.
"It's a little naive for us to think we can completely change the system," Mittelstaedt said.
2013 EPA CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
7 dvancIng Sustatna6Pe MtGrIaIS Managen nt:
Facts and Rpm 208' Asssssinq itnds In Mattis Generation,
RecydIn, and D osal In the United atatas
THURSDAY JUNE 18Th 11:OOPM EST I FREE WEBINAR
To return to the Resource Recycling newsletter, click here raj
To sign up for the Resource Recycling newsletter, click here r4]
Tags: June i51, 2015 i61, Resource Recycling [7]
June 2015 Resource Recycling
file :///C:/Users/PCFRON 1/AppData/Local/Temp/Low/QASUIG5N.htm 8/3/2015
American recycling Is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why - The Washington Post
8/4/15 8:20 AM
Giryc 1Uashing#unPost
Get the Local Headlines Newsletter
Free daily updates delivered just for you.
D.C. Politics
American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is
one reason why
By Aaron C. Davis June 20 j 2 0 f5
Tucked in the woods 30 miles north of Washington is a plant packed with energy -guzzling machines that can
make even an environmentalist's heart sing — giant conveyor belts, sorters and crushers saving a thousand tons
of paper, plastic and other recyclables from reaching landfills each day.
The 24 -hour operation is a sign that after three decades of trying, a culture of curbside recycling has become
ingrained in cities and counties across the country. Happy Valley, however, it is not.
Once a profitable business for cities and private employers alike, recycling in recent years has become a money -
sucking enterprise. The District, Baltimore and many counties in between are contributing millions annually to
prop up one of the nation's busiest facilities here in Elkridge, Md. — but it is still losing money. In fact, almost
every facility like it in the country is running in the red. And Waste Management and other recyclers say that
more than 2,000 municipalities are paying to dispose of their recyclables instead of the other way around.
In short, the business of American recycling has stalled. And industry leaders warn that the situation is worse
than it appears.
"If people feel that recycling is important — and I think they do, increasingly — then we are talking about a
nationwide crisis," said David Steiner, chief executive of Waste Management, the nation's largest recycler that
owns the Elkridge plant and 5o others.
[Five ways Americans should — and shouldn't — recycle]
http://www.washingtonpost.corn/local /dc-politics/amercan-recycling..on why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610--11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html Page 1 of 7
American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why — The Washington Post
8/4/t 5 8:20 AM
The Houston -based company's recycling division posted a loss of nearly $16 million in the first quarter of the
year. In recent months, it has shut nearly one in 1O of its biggest recycling facilities. An even larger percentage of
its plants may go dark in the next 12 months, Steiner said.
The problems of recycling in America are both global and local. A storm of falling oil prices, a strong dollar and a
weakened economy in China have sent prices for American recyclables plummeting worldwide.
Environmentalists and other die-hard conservation advocates question if the industry is overstating a cyclical
slump
"If you look at the long-term trends, there is no doubt that the markets for most recyclables have matured and
that the economics of recycling, although it varies, has generally been moving in the right direction," said Eric A.
Goldstein, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council who tracks solid waste and recycling in New
York.
"And that's without factoring in the external impact of landfilling or anything else," he added. "There aren't a lot
of people saying, `Send more material to landfills."
Still, the numbers speak for themselves: a three-year trend of shrinking profits and rising costs for U.S.
municipalities — and little evidence that they are a blip.
Trying to encourage conservation, progressive lawmakers and environmentalists have made matters worse. By
pushing to increase recycling rates with bigger and bigger bins — while demanding almost no sorting by
consumers — the recycling stream has become increasingly polluted and less valuable, imperiling the economics
of the whole system.
"We kind of got everyone thinking that recycling was free," said Bill Moore, a leading industry consultant on
paper recycling who is based in Atlanta. "It's never really been free, and in fact, it's getting more expensive."
The problem with blue bins
Many of the problems facing the industry can be traced to the curbside blue bin -- and the old saying that if it
sounds too good to be true, it just might be. Anyone who has ever tossed a can into a bin knows what's supposed
to happen: Anything recyclable can go in, and then somehow, magically, it's all separated and reused.
http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/dc-politics/amencan-recycling...on-why/2015/06/20J914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html Page 2 of 7
American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why— The Washington Post
814115 8:20 AM
The idea originated in California in the 19905. Environmental advocates believed that the only way to increase
participation in recycling programs was to make it easier. Sorting took time and was messy. No one liked it. So-
called Material Recovery Facilities, or MRFs, were created to do what consumers wouldn't.
With conveyers, spinning flywheels, magnets and contraptions that look like giant Erector Sets, companies found
that they could recycle almost everything at once. Lightweight newspaper and cardboard were sent tumbling
upward, as if in a clothes dryer. Glass, plastic and metal fell into a series of belts and screens. Automation was
adopted to sort, bale and send to manufacturers all those tons of paper, bottles and cans.
From the start, it was hard to argue that glass should have been allowed in the curbside mix. It's the heaviest of
recyclables but has always been of marginal value as a commodity. In the rough-and-tumble sorting facilities, a
large share of it breaks and contaminates valuable bales of paper, plastic and other materials.
Today, more than a third of all glass sent to recycling facilities ends up crushed. It is trucked to landfills as daily
cover to bury the smell and trap gases. The rest has almost no value to recyclers and can often cost them to haul
away,
In recent years, the problem of contamination has spread beyond glass. The problem was exacerbated when
municipalities began increasing the size of bins, believing that bigger was better to keep more material from
landfills.
Consumers have indeed been filling the bigger bins, but often with as much garbage as recyclable material.
With the extra room, residents stopped breaking down cardboard boxes. Because a full shipping box sometimes
fits inside, even with foam and plastic wrap attached, all of it more frequently shows up at sorting facilities.
Residents have also begun experimenting, perhaps with good intentions, tossing into recycling bins almost
anything rubber, metal or plastic: garden hoses, clothes hangers, shopping bags, shoes, Christmas lights.
That was exactly the case last year, when the District replaced residents' 32 -gallon bins with ones that are
50 percent larger.
[.C. said it was recycling — it wasn't.]
htip://www.washingtonpost.com/localldc-politics/american-recycling...on-why/201 5/5106/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e 3353542100c_story.html Page 3 of 7
American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why - The Washington Post
8/4115 820 AM
"Residue jumped a ton," said Hallie Clemm, deputy administrator for the city's solid waste management division.
In fact, so much nonrecyclable material was being stuffed into the bins that after an audit by Waste Management
last fall, the share of the city's profit for selling recyclables plummeted by more than 50 percent.
That has driven up the city's processing price for recyclables to almost $63 a ton - 24 percent higher than if it
trucked all of its recycling material, along with its trash, to a Virginia incinerator.
The D.C. Council recently approved a payment of $1.2 million to Waste Management for the contract year that
ended in May. In 2011, the city made a profit of $389,000.
Little demand for newsprint
A large part of the problem for recyclers is falling global commodity prices — a phenomenon largely out of
recyclers' hands. But the negative impact of that trend is amplified by the contents of most recycling bins,
because the composite of what Americans try to reuse has changed dramatically over the past decade.
Dwindling have been the once -profitable old newspapers, thick plastic bottles and aluminum cans that could be
easily baled and reused.
With oil prices driving up transportation costs, manufacturers have engaged in a race to make packaging more
lightweight. Coffee cans disappeared in favor of vacuum-packed aluminum bags; some tuna cans went the same
way. Tin cans and plastic water bottles became thinner, too: The amount of plastic that once came from 22
bottles now requires 36.
There was an even more pronounced drop in newsprint. Long a lucrative recycling commodity, it's not a key
commodity market. In its place is something known as mixed residential paper: the junk mail, flattened cereal
boxes and other paper items that these days can outweigh newspaper in a one -ton bale.
One bright spot has been an increase in cardboard. Analysts say that with more people buying items through
online merchants, cardboard can account for up to 15 percent of cities' recyclable loads — more than double that
of a decade ago.
The demand for that paper and cardboard, however, remains at a near -decade low. In China, containerboard, a
common packaging product from recycled American paper, is trading at just over $400 a metric ton, down from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/amercan-recycling...on-why/2015/06/201914735e4-1610-lleS-9ddc-e33535421OOc_story.html Page 4 of 7
American recycling is stall€ng, and the big blue bin €s one reason why — The Washington Post
8/4/15 8:20 AM
nearly $i,000 in 2010. China also needs less recycled newsprint; the last paper mill in Shanghai closed this year.
CChina doesn't even want to buy our garbage anymore]
With less demand, Chinese companies have become pickier about the quality.
Last week in Elkridge, an inspector from a Chinese company studied bales of paper being loaded into shipping
containers bound for the port of Baltimore and, eventually, Asia.
If the inspector found more than five nonpaper items protruding from any one side of the bale, it was rejected,
forcing workers to break down the material and send it all back through the processing facility.
The lightweight vacuum packs for food and paper -thin plastic bottles are increasingly part of the problem. They
are so light that they get blown upward with the paper.
"We've seen economic downturns in the value of material in the past, but what's different now is that the material
mix has changed," said Patty Moore, head of California -based Moore Recycling Associates, which specializes in
plastic recycling. "The problem is, to get the same value out of your scrap, you have to shove a whole lot more
material through the facility. That was fine when scrap values were high, but when they dropped, we realized it's
expensive to push all of this lightweight stuff through, and we're in trouble."
Brent Bell, Waste Management's vice president for recycling, said the company has yet to see municipalities
abandon recycling, and the company is maintaining its ability to recycle whatever cities send their way. But it is
downsizing its operation and expecting little increase in recycling rates nationwide.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a nationwide tally for recycling in 2013 that showed
overall recycling had contracted for a second straight year, to 34.3 percent of the waste stream.
With those trends, Bell said the company is beginning tough discussions with cities about what it sees as a long-
term economic reality: Cities must bear more of the financial impact of falling commodity prices. That's the only
way, Bell said, for recyclers like his company to invest in the business.
Steiner, Waste Management's chief executive, went further. "We want to help our customers, but we are a for-
profit business. We won't stay in the industry if we can't make a profit," he said.
http://www.wash€ngtonpost.com/local/dc-pal€tics/american-recycling... on-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html Page 5 of 7
American recycling Is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why — The Washington Post
8/4/15 8:20 AM
1, ?
Clemm, the District's recycling chief, said small efforts can begin to turn the tide. The District must begin by
getting more garbage out of its recycling stream.
"Residents have a way to influence this by making sure they are recycling right," she said.
Another possibility is to follow the urgings of the environmental community by expanding recycling programs to
include composting — the banana peels and grass clippings degrading in landfills that by some estimates have
become the nation's third -biggest source of methane gas contributing to global warming. Composting is partly
credited with the success of such cities as San Francisco, Portland and Seattle in increasing the share of the waste
stream that is recycled each year.
There are also a few encouraging signs downstream in the recycling market. A recycled -plastics company in Troy,
Ala., processes more than 500 million pounds of recycled material annually from plastic bottles — and with 450
employees, the company is growing. In the Midwest, another company opened two additional facilities this
month to feed an Indiana paper mill that churns out loo percent recycled cardboard.
Turning a profit on the initial, dirty task of sorting and processing the nation's recyclables, however, may take a
larger overhaul, said Patty Moore. Governments may need to set standards or even consider taking over part of
?nt and ensure that profits remain a public benefit.
11 WC ie `V111g Lv iJC aril LLJUO alum. JCI U11dary-materials management, we're really going to have to address it as a
state or preferably national level," she said. "We need to harmonize what we're doing and make it work in a way
that we're not spending all this money and spinning our wheels."
Aaron Davis covers D.C. government and politics for The Post and wants to hear you r
story about how D.C. works — or how it doesn't.
PROMOTED STORIES
Recommended by
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/amelcan-recycling...on-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-lle5-9ddc-e335354210oc,-story.html Page 6 of 7
IS SInGLE-STREAIq RECYCLIfO SERVICE THE SALVATIOCI OF ALL RECYCLIf1G PROGRAMS OR IS THERE A BETTER
WRY FORWARD? OUR AUTHOR DIGS IfTO THE UflTOLD STORY OF REAL RESIDUE RATES AID A PREFERABLE
METHOD TO TRULY RECYCLE MORE MATERIALS AT MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES.
BY susAn CL LLH 11s
he importance of preserving material quality and avoid-
ing cross -contamination has become a common theme
in many recent technical reports on recycling. Indeed,
the Container Recycling Institute's (CRI) website features over
a dozen reports and articles about the issue of quality problems
with single -stream recycling collection and processing. Un-
fortunately, there is widespread confusion about what losses in
materials mean. Most studies rely on the materials recovery fa-
cility (MRF) residue rate, without quantitative consideration of
additional losses that
occur post-MRF. As
the data in this article In the average single -
show, the additional stream collection
losses after materials
leave the MRF can be program, if you collect
up to twice as large 100 tons of recyclables
as the MRF residue at the curb, 73 to 78 tons
rate. With an overall will actually be recycled
loss rate of 22 to 27
percent by weight, into new products, and
single -stream recyc- most of the rest will be
ling is a system that landfilled,
is far from optimal.
There are existing systems in different parts o€ the world that
use multiple streams of collection in order to maximize tonnage
recovered, while delivering high -quality recyclables.
As we seek new policies to increase recycling rates, we need to
start reporting what is actually recycled, not just what is collected for
recycling. Collection and processing methods have changed dra-
matically in the last two decades, but reporting mechanisms haven't
evolved to capture new recycling rate information correctly. Process
losses occur at the MRF when contaminants are removed, and even
greater levels of contamination are removed when materials arrive
at paper mills, plastics reclaimers and other materials processing
facilities.
In the average single -stream collection program, if you collect
100 tons of recyclables at the curb, just 73 to 78 tons will actually
be recycled into new products, with most of the rest landfilled.
Continuation of CRI's
single -stream research
In the 2009 report, Understanding the economic and environmental
impacts ofsingle-stream recycling, CRI detailed the contamination rates
and yield losses for specific recyclables, but at that time, there was not
enough data to create an overall yield loss number for all recyclables
14 RR I February 2012
collected through single -stream curbside
recycling. A key element that was missing
was the average composition of single -
stream residential recyclables. Resource
Recycling released the results of their first
annual survey of materials recovery facility
(MRF) operators in the Jan. 2011 issue,
and the results included the composition of
recyclables at MRFs.
Moving materials
at MRFs
Resource Recycling received survey respons-
es from 200 MRF managers of large and
small facilities in 44 states. Some facilities
were dual -stream, some single -stream. A
few used mixed waste processing. The
source of materials varied, from residential
to commercial, to a mix of both. Incoming
material types varied as well, with some
facilities excluding such materials as glass,
Nos. 3-7 plastics or other categories.
For this project, we selected all of the
facilities that both processed all residential
recyclables from single -stream collection,
and were from states without a container
deposit program. There were eight facili-
ties that met these criteria located in eight
different states. The average composition
of the materials sorted by these MRFs is
indicated in Table 1, with the majority of
the material stream being paper. Note that
the residual rate for these selected facili-
ties, eight percent, is lower than the average
residual rate of 10 percent for the entire
list of facilities surveyed. Also, due to a
lack of data about the contamination rate
for "other" recyclables, we assumed, for the
sake of these calculations, that there was no
contamination. This is an unlikely sce-
nario — therefore, the overall contamination
calculation would likely be higher than that
shown in Table 1..
Averages and ranges
The data are presented here as averages and
ranges. There isn't a single, specific num-
ber that represents the total yield loss from
single -stream collection. Brokers, mills and
processors will nearly always say "it depends
on the MRF" when asked about quality and
percent contamination. Brokers often go on
to say that they have some single -stream MRF
clients that produce lower levels of contami-
nation than source -separated programs. The
variation is due to different program param-
eters, such as types of materials accepted,
type and frequency of public education,
Table 1 j Losses through single -stream
• recycling in states without container
• deposit programs
Composition
Percent. loss
Remaining
per 100 tons,
at secondary
amount that
as sorted at
processing facility
is actually
the MRF (%)
recycled (%)
Glass
17
21 to 40
10.2 to 13.43
Paper
55
15 to 18
45.1 to 46.75
Plastic
10
32.2
6.78
Steel
4.
0
4
Aluminum
3
2 to 11
2.67 to 2.94
Other (recyclables)
4
unknown
4
Residual
8
100
0
TOTAL
101
22.10 to 27.255
72.75 to 77.90
Note: total adds to 101, due to rounding.
Source: Container Recycling Institute, 2012
pay -as -you -throw or incentive -based pro-
grams, versus unlimited service, as well as the
demographics of each community. All of
these factors affect the percent residuals that
will be received by the MRF due to improper.
sorting by residents. Therefore, if you want
to know the quality and contamination levels
achieved by a certain program, consult the
documentation specific to that program.
It is important to understand that some
of these losses are due to the collection and
sorting method, while other losses are con-
sistent across all collection methods. There
will be unavoidable losses from processing
even the cleanest materials. Some "con-
taminants" are attached to the recyclable,
such as polypropylene caps on most PET
bottles, or metal caps on glass bottles. We
have explained the nature of the losses in the
description for each material type.
PET yield loss
Like paper mills, PET reclaimers carefully
measure yield loss for different sources of
materials. Yield loss measurement is critical
to their financial health -- they must know
how much material they will be able to sell
after cleaning and processing incoming bales.
These reclaimers must also know how much
the cleaning process will cost and the amount
of material they will need to landfill.
Some of the yield loss in PET bottles
is naturally attached to the bottle, such as
caps, labels and adhesives, which, collec-
tively, make up approximately 13 percent
of the weight of PET bottles (note that this
number varies from bottle to bottle, because
bottle designs are so different). Many of the
caps are polypropylene, and they are often
removed and recycled, but the labels and
adhesives are generally disposed of. Other
contaminants may be "look -alike" bottles
that were mistakenly added to the PET bale,
but are a different resin type, and so they
must be separated before the bottles are
recycled.
The yield loss for PET is used as a
proxy for all plastics in Table 1, but this
may overstate yield losses for all plastics.
The bale yield loss rate for "all bottles" was
significantly lower (22.1 percent in 2009)
than the yield loss rate for PET bottles (32.2
percent for 2010), but 2010 "all -bottle"
data are not available. PET bottles make
up more than half of all bottles recovered
in the U.S., by weight, according to 2009
data from the American Chemistry Council
(ACC).
If recycling rates are reported without
removing yield loss from the contamination,
it can lead to inflated recycling rates and
double -counting. For example, when the
polypropylene caps are recycled, the weight
of those caps is counted in the polypropyl-
ene recycling rate. The labels, adhesives
and other contaminants are disposed of, but
their weight has already been counted as
"recycling" in the annual National Associa-
tion for PET Container Resources (NAP-
COR) and Association of Postconsumer
Plastic Recyclers (APR) report. For these
reasons, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has recently adjusted its calculation
RR I February 2012 , 15
of the PET recycling rate to include only the
amount of PET that is actually recycled, and
to exclude contaminants, other materials
and yield losses.
Plastics
In 2009, Plastics News conducted a survey of
HDPE and PET reclaimers, and the results
indicated that yields in 2009 were 10 points
lower than in 2007. The NAPCOR/APR
2010 Report on Post-ConsumerPET Con-
tainer Recyclingtictivity has detailed infor-
mation about yield losses, noting in 2010,
"US. reclaimers reported yield losses ranging
from 24.4 percent for deposit bottles to 32.2
percent for curbside material; which is an
increase of about seven percentage points
from 2009.
For non -bottle rigid plastic recycling,
similar contamination issues exist, and they
are also a threat to the plastics recycling
industry and the jobs they create. As the
ACC reported in its 2009 United States Na-
tional Post -Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling
Report, "This lack of adherence to quality
standards is a significant barrier to develop-
ing more domestic reclamation capacity."
Paper
In CRI's 2009 report, Understandingeco-
nomic and environmental impacts of single -
stream collection systems, we found that paper
mills that receive materials from single -stream
MRFs have contamination rates that are as
high as 18 percent. Individual interviews
with several paper mills indicate an average
contamination rate of 15 percent, but these
mills are all in regions that have container
deposit programs, which remove most of
the glass and much of the plastic from the
curbside stream.
Aluminum
An interview with the largest aluminum re -
cycler, cited in the 2009 CRI single -stream
report, give us the average contamination
rate range of 2 to 11 percent. Like other
materials, aluminum recyclers report that
contamination rates are increasing, and
that they have made additional investments
in pre-treatment facilities to improve mate-
rial quality. Contamination in aluminum
is not merely inconvenient — there can be
serious consequences. For decades, the
aluminum industry has fervently warned
against the inclusion of plastics in the alu-
minum stream because of safety concerns in
processing and melting.
Glass
It is important to know the breakdown of the
amount of glass that is recycled for use as cul-
let to make glass bottles or fiberglass, versus
the amount of glass that is used for aggregate
or landfill daily cover. Recycling tonnages are
often used in calculations of energy savings,
greenhouse gas and other emission savings,
and job creation, and there is a potential to
overstate these environmental and economic
benefits if the use of the glass is misunder-
stood.
Data from a dozen glass processing
(beneficiation) facilities indicate that 60 per-
cent of glass coming from single -stream pro-
grams is useable for making glass bottles or
fiberglass. Another 19 percent is undersize
material, some of which can be used as road
base or landfill daily cover, and 21 percent
is a combination of non -glass residue and
undersize material, which is not useable and
is sent directly to landfill.
In contrast, 90 percent of glass from
dual -stream programs can be recycled into
containers and fiberglass, with the remain-
ing 10 percent being glass fines used for
low -end applications. Glass from con-
tainer deposit programs is color -sorted,
resulting in 98 percent being recycled and
only 2 percent marketed as glass fines.
Alternatives to single -
stream collection
Multi -stream collection is the norm in
European countries such as Germany and
Belgium, where municipalities collect all glass
separately in neighborhood drop-off igloos,
while paper and paperboard are collected
separately from containers and packaging.
European glass recycling rates reached 67
percent in 2009, around twice the U.S. glass
recycling rate.
In addition to accepting glass in its
curbside recycling program, the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado encourages residents to
use glass -only drop-off bins to ensure that
100 -percent of the glass can be used to
make new glass bottles.
Mark Bowers, of Sunnyvale, California,
reports that his community has provided
dual -stream collection, using split carts,
for over a decade. Mr. Bowers concludes
that, "Based on our data compared to data
from single -stream conversions, it is clearly
the cart, not the ability to put all of one's
recyclables in one container, that spurs the
increase in recycling when people switch
to carts and (coincidentally) single -stream.
That is, you get the same participation boost
by going to carts and dual stream. At the
same time, processing capital and operating
costs are lower and you maintain the value
of the fibers by keeping them separate from
the other materials."
The City of Auburn, Maine had imple-
mented a single -stream recycling program,
but decided to convert the program to a
dual -stream collection program, in order to
preserve material quality. A 2011 report by
the Waste & Resources Action Programme
in the U.K, goes a step farther, and recom-
mends curbside sorting of materials, to
preserve maximum quality.
Daniel Lantz, of Cascades Recov-
ery Inc., reports that the City of Ottawa
conducted a survey of the public and, in
response, they chose to retain their dual -
stream collection system, relying on alter-
nating week collection to provide the same
cost savings as single -stream.
Conclusion
While there have been many debates about
the merits of single -stream versus dual -stream
recycling, they have occurred in the absence
of complete data on the total losses that
occur as a result of single -stream collection
systems. This article attempts to quantify the
amount that is actually recycled as a result
of single -stream collection, which provides
a correction to the previous error in the
calculations of recycling rates and recycling
tonnages. However, there is much more work
to be done to correct cost -per -ton calcula-
tions and convert to cost -per -ton -recycled, as
well as to research best practices for dual- or
multi -stream collection that achieve the best
possible cost efficiencies. With better data,
we can make better decisions. 1
Susan Collins is the executive director of the
Container Recycling Institute. She can be
reached at scollins@container-recycling.org.
CRI has more information about single -
stream recycling on its website at http://
wwvwcontainer-recycling.org/issues/
singiestream.htm.
Reprinted with permission from Resource
Recycling, P.O. Box 42270, Portland OR
97242-0270,• (503) 233-1305, (503) 233-
1356 (fax); www. resource -recycling. coma.
16 RR 1 February 2012
•QkcXJ'
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form ~L) 1 )
2015-0508
Legistar File ID
N/A
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
Brian Pugh
Submitted By
10/26/2015 Recycling & Trash Collection /
Transportation Services Department
Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
Approve and sign a no fee Contract Agreement with Georgia Pacific Harmon Recycling for recycling services related
to the single stream pilot program
Budget Impact:
Account Number
Project Number
Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget
Funds Obligated
Current Balance
Fund
Project Title
Does item have a cost? NA Item Cost
Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget $ -
V20140710
Previous Ordinance or Resolution tt 171-14,136-15
Original Contract Number:
Comments: Item pertains to previous resolutions 171-14 & 136-15
Approval Date: 1���
CITY OF
1jq
a e eARKANS
TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan
THRU: Terry Gulley, Transportation Services Director
FROM: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Division Director
DATE: October 26th, 2015
STAFF MEMO
SUBJECT: Approve and sign a no fee Contract Agreement with Georgia Pacific
Harmon Recycling for recycling services related to the single stream pilot program
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and sign a no fee Contract Agreement with Georgia Pacific Harmon Recycling for
recycling services related to the single stream pilot program
BACKGROUND:
The City Council passed Resolution Number 136-15 on August 4th 2015, to amend the existing
contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. to include the implementation of two recycling pilot
programs, one for commercial food waste composting, and the other for single stream
recyclables.
DISCUSSION:
By executing this agreement with Harmon Recycling for the processing of single stream
recyclables collected from approximately 1030 homes in Fayetteville, the City will gain specific
data on which to model the potential impacts of full-scale programs and also see tangible results
related to volumes and potential contamination levels.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
Contract Agreement
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
•Fayetteville, AR 72701
Harmon
RECYCLINf
Gaw�a�ideccc p
RECYCLABLE MATERIAL PURCHASE & SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS RECYCLABLE MATERIAL PURCHASE & SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is
dated October 15, 2015 (the "Effective Date") and is between GP Harmon Recycling LLC, a Georgia limited
liability company, at Two Jericho Plaza, Suite 200, Jericho, New York 11753-1681 ("GP Harmon"), and City of
Fayetteville an Arkansas municipal corporation, at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
("City"). City and GP Hannon may be individually referred to herein as "Party" or collectively as "Parties" and
hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. TERM — The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for a period
of six (6) months from the date on which GP Harmon receives its first delivery of Recyclable Material from the
City (the "Pilot Period"). At least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Term, the Parties shal I endeavor to
discuss their interest in an extension of the Pilot Period and/or the negotiation of a long-term contract based on the
outcome of each party's performance under this Agreement.
2. PURCHASE — During the Pilot Period, City shall deliver to GP Harmon's facility located at 1421 E 15th St,
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 (the "Facility") single -stream recyclables collected by City in the municipality of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, which recyclables may include, but not be limited to, paper fibers (e.g., newspaper,
corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, paperboardlchipboard), plastic containers #1-#7, aluminum and steel
cans, and glass bottles and jars (collectively "Recyclable Material"). GP Harmon shall be entitled to market
and re -sell all Recyclable Materials recovered in each load delivered by City for GP Harmon's sole benefit, with
the exception of glass recyclables, which are to be made available for pick-up by City once sorted for marketing by
City pursuant to the terms of an existing contract. GP Harmon will work to maximize recovery of all glass and
other recyclables, and shall ensure that glass recyclables made available to City contain less than ten percent (10%)
non -recyclable glass ("Contaminants"). In consideration of the Recyclable Material delivered to GP Harmon, GP
Harmon shall provide City the Services set forth below.
3. DELIVERY; WARRANTIES -- City shall deliver the Recyclable Material to the Facility. Title and risk of loss to the
Recyclable Material shall transfer to GP Harmon upon City's completion of unloading the Recyclable Material at
the Facility; provided, however, that City shall at all times retain title to all glass recyclables and any Hazardous
Materials (defined below) included in such delivered Recyclable Material. City warrants that GP Harmon shall
have marketable title to the Recyclable Material free of all lawful liens and encumbrances and that the Recyclable
Material shall be free of all Hazardous Materials. For purposes of this Section 2, "Hazardous Materials" is
defined as any toxic, hazardous, dangerous, or restricted substance or waste, including medical waste, petroleum,
any byproducts or fractions thereof, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), urea formaldehyde foam insulation,
asbestos, radon, other radioactive substances, poly -aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, and any other substances
regulated by, and identified as "hazardous" by, federal, state, local or municipal laws, regulations, rules, and codes,
and any judicial or administrative interpretation thereof on the basis of their actual or potential adverse effect on
human health and/or the environment.
4. SERVICES -- In exchange for the receipt of the Recyclable Material, GP Harmon shall perform the services and
activities as described herein and in Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the "Services") at no charge to City
unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties in writing. GP Harmon warrants that it will perform all Services
in a workmanlike manner and in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and rules. GP Harmon will
permit City, its employees and/or agents to observe GP Harmon's processing operations in order to review
compliance with the Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations. Such access
shall be granted during normal business hours, subject to City providing advance verbal or written notice. While
at the Facility, City and/or its representatives shall be accompanied by a GP Harmon employee at all times during
their visit unless otherwise authorized by authorized GP Harmon personnel. City and/or its representatives shall
wear such protective equipment or clothing as may be required by GP Harmon during their visit and shall abide by
all GP Harmon safety rules and regulations. City shall not, and shall ensure that its representatives do not, bring
any illegal drugs, alcohol or weapons on the site or take any photographs or make any recordings during their visit
without written authorization by authorized OP Harmon personnel. City acknowledges and understands the
potential dangers and risks associated with facilities of this nature. City voluntarily assumes all risks,
responsibility and liability of (i) the negligent acts or omissions of City and/or its representatives and (ii) personal
injury or property damage to City and/or its representatives that may occur while at the Facility.
S. EXCUSED NONPERFORMANCE — Acts of God, war (declared or undeclared), acts of a public enemy, acts of a
government of any country, state or political subdivision or regulatory agency thereof or entity created thereby,
embargoes, terrorism or sabotage, fires, floods, weather, explosions, or other catastrophes, epidemics or quarantine
restrictions, strikes or other labor stoppages, facility slowdowns, curtailments or closures, logistics disruptions or
causes beyond the reasonable control of a Party which (i) prevent such Party from performing any obligation
hereunder or (ii) prevent GP Harmon from receiving or reselling Recyclable Material (each, a "Force Ma'eure
Event") shall suspend the obligation of the Party affected by such Force.Majeure Event (the "Affected Party") to
perform hereunder during the period required to remove such Force Majeure Event. The Affected Party shall
promptly notify the other Party of the Force Majeure Event and the cause of such Force Majeure Event and use
commercially reasonable efforts to work around the effects thereof If the Affected Party is City and, the period of
such Force Majeure Event lasts longer than sixty (60) calendar days then GP Harmon may at any time thereafter,
while such Force Majeure Event continues, terminate this Agreement without penalty, liability or further
obligation therefore, immediately upon providing notice of such termination to City. If the Affected Party is GP
Harmon then City shall be excused from any restrictions (as applicable) on selling Recyclable Material to third
parties until the Force Majeure Event ceases to continue or City may terminate this Agreement without penalty,
liability or further obligation therefore, immediately upon providing notice of such termination to GP Harmon.
6. ASSIGNMENT -- Neither Party shall assign this Agreement or its rights or obligations or any part thereof under this
Agreement, by operation of law nor otherwise, without the other Party's prior written consent, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. This Agreement shall automatically be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of each Party's permitted successors and assigns. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this
Section 6, either Party may, transfer or assign this Agreement and all of its rights and obligations hereunder, to any
of its Affiliates having equal or better financial standing than the assigning Party, upon written notice to the non -
assigning Party, provided that the assigning Party shall remain jointly liable with its Affiliate assignee for the
obligations and liabilities hereunder. Wherever used in this Agreement, "Affiliate" means, with respect to any
Person (defined below) any other Person that, directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls,
or is controlled by, or is under common control with, that Person: "Person" means any individual, corporation,
partnership, limited liability company, firm, joint venture, association, joint-stock company, trust, unincorporated
organization, governmental body or other entity.
7. NON -WAIVER -- No failure to enforce any provision or obligation of this Agreement shall be deemed to, or shall
constitute a waiver of, such provision and no waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to,
or shall constitute a waiver of, any other provision or obligation of this Agreement, nor shall such waiver
constitute a continuing waiver.
S. DEFAULT — The following events of default shall constitute a material breach for which the non -breaching Party
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon written notice and without liability or further obligation
hereunder: (i) either Party breaches any representation, warranty, covenant or other obligation set forth in this
Agreement, or (ii) a Party becomes unable to pay its bills as they become due in the ordinary course, a trustee or
receiver of a Party's property is appointed, a Party makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, a petition in
bankruptcy is filed by or against a Party or a Party terminates or liquidates its business. Prior to terminating the
Agreement pursuant to sub -paragraph (i) above, the non -breaching Party shall provide the breaching Party thirty
(30) calendar days to cure any default capable of cure. The thirty (30) day cure period is voidable if habitually'
abused by the breaching Party.
9. Cur tULATIVE RIGHTS — The duties and obligations imposed by this Agreement, and the rights and remedies
available hereunder to the Parties hereto are in addition to, and are not to be construed in any way as a limitation
of, any rights and remedies available to any or all of them which are otherwise imposed or available under this
Agreement, at law or in equity.
10. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE DISCL&1MER — NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR
CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, ECONOMIC CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SUCH AS LOST PROFITS, LOST
PRODUCTION, COST OF CAPITAL OR LOST BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY.
11. TAXES — City shall be responsible for the payment of all taxes, fees, charges or assessments (municipal, state or
federal) which arise from this Agreement (excluding any tax based upon GP Harmon's net income).
12. APPLICABLE LAW -- This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of
the State of Arkansas applicable to contracts made and to be performed wholly within such state, without reference
to principles of conflicts of laws. The state and federal courts sitting in Washington County, Arkansas, shall have
exclusive jurisdiction of all disputes hereunder.
13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION -- In the event of any disputes, claims and other matters in question between the parties
arising out of the terms and conditions of -this Agreement or the performance of either party hereunder, the parties
agree to resolve such matter in the following manner:
(a) The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve such matter promptly by negotiation between individuals
from each party who have authority to settle the controversy and who do not have direct responsibility for day-to-
day administration of this Agreement.
(b) The disputing party shall give the other parties written notice of any dispute not resolved in the normal course
of business. Within fifteen (15) business days after receipt of the notice, the receiving parties shall each submit to
the other parties a written response. The notice and response shall include (i) a statement of the party's position
and (ii) the name and title of the individual who will represent that party. The parties shall meet for negotiations at
a mutually agreed time and place within thirty (30) business days of the date of the disputing party's notice and
thereafter as often as they reasonably deem necessary to exchange relevant information and to attempt to resolve
the dispute. All reasonable requests for information made by one party to the other parties will be honored. All
negotiations pursuant to this clause are confidential and shall be treated as compromise and settlement negotiations
for purposes of applicable rules of evidence.
(c) If the matter has not been resolved pursuant to the aforesaid procedure within thirty (30) days of the
commencement of such procedure, or if any party will not participate in the negotiations, any party may initiate
litigation or otherwise pursue whatever remedies may be available to such party.
(d) All deadlines specified in this section may be extended by mutual agreement.
(e) The procedures specified in this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedures for the resolution of
disputes between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement; however, a party may seek a preliminary
injunction or other preliminary judicial relief if in its judgment such action is necessary to avoid irreparable
damage. Despite such action, the parties will continue to participate in good faith in the procedures specified in
this section. All applicable statutes of limitation shall be tolled while the procedures specified in this section are
pending. The parties will take such action, if any, required to effectuate such tolling.
14. NOTICES -- All notices; consents, communications or transmittals under the Agreement shall be in writing and
shall be deemed given on the day of delivery if delivered by hand, by nationally recognized overnight courier or
delivery service, or by facsimile (with written confirmation of the completed transmittal); or within three (3)
business days if mailed by United States mail as certified or registered mail with return receipt, postage prepaid,
addressed to the Party to whom such notice is given at the address of such Party as set forth herein.
15. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT — GP Harmon agrees and understands that this Agreement and documents
submitted to the City are subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), A,C.A. §25-19-101 et seq.
If a FOIA request is presented to the City requesting such documents, GP Harmon will do everything possible to
provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed by the Arkansas FOIA. Only legally
authorized photocopying costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assessed for this compliance.
16. COMPLETE AGREEMENT — This Agreement, which includes all attachments, schedules, exhibits and/or annexes
attached or subsequently incorporated in this Agreement, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement
between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous
agreements, oral or written, made between the Parties relating to such subject matter and the standard sales and/or
purchase terms and conditions that may be exchanged by the Parties in connection with orders for Recyclable
Materials.
IN W TNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF FAY]
By: t
Name: L��not
Title: 1 ► 1U�1
Date:
ARKANSAS
4
GP HARMON RECYCL LC
By:
Name: /L C -o of,174
Title:
Date://ZC /I
EXHIBIT A
SERVICES
• GP Harmon will accept all deliveries of Recyclable Material made by City to the Facility Monday through
Friday during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. GP Harmon shall make any glass recyclables included in
prior deliveries to the Facility and with less than ten percent (10%) Contaminants available during the
same time period following processing.
• Upon delivery at the Facility, GP Harmon will unload and weigh each load of incoming Recyclable
Material. GP Harmon shall also separately weigh each type of Recyclable Material recovered through
processing, as well as any rejects/residue.
• Any non -hazardous waste will be disposed of by GP Harmon in accordance with industry standards and
any applicable laws and/or regulations. City shall be responsible for, and shall at all times retain title to,
any Hazardous Material delivered to the Facility. Upon OP Harmon's request, City shall arrange for
transportation and disposal of such Hazardous Material at City's sole expense.
• During the Pilot Period, GP Harmon shall provide weekly tonnage reports for the Recyclable Material
delivered, which shall include the following data at a minimum:
• Delivery date, truck number, and tonnage of all inbound materials.
■ Type and weight of each recovered material, as well as rejects/residue.
■ Market and market value for each type of recovered material marketed.
Such reports shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Data Reports."
• Upon request, GP Harmon shall conduct a composition study of rejects/residue to determine the
percentage of contaminants versus Recyclable Material not being recovered (the "Composition Report").
The City and GP Harmon will work jointly to develop an appropriate methodology for the Composition
Report, which methodology shall be subject to final approval by the City. City shall be provided the
opportunity to observe the Composition Report
• City hereby grants to GP Harmon a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty -free, irrevocable, perpetual license
to use, execute, reproduce, display, perform, distribute copies of, and prepare derivative works of the
Composition Report and Data Reports in the pursuit of similar relationships with other municipalities for
the provision of single -stream recycling services. In utilizing such reports, GPHarmon shah de -identify
and/or aggregate data as needed to ensure protection of the confidentiality of City's identity.
RESOLUTION NO. 171-14
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KESSLER
CONSULTING, INC. OF TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $264,890,00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes
Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the
development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to exceed $264,890.00.
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a
budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A".
PASSED and APPROVED this 16`h day of September, 2014.
ATTEST:
By: £.
SONDRA E. SMITH, City ClerkiTreasurer
Y pc9;sG�'
FAYEUEVILLE'4=
,s,NS
RESOLUTION NO. 136-15
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT
WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,980.00 FOR
ASSISTANCE WITH THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A
COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE PILOT PROGRAM AND A SINGLE STREAM
RECYCLING PILOT PROGRAM, AND TO - APPROVE A BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves
Amendment No. I to the contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $39,980.00 for
assistance with the design and implementation of a commercial food waste pilot program and a
single stream recycling pilot program.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget
adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution.
PASSED and APPROVED this 4`s day of August, 2015.
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk Treasurer
�1nur1lr
r�
'F� Y 4�.
s'
``
`; FAYETTEVILL£;al+
Brian Pugh
Submitted By
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2015-0528
Legistar File ID
N/A
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
anthr
%�
11/12/2015 Recycling & Trash Collection /
_ Transportation Services Department
Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
Approve and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for a
Commercial Food Waste Composting Pilot.
Budget Impact:
Account Number Fund
Project Number Project Title
Budgeted Item? No Current Budget $ -
Funds Obligated $ -
Current Balance $ -
Does item have a cost? No Item Cost
Budget Adjustment Attached? No Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget $
V20140710
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # 136-15 Original Contract Number: Approval Date: V 1UP)6
Comments: Resolutions 171-14 and 135-15 are subsequent actions pertaining to this pilot.
CITY OF
•
a e 1 e
ARKANSAS
TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan
THRU: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director
FROM: Brian Pugh, Waste Reduction Coordinator
DATE: November 9'1, 2015
STAFF MEMO
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding with the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality for a Commercial Food Waste Composting Pilot
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality for a Commercial Food Waste Composting Pilot.
BACKGROUND:
Resolution 171-14 allowed the City to enter into a contract with Kessler Consulting for
development of a Solid Waste Master Plan, Resolution 136-15 approved an amendment to the
Kessler Contract to allow for implementation of a Commercial Food Waste pilot and Single
Stream recycling pilot.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has worked with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to develop a
Memorandum of Understanding for the Food Waste Composting pilot. The document is
included for review and signature from the Mayor. Signing the MOU will allow the pilot to begin.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
Impact has already been accounted for with Resolution 136-15
Attachments:
MOU from ADEQ
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Answer: 30 days is provided to remove residuals according to MOA Item #5; for the report,
60 days is provided.
Comment 3:
ADEQ or the City may suspend the project at any time if deemed necessary due to incomplete
operational compliance, nuisance conditions, public complaints, or other overriding
environmental, public health, or public involvement concerns. If for any reason the project is
suspended or at the end of the approved 90 -day operational period, the facility should submit
notification which includes a removal plan and schedule to remove remaining Type O waste and
residuals within thirty (30) days of ceasing operations.
This seems to indicate that if the pilot is suspended, we only have 30 days to remove all food
waste residuals. Is that correct?
Answer: Yes
Comment 4:
The 90 -day operational period provided by Paragraph I above may be extended at the written
request of the City and with written concurrence of ADEQ for a maximum of one (I) additional
90 -day term. A decision to request and the agreement to approve extension shall consider
operational compliance, nuisance conditions, public complaints, or other overriding
environmental, public health, or public involvement concerns.
If the pilot is proving successful during the first 90 day period and an extension is applied
for and approved for an additional 90- period could the process of moving from a Type V
facility to a Type O facility be begun and operations continue during the permitting process
to allow the pilot participants the ability to continue with the program? I'm assuming that
this would be accomplished by a permit modification as listed in 22.308 as either a Major
or Minor mod as determined by the Director.
Answer: We have no problems with making a permit application at any time, but this MOA
only allows a 90 day plus additional 90 day window of operation, and then a cleanup
and reporting period.
Attached to this letter also please find a copy of MOA for the Mayor's signature.
Please call me at (501) 682-0601 should you have any questions regarding the above information.
Sincerely,
Solid Waste Maiiaaement Division
cc: Bryan�L-eamons, P.E., Engineer Supervisor
Ali Dorobati, Permit engineer, SWMD
ADE-Q-
ARKANSAS
Department of Environmental Quality
November 5, 2015
Brian Pugh
Waste Reduction Coordinator
Recycling & Trash Collection
1560 S. Happy Hollow Road
City of Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: Comments and Responses
For City of Fayetteville Commercial Food Waste Pilot Project: Composting Facility
Operating Plan
Permit Number: 0007-SCYW AFIN: 72-00102
Document Number: 68572 Cross Reference Number: 68034 and 68565
Dear Mr. Pugh:
The Solid Waste Management Division has received the Commercial Food Waste Pilot Project: Composting
facility Operating Plan for the City of Fayetteville on August 24, 2015. On October 10, 2015, ADEQ-Solid Waste
Division sent a Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to the facility. The facility received the MOA and had
some questions/comments. The following is the list of the questions/comment and the Department responses:
Comment 1:
The City shall implement the composting pilot project as described in the Commercial Food Waste Pilot
Project: Composting Facility Operating Plan (hereinafter "Operating Plan") and associated documents as
submitted on August 24, 2015. The City shall have ninety (90) days to complete the pilot project. All
inspections, monitoring and recordkeeping required by the current permit and the additional operating
procedures contained in the Operating Plan shall be kept on -site and made available for inspection by
ADEQ.
The Ops Plan submitted on August 24 was the first one and proposed a 6 -month
pilot. There is an updated Ops Plan for a 90 -day pilot dated September 41° that should be
used for this process. The latest version is attached with this e-mail.
Answer: Please refer to revised draft MOA, the operating plan submission date changed to
November 4, 2015.
Comment 2:
A final summary report documenting the successes, failures, and a summary ol'the additional
data collected shall be made to ADEQ. The report shall also document full clean-up of any
remaining food waste residuals from the site. The report is due sixty (60) days following
completion of the operations allowed by this agreement.
Does this mean we have 60 days following the 90 -day pilot to remove any food waste
residuals, including compost product derived from food waste (sec #4)?
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE / NORTH LITTLE ROCK / ARKANSAS 72118-5317 / TELEPHONE 501-682-0744 / FAX 501-682-0880
www.odeq.stote.or.us
0313'h3 1A 03t4V1A3,
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONCERNING A COMMERCIAL FOOD
WASTE COMPOSTING PILOT PROJECT
The City of Fayetteville is currently permitted through the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) - Solid Waste Management Division (SWMD) to operate a Type Y Compost Facility
under solid waste facility Permit 0007-SCYW. The facility also has a coverage under the NPDES
Industrial General Stormwater Permit ARR00000 with the tracking number ARR000210. The AFJN for
the permitted activities and property is 72-00102. The facility is located at 1560 Happy Hollow Road,
Fayetteville, AR, 72701.
The City of Fayetteville and its consultants proposed a commercial food waste composting pilot project
through documents received by ADEQ on November 4, 2015 (Doc ID: 68565). ADEQ technical staff
reviewed the proposed pilot project in consideration of Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology
Commission, Regulation 22 and in consideration of the authority to grant approval of research projects
under Ark. Code Ann. § 8-6-207(a)(I 0).
Under the authority cited above, ADEQ authorizes the City of Fayetteville to implement the proposed
research project. In order to provide clarity for the City of Fayetteville and ADEQ for the proper
management of the proposed pilot activities, the parties mutually agree to the following:
1. The City shall implement the composting pilot project as described in the Commercial Food
Waste Pilot Project: Composting Facility Operating Plan (hereinafter "Operating Plan") and
associated documents as submitted on November 4, 2015. The City shall have ninety (90) days to
complete the pilot project. All inspections, monitoring and recordkeeping required by the current
permit and the additional operating procedures contained in the Operating Plan shall be kept on -
site and made available for inspection by ADEQ.
2. A final summary report documenting the successes, failures, and a summary of the additional data
collected shall be made to ADEQ. The report shall also document full clean-up of any remaining
food waste residuals from the site. The report is due sixty (60) days following completion of the
operations allowed by this agreement.
3. The City may prepare areas as necessary to accept food waste as proposed any time over the next
six-month (6 -month) period from the day this agreement is signed. The City shall notify ADEQ-
SWMD of the first day of operation under the pilot study. The first acceptance of food waste
shall mark the first day of operation of the 90 -day operational period and notification to ADEQ
shall be made promptly at that time.
4. The City shall notify ADEQ of the last day of operation of the pilot and include the location and
estimated volumes of food waste remaining on -site (this includes the locations and volumes of
any food waste, residuals, or compost product or mixtures of product derived from food waste).
5. ADEQ or the City may suspend the project at any time if deemed necessary due to incomplete
operational compliance, nuisance conditions, public complaints, or other overriding
environmental, public health, or public involvement concerns. If for any reason the project is
suspended or at the end of the approved 90 -day operational period, the facility should submit
notification which includes a removal plan and schedule to remove remaining Type O waste and
residuals within thirty (30) days of ceasing operations.
ARN: Z- alvz
P tit RWD SCAN SCANNED AID ENTERED
NOV 202015
6. The City and ADEQ concur that Type O permitting requires additional design and operational
upgrades if the City decides to permanently modify design or operations. These changes will
require the modification of the facility solid waste permit from a Type Y to Type O or S
Composting Facility permit.
7. The City shall control run-on and run-off waters through best -management practices to mitigate
leachate generation and prevent releases from the facility. The City shall update the SWPPP
under the lGP to reflect all changes and include all BMP that will be implemented during this
pilot project prior to starting the project.
8. The 90 -day operational period provided by Paragraph I above may be extended at the written
request of the City and with written concurrence of ADEQ for a maximum of one (1) additional
90 -day term. A decision to request and the agreement to approve extension shall consider
operational compliance, nuisance conditions, public complaints, or other overriding
environmental, public health, or public involvement concerns.
TERMS AND DURATION
This MOA becomes effective when signed by all parties. It may be terminated or modified by agreement
of the parties and may be terminated by any party giving ten (10) days of notice in writing to the others.
This MOA will remain in force until such time as the City certifies the removal of all Type O wastes and
residuals and the written concurrence is provided by ADEQ. The agreement may be modified only in
writing and upon the agreement of all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this memorandum as of the last date written
below.
Becky W.Ke
Director /7
Arkans ep r"e
}
io Id J n
_ Mayor
City o etteville
C
of Environmental Quality
l(— d 1' o
Date
Date
'ilo�' Ro�rw r�.emM7L
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2015-0580
Legistar File ID
N/A
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
Recycling & Trash Collection /
Brian Pugh 10/26/2015
Transportation Services Department
Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
Approve and sign a Toter Cart Pilot Agreement for Single Stream pilot and approve a buget adjustment in the
.amount of $2,695.
Budget Impact:
5500.5060.5315.00 Recycling & Trash Collection
Account Number Fund
Project Number Project Title
Budgeted Item? No Current Budget $ 2,800.00
Funds Obligated $ 995.00
Current Balance .$ 1,80500
Does item have a cost? Yes Item Cost $ 4,500.00
Budget Adjustment Attached? Yes Budget Adjustment $ 2,695.00
Remaining Budget $
V20140710
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # 171-14,136-15
Original Contract Number: Approval Date: 2
Comments: Item pertains to previous resolutions 171-14 & 136-15
CITY OF
a e Nylile
ARKNSAS
TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan
THRU: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director
FROM: Brian Pugh, Waste Reduction Coordinator
DATE: November 25th, 2015
STAFF MEMO
SUBJECT: Approve and sign a Toter Cart Pilot Agreement for Single Stream pilot
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and sign a Toter Cart Pilot Agreement for Single Stream pilot
BACKGROUND:
Resolution 171-14 allowed the City to enter into a contract with Kessler Consulting for
development of a Solid Waste Master Plan. Resolution 136-15 approved an amendment to the
Kessler Contract to allow for implementation of a Commercial Food Waste pilot and Single
Stream recycling pilot.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has worked with Toter to rent carts for the single stream pilot period. These will be the 500
additional carts needed to service the approximately 1,030 household pilot area. The document
is included for review and signature from the Mayor. Signing the agreement will allow staff to
receive the carts for distribution after pre pilot data has been gathered and the single stream
pilot is to be initiated.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
Impact has already been accounted for with Resolution 136-15
Attachments:
Agreement from Toter
Mailing Address:
1133W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
cFayetteville, AR 72701
_ r
PILOT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Toter®, LLC offers a PILOT PROGRAM to the City of Fayetteville, AR
This program is designed to allow the City to determine, at a minimal cost, the acceptability
of curbside Single Stream Recycling pickup to its residents using a Toter' Cart System.
Terms and conditions of this offer of this PILOT PROGRAM are as follows:
Toter, LLC (Toter) will furnish to the City of Fayetteville, AR (The City),
500 each 64 Gallon Universal Carts, Model 76564 Toter® Carts to conduct a Pilot
Program. The carts will be molded in the City's current cart color, Toter 940 Green..
There will be no markings on the carts. The lids will be Toter 705 Blue with no
markings.
2. The carts will be delivered on or about(iv �be rental
charge for each cart is $_3.00 per month or fraction thereo City will
pay all freight charges for delivery to one location within the City limits, estimated at
$_1596.00
3. The first month's rental, including freight, will be invoiced by Toter upon receipt of
this signed contract and will be due at time of shipment. Subsequent months' rental
is due upon invoice at the beginning of each rental month.
4. The Pilot Program carts are covered by Toter's standard 10 Year Un-Prorated
Warranty beginning the date of receipt of shipment by the City.
5. The Pilot Program will extend for a period of 3 Months from the date of
installation. The City will select the route(s) and will be responsible for distributing
carts in those areas.
6. Toter will be glad to assist the City with sample copies of questionnaires to
determine the public's approval of the Toter® Cart System.
7. Toter reserves the right to terminate the Pilot Program at any time after the initial
3 Month period, and the City will proceed as outlined below.
8. Upon completion of the Pilot Program, should the City decide to buy the Pilot carts
the City agrees to purchase the Toter® Carts for $_47.85 for each 64 Gallon
cart, contingent upon payment of all applicable rent which will be credited toward
the cart purchase price. The City also agrees to buy the Toter Pilot carts if it
-1-
decides to buy more carts from Toter or another manufacturer after the Pilot.
9. Should the City choose to discontinue the Pilot program after the 3 month period
and not buy additional carts from any supplier, it will retrieve the carts from the
routes, steam clean the carts, and disassemble them for return to Toter's
designated factory or to another destination designated by Toter. The City will load
the carts and components for shipment and will pay all freight charges. Any
returned carts that are damaged other than under the terms of our warranty will be
billed to the City at the selling price. Should the carts not be thoroughly clean Toter
reserves the right to charge the City $4 for each cart that requires washing. Missing
components will be billed to the City. Toter will retain all rent paid.
10. This offer is open from November23, 2015 , 2015 to December 7 , 2015..
TOTER® INC PORATED:
Jim Pickett, Vice President, Sales
PRO
Skna a ... ..... ..
Typed or Printed Name anI Title
A/v✓. 25 2O,
W2 As
Dae/
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment Form
Budget Year Division: Recycling & Trash Collection Adjustment Number
2015 Dept.: Transportation Services
Requestor: 1701 Glenda Eden
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION:
The Division requests reallocation of funds for the rental of 500 carts with the single stream pilot start up. Resolution
136-15 approved an amendment to the Kessler Contract (Resolution 171-14) to allow for implementation of a
Commercial Food Waste pilot and Single Stream recycling pilot.
I REQUEST DATE: 11 /74/9n1 c
Division Head
Department Director
Chief Financial Officer
Date
Date
Date
3cw&cwa' FeiL
11/30/2015 4:20 PM
Budget Director
TYPE:
DESCRIPTION:
Date
GLDATE:
Chief of Staff
Date
POSTED:
/
TOTAL
- _
v.20150925
Increase / (Decrease)
Project.Sub#
Account Number
Expense Revenue
Project Sub AT
Account Name
5500.5060.5315.00
2,695 -
EX
Contract Services
5500.5000.5400.00
(2,695)
T i EX
Building & Grounds Maintenance
C:\Users\Ibtonson\AppDato\Rooming\L5\Temp\cdc0641 b-SObf-4d58-9fb2-4I2bbd902149 1 of I