Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 1216 CC REG ITEM 10ICity of Moorpark AGENDA REPORT 1 /y, 73 0 ITEM 10 •Z • CITY OF M,, OORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of 1 2 - I to ACTION: TrDJed TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: John Brand, Senior Management Analys t DATE: December 9, 1998 (CC meeting of December 16, 1998) SUBJECT: Consider Approval of the 1997 Annual Report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) on the City's Waste Reduction Status. BACKGROUND The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each jurisdiction to submit an annual report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) which discusses the progress achieved in implementing the programs described in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE). The annual report also discusses the progress a jurisdiction has made in achieving the disposal reduction goals required by AB 939; 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000. Attached is the City's Annual Report for 1997. The report was prepared by Data Research Analysis, the consultant who also worked with staff last year to prepare the 1995 and 1996 reports. This report corrects what staff believes are deficiencies in the original waste generation study prepared by the County. The report makes the case to the state that the base year calculation should be adjusted. Briefly, the samples taken in 1990 appear to have under - estimated the total waste generation at that time. The state created this procedure for base -year recalculation to accommodate the volume of jurisdictions that seek to revise their base year disposal number or other factors of AB939 compliance. Locally, the City of Oxnard is among the Cities and counties that have revised their AB 939 base year calculation. As of consequence of the smaller base year calculation, Moorpark has shown lower diversion than nearby Cities in recent years, even though Moorpark implemented more extensive recycling programs than those same Cities. Based on these revised calculations, the table OW261 CIWMB Annual Report CC Meeting of December 16, 1998 Page 2 on page A -10 indicates that the City's 1997 diversion percentage is 53.30. Council is asked in approving this report, to accept the recommendation of staff and the City's consultant request that the CIWMB approve the revision to Moorpark's base year waste generation calculations. The waste board would then consider the report and make a decision or finding on its merits. Without the revision, the City's diversion rate for 1997 would be about 36 %, significantly lower than the 53% staff believes is more accurate. RECONMNDATION Approve the 1997 Annual Report to the CIWMB with the revised base year waste generation calculations. 1997 CIWMB Annual Report 00026Z City of Moorpark 1997 Annual Report on Waste Reduction and Recycling December 1998 UU0263 Jurisdiction/Regional Agency Information Jurisdiction City Name: Moorpark County: Ventura Primary Contact: Contact Name: Contact Title: Phone #: Mailing Address: John Brand Solid Waste Coordinator (805) 529- 6864 x248 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Other Contacts: Contact Name: Deborah Millais Contact Title: Principal, Data Research Analysis Phone #: (805) 642 -9168 Mailing Address: 5429 Topa Topa Drive Ventura, CA 93003 FAX #: (805) 529 -8270 FAX #: (805) 642 -3137 0" SECTION (A): MEASUREMENT OF DISPOSAL REDUCTION Check each item as completed, providing attachments as applicable. Refer to the User's Guide for detailed instructions and examples. [ ✓] A -1. Complete the disposal reduction calculations using the Board - approved base -year generation amount (refer to list provided by Board staff in Data Tables) and using the reporting -year disposal amount as reported from the disposal reporting system (the sum of the amounts provided from your county and from any other counties). Calculate the reporting -year disposal in Table A -lb. Information on the adjustment factors used should be provided in Table A -la and hard copies of the source documents for each factor should be attached. A blank "CIWMB Disposal Reduction Calculations Form" is provided. Computerized versions of this form are available upon request (refer to User's Guide Attachment VI). [ ✓] Information about adjustment factors is provided in Table A -la (below) and hard copies of the source documents for each factor are attached. [ ✓] A calculation of the reporting -year disposal in provided in Table A -lb (below). [ ✓] Disposal Reduction Calculations are attached and labeled as Appendix A -1. Table A -la: Data Sources for Adjustment Method Factors FACTOR SOURCE INFORMATION Population (# Persons) Base -Year [ ✓] Source: CIWMB Letter [ ] County Level 25,494 [ ✓] Date: 6/18/98 [ ✓] Jurisdiction Level [ ] Copy enclosed: NA Reporting -Year [ ✓] Source: CIWMB Letter 28,400 [ ✓] Date: 6/18/98 Copy enclosed: NA Employment (# Jobs) Base -Year [ ✓] Source: CIWMB Letter [ ✓] County Level 349,300 [ ✓] Date: 6/18/98 [ ] Jurisdiction Level [ ] Copy enclosed: NA Reporting -Year [ ✓] Source: CIWMB Letter 358,100 [ ✓] Date: 6/18/98 Copy enclosed: NA Taxable Sales ($) Base -Year [ ✓] Source: CIWMB Letter [ ] County Level 76,381 [ ✓] Date: 6/18/98 [✓] Jurisdiction Level [ ] Copy enclosed: NA Reporting -Year [ ✓] Source: CIWN1B Letter 128.244 [ ✓] Date: 6/18/98 Copy enclosed: Consumer Price Index Base -Year [✓] Source: CIWMB Letter [ ] State Level 135.0 [ ✓] Date: 6/18/98 [ ✓] Region Level [ ] Copy enclosed: NA Reporting -Year [ ✓] Source: CIWMB Letter 160.5 [ ✓] Date: 6/18/98 Copy enclosed: NA Page A -1 O00265 Table A -1b: Reporting -Year Disposal Jurisdiction name: City of Moorpark Quarter Disposal facility (SWIS #) Quantity 1st Simi Valley (56-AA -0007) 5,543.67 Subtotal - 1st Quarter 5,543.67 2nd Simi Valley (56-AA -0007) 6,616.60 Subtotal - 2nd Quarter 6,616.60 3rd Simi Valley (56-AA -0007) 6,582.09 Subtotal - 3rd Quarter 6,582.09 4th Simi Valley (56-AA -0007) 5,423.99 Calabasas Landfill (19-AA -0056) 99.38 Subtotal - 4th Quarter 5,523.37 Total Reporting Year disposal: 24,265.73 [ ✓] A -2. a) Does the Board- approved base -year generation amount accurately represent your jurisdiction's base year generation? [ ] Yes. Go onto A -3. [ ✓] No. Attach a discussion and label as Appendix A -2a. Go on to b. b) If a more accurate base -year generation amount can be quantified, a second set of calculations may be attached for staff to consider during the Board's evaluation of your Annual Report. Include a discussion on how this amount was derived and label this discussion Appendix A -2a. Label the diversion rate calculation attachment Appendix A -2b. Revised Base -Year Generation = 43,688 tons [ ✓] A -3. a) Does the disposal amount, as reported from the disposal reporting system, accurately represent your jurisdiction's reporting -year disposal amount? [✓] Yes. Go on to A -4. [ ] No. Attach a discussion and label as Appendix A -3a. Go on to b. b) If a more accurate reporting -year disposal amount can be quantified, a second set of calculations may be attached, for staff to consider during the Board's evaluation of your Annual Report. Include a discussion on how this amount was derived and label this discussion Appendix A -3a. Label the diversion rate calculation attachment Appendix A -3b. Revised Reporting -Year Disposal = tons Page A -2 000266 [✓] A -4. Is a regional medical waste treatment facility or a regional diversion facility located within your jurisdiction for which you have made a correction to the reporting -year disposal amount in Section A? [ ] Yes. Discuss the waste types in the residual solid waste that cannot feasibly be diverted and any additional efforts undertaken to divert the waste produced at each facility. Explain why the adjustment should or should not still apply. Label attachment as Appendix A -4. [✓] No. OPTIONAL INFORMATION: [ ✓] A -5. a) Does the information presented in appendix A -1, A -2, and/or A -3 accurately represent your jurisdiction's diversion rate? [ ✓] Yes. Go on to B -1. [ ] No. There is additional information regarding the compliance calculations for staff to consider during the Board's evaluation. A discussion is attached and labeled Appendix A -5a. Go on to b. b) If a more accurate diversion rate can be quantified, a set of calculations may be attached, for staff to consider during the Board's evaluation. Include a discussion on how this amount was derived andlable this discussion Appendix A -5a. Label the diversion rate calculation Appendix A -5b. Page A -3 Appendix A -2a — Inaccuracies in Base Year Generation Data The City has always believed that its base year generation tonnage was inaccurate. As noted in the 1995 Annual Report, Moorpark's per capita waste generation factors are significantly lower than those of similar nearby cities, such as Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Camarillo. There are four factors that point to Moorpark's base year generation having been undercounted; per capita comparisons, percent of waste that is residential, implementation of recycling programs, and comparison of current year generation to base year generation. 1. Per Capita Comparisons. The City's Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) was done by the Ventura County Waste Management Department, which also completed the SWGS for the Cities of Ojai, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks. Representative samples were taken from 30 -35 households and from 20 businesses in each city, and the waste generation and waste characterization data were extrapolated from these samples. The waste generation and characterization factors from the commercial, industrial, and "other" sectors were combined for the three cities, and the same factors used for all. However, the residential samples for each city were taken separately. We believe that the sample for the City of Moorpark was uncharacteristically low, and the factor for Thousand Oaks, a nearby city with very similar demographic characteristics, is more applicable. Table 1 below illustrates the residential generation factors for Moorpark and Thousand Oaks. Table 1— Per Capita Generation City Residential Generation (pounds per day per person Percent Increase Moorpark 2.560000 Thousand Oaks 4.872971 89% Although a certain amount of variation is expected from city to city, the residential generation should not vary this greatly between cities with similar demographic characteristics. As the table below demonstrates, Moorpark and Thousand Oaks are very similar demographically. This data is from the 1990 census, so that it is applicable to the base year. Page A -4 0002C8 Table 2 — Demographic Comparison of Moorpark and Thousand Oaks Characteristic Moorpark Thousand Oaks Total Population 25,494 104,352 Population/Square Mile 2,056 2,105 Persons per Household 3.3 2.8 Household Income 64,161 67,589 Non-family Income 46,298 42,372 Persons below poverty 4.2% 4.2% Average rooms per unit 6.2 6.2 Percentage with 3+ bedrooms 77.2% 70.2% Monthly Gross Rent 911 959 Although Thousand Oaks is much larger, its consumer characteristics are virtually the same. Cities with such similar demographics should have similar waste generation characteristics. 2. Percent of waste that is residential. Moorpark is well known as a bedroom community, providing housing for people employed in Los Angeles County and well as in neighboring communities. As noted in the Community Profile portion of the SRRE, the city has 1,788 acres of residential land and only 692 acres of commercial, industrial, and institutional combined. Given these facts, its waste stream should be predominantly residential, not 59% non - residential and 41% residential as the SWGS shows. The residential waste generation was undercounted. Implementation of Recycling Programs. Moorpark has aggressively implemented residential and commercial recycling and diversion programs, more so than some neighboring communities. For example, Thousand Oaks only recently began residential green waste collection, a major component of most cities' diversion efforts. If Moorpark's base year generation were accurate, these programs would be reflected in a higher diversion rate than Thousand Oaks', yet Moorpark's official rate is 35% while Thousand Oaks has over 50% diversion. 4. Comparison of current year generation to base year generation. Moorpark's 1990 base year generation was 39,074.12 tons. As can be seen from Table 3 below, current year generation is 38,650 tons. Even allowing for the population growth of approximately 3,000 people since 1990, the current year generation is much higher than would be expected if the base year generation were correct. Page A -5 000 GS Table 3 —1997 Generation Source Tons Disposal 365 Hauler 20,177.68 Self Haul from DRS 4,088.05 Sludge 1,175.00 Subtotal 25,440.73 = Unadjusted residential generation 22,672.25 Diversion .922 Residential Curbside 3,537.45 Residential Green Waste 2,424.48 Commercial Recycling 1,586.48 Commercial Green Waste 237.28 Cold In Place Paving 990.00 Self Haul Green Waste 400.00 Supermarkets 3,713.70 Grasscycling 400.00 Backyard Composting 129.00 Kavlico 175.00 School District 40.00 Subtotal 13,633.39 39,074.12 New Base Year Generation. Implementing the base year revision requires that the residential generation be subtracted out and that a new residential generation tonnage be calculated and added back in. The calculation for the new number is as follows: Residential Generation (lbslpersonlday) 4.872971 Times number of days per year 365 = Pounds per person per year 1,778.6344 Divided by number of pounds per ton 2,000 = Tons per person per year .8893 Times population 25,494 = Unadjusted residential generation 22,672.25 Divided by seasonality factor .922 = Base Year Residential Generation 24,590.29 Revised Base Year Generation Calculation Original Base Year Generation 32,325 Minus Residential Generation - 13,226 = Base Year Non - Residential Generation 19,098 Plus Revised Residential Generation +24,590 = Revised Base Year Generation 43,688 Attached is the Disposal Reduction Calculation using the revised base year data. Page A-6 000270 Appendix A -1a - Uncorrected Base Year Generation CIWMB DISPOSAL CALCULATIONS 1) Input Name/Location 2) Input Base -Year, Board - Approved Base -Year Generation Tonnage and Residential Percentage: Base -Year 1990 :i Waste Sector Tonnages Percentages Residential 13,256 40. gam; Source o5a:, Non - Residential 19,098 59.03% Total 32;355 100.00% 3) Input Reporting -Year and Reporting Year Disposal Tonnage from Disposal Reporting S stem Reporting Year Total Disposed Tonnage 1997 24,266 4) Input Board Approved Diversion Goal Percentages Diversion Goal % ONLY IF APPLICABLE Input Reporting-Year Disposal Correction Total Disaster Waste Disposal Reduction Amount attach list ** by disaster Total Medical Waste Disposal Reduction Amount attach list ** by facil' Total Regional Diversion Facility Residual Waste Amount attach list by facility) Total Out -of -State Exports subsequently Diverted attach list ** with documentation Total Other Disposal Reduction Amount (attach list ** by event/facility) Total Reporting -Year Correction Amount _ 6) Input Adjustment Method Factors; Factors Base -Year Re ortin -Year Source o5a:, Population # persons) 25 494 28,350 StateDefault : © Em to ment #'obs 349300 8. 00 Statepefauitl Taxable Sales $ 76;381 i18;�27 State<TJefaatt "a Consumer Price Index 135:110 60,501 Stc!W<Defautt D Page A -7 0002'71 7) Calculated Adjustment To Correct Base -Year Generation for Changes in Population & Economics 7 -a 7 7 -c 7-i 7 -e 74 7-g 7 -h Inflation Multiplier IM = Base-year Consumer Price Index/Reporting-Year Consumer Price Index 0.84 Corrected Reporting -Year Taxable Sales (CTR) = CTR = IM x Reporting-Year Taxable Sales 100,705 Employment Ratio (ER) = ER = Reporting-Year Employment/Base-Year Em to ment 1.03 Taxable Sales Ratio (TSR) _ SR = CTRBase Year Taxable Sales 1.32 Non - Residential Adjustment Factor (NRAF) _ NRAF = ER + TSR /2 1.17 Population Ratio (PR) = [PR ;z Reporting Year Population/Base Year Po ulation 1.12 Residential Adjustment Factor (RAF) Po ulation Ratio + NRA /2 1.15 Estimated Reporting -Year Generation Tonnage (ERYG) _ Base -Year Residential Gen. x RAF )+ Base -Year Non - residential Gen. x NRAF 37,570 Computed Maximum Allowable Disposal Tonnage Reporting -Year Maximum Allowable Disposal Percentage (MAX %) _ % = 100% - Diversion Goal% 75% Reporting -Year Maximum Allowable Disposal Percentage (MAXTONS) _ TONS = ERYG x MAX% 28,177 9) Determination of Goal Achievement 9 -a I Corrected Reporting -Year Disposal Tonnage (CRYTONS) _ [CRYTONS = Reporting -Year Disposal Amount - Total Reporting -Year Correction Amountl 10) 10 -a 10 -b I I UUU = MAA r ON5- CRYTONS] 3,911 Note: Goal is met if posifive or zero. Calculated Diversion Percentage F Reporting -Year Disposal Percentage (DISP %) _ DISP% = CRYTONS/ERYG 65% Reporting -Year Diversion Percentage (DIV %) _ [DIV = 100% - DISP %] 35.41% Note: Not meeting the goal does not automatically indicate non - compliance. The Board will also examine program implementation when making the determination of compliance. rage H -ts 000272 Appendix A -2b - Corrected Base Year Generation CIWMB DISPOSAL CALCULATIONS 1) Input Name /Location 2) Input Base -Year, Board Approved Base Year Generation Tonnage and Residential Percentaae: 3) Input Reporting Year and Reporting Year Disposal Tonnage from Disposal Reporting S stem Reporting Year Total Disposed Tonnage 4 997 24;266 4) Input Board Approved Diversion Goal Percentages Diversion Goal % = 25t?96 5) ONLY IF APPLICABLE, Input Reporting Year Disposal Correction Amounts; Board - Approved Reductions (e.g. Disaster Wastes, Medical Waste) Tonnage Amount Total Disaster Waste Disposal Reduction Amount attach list'* by disaster Total Medical Waste Disposal Reduction Amount attach list** by facility) Total Regional Diversion Facility Residual Waste Amount attach list by facility) Total Out -of -State Exports subsequently Diverted attach list** with documentation) Total Other Disposal Reduction Amount (attach list** by event/facility) Total Reporting -Year Correction Amount 0 6) Input Adjustment Method Factors; Factors Base -Year Reporting -Year Source of Data Population # persons) 25,494 28;400 St ate Default Bata Employment # lobs 349 300 358;100 Siate Defaultata Taxable Sales $ 78,384 128=244 State Qefault Bata Consumer Price Index 135.00 460.50 State Default flata Page A -9 000273 7) Calculated Adjustment To Correct Base -Year Generation for Changes in 7 -a 7 -b 7 7 7 -e 7-f Population & Economics Inflation Multiplier IM = Base-year Consumer Price Index/Reporting-Year Consumer Price Index 0.84 Corrected Reporting -Year Taxable Sales (CTR) _ CTR = IM x Reporting-Year Taxable Sales 107,869 Employment Ratio (ER) _ ER = Reporting-Year Employment/Base-Year Employment] 1.03 Taxable Sales Ratio (TSR) _ SR = CTR/Base Year Taxable Sales 1.41 Non - Residential Adjustment Factor (NRAF) _ NRAF = ER + TSR /2 1,22 Population Ratio (PR) _ PR = Reporting Year Population/Base Year Po ulation 1.11 Residential Adjustment Factor (RAF) —[(Population Ratio + NRAF)/211 1.17 7-hl Estimated Reporting -Year Generation Tonnage (ERYG) _ [(Base -Year Residential Gen. x RAF) + (Base -Year Non - residential Gen x NRAF) 8) 8 -a 8 -b Computed Maximum Allowable Disposal Tonnage Reporting -Year Maximum Allowable Disposal Percentage (MAX %) _ MAX % = 100% - Diversion Goal% 75% Reporting -Year Maximum Allowable Disposal Percentage (MAXTONS) _ MAXTONS = ERYG x MAXO/61 38,967 9) Determination of Goal Achievement 9-a Corrected Reporting -Year Disposal Tonnage (CRYTONS) _ YTONS = Reporting -Year Disposal Amount - Total Reporting -Year Correction Amount] 9 -b 10) 10 -a 10 -b Tonnage Over or Under Goal (TOUG) _ [TOUG = MAXTONS- CRYTONS] 14,701 Note: Goal is met if positive or zero. caicuiatea Diversion Percentage Reporting -Year Disposal Percentage (DISP %) _ DISP% = CRYTONS /ERYG 47% Reporting -Year Diversion Percentage (DIV %) _ [DIV = 100% - DISP %] 53.30% Note: Not meeting the goal does not automatically indicate non - compliance. The Board will also examine program implementation when making the determination of compliance. rayC h -iu 0002'74 SECTION (B): PROGRAM ASSESSMENT In compliance with the Board's revised format for Annual Reports, this section includes a narrative discussion of changes in the City's diversion programs since the last report Improved Green Waste Collection. The City has already implemented its residential green waste collection program. In order to improve capture and recycling of Christmas trees, thts program has been incorporated into the regular green waste program. Previously, the City operated a Christmas tree drop -off site, where residents could bring their trees. Starting in 1997, residents were able to leave their christmas trees at the curbside with their green waste for two collection days after Christmas. After this, residents may still recycle their trees but must cut them up to fit in the green waste barrel. Page B -1 UOOZ 75