Del Norte County Grand Jury 2010-2011 Final Report

The newest Solid Waste collection contract was not a bid process in that it was not designed to award the contract solely based on the lowest monetary bid. This process also did not have the intent of determining the final contract price. The newest contract was awarded through a Request For Proposals process that was created by the managers of the Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority (DNSWMA) and The Authority's Attorneys with advisement from a non- county consultant, Environmental Planning Consultants who performed a Franchise Performance Audit and Contract Review in September 2006-July 2007, a citizen advisory task force, and with input from the public regarding collection services. The Board of Directors for the Solid Waste Management Authority Board approved the Request For Proposals and directed the DNSWMA staff to release this format. A Pre-Proposal meeting was held on February 18, 2010 to review the proposal and contractor selection process, the requested services, and to answer all relevant questions that were submitted within three days of the meeting. The review committee noted that services requested included new services to be added in order to comply with regulations required by the State of California beginning July 1, 2011. The Request for Proposals stated that, "Prior to contract award for work described herein, the Authority will conduct investigations as necessary to determine the performance record and ability of the proposer to perform the work described herein. Upon request, the Proposer shall submit information deemed necessary by the Authority to evaluate the proposer's qualifications." The Grand Jury review committee heard testimony that one or more of the Proposers did not submit some of the requested information; conversely each of the three companies who submitted proposals left out required information from their submitted proposals, and all the submitting companies were allowed to amend their proposal with the missing information. The review process for the proposals was designed to be as effective as possible. A rating system was created that gave individual weights to 4 categories: a-25%, rated requested waste management services b-20%, rated references, experience, reputation, and compliance c-15%, rated reliability and capacity of processing facilities d-40%, rated the total cost proposal (evaluated as described in section 2.4.5.3) and on three months revenue and annual revenue. Sub-categories A-F were also rated (small letters indicate which main category the sub-category applied to): A-container comparisons(b), B-Experience comparisons(a), C-processing comparisons(c), D-local jobs and economic development(b), E-transition plan comparisons(b), F- contingency plan comparisons(b). These subcategories were contained within one of the larger categories a-d When the Ad Hoc committee consisting of the Director and the Program Manager of the solid waste management authority and two DNSWMA board members, one from the city council and one from the county board of supervisors rated each proposal independently, no one proposal stood out among the three that were submitted. The ad hoc committee process did not inform the entire board of which company was a clear "winner". All board members were given the rating sheet to independently assess each proposal. Board members testified they considered issues such as a company's ability to begin the new services when required with the consideration of monetary burden on the company to purchase equipment needed for the new services. The review committee verified that final proposal scores were calculated by combining those of the four independent ad hoc committee ratings. Hambro's proposal received a composite score of 92, Recology a composite score of 91, and Renewable Waste Systems a composite score of 88.5. The review committee found that these scores were an advisory tool and were not intended to be the only means to award the contract. The one point difference between the two top rated companies made the decision very difficult for the board. Key factors the review committee found influenced the contract award decision seem to be Recology's experience and their ability to execute the required services as required by the state on time. A lengthy meeting allowing members of the public and members of the proposal submitting companies to make comments was held on June 8, 2010. An initial motion to award the contract to Hambro was made. The motion was voted down with two members voting in favor of and three members voting against this motion. After additional discussion a motion was made to award the contract to Recology. Four members voted in favor of the motion and one member voted against the motion. Objections to the contract award decision were made to the Board and another meeting was scheduled July 14, 2010 to allow the public and members of the proposal submitting companies to present any additional reasons that might warrant a reconsideration of the contract award. The board maintained their original selection of Recology at this second meeting. The review committee did not determine that any member of the voting board acted with negligence of their assigned duties as members of the Solid Waste Management Authority Board when voting to award the new contract. When the board negotiated the final contract price with Recology several issues concerning collection were worked out in this contract process. The Solid Waste Management Authority asserted their desire that customers would continue to have options of hauling their own waste to the transfer station and that a smaller container would be available to customers with minimal waste. All collection customers will have equal-sized containers to place separated recyclable materials in to reduce the size of waste container they require. The current contract contained as a core the 1996 contract with Del Norte Disposal, a subsidiary of Nor Cal Waste Systems, which has since changed its name to Recology Del Norte. This contract was designed with input from an independent contractor, Brown, Vence & Associates (BVA), who also assisted with the writing of bid guidelines and with the closure of the dump from 1995-1996. Recology Del Norte, formerly Del Norte Disposal, has continued to work under the prices set for their previous collection contract for an additional two years without having the opportunity to raise rates. The overall contract amount is for twelve years and does not allow for any increases over the contracted yearly adjustments based on changes to the consumer price index. At the final meeting to finalize the contract on April 13, 2011 the current Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority Board allowed time for the public to comment regarding the proposed contract, prior to the closed session to finalize the contract. Commendations: The Grand Jury recognizes the many hours that members of the task force, ad hoc committee, employees of companies presenting proposals for review, and employees of the Solid Waste Management Authority spent to bring about the improved and regulation compliant new solid waste collection contract. Recommendations: No Recommendations Secretary's Report: On June 24, 2010 19 members were impaneled as the Grand Jury for the 2010-2011 year. Three members were returning members from the previous year's jury. The foreman has stated that he was the fourth foreman selected throughout the current year; I would like to add that there was a large turnover of participating members of the jury as well. A quorum of members is required to make decisions regarding what business the jury will engage in, so I also implore individuals who accept service on the Grand Jury for the 2011-2012 year to recognize that their presence at meetings is required. With a full jury of nineteen members there is opportunity to coordinate with each other so as not to attend every meeting, yet to assure that a quorum is always present. I consider it an honor to be of service to this great community of Del Norte County. I appreciate the fortitude of the core members who remained on the jury for this full year of service. I thank all the committee chairs who compiled reports and the correspondence secretary for her diligent attention to picking up, logging of, and writing of correspondence for the jury. Thank you to the members who accepted the responsibility of being our forepersons. Thank you to all of those who served for a portion of the year. I send prayers and best wishes to those members for whom their illness or illness of family members required them to resign. Thank you to Judge Wier and his assistants, and to employees of county offices for your support throughout this year. Serving on the Grand Jury has been a great chance to discover the day to day workings of Del Norte County and to be impressed with the continuance of service given by Del Norte County employees in the face of consistent budget restraints. I believe that the publication of our final report on the county website is a forward step for the community. Sincerely, Kareen M. Kalvin Recording Secretary for the 2010-2011 Grand Jury Response Instructions for Local Public Agencies This Grand Jury's report contains findings and recommendations directed to the boards of various local public agencies subject to the "watchdog" functions of the Grand Jury. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933, no later than 90 days after the Grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the governing body. And every elected county officer or agency head for which the Grand jury has responsibility shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the Superior Court. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.5 as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each Grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented with a summary regarding the implemented action. The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the near future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. However, if the finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county department headed by an elected officer, both the department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected department head shall address all aspects of the findings, or recommendation affecting his or her department. Submittal of Report by the 2010-2011 Del Norte County Grand Jury Undersigned, being duly swom and acting members of the 2010-2011 Del Norte County Grand Jury and comprising of at least twelve (12) members thereof, hereby affix their signatures to submit this Final Report. Jeffrey Johnson G. Thomas Hopper, Foreman Jill Babbitt Kareen M. Kalvin inda Regan Martinez Linda Buzzini John Roberts Ben Cameron Faith Crist Fred Stoner Kelley Thurmond Day on Conover en Sara Tucker Kathryn Emerson Thomas Griffin Cheryle Vlachopoulos nan D Wise Parolyn Derriott Randy Hatfield Evan Wise Carolyn Her

It was brought to our attention that contraband is an ongoing issue. This may be reduced if more staffing were available on site during the night hours.

A CDC employee brought to our attention that their work boots, double stitched models, "blow out" upon use. In an effort to reduce any health and/or safety concerns or issues, staff has been vigorously working on replacing them with "triple stitched" models.

Alder Camp is having some problems with one of their cleaning solutions. When used on a cleaning rag, they catch fire during or after drying in their industrial clothes dryer. While investigating a solution, Alder Camp has chosen to hang dry their cleaning rags. Juvenile Hall: Two members of the Grand Jury met with Linda Sanford, Assistant Chief Probation officer, at Juvenile hall on April 13, 2011. The tour traced the same route juvenile detainees take when they find themselves inmates of the facility. Ms. Sanford commented on each step and the routine of everyday activities: showers, clothing, recreation, etc. In addition, she explained that a nurse visits the "Hall" once per day and mental health counselors make routine visits. Monday through Friday a well equipped Del Norte County Schools classroom staffed with a full time teacher is available. Grand Jury members visited the kitchen and were pleased when we met a young man who is trained as a chef. Both Ms. Sanford and the cook professed their belief in cooking and serving healthy food to the juvenile inmates. Ms. Sanford pointed out that when she first became the chief officer, over two years prior, she eliminated the use of most instant foods making room for the more healthy approach. Menus consisting of many fresh "from scratch" meals are now the norm. As of this date, there were eleven inmates. Fourteen employees make up the support staff for the facility. Ms. Sanford is very proud of the staff and is incorporating cost-saving measures in order to stretch the "Hall's" budget, and as a result staff has been kept at its current levels. Commendations: The Grand Jury members viewed a report of a visit by the State Corrections Standards Authority. The report states that the Del Norte County Juvenile Hall "passed the inspection with 100% compliance of Title 15 regulations." "In particular this facility's disciplinary due process and involvement with the minor, including hearings and appeal process is exemplary."