Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/31/2008 B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: John W. Stinson Ken Weir, Chair Rick Kirkwood Sue Benham Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, March 31, 2008— 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 25, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues —Tandy/ Rojas 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: John W. Stinson Ken Weir, Chair Rick Kirkwood Sue Benham Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, March 31, 2008— 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 i Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA Second Floor C , City A G E N D A 1. ROL L C ALL 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 25, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues—Tandy/ Rojas 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Recycling Consideration Proposals received: • Hauler proposal • BARC proposal • Other interest statements ■ Staff summary of other ways to reduce air pollution and/or increase recycling efforts, such as: • Full transfer station • Detachable unit or direct transfer station • Convenience stations — self haul • Dual collection • Apartment programs • Blue cart expansion / mandatory or marketing improvements • Conversion to clean air refuse trucks • Expansion of existing programs Future Sessions • Committee review and narrowing of options, requests for more in-depth information • Rate impacts • Landfill fee impacts • Legal issues • Cost • Measurements of impact on air, recycling quantities • Procedural and bidding requirements, etc. • Committee forwards "preferred" ideas to full City Council • Full Council reviews in greater depth, depending on options selected, consultants may be needed. ➢ County is invited as an active participant in the entire process. Liaison is maintained with County for potential joint action. ➢ Public input is received throughout the Committee and Council consideration processes. B A K E R S F I E L D Ken Weir, Chair John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Sue Benham For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Irma Carson Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, February 25, 2008 — 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room — Suite 201 City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA The meeting was called to order at 12:03:52 PM 1. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Councilmember Ken Weir, Chair Councilmember Irma Carson Committee members absent: Councilmember Sue Benham Staff present: Alan Tandy, City Manager; John Stinson, Assistant City Manager; Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant; Steven Teglia, Administrative Analyst III; Joshua Rudnick, Deputy City Attorney II; Nelson Smith, Finance Director; Donna Kunz, EDCD Director; Rhonda Barnhard, Assistant EDCD Director; Toni Crosby, EDCD Business Manager; Vince Zaragoza, EDCD Principal Planner Others present: Dr. David Goh, Garden Pathways; Karen Goh, Garden Pathways, Bob Prater, The Garden Community Center; James Geluso, Bakersfield Californian. 2. ADOPT JANUARY 28, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 2 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday,January 28, 2008 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding CDBG, HOME, and ESG Action Plan FY 08/09 — Donna Kunz Economic Development Direct Donna Kunz, summarized the Annual Entitlements received by the City through the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These entitlements help to improve the quality of life in low to moderate income neighborhoods. The HUD Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) entitlements for FY 2008-09 were allocated, reflecting a decrease from $5,144,518 to $4,981,250. Staff is projecting program income for CDBG in the amount of $20,000 and $150,000 for HOME. The total proposed budget for CDBG, Home, ESG for FY 2008-09 is $5,151,250. CDBG Proposed FY 2008-09: The total resources available for FY 2008-09 are $3,324,560. This amount includes the CDBG Entitlement of $3,304,560 and the project program income of $20,000. The total resources are allocated as follows: • Total Administration —20% CAP: $664,912. • Long Term Obligations: $402,317. These on-going, long term obligations are repayments of Section 108 Loans. • Public Services: $315,000. Services include graffiti removal in HUD eligible areas, the Bakersfield Senior Center, and Fair Housing. • CDBG Home Owner Rehabilitation: $400,000 — McDonald / Stockdale Sewer Assessment Grant Project. • Low-Mod Benefit - 70% of Entitlement: $40,000 — Boys and Girls Club of Kern County. • Housing and Slum and Blight Activities: $50,000 Net resources available for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) are $1,427,331. Staff submitted the following proposed CIP's for consideration: • Central Park Restroom with Pump Station & Storage: $450,000 • Park Improvements — Millcreek Land Acquisition — 525 18th Street: $400,000. Staff proposes to acquire the property known as Catholic Charities on 18th Street. The structure will be demolished and the land will become part of the linear park plan. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday,January 28, 2008 • MLK Jr. Center— Roof Replacement: $300,000 • Q Street Streetscape - 24th Street to Truxtun — Phase I Design: 277,331 Donna Kunz provided a brief overview of the applications received for FY 2008-09. Twelve applications totaling $4,430,000 were received for Intra City Proposals for CDBG Assistance. Seven applications totaling $967,978 were received from nonprofit and private entities requesting assistance from various HUD Programs. Staff is recommending continued assistance to two nonprofit organizations, the Bakersfield Senior Center for operating costs, and the Boys and Girls Club for facility repairs. Due to internal capital improvements obligations currently underway, the City does not have the financial resources to consider large expenditures from other nonprofit organizations. Ms. Kunz suggests that for next year's budget, nonprofit organizations should consider requesting smaller contributions over a two year period. Home Investment Partnership (HOME): The total funding available for FY 2008-09 is $1,680,027. This amount includes the HOME Entitlement of $1,520,921; $150,000 of projected program income; and $9,106 from the American Dreams Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). Proposed Housing Programs: Staff estimates the total Program/Project Costs ($1,630,027) and Direct Delivery ($50,000) for FY2008-09 to be $1,630,027. This amount includes $1.0 million in new construction for affordable housing in the southeast redevelopment project area; $218,829 in SEPA, DT & OTK Downpayment Assistance; $235,000 in HUD mandated Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) sponsored projects; and $9,106 ADDI. Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG): Staff proposes $146,663 in ESG to fund the Bakersfield Rescue Mission ($62,000); Bethany Homeless Shelter ($62,000); and Alliance Against Family Violence ($15,330). Also included is the 5%Administrative Cap of $7,333. Committee members unanimously approved staff's recommendations to move forward to full Council for approval. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 4 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday,January 28, 2008 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:27:34 P.M. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council SACouncil Committees\2008\08 Budget and Finance\February\February 25 Agenda Summary.doc B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: March 28, 2008 SUBJECT: Budget and Finance Committee Report Regarding Recycling and Air Pollution Reduction Program Issues In response to Council Member Scrivner's referral of this subject to the Budget and Finance Committee, staff has prepared the attached report. This report is intended to also respond to the prior request for a comprehensive solid waste plan made by Budget and Finance Committee Chairman Weir. The report briefly addresses a number of issues and presents alternatives for consideration. It is summarized below: 1. The City has implemented numerous projects, complying with recycling and clean air mandates, with fee increases not exceeding overall inflation. 2. The state may increase mandates, but is struggling with choices over what to require. We can best respond to mandates only if they are clearly set. 3. In the meantime, there is some social interest for doing more sooner. If this is to be done, goals and cost limits must be identified. 4. The contract refuse haulers have proposed to build and operate a multi-million dollar recycling facility, which seems premature and may or may not address future mandates. It would burden ratepayers by sharply increasing County disposal fees. 5. Significant fee increases for projects of this type tend to drive waste and revenue away from the system. Other counties have experienced spiraling fees as a result of similar projects. 6. A project, such as the one proposed, would require a bid process if built on City property and backed by City fees through a contract for service. 7. There are alternative methods to increase recycling and/or reduce air emissions using other kinds of recycling efforts, potentially at lower cost. 8. Staff recommends a more complete study of alternatives methods and a full study in the event a major recycling facility becomes necessary. 9. If the City Council intends to pursue the development of a full transfer station and MRF, a committee study analyzing the full range of costs and methods is recommended. PACityManager\Budget&Finance Memo 3-21-08.doc March 28,2008 Page 1 of 3 Recycling and Air Pollution Reduction Future Program Issues California has various mandates for recycling and air pollution reduction. Historically, the City Council has had a philosophy of complying with mandates while keeping trash fees to a minimum. The City has a track record of successful compliance, implementing several clean air and recycling programs with fee increases not exceeding the rate of inflation. New state imposed mandates seem likely, but it is not yet clear what form these mandates will take. There is current debate in the capitol over 3 different recycling strategies, such as: 1. Not allowing cities to dispose of more than their 2006 level of trash. 2. Requiring 75% recycling by 2020. 3. Requiring specific programs, or banning disposal of specific materials, regardless of the recycling percentage. While we wait for the legislature to determine new goals, there are possibilities for increased recycling and air pollution reduction. The question is how much should we attempt to do before the new mandates, and at what cost? Should we choose a new direction now, or wait for new rules to guide our efforts? It is important to note that new mandates usually allow cities a few years to develop and implement new programs, facilities, etc. One option that has been proposed is the development of a material recovery facility (MRF) to sort out recyclables from the trash. A MRF could be combined with a refuse transfer station, as a way to reduce both trash and air pollution. However, the current proposal would ultimately place a large financial burden on the rate payers, and has the potential to significantly increase County disposal fees. The current proposal is limited to general information on cost estimates. Until new mandates are established, it is risky to plan a multi-million dollar MRF. Therefore, we have presented below some possible interim steps to achieve air pollution and recycling goals. Further study is needed to estimate the full cost of a MRF versus other options. Air Pollution Reduction There are two ways to reduce air pollution from trucks that haul trash. One way is to convert to cleaner engines. State law is already requiring cleaner engines for all trash trucks by 2010. The other way is to combine trash into larger loads at a transfer station, which is like "carpooling the garbage". This applies to trash trucks as well as other"self-haul' trucks of all sizes. Around Bakersfield, there are many more self-haul trucks than trash trucks. If a transfer station is used, most of the air pollution reduction would be from self-haul trucks, since they are not required to have the clean technology and outnumber trash trucks by about 3 to 1. Page 2 of 3 The City and County applied for a $20 million air district grant to build a transfer station, but funds were not available. A transfer station could be built without grant funds, but it would increase disposal fees about 30%. Higher disposal fees may trigger more illegal dumping. Fortunately, there are some lower cost alternatives to a large central transfer station that could help reduce air pollution. These include: 1. Residential trash trucks that can swap trailers and transport two loads at once (Figure 1). These could phase in as old trucks are replaced. 2. Direct truck-to-truck transfer systems that require minimal capital improvements (Figure 2). These could be used at hauler yards. 3. Low cost "convenience stations" for self-haulers (Figure 3). These could be established around town (perhaps at home improvement centers). While these options would obtain only part of the air pollution reduction compared to a major transfer station, they may be more affordable. They may also be used as interim steps to reduce air pollution. Transferring refuse or combining loads from the western side of the metropolitan area would save the most mileage at the least cost, since it is farthest from the landfill. Therefore, costs can be minimized by using these options only in areas farthest from the landfill. Since grant funds are not available for the major transfer station, a study of alternatives is needed. Recycling There are various options to increase recycling. Basically, trash can be recycled either by sorting out the trash at a central facility, or by separate collection of recyclables. There are trade-offs. Sorting out the trash avoids extra collection routes, but tends to be very costly. Also, recyclables sorted from raw garbage have lower value. Most major MRFs do not actually sort the raw household trash, because it is unproductive. On the other hand, separate collection makes cleaner recyclables, but may require extra collection routes. However, there are ways to recycle with a minimal number of extra routes. 1. Commercial and apartment trash bins can be converted to a tan and blue system like the curbside recycling program. By changing some of the regular trash bins to blue recycling, some of the trash routes can be changed to recycling routes. Thus separate collections can be made without doubling the number of routes. The $1.5 million grant funded equipment for curbside recycling can be used to sort the mixed recyclables from apartments and some businesses. 2. A universal curbside blue cart program could be added with minimal extra trucks, using a technique called dual collection. Dual collection uses a divided truck body to collect two routes in one trip. Processing the blue cart material can be done at the Mt. Vernon Facility, minimizing travel for blue/green dual collection trucks to unload. Page 3 of 3 In addition to possible new recycling programs, expansion of current ones should not be overlooked. There are two ways to reduce self-haul truck trips and increase recycling with existing infrastructure: 1. Restrict disposal of construction and demolition (C&D) materials at the landfill. A simple ordinance could direct self-haul away from landfills to facilities such as the haulers' existing C&D facility. 2. Restrict disposal of greenwaste at the landfill. Currently, residential waste is admitted to the landfill free, paid for by the residential land use fee. Many commercial gardeners abuse this, enjoying free admission to the landfill by claiming their loads are from residential sources. Eliminating this loophole would induce greater use of the existing greenwaste facility. Recommendations With so many considerations for a total solid waste system, a full study of options would be complex, especially as the new rules begin to come out of the state capitol. Therefore, a consultant study is recommended. The City and County jointly funded the recent transfer station study. The prior work could easily be expanded to provide a complete MRF feasibility study. Continuing to work jointly with the County would be more efficient in addressing metropolitan area issues. Both staffs were preparing to do so when the County Board of Supervisors instead directed staff to develop a MRF plan in coordination with the local haulers. The local haulers have since proposed that they be exclusively given a contract to handle the entire project. This would need to go through a bidding process because: 1. It would be a project on publicly owned land, ultimately paid for by rates set by City Council, making it a Public Works project. 2. Several other vendors have requested the opportunity to bid on waste and recycling projects. The list ranges from local to large corporate organizations. A key consideration is that large fee increases to support a MRF have the potential to increase illegal dumping, and more importantly, drive waste out of the countywide system. This would in turn require additional fee increases to maintain revenues for debt service and operation of the MRF. Therefore, it is prudent to avoid fee increases that exceed other disposal options around the state. Until the new mandates are set, no one is sure how much the average fees will increase. Before contracting for a MRF project, staff recommends first completing a MRF feasibility study in light of pending legislation. Staff also recommends conducting pilot programs for some of the options mentioned above, to help choose strategies as the new rules eventually come out. In the event a MRF becomes an appropriate solution, the regular competitive bidding process could begin. Refuse Transfer and Recycling Options For the Solid Waste System Following the bad news that the Metropolitan Area Transfer/Recycling Station did not receive grant funding from the air district, this is to list alternative ways the solid waste system can potentially reduce air pollution through refuse transfer or increase the level of recycling at minimal cost to the community. It should be noted that, in the air emissions study, most of the available emission reductions are from transferring self- haul loads. Refuse trucks are already regulated to minimize air emissions by 2010 under state rules, and therefore offer less opportunity for emission reductions. Refuse Transfer Options 1. Direct Transfer From Routes- Refuse trucks can transfer waste directly into transport trailers in two different ways, without the cost of a large central transfer station: a. Direct transfer trailers at yard docks (see Figure 1). b. Detachable packer trailers (see Figure 2). These options may be practical for transferring loads from the west Metro Area, which is the furthest from the landfill. East Metro Area loads can still be hauled a shorter distance directly to the landfill. 2. Convenience Stations for Self Haulers - Drop off sites with large containers or trailers can accept small loads from the self-hauling public, with minimal site development cost (see Figure 3). Recycling Options 1. Making Curbside Recycling Cost Less — Universal curbside recycling may cost less with a method called dual collection, in which two types of carts are dumped into separate sides of a collection truck on one trip. A previous pilot program for dual collection of tan and green carts showed the system works. However, it was not expanded because a transfer station was not available. A new consideration would be dual collection of blue and green carts, so that a transfer station is not needed. Staff recommends a pilot program for this. 2. Expanding Blue Cart Recycling to Apartments — Blue cart recycling does not need to be limited to single family homes. Small and medium apartment complexes can also use them. There are a few such complexes already on the voluntary program. 3. Expanding Blue Cart Recycling to Businesses — Blue cart recycling is already used by a few dozen small businesses and schools. It can be expanded further. 4. Creating Blue Bin Recyclina for Large Apartments and Businesses—The existing commercial cardboard recycling bin program can easily be expanded to include other recyclables, for blue bin service at larger apartment complexes and businesses. Figure 1 y � a y � v ' v n b, Pill itsA,s 6 m r4-Smoak, k L. x a �I II �� Figure 2—Direct Transfer Trailer AV qp, Figure 3 - Convenience Station for Self Haulers BARC Blue Barrel Recycling - Material Recovery Facility City Resources BARC Resources Blue Barrel Rec clables Stream 7.7 Acres at Union and White Lane $1.5 Million DOC Grant 20,000 sq ft building designed for MRF operations 70' Scale and scale house Loading Docks Name Recog n ition/Com m unity Support 30 Years Recycling Experience Long standing relationships with markets Ability to receive more grants to fund future growth DOC, CIWMB, Private Foundations Ability to attract recyclable materials from smaller cities in Kern Count BARC's Proposal: 1) Use City's$1.5 million DOC grant to purchase sorting equipment 2) Install sorting equipment in BARC's new building a) City retains ownership and control of sorting equipment b) BARC provides facility, labor and recovered material marketing 3) City delivers blue barrel materials a) City retains control of recyclable material flow b) City retains option to change programs if conditions require it 4) BARC and City share profits of sorting operation a) BARC to provide full transparency of P&L financial information b) City to have ability to audit c) Profit sharing based on agreed negotiated formula d) City included in decision making process Advantages: 1) City retains control and flexibility (does not require a 25 year commitment) 2) No capital outlay by the City (grant is not a City cost)and investment in additional sorting capacity can grow incrementally as material volume increases justify the investment 3) No operating cost to the City(requires a minimum material volume) 4) Does not require a mandatory blue barrel program (incentives and marketing program are strongly recommended to increase material volume, shared profits increase as volume increases) 5) Lowest possible rates for citizens(does not require a gate fee or land use fee subsidy) 6) Blue Barrel program is a necessary front-end to waste conversion or waste to energy technologies that may become necessary, if waste diversion mandates are increased to 75%. The relatively small investment in Blue Barrel will pave the way for future technologies and does not preclude any future technology. 7) BARG is motivated to find long term win-win solutions, BARG is not a winner take all proposition . \ . y �����`� � � � \\\\ \ �\\ «�� ����1 ? ����? :�y�� . .2 � } < : %w ` � 2 � � . . p � :&� . . � . ry» � / > «d s . ®® �y ?d' �: �. . 2 y , v � � : ^�� ® : , :�?J. \ :. <�? � a... . � : ,.. ��\ y y . � \ � . v . c y y . . . > » 3 \ d �\ \ � . m . e < �� : : ©� �2 f l � � # \ � %�� �d #\ � . ® � .�\ �� \# »�� \ � s \ . \��\ w � �/ � � � � y. . � 1 \2\ �� m�. � \ �3 73 co {i7 •V 2f s= � 00 ry��� + } M ■ P CL i LLJ� C Li 0 �i CP *` cc ' LJ Lij t19 W 4} rte, ct� P.!°' � s �a _ IJ a:7 m Z3 } .Zl CL C 7 CD G? L (1) -� .. tC3 tl;S � zm •• CZ CL � G3 •s Co E ti >s 2 � F �ulll r • i as • Xi Nr ;-, `r" iwo 4 0 a co g a t� ct� tai Cf� w 4 '' } 0 7z F a} ct �F ; q CL Co a; C-40 C c 0 ui cu > E CL d.. T t «> C) ry 00 Wk CC CID tau cO Am two c rV R Lij cc? " ""! oil P C - P «0 go i.4 I'I 'j Ilk 1 t <:.. f a wp i �tx t: t '�Iwi�lnM �� ��III►�i D n V e � ti •� 3 �.�,:-- �`` �;' � ', x �; � .. �. Y ,y ` � �� �� "`� � �� � a.,� 8 -' 6�+2 { a >. t VMIyD�u��., �� .. �. • a • s� s i� � "' a +e • � � � �+ � r +a a► e M � : ,r *" '�' .� � � s r • y .. a �. , ,M, • _` .. � ,� r � � � • w • * '�` ,.F " • "► a y •�t o • � * • rs w : • • •s • • a t 5 �i h c c Cq C cs CO ' ] x L. • ` u:J cu Z > •mow 00 Ck Oo c,t � t y {{ Co y4 T'll tc v- ca *WO c 0 w UJ cu �7 C CV 00 � �� \� � � \ \� � \ \ \ �� e \ � d. � \ � � ^ � \�� � \ . : � � ` : §�i � d�: /��\ � \ »»2 � �\ e \% � ��� �.: \ . ?~� �� � �: �� /� � � \ d ; � 2 \ _ � � e � w s s t • • i aq► ©© . d ■. \ � \% \� a �. METROPOLITAN RECYCLING CORPORATION P.O. Box 2716 Bakersfield, CA 93303 661.631-1171 TRANSFER/RECYCLING PROPOSAL FOR THE MOUNT VERNON FACILITY INTRODUCTION.• Planning for solid waste management facilities in the City of Bakersfield and Kern County is at a critical juncture. Legislators in Sacramento are actively and aggressively pursuing new legislation that will likely mandate a 75%diversion rate and new recycling programs in the immediate future. If the city and county are to reach these aggressive legislative mandates, new and innovative facilities must be sited and operational in the next three years. In order to accomplish this,Kern Refuse Disposal(KRD) through Metropolitan Recycling Corporation (MRC)proposes to plan and develop a comprehensive state of the art solid waste complex This complex, complete with a Multi Stream Material Recovery Facility and transfer station, will bring the metropolitan Bakersfield area into compliance with 21s`century solid waste mandates, reduce hazardous vehicle emissions, reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, and save valuable resources for future generations. BENEFITS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLID WASTE COMPLEX Benefits to the solid waste management system. The development of this complex benefits the local solid waste system in a variety of ways. This complex will allow us to meet new legislative mandates that have or will be signed into law in the immediate future. It will also position the City of Bakersfield and Kern County to process and recover large volumes of waste that will extend landfill life and enhance the ability to manage and transport waste more efficiently. It is anticipated that legislation mandating new diversion programs, including multi- family and commercial recycling, will take effect establishing aggressive diversion mandates for all cities and counties in California. The most efficient and cost effective method to meeting these mandates is by commingling materials and separating them at a Multi-Stream MRF. In addition if these diversion rates are to be realized, conversion technology will have to be employed Drafts of the legislation for this technology require that all possible recyclables be extracted from the entire waste stream before conversion technology can be implemented The Multi-Stream MRF allows the best option for the recovery of materials from residential, commercial,and industrial generators. If the city and county are to stay compliant with current and future laws, a Multi-Stream Material Recovery Facility must be sited and operational in the immediate future. KERN COUNTY F E B - 8 2008 WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPT Air Quality Benerts. Transfer stations are an efficient way to reduce the number of long trips to local landfills by "carpooling"materials from smaller vehicles to larger vehicles. Trip reduction in commercial rolloff vehicles can be as great as 5-1 and by transferring self haul residential or commercial generators the number can be 50—1. This trip reduction generates large emission savings in NOX,PM10, CO, VOCs,and SOX. AB 32 was signed into law on September 27, 2006 and this legislation mandates the reduction of Greenhouse Gases to 1990 levels by the year 2020. By recycling materials like glass, aluminum,paper, etc instead of producing them from virgin materials, Greenhouse gas emission savings are realized These emission savings will be critical if local governments are to reach the legislative mandates outlined in AB32. PLANNING,DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A NEW SYSTEM Siting the complex The Mount Vernon Transfer and Processing facility is the site that meets all the necessary criteria for the establishment of the solid waste complex A recent report by Shaw Environmental Ina evaluated a series of sites in Metropolitan Bakersfield and supported this conclusion based on the following criteria: 1. Greatest reduction in vehicle miles traveled 2. Lowest capital costper ton of emissions reduced 3. Lowest capital cost per vehicle mile reduced 4. Best balance of cost to level of service. Additional benefits are as follows: I. The site could be completely permitted for operations in a short period of time. 2. Sufficient acreage exists to site the complex on KRD lease property. 3. Some infrastructure for operations already exists (scales,loaders, eta) 4. This site is already recognized by the public as a solid waste facility. 5. Site managers with experience in managing the public and solid waste facilities. MRC has 12 acres available at Mount Vernon as apart of a lease agreement with the City of Bakersfield This lease is part of a 20 year agreement signed in 1999 with the intent to develop this property into solid waste facilities to help the City meet state diversion mandates. This property is perfectly situated for a solid waste complex and MRC developed the existing C&D operations with the intent of building this type of facility. This property was intended for this type of facility and now is the time to proceed with the project. FUNDING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS The funding of the capital and yearly operational costs of a solid waste complex is staggering and it puts a financial burden on the entire community. KRD is proposing private financing but public financing options will be evaluated Monies generated from fee increases and the sale of recyclable materials will be used to repay capital debt based on payment structure over 25 years.KRD or their associates, via contract, will be responsible for repayment of the debt over the 25 year period and therefore will require 25 year extensions of the existing contracts between both the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern to insure a guaranteed waste stream for debt retirement Specifically the contracts requiring 25 year extensions are the franchise hauling agreements between Zone 2 haulers and Kern County, the franchise hauling agreements between the City of Bakersfield and Kern Refuse Disposal, and the lease agreement between MRC and the City of Bakersfield on property at the Mount Vernon Recycling Facility. In addition a new Independent Contractor Agreement for a term of 25 years between the City of Bakersfield and Metropolitan Recycling Corporation would need to be developed to encompass all solid waste management activities relating to this project The funding of the on going operational costs for this complex and related programs must also be addressed Residents, businesses, and owners of multifamily units must shoulder the financial burden of funding both operational and capital costs of this facility. This can be accomplished by establishing recycling fees/surcharges that place per resident or per ton fees based on the waste processed from each of those generators This is a common practice in many municipalities/counties and is a practice already established in the Zone 3 region of Kern County where residents and businesses are being charged on a per resident and/or per ton basis. THE MULTI-STREAM MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY(MSMRF) New technology in the material recovery industry has recently been developed that provides additional options for the recovery of materialk Due to new state recycling mandates, new recovery technologies, and the costs to implement the technologies, it is important to evaluate available systems in an attempt to decide which approach has the best opportunity to successfully reach local and state goal& Although, these options will cost residents, commercial businesses, and the industrial sector, these "recycling surcharges"already exist in the Zone 3 region of Kern County where residents pay $3.08 per month, $.83 per cubic yard, and$12.67 per ton. The development of new and innovative technology has improved the ability of Multi- Stream Material Recovery Facilities to recycle additional materials This new technology, and aggressive anticipated mandates gives a MSMRF many beneficial advantages over a traditional Single Stream MRF. This new technology utilizes existing refuse containers, enclosures, and collection vehicles. This system also eliminates difficult and costly changes at Commercial and Multi-Family facilities where there is no room for recycling containers All Residential, Commercial, and Industrial refuse is collected in the traditional manner and deposited at the Multi-Stream MRF. This material is then sorted into cardboard,glass,paper,plastics, aluminum, steel, tin,green waste, wood, etc, with the resulting residual waste going to the landfill This strategy allows much more material to be processed and sorted which will yield much more recycled tonnage than a traditional Single Stream System. Also, the Multi Stream system requires no additional collection vehicles, which will maximize trip reduction and reduce harmful vehicle emissions. Finally, the additional recycled material will minimize Greenhouse Gas emissions and put Metropolitan Bakersfield in a position to comply with AB32. 1 � wN000000000 r( rno r M Cn000000000 O OW G� NR� 00VOCCCCCOCC coom000000Lnno �„� OOCOOCON000 CAr O C) 04 000000001-- 0 N � ROOOr000N CA0 ap Cl) OONNqq (000nql 00V 1, NNhrN r rNN r � qL y C U � m 3 v y h L T U O N .. 10 W \ 0. L C H a' m c m U o rj � � � 3 cEa � m �� m 'o r CL E c � Z Z y N o0 o mom wmmm J 1,-1,- �\ t` LL a C1 � y N 'M cn Q J J I'�V N C y " ` al E d m ( o d CO .� C m m t0 W W C9 H-- U) 02 LIZ OO � U i U U 0 000000000000 °0 0 000 o 0000000000000 o c c c o 000 0 OO000oo0o000 0 0 0 0 Ooo o 000000000000° °7 ' m = m ' m 000 0 4' OOC) Cl00 000a0 °0 o m - m - m � >_ 000 IS 0a00 fl- 011- 0m0 'IT_ln o m m CO m Co m Q. N o r N�r�r ICON N a w C. C3 04 C%l h r Fa va�s ea Ea Ea �s w o c 0 c 0 c 0 m M&,),— 0 to LL m LL m LL Cp 69 49 �► (� 02 Um 02 � 3 o V 0 3 o mr N f>3 O II CO } M ` r t0 o L 04 LC) t U �i fn r-- O (n Mr C Mr OS � `O f,9 69 6 6 H 69 69 69 m Q O O \ m D L C N II c � c LL E m m c m 0 c E C N C7 LL m .�. O �+ m m v m V c m O v m m E m � m w R o .� m W = a — in -� M = W cA 3 m C_ .N L C� 6 _ m m m N rn m a 0 5 [ v m m 0 V - . corn � E 5 1: 0 m y p o o o M m o 2 2 O m o m�+ 1 o Go IZED0UX WOOHF- 0 F- tC U co F- YV) I- SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND LOCAL TASK FORCE mac February 6, 2008 COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TASK FORCE and MEMBERS KERN COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ASSOCIATION OF CITIES Ed Grimes City of Tehachapi SPECIAL MEETING BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL Councilman Zack Scrivner Date: Friday, February 15, 2008 COUNTY OF KERN Time: 9:00 A.M. Supervisor Don Maben Place: Kern County Public Services Building COUNTY OF KERN 2700 „M" Street, First Floor Supervisor Michael Rubio Bakersfield, CA 93301 FRANCHISE HAULERS, METRO-BAKERSFIELD Larry Moxley(Chairman) AGENDA FRANCHISE HAULERS, NON-METRO BAKERSFIELD 1. Metro Transfer Station/MRF Paul Benz 2. Public Comments LER Dennis Lynch 3. Committee Member Comments PUBLIC-AT-LARGE, UBLIc-SALCRGE, ION AREA • Indicates Task Force item * Indicates Attachment/Handout Patricia DeMond(Vice-Chair) PUBLIC-AT-LARGE, NON-UNIVERSAL COLLECTION AREA Michael Geyer AL TERNA TE MEMBERS COUNTY OF KERN Supervisor Jon McQuiston ASSOCIATION OF CITIES (Not Designated) BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL Councilman Harold Hanson All Agenda item supporting documentation is available for public review at the Kern County Waste Management Department, 2700 M Street,Suite 500, Bakersfield,CA 93301,661-862-8900; during regular business hours(8:00 AM-5:00 PM,Monday through Friday),following the posting of the Agenda. Any supporting documentation that relates to an Agenda item for an open session of any regular meeting that is distributed after the Agenda is posted, and prior to the meeting, will also be available for review at that same location. Documents related to the Regular Meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee March 31 , 2008 Bakersfield Association for Retarded Citizens (BARC) Presentation Handout for City of Bakersfield Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Date: March 31, 2008 On August 10, 2007, BARC responded to City of Bakersfield RFP NO. 06-07-114, Annual Contract For Processing Of Materials From The Commingled Curbside Recycling Program. The table below is a summary of BARC's proposal and the MRC proposal now before the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern. BARC • • • • • • Up Front Capital , $0.00 $50 Million Cost To Bakersfield No City Or County Requires Favorable Loan Terms Taxpayers Out-Of-Pocket Dollars and Fee Subsidies From LOCAL Bakersfield Already Received Public Sources That Have Not $1.5Million Grant Yet Been Fully Disclosed City Retains Control of Grant MRC Controls Assets Funded E ui ment Purchased With Public Mone Annual Operating $0.00/Year $42 Million/Year Cost To Bakersfield Operating Costs Will Be Paid By PLUS Guaranteed Annual CPI Tax Payers Revenue From Recycling Increases (Assumes City delivers a minimum amount of material Curbside Recycling 50% of Actual Net Profit No Profit Sharing Profit Sharing To Be Paid to City City Could Receive Millions Of MRC Keeps ALL Profit Dollars/Year, Depending On Recycling Volume and Markets Type Of Recycling Voluntary Mandated Service Continues Current Program Everyone Pays Through Garbage Rate Increase Rate Increases For Not Needed Required Garbage Collection [Voluntary Curbside Rates Would Large Rate Increases Will Be Continue As-Is Required and Impact Has Not Been Fully Calculated Implementation Incremental Everything Required Now BARC Proposes to Increase The MRC Proposes To Spend Huge Size Of The Program Gradually, Sums of Public Money Now, On Using Industry Best Practices Un-proven "NEW" Recycling Technology It Has Not Demonstrated or Fully Described Impact On Public None Major Cost Increase Continues Voluntary Blue Barrel Commits Public To Pay For An Program As Is, If Program Needs Expensive Program For To Change In Future, City of Decades To Come Bakersfield Controls Decision Future Mandates to Can Respond IF Needed MRC Is Proposing To Proceed Increase Waste Today. No One Knows What Before Regulations and Goals Diversion? When Or If State Recvclinq Goals Have Been Established Will Chancre What If MRC's Approach Turns Out To Be Wron Who Controls the ? Rec clable Material? City of Bakersfield MRC Public Process BARC Participated in City of MRC Did Not Respond to RFP Bakersfield RFP Process Only Six Months Ago Normal Bidder Response How Should Public BARC Recommends a MRC Wants Its Proposal Decisions Be Made? Competitive Public Process Approved Now Normal Good Government WITHOUT COMPETITION Based on the incomplete information MRC has made public to date and on the potentially very large long term impacts of the MRC proposal on the citizens of Bakersfield, BARC recommends the Budget and Finance Committee make the following recommendations to the Bakersfield City Council: 1) Recognize effective and less costly alternatives may be available. 2) Conduct business in an open, fair and legal process. 3) Do not proceed with the MRC proposal at this time. Respectfully, Jim Baldwin, President Bakersfield Association for Retarded Citizens 1. Has an independent study been done? 1.1. If so, is the study available to the public? 1.2. If not, why not? 2. Why did the San Joaquin Valley Regional Air Pollution Control District reject MRC's efforts to obtain grants for this project? 2.1. Does the San Joaquin Valley Regional Air Quality Control District know that it has other projects that will have a greater benefit on air quality for less cost? 2.2. Was the Hauler proposal too costly per ton of pollution saved? 3. How was it determined that MRC's proposal is the most cost beneficial air pollution reduction program for Bakersfield? 3.1 . What other potential projects were evaluated? 3.1.1. How many project proposals were received? 3.1.2. What was the proposed cost for each project? 3.1.3. What was the cost/ton of pollution saved for each project? 3.1.4. How were potential projects ranked? 3.1.5. Who evaluated them? 3.2. Has an independent study been done? 3.2.1. If so, is the study available to the public? 3.2.2. If not, why not? 4. What regulations has the San Joaquin Valley Regional Air Quality Control District imposed that would require this project? 5. If MRC can get the City and County to pay for this project with public money, wouldn't MRC avoid having to pay their own required costs of cleaning up the pollution from their own trucks? 0 fV 0 % O 0 O CD Ch rwilL Lo EL CD CL CD CD CD CL —� .. � N CL co . 00, 0 mumr N o � p o � � m � � m o � ISO 0 •. c� D cQ � Zni �• � o � O . ,� O cn 0 cn ov ° � m m � � n m n N � C7 co r=F• � .a ;. � O N O O GJ N Cn N 0 v _0 Gov v OD M CD C 2) � n �- cn U). cn CD o cm ov CD Cl cp cn ,n . O r-IOL ai 0 � to CD CL 0 CD < CL CD x =r-1' -p ' CD CD o � C � S' CU) 0, `' 0 CD tD CD v 0 n, CD 0 0 CD l O C o o CD U cn CD' 00 0 cD CL C7 � O A CD CD n CL W W N 00 CD CD =r � CD r -� C Q ® D 0 � CD to _. C.) _. N CCDD C. � ;b CC _. CL L �' � h n -3 =w '� CD (O CD r"*L O �. I CD to C/) rr CD v C7 0 En c 0 G) ;o o _ C CD CD O = Q CD Cr CD C) Cr CL 0 n -- cn �. �, • CD rj. C) r-1- n O CD ;a CD —. 0 M • ..9L 'a CL 00 O Cl)Cam. O �' _ > CO r* n L CL CD CD c Cn to �- O CD C rook w (D O 2 CrDmL C7 C O(D � CL '.� CD CD = -h V� Q. CL CD tai rmfk CD to W N C31 N O O OD � r" n - or' 0 � =r = CD CD CD 2) - ry. . CL r� > CD m ._ m o rm L v n C •"! `� D CD 'r•1 CD O ® CL CD 0 CD n --! sv 0. o D U) O 0 O cc =r _ O w 0 rMOL CD ..z C CD CL CD CD CL CL W N (n N O O 00 CD. � ED C CD —. -z -s p �- CD CD CD a a = '" " r-lo n —. r-f- CD —. O' CD (/) CD • � � C' � -� rot CD CD o CD CL —. m -Z -f, 0 —. CD — �,, _ -- p n v — Z _ (J) _. r N O O p CD CD � �_ 0_ a -■ ICU CD V) O O CL -wh C a 0 0 0' CD �- p CD �- go, �' o son=0 O C y N = 0 O to Cn n 0 o w rm*.. CA 0 � �` •. �' • • • ■ ■ d � dQ � �. �. �. � o o �, b �• o � o • •. • • • r.�,a..` ■ ■ � z � z bolo �. � � � ��` �. �. � �. ono .. � �* � aroa � � aroa b � fmIL AWN ID � o c W N Ul N 0 0 00 cn N ti m 0 c� co n 0 v cn • 0 CA) • N C3� C) 0 � CL � o � o u) � � rn (D 2) o � c -a W rl n (D o (n -N (D "D �' CL .moo � cQ � 0 u = L M M o -I o O -� � '"''Z o � �, CL 2) C/) O O O CD ` n v - =r to p ENV CD CD = O p' o _* r 0 _ — N 0 CD O cn O� C� M � a' O� Lam" CD o n) O Q \o Cl) MLJ p O N p, NO ' _ Zo OCD -� O ', - O _ � p . . (D W 0 CD W < O —cr O O� � `D U' N W N U� N O CD m WWMM=monu 0 0 JQ ■ ■� * w v (D y CQ C� O n G a N N Cn r r -v► '� O O N O CD CD CD a � � - � 0 0 � � O O C (n- U)- r CD o � m p p < -- -- O o p p p MO CL a ch m C CD CD �. CD �- � � _. o ty O --�, CD CL CD v rn � n o U) a r cn n c� W N U1 N > to n �- C) CD C M D C.L 40 Q ..� — a Jo CD a CAD CD — CD Cf) -n CAD U) tom° CD CD CD m � '-' < U) _. o tJ� CD m .-PL cQ C) 0 v ,. k. 1 s ■ JIM NMI X11 e ��� N Ul N O Oo Cf) O 0, O C c n X O � T r� C � CL CZ � p� 0 � CD 0) � O Q) CD ' � CD CD � CD CD CD CD �" CD n C1 � _. � � n. � CD CD n CD ;r r* �' CD CD CD CD r•o. ''•F �< CD Q -- CD � � X 0 CD Q) Q 2) CD U) N e-h U) CD CD N p 5•-a U) -0 o 50CQ -N CD CL x 2) N CD CD m mss= � o N � � � � N � � � 2) N � � r-r -0 CD (D CD . S CL O 0 CD CD D C O ;- C') N � CQ ,�., n CD < C/) CL CD r. CD < O CD N 0 2) 0 CD Cl) Q -0 � CQ Cl) 0 O . • . n D -0 M > CD rq- CD 0.Co � O SCQ � �, � r m > r CDC• ID CD -� < sv � � ., _ r z � CD CD CD CD " CD CD Z 70 Z.. N' L CD CD 0 0 t: 0 > G7n � to 0 EV-0 = a = �•� - -q rncrnn n � rn o � 0 0 CD :E < Ozz =s EQ 0 wCD r"*' ..'*' Q < n CD CD C.) X000 ..• � ?� -nOM CD 000 W - � � Z -% .-+•CD D IPL CL CD— CD CL 0 CD P CD cn W N N p C) 0 o CD O CD Cl) _. U) p' a' r — CD CD CD CID p — n CL O 0 CD O p � o ■N■ ` V) O n O •iT O 11 '� n _ cCD Q � O `� 11 r-*- O in CD 446 O 11 CD 5 C.i7 cn N 44lb N O 00 CD A � n � m CL cr 0 0 O CL c� C' 1 C7 --4 CJ7 CAD O .� : U _O O co c m G) O� � CD r. ® N UCD "� =' C U) CD ® t) r'O' CD 0 mn �G CD CD CD r"'" no ft--.ft U) 2) 0 co t_ CD N CD W N C3� N O O OD CD O CZ CQ C2 ( O CD p ME n = U) � 0. CD C'1 O CD O = �� CU �- r-r �s CD O cn o rMIDL n � _. w C 40 % < iv -< T N 0 CD --I p Cv _% Q o CD o (D C o ■ n D Z ZwZ7oN ;:V '"F CCDD 4D O ::7 O O C'? O ■ CD 0 CD CD — V1 W O. CD CD CD n n -z = O = CL 0 CL CZ -. O CD 3 O U) n CD O O CD CD Cn a) — n n trJ CD O CZ A) �� n `C O C2 '"t' O- CCZ — n O _ n CD O n CC2. p o o cn rJ0 m C U) oo CD CD W N N O O W m n 0 =-i- x O —CD MO CD Jw CD CD MON rn O Cf% °• < CD 0 oo �- CD O (D CD CID MON rMIDL v 0 o � a.�. mmmh cn 0 W N N O O 00 CD 2 C t� O m O rF a C/) O CD v C) I rMIL O C n CD (D V !"mlpL � ■ �► O o' U) N O Budget and Finance Committee Media Fax Confirmation 3-28-08 Ede Fmr list Ids Help Lr At ] I ale F;-- Newyork[fi, 2 4 8 ® fl ® s Date/Time TaJFrom/Fie FmrNunberlEm... P ytas Steles Asrcount Matta Un- AN MN L3 Commur ? 3/28/200811:42_.David Burger-Bakersfield 395.7519 Cover+l 40K MN EE(3 Le9k�l 3 3/28/200811:42...News Director-KIM 2832963 Covert O OK Mill Main t 3128/200811:42...Kathy Eddy-County of Kern 868.3190 Cover+l O OK MN -. Plan-inc t 3/281200811:42...New Director-KUZZ/K.-323.7537 Cover+l O OK MN -- 3 Plannins t 3128/200811:42...The Minority Construction 323.9287 Lover+l 0 O MN - Trash t 3/28/200811:42...New Director-KGET TV... 2834843 Cover+l O OK MN t 3128/200811:42...News Direct.-KERO TV-323-5538 Cover+l OOK MN t 3128/200811:42...New Director-KWAC Sp...327-0797 Cover+l O OK MH t 3128200811:42...Editor-El Mesicalo 323.6951 Cover-1 0 O MN t 3128/200811:42...Beale Library 631.9439 Cover+l O OK MN t 3/281200811:42...Editor-El Popular 325.1351 Cover+l O OK MN * 3/28/200811:42...New Director-KERN/K... 326.0388 Cover+l 0 O MN t 3128/200811:42...New Director-KBAK TV29 8619810 Cover+l O OK MH 3/281200811:42...News Diect- Univision 334-2687 Cover+1 OOK MN '!C� 3/28200811:42...Opinion-Bakersfield Cal 395.7380 Cover+l 0 O MN t 328/200811:42...News Director-Channel 3 334.2685 Cover+1 O OK MN t 3128/200811:42...Clear Channel Radio 283.2963 Cover+l O OK MN t 3/2W200811:42 Government Affairs Dir. 635.2317 Cover+l O OK MN t 3128/200811:42...BIA 633-1317 Coves+1 O OK MN * 328/208811:42...Editor-Bakersfield News 3249472 Cover+l O OK MN t 3/28/200811:42...Charles G.Waide 325.7814 Cover+l O OK MN } 3/28200811:42...New Edit-Bakersfield 395.7519 Coves+1 0 O MN t 3/28/200811:42...Fred Pater 327.1065 Cover+1 0 O MN t 3/281200811:42...Call Moreland 327-3283 Cover+l O OK MN t 3/281200811:42...John Falgadw 324-2323 Cover+1 O OK MN t 3/28200811:42...Cathy Butler 3257319 Cover+l O OK All t 3/28/2008 11:42., Scott Blunck 664.6042 Coves+1 0 O MN t 3128200811:42...Mark Smith 862.5444 Cover+l 0 O MH t 3128200811:42...Tom Carosella 631.2693 C-W+1 0 O MN t 3/28/200811:42...Supervisor Barbara Patrick 8683677 Cover+l O OK MW- 3128/2008 ? 11:42...Atim Kim/Castle&Cooke 664.6199 Coves+1 O OK MN ? 3/28/200811:42...Roger McIntosh 834.0972 Cover+l 0 O MN t 3/28/206811:42...Steve DeBranch 3234006 Cove+1 0 O MHO 3/28/200811:42...Ron Bmmmeu 324.8215 Cover+1 0 O 141 1 y . Ic �'-----'-n faxes Btad Era FWx fish look Aecowrt Matta Un- p Newyork[& 2 V S ® fl ® s D1Tine To/Fram/Fik Fax Number/Ean.. PepetlBytes. Statue MN -{JAY t 3/28/200811:42...News Direct.-KGET TV... 283.1843 Cover+l OOK MN -iLj Commur t 3128/20M 11:42...New Director-KERO TV...323.5538 Cover+l O OK MN L+I L, Legislati t 3/28/200011:42...News or Direct Sp...327.0797 Cover+l O OK MN -1 Main t 3/28200811:42...Editor-El Mexicalo 323-Ml Cover*1 OOK MN L7 Planmrx t 3128/200811:42- Beale Library 631.9439 Coves+1 O OK MN Li Planninc t 3/28/206811:42...Editor-El Popular 325-1351 Cover+l O OK MN Trash t 3/28/200811:42...News Direct.-KERN/K... 326.0388 Coves+1 0 O MN t 3/281200811:42...News Director-KBAK TV29 861.9810 Covert O OK MN t 4, 3/28/200811:42...News Direct.-Univision 334.2687 Cover+l 0 O MN t(� 3/28200811:42...Opinion Bakersfield Cal 3957360 Cover+l O OK MN t 328/200811:42...News Director-Channel 334.2685 CoveiA O OK MN } 3/28200811:42...Clear Channel Radio 283.2963 Cover+l O OK MN t 31281200911:42...Government Affairs Dir. 635.2317 Cover+1 0 O MN t 3/28/200811:42...BIA 633.1317 Co-r+1 O OK t 3/28/200811:42...Editor-Bakersfield News 324-9472 Coves+1 O OK MN t 3/28200811:42...Charles G.Waide 325.7814 Cover+l O OK MN t 3/28/2008 11:42...New Editor-Bakersfield 395-7519 Coves+1 0 O MN t 3/281200811:42...Fred Poker 327-1065 Cover+l 0 O MH t 3/28/200811:42...Carl Moreland 327.3283 Cover+1 O OK MI, t 3/28200811:42...John Fallgather 324.2323 CovelA 0 O MN t 3128/200811:42...Cathy Buller 325.7319 Coves+1 O OK MN t 3/26/200811:42...Scott Blunck 664.6042 Cover«t 0 O MN t 3/28/200811:42...Mark Smith 862.5444 Coves+1 O OK MN t 328200811:42...Tom Carosella 6312153 Cover+l 0 O MN t 328/200811:42...Supervisor Barbara Patrick 868-3677 Coves+1 O OK MH * 31281200811:42-.Attn:Kim/Castle&Cooke 6646199 Cover+l 0 O MN t 3/28/200811:42...Roger McIntosh 834.0972 Coves+1 O OK MN t 3/28/200811:42...Steve DeBla-h 323.4006 Cover+l O OK MN t 3/28/200611:42...Ron Brummett 324.8215 Cover+1 O OK MN t 3/281200811:42...Bruce Freeman 664.6030 Cover+l O OK MN t 3/28/200811:42...News Director-KLLY 95 F 393.1915 Cover+1 O OK MN } 2/29120082:21 PM David Burger-Bakersfield 395-7519 1 logs O OK Mlv t 2/292088 2:21 PM New Director-KLLY 95 F 393.1915 1 logs O OK MN t 2129120082:21 PM News Director-KIM 283.2963 f logs O OK MN 141 01 4 -- [- - - - --- --�---iv--77 foxes listed B A K E R S F I E L D Facsimile Transmission From: Michelle Muniz Fax Number: 661-324-1850 Voice Phone: 661-326-3751 TO: Larry D. Moxley Company: Fax Number: 393-6699 Voice Phone: Fax Notes: Good afternoon, Please find attached the agenda for the Budget and Finance Committee meeting for Monday, March 31, 2008. Thank you and best regards, Michelle Muniz, Secretary Date and time of transmission: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:30:02 PM Number of pages including this cover sheet: 02 B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: John W. Stinson Ken Weir, Chair Rick Kirkwood Sue Benham Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, March 31, 2008— 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 25, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues—Tandy/ Rojas 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT B A K E R g F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661)326-3751 Fax: (661)324-1850 To: Tonya Date: April 25, 2008 Fax#: 633.1317 Pages: 24 From: John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager Subject: City of Bakersfield Master Fee Schedule - Revised Tonya, Yesterday, I sent information that will be presented at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, April 28, 2008. Attached is a revised version of that document. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 326.3751 or Nelson Smith at 326.3740. Thank you. HP LASERJET 3150 SEND CONFIRMATION REPORT FOR PRINTER/FAX/COPIER/SCANNER CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 3241850 APR-25-08 11 :03AM JOB START TIME USAGE PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS TYPE PAGES MODE STATUS 49 4/25 10:46AM 17'39" 661 6331 31 7 SEND.............. 24/24 EC144 COMPLETED........................................ TOTAL 17139" PAGES SENT: 24 PAGES PRINTED: 0 • B A K E R S I7 I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield,CA 83301 (661).6.3751 Fax:(601).4-1650 To: Tonya Date: April 25,2008 Fax#: 633.1317 Pages: 24 From: John W.Stinson Assistant City Manager Subject: City of Bakersfield Master Fee Schedule-Revised Tonya, Yesterday, I sent Information that will be presented at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, April 28, 2008. Attached Is a revised version of that document. If you have any questions,feel free to contact me at 326.3751 or Nelson Smith at 326.3740. Thank you. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 31,2008 ATTENDANCE LIST Name Organization Contact: Phone/ E-mail gvGLJ �,►-woos C.; .�1. W o Yks Li AA� 2(e - "3 "Z 'Z KW �Cvlvt0.� �v 5_3Y 7 7 ✓2j �� r�, /,�, 3 3 3 Y6_!s2 I r �►afi VUrrvc �PS c.� �� m• I S� 1 3a3 ^93 1 -11300 Le 1ea._.� q}tor VA bt` !hQ(, ' 3zs- 062 aw �v V IV UK J4R#47Z6 / • �1G S. G ,4&,)ew—Sizes-. ag ✓" Es 42,3g G l7l�c �S u"c'�r•.� q 7c?-7 f '43// L L'IQ qvvma ye 12 1(w 5 (!::�Z A. :j�ln &fV�ay-\:4 0- �3rVj., VOt-l►.1 �l C nJ co A4 A4(A^j cT Cu 13 ,V y