Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/31/2009 Z1110 L 0 010�� B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: John W. Stinson Rick Kirkwood Harold Hanson, Chair Irma Carson Ken Weir REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, August 31, 2009 — 12:00 p.m. City Hall North 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 First Floor, Conference Room A A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT JUNE 16, 2009 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding the City Recycling Policy — Raul Rojas B. Discussion regarding Environmental Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Policy — Nelson Smith 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT B A K E R S F I E L D Harold Hanson, Chair John W. tinson, Assistant City Manager Ken Weir For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Irma Carson Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 12:00 p.m. City Hall North 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA First Floor, Conference Room A The meeting was called to order at 12:20:54 PM 1. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Councilmember Harold Hanson, Chair Councilmember Ken Weir Councilmember Irma Carson Absent: None Staff resent: Alan Tandy, City Manager Rhonda Smiley, Asst. to the City Manager Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant Dianne Hoover, Rec. & Parks Director Joshua Rudnick, Deputy City Attorney Nelson Smith, Finance Director Don Cohen, Convention & Visitors Bureau Nick Fidler, Civil Engineer III Geogina Lorenzi, Asst. to the Public Works Director Others present: Paul Ricker, KCSF Tom Martin, KCSP Judy Vaughn, KCSF 2. ADOPT MARCH 30,2009 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Tuesday, June 16, 2009 Page 2 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Financial Assistance from the Kern Soccer Park Foundation - Smiley Paul Ricker of Kern County Soccer Foundation (KCSF) provided an overview of the soccer events held at Kern County Soccer Park and its revenue value to the City. KCSF is requesting a grant in the amount of $4.25 million to install additional field lighting and other facility improvements to attract more and larger tournaments to the park. Mr. Ricker provided statistical data to show the potential economic benefit of hotel tax monies to the City. These statistics are based on the assumption of 15 annual tournaments at the facility that would attract participants from other areas seeking lodging and restaurants. Mr. Ricker stated that if they are not able to raise the monies needed, there is a high probability that the park may have to close. City Manager Alan Tandy stated that though the soccer park is a valuable community asset and contributes to the economy, any funding that may become available to the City through non-General Fund sources for recreation facilities should be allocated to facilities within its jurisdiction. Mr. Tandy advised that the City previously provided a sizeable contribution to the soccer facility for lighting and has and will continue to donate the facilities water which is valued at $40-50,000 per year. Mr. Tandy concluded that given the unprecedented financial challenges the City is facing with significant budget reductions and the threat of the State capturing funds, the City is unable to provide the assistance KCSF is requesting. Mr. Tandy also stated the City Council's goal is to construct the Sports Village, which is funded by revenues from neighboring developments for construction. The City may consider partnering with KCSF to use the Sports Village's soccer fields for larger tournaments. Committee member Irma Carson asked if the City acquired the funds, what would be the source of the funding. Mr. Tandy replied that under better circumstances, the funds would be available through Transient Occupancy Tax or the Capital Outlay funds. Mr. Tandy added that in terms of the Economic Stimulus Funds, the federal government did not view park opportunities as a desirable use Of Stimulus money. Committee member Ken Weir asked Mr. Ricker if he has been in touch with the County of Kern. Mr. Ricker stated that will be their next step, but the County has not yet returned their calls. Committee member Weir asked if the fees and revenues provided in Mr. Ricker's presentation are restricted funds or general AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Tuesday, June 16, 2009 Page 3 funds. Mr. Tandy replied that Transient Occupancy Tax goes into an account that pays for the Convention Center and Arena, rent contribution to the Bakersfield Symphony Orchestra, the Convention and Visitors Bureau operation, and the balance thereafter flows into the Capital Outlay Fund. Mr. Ricker stated that KCSF is interested in applying for grants but does not have enough knowledge of the process. Mr. Tandy offered the assistance of staff in the Economic and Community Development, and Recreation and Parks departments to assist KCSF with the technical aspects of the grant writing application process, as long as KCSF can identify a source of funding. Committee member Weir requested that if funding for the lighting is received, that KCSF include into their budget shielded indirect light sources. Committee Chair Harold Hanson suggested that KCSF also look into doing some type of fundraising for their cause. B. Acceptance of 2007-08 Transportation Development Act Funds Financial Statements - Rojas Assistant to the Public Works Director Georgina Lorenzi provided an independent auditor's report summarizing fiscal activity for the Bikeway and Pedestrian Fund, and the Public Transit Fund. The audit firm of Brown Armstrong Paulden McCown Starbuck Thornburgh & Keeter Accountancy Corporation issued an unqualified opinion. The report was unanimously accepted by all Committee members. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee member Irma Carson asked that staff provide status and progress on the request made by Marvin Dean regarding funding. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1 :08:06 P.M. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council SACouncil Committees\2009\13udget and Finance\June\June 16 Agenda Summary.doc B A K E R S E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: August 21, 2009 SUBJECT: BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE REFERRAL#104 ON CITY RECYCLING POLICY This report is to assist the Budget and Finance Committee in consideration of the July 15, 2009 referral by Council Member Weir for development of a City policy to reduce solid waste and increase recycling. Council Member Weir represents the City on the Kern County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (SW C), as well as the Metropolitan Area Planning Group, which is a subgroup of SWMAC that works on recycling issues in the metro area. Most people are aware of the State's existing 50% recycling requirement; staff understands that this referral is intended to consider a local goal higher than the State's 50% mandate. Although proposed legislation may raise the State's goal, it is not yet known when, or if, or how high the goal may be raised. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to provide information for the committee to consider stepping ahead of proposed legislation. Currently, a 75% recycling goal is envisioned by the Metropolitan Area Planning Group which Council Member Weir is part of. Staff understands that the purpose of this referral is for the Budget and Finance Committee to develop a Policy which can be voted on by the full City Council for inclusion in future Council Goals, Along with consideration of higher future recycling goals for the original purpose of saving landfill space and raw materials, the City also needs to prepare for a different type of recycling mandate that is being established by the State under a greenhouse gas reduction law. Therefore, this report will briefly summarize the background and the new challenges before addressing the desire for higher goals. 6/2612009 9:29:21 AM GAGROUPDA'nSolid WasL-T0D9Sud9etFimCcmrr_so1jd waste rpLAug 31.duC BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Referral#104 on City Recycling Policy Page 2 §a_ckground The City of Bakersfield adopted its current recycling policy in 1992, as required by State law. This law, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (known as AB 939 for its assembly bill), required that all local jurisdictions adopt a formal plan called the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Every jurisdiction's SRRE had to show how they would reduce landfill disposal by 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. Bakersfield's State-approved SRRE plan is to meet the mandated 50% recycling goal by implementing programs which recycle the most material at the least cost. Thus, Bakersfield's existing recycling programs were successfully developed with forethought and concern for the ratepayers. Currently, the City spends about $11,000,000 per year complying with the 50% mandate. hLew ChagtnM Now that Bakersfield and other cities and counties statewide have met the 50% recycling goal for several years, more recycling mandates are expected from two different sources: 1. Lro2osed ReqUj[2M2n1a - Various State legislators intend to increase the goal with new legislation aimed at 60% and 75% recycling in future years. Several new recycling bills based on "the percentage of waste recycled" are pending. However, other "program based" recycling requirements without specific percentages are also proposed. 2. A @ 32 Requirements - Regardless of the goals mentioned above, statewide mandatory commercial recycling will be required as of 2012 under current law. Assembly Bill 32, known as the Global Warming Act of 2006, was signed into law with the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels. In 2008, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan to identify how California would accomplish the goals of AB32. The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains requirements for many aspects of California industry, one of which is statewide mandatory commercial recycling, The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is now developing regulations for implementation. The current AB 32 Scoping Plan and draft CIWMB regulation would require commercial recycling whether or not a city or county needs it to reach the old AB 939 mandate. Thus, cities and counties that complied with AB 939 through other means would now have to spend more resources to comply with AB 32, compared to those that already used commercial recycling for AB 939. There appears to be nothing in the works to level the playing field for cities and counties that will have to add more programs than those who coincidentally chose commercial recycling for AB 939, 812612009 9:29:21 AM G:1GR0UPDAT\S0fid WastM20maudgetFmComm—solid waste rpLAug 31,doc BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Referral#104 on City Recycling Policy Page 3 Other quirks in the draft recycling regulation under AB 32 include.- A. Although it requires mandatory commercial recycling, it does not give a specific numerical recycling goal like other proposed legislation. Thus, some communities could give commercial recycling only a token effort, while others may expend greater effort and resources, B. It only requires larger businesses to recycle (those with over 4 cubic yards per week of refuse), and not smaller businesses. For example, the 4 cubic yard threshold in the current draft would require only about half of the businesses in Bakersfield to recycle, since half are below the threshold. This seems to conflict with the general requirement of mandatory commercial recycling in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. We anticipate that the draft may change. Without more consistency, we anticipate problems with businesses manipulating the system to avoid paying for recycling service, and poor results in educating the business community about recycling since it would not evenly apply. The current draft regulation leaves it open for cities and counties to determine the appropriate level of recycling, unless other legislation is enacted to set that goal. �Choices in the New As new mandatory commercial recycling goals are worked out as described above, it seems that cities and counties will still have their choice of two fundamental recycling methods to use. These were previously identified in discussion of a Possible material recovery facility (MRF) development in 2008: 1. Separate, clean collection of recyclables (clean MRFing) 2. Sorting recyclables from raw refuse (dirty MRFing) As reported to City Council in December 2008, dirty MRFing is cost prohibitive due to the economic recession and the market disadvantage Of low quality recyclables produced by dirty MRFs. The Metropolitan Area Planning Group, which is a subgroup of SWMAC, agrees that separate collection and clean MRFing is the best approach. Therefore, the following discussion is offered to help consider policy decisions needed for separate collection systems. H tict�er Goals While current regulations leave some question over mandated commercial recycling, the Metropolitan Area Planning Group has selected a local recycling goal of 75% for recommendation to SWMAC, who may in turn recommend it to the Board of 812612009 9:29:21 AM GAGROUPDAIRSolid We3te2W9aud9etRnComm—S05d Waste rpt_Aug 31,dX BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMIT-TEE Referral#I o4 on City Recycling Policy Page 4 Supervisors. This is based on the rationale that legislation will eventually rewire it, and it is intended to support a desire expressed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors in 2008 to avoid building any new landfills in Kern County. To this end, the Budget and Finance Committee may wish to consider a similar recycling goal for inclusion into the City Council's Goals and Objectives. However, such a goal may be cost prohibitive for the following reasons: 1. The foreseeable and Practical strategy of separate collection and clean MRFing should yield a recycling rate of around 60%. 2. The dirty Hieing approach considered in 2008 would not yield much more recycling than the clean strategy, because the global market is able to be selective about material cleanliness. This competitive situation will only become tighter as recycling mandates drive more material into the market. 3, Cost estimates are not available for reaching a 75% recycling goal. This is because reaching a 75% recycling rate will require the use of special "conversion technology", which is not yet proven effective, and is not commercially available. Bakersfield has been successful thus far, by implementing programs incrementally, to comply with mandates in the most cost effective mariner. In 2007, Bakersfield was poised to implement universal residential blue cart recycling, but did not proceed because of questions over whether it would meet then-proposed mandates. Since that time, the State froze a $1,500,000 recycling grant, snaking the economics of recycling more difficult. Complying with the draft rule under AB 32 will potentially cost $3,000,000 to $8,000,000 per year. If universal residential blue cart recycling were required as a result of other mandates, it would cost an additional $5,00o,000 to $6,000,000 per year. 'Thus, there is a potential for Bakersfield's current $11,000,000 per year recycling cost to more than double, depending on the mandates. If the cost of new, unproven "conversion technology" is needed to achieve a higher recycling goal, the overall cost of recycling may become prohibitive. Pending the outcome of new recycling legislation and/or AB 32 rules for mandatory commercial recycling, staff recommends an incremental approach to use a separate collection strategy as opposed to a dirty IVRF strategy. In anticipation of the draft rule under AB 32, staff is modeling costs for commercial recycling services, and will coordinate with the contract haulers. Staff is also modeling the fiscal impact of reduced refuse collection volumes, which may experience lower productivity as a result of mandatory commercial recycling collection. 872512049 13 29:21 AM G"GRDUPDAT1Solid Waste12Q091BudgetFinCOmr1_S0hd Waste rpt Aug 81.doc BAK O�yc0"0 1r� tS' ti c� d MEMORANDUM �q�ltlA FOR TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Nelson K. Smith, Finance Director --; DATE: August 20, 2009 SUBJECT: Draft Council Policy for Committee Review— Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Policy A couple of months ago the Solid Waste Division was excluded from a State of California grant application process because the City did not have an Environmentally Preferable or "buy green" Purchasing policy. Finance / Purchasing staff has worked with Public Works to draft such a policy so that we will not be excluded from future grant opportunities. The draft policy attached has been reviewed by several City departments including the City Attorneys office. The draft policy document is structured to allow or encourage (but not require) the purchase of environmentally friendly products. It is not our intent to move away from our past practice (and current Municipal Code guidelines) of awarding to the lowest bidder, but if two products are available at the same cost and the two products are of equal quality and/or performance levels, then the City would (by way of this new policy) select the more environmentally friendly product. Additionally, if the City were working on a particular grant funded project that required use of EPP products then staff could reference this policy and include more restrictive language in the bid specifications and narrow the scope of products that would qualify for the grant award. We are requesting that this draft policy be reviewed by the Budget and Finance Committee at their next available meeting with a recommendation from the Committee to forward the policy document to the full City Council for their consideration and approval. Attachment— Draft Policy cc: John W. Stinson File name: s:nelson/memo-draft epp policy for review aug 2009.doc ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PURCHASING (EPP) POLICY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CA 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY It is the policy of the City of Bakersfield (CITY) to encourage the purchase of products and services that minimize environmental and health impacts, toxics, pollution, and hazards to worker and community safety and to the larger global community to the greatest extent practicable. By incorporating environmental considerations in public purchasing, the CITY can serve this commitment by reducing its burden on the local and global environment, removing unnecessary hazards from its operations, protecting public health, reducing costs and liabilities, and potentially improving the environmental quality of the region. This policy is an effective way to direct the CITY's effort in procuring environmentally preferable products and services. 2. PURPOSE This policy is adopted in order to meet the goal for an environmentally preferable purchasing policy. This policy is intended to provide for compliance of certain Federal or State grant applications that require adoption of an EPP policy as a qualifying element of the application and to make the CITY's operations and services a model of sustainable practices. Further, this policy is adopted in order to: • Protect the health and safety of workers and citizens, • Conserve natural resources, • Minimize environmental impacts such as pollution, • Eliminate or reduce toxics that create hazards to workers and our community, • Support recycling markets, • Reduce the amount of materials that are being sent to landfills, • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, • Increase the use and availability of environmental) protect the environment, Y preferable products that • Identify environmentally preferable products and distribution systems, • Create a model for successfully purchasing environmental) preferable that encourages other purchasers in our community to adopt similar goals.roducts The purchase of environmentally preferable products is preferred whenever such products perform satisfactorily and are available at the lowest bid. A collateral purpose of this policy is to support markets for recycled goods and other environmentally preferable products and services. 1 3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 "Buyer" means personnel authorized to purchase or contract for Purchases on behalf of the CITY or its subdivisions. 3.2 "The Carpet and Rug Institute" (CRI) is the national trade association representing the carpet and rug industry. CRI has developed and administered the "Green Label" indoor air quality testing and labeling program for carpet, adhesives, cushion materials and vacuum cleaners. The "Green Label Plus" testing program incorporates additional requirements to meet California's Collaborative for High Performance Schools low-emitting materials criteria, 3.3 "Contractor" means any person, group of persons, business, consultant, designing architect, association, partnership, corporation, supplier, vendor or other entity that has a contract with the CITY or serves in a subcontracting capacity with an entity having a contract with the CITY for the provision of goods or services. 3.4 "Energy Star" means the U.S. EPA's energy efficiency product labeling program. 3.5 The "Forest Stewardship Council" is a global organization that certifies responsible, on-the-ground forest management according to rigorous standards developed by a broad variety of stakeholder groups. 3.6 "Green Building Practices" means a whole-systems approach to the design, construction, and operation of buildings and structures that help mitigate the environmental, economic, and social impacts of construction, demolition, and renovation. Green Building Practices such as those described in the LEEDTM Rating System, recognize the relationship between natural and built environments and seeks to minimize the use of energy, water, and other natural resources and provide a healthy productive environment. 3.7 "Green Seal" is an independent, non-profit environmental labeling organization. Green Seal standards for products and services meet the U.S. EPA's criteria for third-party certifiers. The Green Seal is a registered certification mark that may appear only on certified products. 3.8 "Integrated Pest Management (IPM)" is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to 2 established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment. 3.9 "LEEDTM Rating System" means the most recent version of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) Commercial Green Building Rating System, or other related LEEDTM Rating System, approved by the U.S. Green Building Council and designed for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings. 3.10 Producer Responsibility means an environmental strategy in which producers assume financial and/or physical responsibility for the management of post-consumer products so that those who produce and use those products bear the costs of recycling and proper disposal. 3.11 "Recovered Material" means fragments of products or finished products of a manufacturing process, which has converted a resource into a commodity of real economic value, and includes pre-consumer and post- consumer material but does not include excess resources of the manufacturing process. 3.12 "Recycled Content' means the percentage of recovered material, including pre-consumer and post-consumer materials, in a product. 3.13 "Remanufactured Product' means any product diverted from the supply of discarded materials by refurbishing and marketing said product without substantial change to its original form. 3.14 "Source Reduction" refers to products that result in a net reduction in the generation of waste compared to their previous or alternate version and includes durable, reusable and remanufactured products; products with no, or reduced, toxic constituents; and products marketed with no, or reduced, packaging. 3.15 "Water-Saving Products" are those that are in the upper 25% of water conservation for all similar products, or at least 10% more water- conserving than the minimum level that meets the Federal standards. 4. SPECIFICATIONS 4.1 Source Reduction 4.1.1 The CITY may institute practices that reduce waste and result in the purchase of fewer products whenever practicable and cost-effective, but without reducing safety or workplace quality. 3 4.1.2 The CITY purchase remanufactured products (i.e. for equipment and vehicles) whenever practicable, but without reducing safety, quality or effectiveness. 4.1.3 The CITY may require all equipment bought after the adoption of this Policy to be specified and delivered so it is compatible with source reduction goals as referred to in this section (3.1), whenever practicable. 4.1.4 All buyers may consider short-term and long-term costs in comparing product alternatives, when feasible. This includes evaluation of total costs expected during the time a product is owned, including, but not limited to, acquisition, extended warranties, operation, supplies, disposal costs and expected lifetime compared to other alternatives. 4.1.5 Products that are durable, long lasting, reusable, refillable, recyclable, or otherwise create less waste may be selected whenever possible. 4.1.6 The CITY encourages vendors to minimize packaging to the greatest extent practicable and cost-effective. 4.1.7 Packaging that is reusable, recyclable or compostable may be selected when suitable uses and programs exist. 4.1.8 Suppliers of electronic equipment may be required to take back equipment for reuse or environmentally safe recycling when the CITY discards or replaces such equipment, whenever possible. 4.1.9 Rechargeable and recyclable batteries may be purchased and used whenever possible. 4.1.10 All documents may be printed and copied on both sides to reduce the use and purchase of paper, whenever possible. 4.2 Recycled Content Products 4.2.1 The CITY may specify and purchase wherever and whenever practicable products which contain: • the highest percentage of 9 post-consumer recovered material consistent with standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California, whichever is greater; and 4 • the highest percentage of pre-consumer recovered material consistent with standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California, whichever is greater. In addition, the purchase of paper products may meet the recycled paper products definition of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the State of California whichever contains the higher recycled content. 4.2.2 Copiers and printers purchased or leased may be compatible with the use of recycled content paper where practicable. 4.2.3 The CITY may purchase re-refined lubricating and industrial oil for use in its vehicles and other equipment, as long as it is consistent with the engine manufacturer's warranty and maintenance requirements. 4.2.4 When specifying asphalt concrete, aggregate base or Portland cement concrete for road construction projects, the CITY may use recycled, reusable or reground materials when practicable. 4.2.5 The CITY may purchase paint meeting Green Seal or other equivalent environmental standard for recycled content latex paint whenever practicable. 4.2.6 All pre-printed recycled content papers intended for distribution that are purchased or produced may contain a statement that the paper contains recycled content. The statement should indicate the percentage of post- consumer recycled content it contains. 4.3 Energy and Water Savings 4.3.1 Energy-efficient equipment may be purchased with the most up-to-date energy efficiency functions. This includes, but is not limited to, high efficiency space heating systems and high efficiency space cooling equipment. 4.3.2 The CITY may purchase and replace inefficient interior lighting with energy-efficient equipment. 4.3.3 The CITY may purchase and replace inefficient exterior lighting, street lighting and traffic signal lights with energy-efficient lighting may be minimized where possible to avoid ec es ary lighting Exterior architectural and landscape features while providing adequate illumination for safety and accessibility. 4.3.4 All products purchased by the CITY and for which the U. S. EPA Energy Star certification is available shall meet Energy Star certification. When 5 Energy Star labels are not available, the CITY may choose energy- efficient products that are designated by federal data bases, unless the product has a third party certification subject to review by the CITY's designated representative. 4.3.5 The CITY may purchase water-saving products whenever practicable. This includes, but is not limited to, high-performance fixtures like toilets, waterless urinals, low-flow faucets and aerators, and upgraded irrigation systems. 4.4 Green Building 4.4.1 All building and renovations undertaken by the CITY may follow Green Building Practices for design, construction, and operation, where appropriate, as described in the LEEDTM Rating System. 4.4.2 To the greatest extent practicable, the CITY may procure wood products such as lumber that originates from forests harvested in an environmentally sustainable manner. When possible, the CITY may give preference to wood products that are certified to be sustainably harvested by a comprehensive, performance-based certification system. The certification system may include independent third-party audits, with standards equivalent to, or stricter than, those of the Forest Stewardship Council certification. 4.4.3 The CITY encourages the purchase or use of previously used or salvaged wood and wood products whenever practicable. 4.5 Landscaping 4.5.1 Products and services purchased by the CITY shall be suitable for project application and consistent with CITY landscaping guidelines. Landscape renovations, construction and maintenance performed for the CITY, may employ sustainable landscape management techniques whenever possible. 4.5.2 Plant waste should be minimized by selection of species that are appropriate to the microclimate that can grow to their natural size in the space allotted them, and that are perennials rather than annuals for color. Native and drought-tolerant plants that require minimal or no watering once established are preferred. 4.5.3 Hardscapes and landscape structures constructed of recycled-content materials are encouraged. The CITY may limit the amount of impervious surfaces in the landscape, wherever practicable. Permeable substitutes, 6 such as permeable asphalt or pavers, are preferred for walkways, patios, driveways and low volume traffic areas. 4,6 Toxics and Pollution Reduction 4.6.1 When making a choice among comparable products, the CITY may, whenever practicable, favor those products whose production and use involve fewer hazardous materials. 4.6.2 To the extent practicable, the CITY may purchase, or require janitorial contractors to supply, industrial and institutional cleaning products that meet Green Seal certification or other equivalent standards for environmental prefer ability and performance. 4.6.3 To the extent practicable, the CITY may purchase, or require janitorial contractors to supply, vacuum cleaners that meet the requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute "Green Label" Testing Program — Vacuum Cleaner Criteria, are capable of capturing 96% of particulates 0.3 microns in size, and operate with a sound level less than 70dBA. Where possible and as applicable, other janitorial cleaning equipment may be capable of capturing fine particulates,removing sufficient moisture so as to dry within 24 hours, operate with a sound level less than 70dBA, and use high- efficiency, low-emissions engines. 4.6.4 The CITY may implement the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan and practices for indoor and outdoor areas using chemical controls only as a last resort and providing on-going training and certification for CITY staff. Purchases of materials and services made by the CITY shall be consistent with its Integrated Pest Management policies. 4.6.5 The CITY may reduce the use of disposable batteries by purchasing rechargeable batteries for devices, such as cameras, remote control, tape recorders, telephone headsets, and wireless keyboards and mice and other equipment when practicable. 4.6.6 The CITY may favor the less hazardous item when purchasing products and equipment that contain lead or mercury and when the product or equipment has an established take-back program. 4.6.7 When replacing vehicles, the CITY may consider less-polluting alternatives to diesel such as compressed or liquefied natural gas, bio- based fuels, hybrids, electric batteries, and fuel cells, as available. 7 4.7 Producer Responsibility 3.7.1 The CITY may, whenever practicable, favor products that are manufactured by companies that take financial and/or physical responsibility for collecting, recycling, reusing, or otherwise safely disposing of their products and packaging at the end of their useful life. 3.7.2 When products are available that have established manufacturer-financed recycling programs the CITY may require vendors to offer the manufacturer's recycling services. 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 The Directors of the Finance and Public Works Department, or other directors as designated by the City Manager, may implement this policy in coordination with other appropriate CITY personnel. 5.2 Upon request, buyers making the selection from competitive bids may be able to provide justification for product choices that do not meet the environmentally preferable purchasing criteria in this policy. 5.3 Vendors, contractors and grantees may comply with applicable sections of this policy for products, and services provided to the CITY may provide reporting, where practicable. 5.4 Nothing contained in this policy may be construed as requiring a department, purchaser or contractor to procure products that do not perform according to their intended use, exclude adequate competition, or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time. 5.5 Nothing contained in this policy may be construed as requiring the CITY, department, purchaser or contractor to take any action that conflicts with local, state or federal requirements. 6.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION 6.1 The Finance and Public Works Department personnel or others may be responsible for implementing this policy and may periodically evaluate the success of this policy's implementation through benchmarking and goal setting and periodic reports. • With the technical assistance and support Department, Finance Department personne or other person el as designated by the City Manager may collect data and assist with benchmarking and reporting. 8 • Public Works Department and Finance Department personnel may provide educational resources, training, technical support and prepare reporting. 7.0 EFFECTIVE DATES 7.1 This policy shall take effect on adoption by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield. 9