Proposal to Provide Five Year Financial Compliance Audit Phase I FY 2016/17 Through 2018/19 Phase II FY 2019/20 Through 2020/21

Proposal to Provide Five Year Financial Compliance Audit Phase I FY 2016/17 through 2018/19 Phase II FY 2019/20 through 2020/21

November 4, 2019 Request for Proposals

Submitted to: Meri Soll, Senior Program Manager Alameda County Waste Management Authority Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board 1537 Webster Street Oakland, CA 94612

Submitted by: Lisa Voeller, Principal Crowe LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, California 95814-4434 Direct 916.492.5133 Tel 916.441.1000 Fax 916.441.1110 [email protected]

Crowe LLP Independent Member Crowe Global 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, California 95814-4434 Tel 916.441.1000 Fax 916.441.1110 www.crowe.com

November 4, 2019

Meri Soll, Senior Program Manager Alameda County Waste Management Authority Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board 1537 Webster Street Oakland, CA 94612

Regarding: Five Year Financial Compliance Audit Phase I FY 2016/17 through 2018/19 Phase II FY 2019/20 through 2020/21

Dear Meri Soll: Crowe LLP (Crowe) is pleased to submit this proposal to the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board (Recycling Board) to conduct the Five Year Financial Compliance Audit of funds raised through the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (“Measure D”). Our proposed Crowe team has extensive proven experience, knowledge, expertise, and industry reputation to successfully execute this project for the Recycling Board. We have a unique understanding of the requirements and associated challenges with this effort. Five of our nine proposed team members have direct experience with the previous five-year financial compliance audit. Crowe plans to build on the lessons learned and leverage prior observations to complete this project. As background, our proposed team is based in Crowe’s San Francisco and Sacramento offices. Crowe’s two local offices are as follows: • 575 Market Street, Suite 3300 • 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94105-5829 Sacramento, California 95814-4434 Tel 415.576.1100 Tel 916.441.1000 Fax 415.576.1110 Fax 916.441.1110

Our local presence will allow us to effectively manage the project, easily conduct Recycling Board, member agency, and grantee site visits (as needed), and directly serve the Recycling Board in an efficient manner. Our proposed team is presented as follows:

Name Project Position Crowe Position 1. Lisa Voeller, PMP 1 Project Executive Partner-Principal 2. Erik Nylund, PMP 1 Project Director Director 3. Wendy Pratt, PMP 1 Recycling and Diversion Specialist Director 4. Mendi Julien, PMP 1 Project Manager Senior Manager 5. Aaron Coen, PMP 1 Senior Auditor Manager 6. Tommy Abeyta Senior Auditor Senior Staff 7. Jason Chan Senior Auditor Senior Staff 8. Kenneth Smith Staff Auditor Staff 9. Brandon Williams Staff Auditor Staff 1 Prior experience with this Measure D financial and compliance audit.

- i - Meri Soll Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Page ii

We believe that the combination of our qualifications and experience presented in this proposal are the most relevant and effective to directly meet (and exceed) the Recycling Board’s needs and Measure D requirements. Our proposal demonstrates that we have the relevant experience and qualifications that the Board needs to successfully complete this project and provide the Board with a high-quality outcome. Our firm’s distinguishing characteristics include: • An integrated waste management specialization – Crowe specializes in financial, economic, and programmatic analyses for the integrated waste management industry. Exemplified through our 150 solid waste management-consulting projects, we are regularly asked to analyze recycling program costs and impacts, prepare financial and economic analyses, complete compliance reviews, perform regulatory rate reviews, and develop policy level recommendations for our clients. • Past successful performance – Our core team performed the prior two (2) financial and compliance audits for the Recycling Board. We have intimate knowledge with the Recycling Board’s fund accounting, financial information system, disposal reporting system, as well as the provisions of the Act. As a result, we have a comprehensive understanding of the Measure D program and the funding process. Additionally, we have demonstrated to the Recycling Board that we bring an unbiased, objective, and independent approach to the project. • Highly qualified and stable project personnel – The Recycling Board will be served by a senior consulting team. Our team members bring 130 years of combined experience in successfully providing financial, economic, statistical, audit, and programmatic consulting to a wide variety of public sector clients. Together, our team has the perfect mix of skills to address all of the fiscal, statistical, and compliance requirements for this audit. The team is highly stable evidenced by the fact that the majority of our team members have extensive prior experience specific to this audit. Additionally, our team is already informed of the Measure D fiscal and compliance requirements. • Recognition of potential Measure D project challenges – Admirably, the Recycling Board has set an auspicious 75 percent diversion goal. In 2015, the County hit a diversion level of 73 percent, which was an all-time high, however by 2017, diversion rates decreased to 67 percent. Based on the observations of the prior audit, economic factors are one of the potential reasons that can impact these rates. Additionally, the implementation of China’s policy, causing a poor market for recycled plastics and paper, may increase the potential for impacting diversion rates. Additional source reduction and recycling efforts and programs are likely being developed and implemented throughout both phases of this five year period. This five-year audit will need to determine compliance of any new projects and programs within the review timeframe. As of 2015/16, member agencies expended all Measure D funds by the end of the fiscal year, which is an improvement from prior years. However, since then, fund balances for grants for non-profits, source reduction, and market development have grown each year. This indicates another growth of unused Measure D funds, which we plan to work with the Recycling Board to address. This is especially imperative with the current conditions: continued economic improvement with a poor market for recyclables. • Fair and balanced approach – Our consultants will work together with the Recycling Board, the County, the member agencies, and grantees over the course of the audit in a fair and balanced manner. Our approach will be oriented so as to move the overall program forward in an effort to achieve the continuing goal of furthering County diversion. We will interact with the Recycling Board and each of the member agencies in a spirit of cooperation to minimize disruption to these entities, obtain the necessary data and information efficiently, and develop thoughtful and practical recommendations for improving the Measure D financial system. • Comprehensive work plan within your budget – We have proposed a comprehensive and thorough work plan within your budget that will result in supported findings and recommendations to improve the current Measure D program. We have conducted numerous similar fiscal and financial reviews for public sector agencies and our firm’s approach will be a rigorous one, including preparing sampling plans for testing transactions, obtaining supporting documentation for sampled transactions (e.g., invoice level), and providing formal, well-organized, review workpapers and files. Meri Soll Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Page iii

• Quality work products – Our clients will attest that our team produces high-quality and defensible project deliverables. We will use the same very high standard for this project as we have always used for our public sector clients. Also, the personnel proposed for this project are frequently asked to defend our products in front of city councils, board of supervisors, and other public officials similar to the Recycling Board.

We continue to admire the Recycling Board’s forward-thinking and innovative approaches for advancing Alameda County source reduction and diversion levels beyond the State of California goals. We also recognize your achievements as a model source reduction and recycling organization. Crowe would welcome the opportunity to work with the Recycling Board on this project.

* * * * *

Our entire project team feels privileged having this opportunity to respond to this Measure D financial compliance audit RFP. We thank you for your careful evaluation of our proposal and we look forward to taking the next steps in establishing a successful partnership between Crowe and the Recycling Board. Should you have any questions, please contact Mendi Julien at (916) 492-5177, or [email protected], and Erik Nylund at (415) 230-4963, or at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Lisa Voeller, Partner-Principal Crowe LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, California 95814-4434 Direct 916.492.5133 Tel 916.441.1000

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit i

Table of Contents

1. Project Personnel Experience ...... 1-1 A. Description of Project Team ...... 1-1 B. Qualifications and Experience of Team Personnel ...... 1-2

2. Firm Qualifications and Experience ...... 2-1 A. Crowe Company Background...... 2-1 B. Crowe Integrated Solid Waste Management Experience ...... 2-10 C. Crowe Peer Review ...... 2-47 D. References ...... 2-49

3. Methodology ...... 3-1 A. Background and Approach ...... 3-1 B. Methodology Description ...... 3-10 C. Detailed Tasks and Subtasks ...... 3-14

4. Project Management ...... 4-1 A. Description of Project Team Organization ...... 4-1 B. Project Management ...... 4-1 C. Project Team’s Commitment ...... 4-8

5. Project Timeline ...... 5-1

6. Disclosures ...... 6-1 A. Conflicts of Interest ...... 6-1 B. Objectivity ...... 6-1

7. Cost Proposal...... 7-1

8. Required Contract Elements ...... 8-1

Appendix A: Resumes ...... A-1

CROWE GLOBAL NETWORK – Crowe LLP and its subsidiaries are independent members of Crowe Global, a Swiss organization. “Crowe” is the brand used by the Crowe Global network and its member firms, but it is not a worldwide partnership. Crowe Global and each of its members are separate and independent legal entities and do not obligate each other. Crowe LLP and its subsidiaries are not responsible or liable for any acts or omissions of Crowe Global or any other Crowe Global members, and Crowe LLP and its subsidiaries specifically disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for acts or omissions of Crowe Global or any other Crowe Global member. Crowe Global does not render any professional services and does not have an ownership or partnership interest in Crowe LLP or any other member. Crowe Global and its other members are not responsible or liable for any acts or omissions of Crowe LLP and its subsidiaries and specifically disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for acts or omissions of Crowe LLP and its subsidiaries. Visit www.crowe.com/disclosure for more information about Crowe LLP, its subsidiaries, and Crowe Global. ii Table of Contents Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Section 1 Project Personnel Experience

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 1-1

1. Project Personnel Experience Crowe provides resource and solid waste management financial, economic, policy, and operational consulting services to a broad range of public sector clients. Our core professionals have been consultants in the solid waste management area with a combined experience of 130 years. This section is organized as follows: A. Description of Project Team B. Qualifications and Experience of Team Personnel

A. Description of Project Team The Alameda Source Reduction and Recycling Board (Recycling Board) is undertaking a mandatory financial and compliance audit. To accomplish this, the Recycling Board seeks the services of a consulting team with resources, experience, and expertise in a broad range of specialized skills and programmatic knowledge areas to enable a quick, efficient, and high-quality execution of the audit. Thus, senior staffing skills will be critical to the success of this contract. We have assembled a senior team with the analytical skills and experience necessary to make this a successful project. This team, which was selected in order to respond directly to this RFP, has the following levels of experience and characteristics: • Lisa Voeller, PMP, Project Executive – with 31 years of experience with providing a wide range of management consulting services relating to solid waste management and economic and financial analysis to numerous public sector clients. She was the project executive for the previous Measure D financial and compliance audit. • Erik Nylund, PMP, Project Director – based in Oakland with over 24 years of experience in solid waste management, and financial and cost analyses. He was the project manager for the previous two Measure D financial and compliance audits. • Wendy Pratt, PMP, Recycling and Diversion Specialist – with 28 years of experience in recycling, source reduction, financial and economic analyses who will serve as a project advisor. She was involved with the previous two Measure D financial and compliance audits. • Mendi Julien, PMP, Project Manager – with 14 years of experience in financial, economic, and statistical analyses, solid waste management, and was involved in the previous two Measure D financial and compliance audits. • Aaron Coen, PMP, Senior Auditor – with 10 years of experience financial and cost accounting, financial reporting and budgeting, solid waste management, and was involved in the last Measure D financial and compliance audit. • Tommy Abeyta, Senior Auditor – with 10 years of experience performing solid waste rate setting to recommending recycling benchmarks and best practices as well as financial and cost accounting, and financial and compliance auditing. • Jason Chan, Senior Auditor – with 8 years of experience of financial and compliance auditing, financial and cost accounting, financial reporting and budgeting, and recycling cost surveys and analysis. • Kenneth Smith, Staff Auditor – with 2 years of experience recycling cost surveys, cost and labor allocations, and solid waste rate analysis. • Brandon Williams, Staff Auditor – with 3 years of experience in economic and financial analysis, financial and compliance auditing, and sold waste rate analysis.

Our professionals are dedicated to the highest quality client service and delivery. Our consultants come from varied backgrounds and disciplines with a breadth of experience in recycling, finance, economics, civil and industrial engineering, refuse collection, program compliance, and source reduction.

1-2 Project Personnel Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

B. Qualifications and Experience of Team Personnel In this subsection, we present biographical summaries to highlight the qualifications and experience for each of the nine (9) Crowe consultants who will be assigned to this project. Exhibit 1-1 provides a matrix of the project personnel expertise in the technical and programmatic areas required to perform this project. All key Crowe personnel will be available to the Recycling Board, when and as required. Crowe management and staff will be available to devote their professional time to this engagement. Each team member is discussed below. We provide resumes for each team member in Appendix A: Resumes.

Exhibit 1-1 Key Project Personnel Expertise in Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge, Required for Five (5) Year Financial and Compliance Audit

Technical Skills Programmatic Knowledge

Economic Cost Knowledge Familiarity Knowledge Knowledge and Financial Compliance Performance Audits of Source With Alameda of Recycling of AB 939, Analyses Auditing Metrics and Reduction County Crowe Years of Programs AB 341 Consultant Experience and Studies Analyses Programs Programs

Lisa Voeller, PMP 31 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Erik Nylund, PMP 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Wendy Pratt, PMP 28 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Mendi Julien, PMP 14 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Aaron Coen, PMP 10 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Tommy Abeyta 10 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Jason Chan 8 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Kenneth Smith 2 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Brandon Williams 3 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫

Lisa Voeller, PMP, Project Executive Ms. Voeller is a Partner-Principal in the Public Sector Services Group of Crowe. She has a Master’s in Business Administration and a Bachelor’s of Science in Economics, both from the University of Southern California. Ms. Voeller has 31 years of public sector consulting experience. Ms. Voeller was the Project Executive on the Board’s prior Measure D Five-Year Financial and Compliance audit and was formerly a Partner with Deloitte & Touche LLP as well as Vice President with DMG Maximus. She has led and managed many large and complex consulting engagements involving strategic planning, business process reengineering, financial and compliance reviews, and environmental and resource management projects. In all of her engagements, she has proven herself as an executive leader who can perform critical analysis tasks, as well as manage staff and scope.

Erik Nylund, PMP, Project Director Mr. Nylund is a Director in the Public Sector Services Group of Crowe based in Oakland. He has a Master’s in Business Administration and a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, both from the University of California, Davis. Mr. Nylund has 24 years of consulting experience, 22 of which have been in the area of solid waste management consulting for local governments. Mr. Nylund was the Project Director on the Board’s prior two Measure D Five-Year Financial and Compliance audits. He oversaw the completion of the project and provided advisory services to the project manager. He also participated led the audit of the Board’s finances. He is familiar with the Board’s newly implemented

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 1-3

accounting system and has a solid understanding of the Board’s fund accounting. He also is familiar with Measure D disposal reporting/payments made by the Altamont Landfill and Vasco Road Landfill. He will provide good project continuity based on his previous direct experience with this audit. Mr. Nylund has extensive experience in solid waste management and recycling. He has substantively participated on nearly all of the projects identified in Section 2. Mr. Nylund has conducted over 50 local government solid waste and recycling projects for nearly 20 local government entities. Mr. Nylund is recently completed a large-scale compliance examination of a regulated investor-owned water utility for the California Public Utilities Commission. He is assessing the company’s compliance with procurement and contracting policies and procedures. Prior to joining Crowe, Mr. Nylund was a consultant in the solid waste management practice of NewPoint Group and the accounting firms of Deloitte & Touche LLP (Oakland, California) and Ernst & Young LLP.

Wendy Pratt, PMP, Recycling and Diversion Specialist Ms. Pratt is a Director in the Public Sector Services Group of Crowe. She has a Master’s in Ecology with an emphasis on Environmental Policy, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Physiology, both from University of California, Davis. Ms. Pratt has over 28 years of professional experience in consulting. Ms. Pratt’s areas of expertise focus on recycling, diversion, source reduction, and hazardous and special wastes. She has worked on recycling and source reduction programs since 1991, she and has extensive experience and knowledge in the areas of resource management, sustainability, and industrial ecology. For the most recent Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit completed by Crowe, Ms. Pratt evaluated and developed performance metrics for diversion reporting. She reviewed the Recycling and Sustainability Index as well as other performance metrics, including a comparative analysis of “good stuff in the garbage.” For the Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit (fiscal years of 2006/07 through 2010/11) completed by Crowe (as NewPoint Group), Ms. Pratt provided recommendations related to improving calculations for diversion reporting. She reviewed the Recycling and Sustainability Index as well as other performance metrics, and she evaluated jurisdictional data related to meeting the 75 percent diversion target. Ms. Pratt has evaluated measurement, market conditions and source reduction options for Alameda County, including developing a financial model on the cost of using paper, conducted a comprehensive analysis of boating facilities in California, and reviewed environmental and economic considerations of forest products internationally. She was the lead consultant on a detailed market and cost-benefit analyses of six recycled materials for the CalRecycle, and also developed a menu of over 20 “fast-track” market development policies for the CalRecycle. As author (with Dr. Seymour Schwartz) of Hazardous Waste from Small Quantity Generators: Strategies and Solutions for Business and Government, she researched financial issues and disposal options for hazardous wastes from small businesses. Ms. Pratt co-authored a plastics white paper for the Department of Conservation and the California Integrated Waste Management Board, including a comprehensive assessment of plastics recycling and markets in California. Most recently, Ms. Pratt has been a key consultant on the processing fee cost survey for CalRecycle. She helped develop the economic model to estimate the cost of recycling plastics #2 through #7, and bi-metals, and has conducted cost analyses on up to 180 certified recycling sites in California.

Mendi Julien, PMP, Project Manager Ms. Julien is a Senior Manager in the Public Sector Services Group of Crowe. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Ms. Julien has 14 years of professional experience in the consulting. Ms. Julien was a key consultant on the previous two Measure D Five-Year Financial and Compliance Audits. Ms. Julien was the project manager on the most recent engagement. In addition to performing the overall project management, Ms. Julien conducted on-site and remote reviews, and oversaw staff performing the reviews, of the 16-member agencies and many non-profits that received Measure D

1-4 Project Personnel Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

funding. Among the previous two audits, she reviewed compliance for over 50 non-profits who received grant funds from the Board. She analyzed jurisdictional Measure D reporting and conducted detailed testing of sampled transactions. She assessed whether program and services expenditures reported by jurisdictions where consistent with the “recycling” intent of Measure D. She determined beginning and ending Measure D fund balances for each jurisdiction. She assessed whether jurisdictions complied with specific Measure D reporting requirements and procedures (e.g., interest calculations). Ms. Julien is trained and specializes in business process assessment, reengineering, and design, organizational analysis, data analysis, program evaluation and performance auditing, and information technology solution analysis/feasibility studies. In total, Ms. Julien completed over 300 cost survey visits and 200 management file reviews of certified recycling centers for CalRecycle and Hawaii, and currently co-leads the 2019 CalRecycle Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Survey. Additionally, she served as the project manager for the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health Handling Fee Survey conducted in 2018. She also helped prepare a city diversion and recycling tracking study.

Aaron Coen, PMP, Senior Auditor Mr. Coen is a Manager in the Public Sector Group of Crowe. He has a Master’s in Business Administration with an emphasis in Finance from University of California, Davis, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from University of California, San Diego. Mr. Coen has 10 years of professional consulting experience. In the previous Measure D Five-Year Financial and Compliance Audit, Mr. Coen performed a detailed review of approximately 10-member agencies’ compliance with requirements related to Measure D funds. The audit was divided into tasks. Each task had multiple subtasks, including scheduling and attending meetings, obtaining and reviewing financial statements and other appropriate supporting documentation, and evaluating compliance with various Measure D requirements. In addition to reviewing the appropriateness of the financial tracking and fund activities, Mr. Coen evaluated current Measure D processes and procedures, and identified opportunities for improvement. Finally, Mr. Coen reviewed and evaluated the Recycling Board’s achievement of performance metrics and made recommendations related to advancing diversion planning. Since joining Crowe, Mr. Coen has specialized in performing a variety of performance and financial analyses with a focus on cost of service, rate setting, compliance, financial reporting and budgeting. Mr. Coen has extensive experience with budgeting, forecasting, strategic planning, integrated solid waste management, refuse recycling and organizational assessments.

Tommy Abeyta, Senior Auditor Mr. Abeyta is a Senior Staff member in the Public Sector Services Group of Crowe. He has a Master’s in Business Administration with an emphasis in Finance from University of California, Davis and a Bachelor of Arts in English and Political Science from University of California, Santa Barbara. Mr. Abeyta has 10 years of professional experience in consulting. Mr. Abeyta has worked on a number of industry related engagements from performing solid waste rate setting to recommending recycling benchmarks and best practices. He has performed financial analysis with extensive experience in pension funding and investment management programs. Mr. Abeyta has specialized in performing a variety of performance and financial analyses with a focus on labor, cost, funding, and budget planning. Mr. Abeyta was a Consultant for the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health Handling Fee Survey. Prior to working for Crowe, Mr. Abeyta worked at CalPERS as an Investment Officer where he specialized on fund allocation and liquidity analysis, cash management forecasting and reconciliation activities, interagency business continuity planning, and banking relationship and communication planning. Mr. Abeyta also specializes in financial reporting and policy frameworks, financial systems implementation design, organizational analysis, data analysis, program evaluation and performance auditing. Prior to joining CalPERS, Mr. Abeyta was a Senior Treasury Analyst at Aerojet Rocketdyne, a Sacramento-based defense and rocket manufacturing company, overseeing debt and cash management activities.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 1-5

Jason Chan, Senior Auditor Mr. Chan is a Senior Staff member in the Public Sector Services Group of Crowe. He has a Bachelor of Science in Plant Sciences from University of California, Santa Cruz. Mr. Chan has eight (8) years of professional experience in consulting. Mr. Chan has experience in working on a variety of public sector engagements including compliance audits, business process reengineering, cost surveys, performance metrics development and tracking, to managing multi-million dollar grants for major California agencies. Mr. Chan has performed a procurement compliance exam of Golden State Water Company (GSWC), a southern California-based public utilities company, under the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Mr. Chan followed guidelines set forth by the CPUC’s General Orders and Standard Practice, as well as standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Mr. Chan was heavily involved with the initial data gathering, validation, and analysis prior to testing, which involved over 250 rate-funded procurement contracts. Additionally, he was the primary consultant to configure and perform user acceptance testing of the web-based review system used to track and report the team’s testing process. During the testing phase, Mr. Chan cumulatively reviewed over $20 million in procurement contracts. Throughout this process, several material findings were identified and documented by Mr. Chan. Additionally, Mr. Chan supported the development of the independent accountant’s report. Prior to joining Crowe, he was a budget and federal grant manager for the largest branch of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Mr. Chan was responsible for managing $70 million in state and federal funds supporting over 80 dynamic projects and over 600 staff. Additionally, he was the primary contact for federal grant audits and provided the Department’s official responses to audit requests.

Kenneth Smith, Staff Auditor Mr. Smith is a Staff member in the Public Sector Services Group of Crowe. He has a Master’s in Business Administration from University of California, Davis and a Bachelor of Music Education from California State University, Sacramento. Mr. Smith has two (2) years of professional experience in consulting. For CalRecycle’s 2019 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys, Mr. Smith received extensive training to conduct financial and labor reviews, complete files, perform quality controls, perform site tours, and other project-related activities. He performed data analysis on costs associated with providing waste management services and recommended rate adjustments for Contra Costa County. Additionally, as part of the NRG Electric Vehicle infrastructure settlement, Mr. Smith is currently performing a compliance examination for the California Public Utilities Commission. As part of the examination, he is responsible for coordinating the site survey portion of the project, including scheduling meetings and trainings, verifying client file submissions, selecting a sample of charging stations to survey, designing a site survey schedule, and communicating with clients and subcontractors.

Brandon Williams, Staff Auditor Mr. Williams is a Staff member in the Public Sector Services Group of Crowe. He has a Bachelor of Science in Finance from California State University, San Diego. Mr. Williams has three (3) years of professional experience in consulting. As a consultant for the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), Mr. Williams developed financial reports from raw financial data, developed innovative financial models, and analyzed CHSRA board financial documents. Mr. Williams is currently performing an assessment of the solid waste rates of the South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority. Additionally, Mr. Williams is involved with a settlement examination for the California Public Utilities Commission, he is inspecting and preparing documentation of findings of various public and multi-family/commercial electric vehicle charging stations and make ready stubs throughout the State. Prior to joining Crowe, Mr. Williams was a consultant for one of The Big 4 accounting consulting firms to provide finance, integrated waste management, and compliance auditing support.

1-6 Project Personnel Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

* * * * *

Resumes for our proposed staff are provided in Appendix A: Resumes for the nine (9) individuals in the order shown in Exhibit 1-2.

Exhibit 1-2 Project Staff Resume Order For Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit Resume Starting Page Name Project Position Crowe Position Number in Appendix A 1. Lisa Voeller, PMP Project Executive Partner-Principal A-2 2. Erik Nylund, PMP Project Director Director A-8 Recycling and 3. Wendy Pratt, PMP Director A-13 Diversion Specialist 4. Mendi Julien, PMP Project Manager Senior Manager A-20 5. Aaron Coen, PMP Senior Auditor Manager A-26 6. Tommy Abeyta Senior Auditor Senior Staff A-29 7. Jason Chan Senior Auditor Senior Staff A-33 8. Kenneth Smith Staff Auditor Staff A-38 9. Brandon Williams Staff Auditor Staff A-40

Section 2 Firm Qualifications and Experience

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-1

2. Firm Qualifications and Experience In this section, we provide the Board with our company history, a summary of our firm’s integrated waste management experience, and references for similar work completed. This section is organized as follows: A. Crowe Company Background B. Crowe Integrated Solid Waste Management Experience C. Crowe Peer Review D. References.

A. Crowe Company Background

1. Firm Overview Crowe has diverse, in-depth governmental experience that delivers insight and a clear understanding of the challenges and solutions of public sector agencies. Crowe has been serving the needs of government organizations for more than 40 years. We work with many different types of government organizations, including counties, municipalities, special service districts, school districts, library districts, State agencies, and quasi-governmental entities. Crowe’s Public Sector Consulting Group consists of 300 professionals across our service areas. Our professionals have worked with hundreds of public sector clients on engagements throughout the United States. Our approach is to bring the best experience to the client to serve the needs of the client. Our Sacramento, CA office professionals, who will primarily deliver this project, have performed over 250 individual consulting projects for state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions. Crowe solutions help address the operational issues most critical to governments in challenging economic times. Our diverse skill sets include business process improvement, technology enablement, finance, accounting, fraud investigation, risk consulting, economic development, and performance audits. These skill sets allow us to deliver effective, cost-efficient services with an in-depth understanding of the unique needs and requirements of government. Quality work, based upon strong competency directed towards our client’s needs, is the core element of creating value for our clients. Quality service involves prompt and efficient delivery and effective communication with clients. Business relationships involve gaining trust and respect by listening to our client’s needs and developing a comprehensive understanding of their business and vision before providing advice. Our professional team understands the way that state governments operate, and we recognize the unique challenges they face. Our team members have delivered high value services to our clients for decades and we feel that we are well suited to provide quality services to the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board. Founded in 1942 as Crowe Chizek, Crowe provides a wide variety of high-quality services, including audit and accounting, tax, technology, and advisory services. The firm has been providing auditing services for over 75 years and has more than 4,000 personnel. Crowe LLP headquarters is located at: • 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, Illinois 60606-1224 Phone: (312) 899-7000 Fax: (312) 899-5300 Website: http://www.crowe.com

2-2 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Office Locations Crowe serves clients coast to coast from the following office locations:

Areas of Specialization Crowe is unique in that we have dedicated teams focused on key industry issues, including: • Government • Construction • Financial Services • Food and Commodities • Healthcare • Higher Education • Manufacturing and Distribution • Not-for-Profit • Private Equity Groups • Retail Dealership

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-3

Position in the Industry: One of the Nation’s Largest Public Accounting and Consulting Firms Crowe ranks as the ninth largest U.S. public accounting and consulting firm (based on U.S. net revenue) according to the 2019 Accounting Today Top 100 Firms List. Professional Standings and Recognition include:

Fortune 100 Best Companies To Work For 2019 Crowe is proud to be recognized as one of the 100 Best Companies to Work For by Fortune 100*. The list is based on feedback from more than 310,000 employees at Great Place to Work-Certified organizations, and more than 50 elements of the workplace, including trust in managers, compensation, fairness, camaraderie and workplace traits linked to innovation. Crowe has also been named to other Fortune lists in the past year including Best Workplaces in Consulting and Professional Services, Best Workplaces for Giving Back and Best Workplaces for Parents.

* FORTUNE and FORTUNE 100 Best Companies to Work For are registered trademarks of Time Inc. and are used under license. From FORTUNE Magazine, March 1, 2019. © 2019 Time Inc. Used under license. FORTUNE and Time Inc. are not affiliated with and do not endorse products and services of Crowe LLP.

Glassdoor Best Places to Work List for 2019 Crowe ranks number 50 on the Glassdoor Best Places to Work list for 2019. Glassdoor, one of the world's largest job and recruiting sites where employees can anonymously share their workplace experiences, is a powerful vehicle for attracting top talent to the firm. This Employee’s Choice award is based solely on comments posted to Glassdoor from past and present Crowe personnel. Customer Engagement Award Crowe received the Customer Engagement Award at the 2017 North American Employee Engagement Awards, which recognizes organizations that execute strategies to make their cultures more customer-centric.

Temkin Group Award Crowe received the Customer Experience Excellence Award from the Temkin Group in 2016 based on its efforts to improve client experience in a sustainable manner.

Institute of Internal Auditors Crowe is a Principal Partner of the Institute of Internal Auditors from the local to international levels and is recognized as an IIA Industry Leader. Crowe personnel regularly contribute thought leadership pieces to IIA publications; serve as speakers and trainers at chapter meetings and regional, national, and international seminars and conferences.

American Bankers Association The American Bankers Association has endorsed Crowe governance, risk, and compliance management consulting services through its affiliate, the Corporation for American Banking. The endorsement was made after an evaluation, which was based on a wide range of factors including ability to meet the needs of ABA members, expertise in regulatory compliance issues, banking experience, and customer service. Crowe is the only ABA-endorsed provider of governance, risk, and compliance management consulting services.

2-4 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Independence and Objectivity As a firm of certified public accountants, Crowe has policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that professional personnel maintain independence, integrity, and objectivity required under professional standards. A dedicated unit within Crowe, the ethics and independence group within the firm’s national office, is responsible for managing and communicating independence and ethics guidance and firm protocol. Independence precludes relationships that might in fact or appearance impair objectivity in performing audit and other attest services. Integrity requires personnel to be honest and candid within the constraints of client confidentiality. Service and the public trust are not to be subordinated to personal gain or advantage. Objectivity is a state of mind and a quality that lends value to a firm’s services. The principle of objectivity imposes the obligation to be impartial, intellectually honest, and free of conflicts of interest. A Crowe individual must consciously refuse to subordinate his or her judgment to that of others and must avoid relationships that may impair objectivity or influence judgment. The Crowe policy is that all personnel must be in fact and appearance independent in attitude, in the conduct of work performed, and in relationships with clients, as required by applicable professional standards. We are not aware of any relationships that would be in violation of applicable professional standards.

Diversity and Inclusion Integrity and exceptional client service are the cornerstones of our client relationships. Crowe promotes and fosters an inclusive work environment where respect, trust, and integrity are valued and people are free to reach their full potentials. We recognize this goal can only be achieved through collaboratively leveraging the diversity, perspectives and needs of our people, our clients and our communities. Accordingly, diversity and inclusion are two of the firm’s top priorities, integrated into firmwide programs, policies, people processes, systems, and day-to-day initiatives. Our Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Council is a governance body that oversees the execution of all key strategies and initiatives with robust CEO and leadership support. Overall, this commitment and the firm’s many inclusive initiatives help us understand, appreciate, and address each individual’s perspectives and needs and support our firm’s values.

Environmental Sustainability Commitment and Goals Our firm promotes an environmentally conscientious workplace through education, awareness, and partnerships, thereby creating eco-friendly practices. We continually research ways to increase and promote our green efforts, which establishes a culture of environmental stewardship. Through this effort, each of our locations is making substantial grassroots contributions toward environmental sustainability. Our firm continuously strives to incorporate environmental accountability and thoughtfulness throughout our culture and business practices. Crowe was one of the founding Advisory Partners to the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), providing subject matter expertise in disclosure reporting, risk management, internal audit, fraud and ethics, security and privacy, and regulatory compliance. Crowe, with membership in organizations including the Corporate Responsibility Association (CRA) and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, promotes the practice and profession of corporate responsibility in service of ethical, sustainable business. Through our memberships, Crowe supports these organizations in their advocacy for accountability in environmental policy, establishing ratings and rankings, protecting brand and reputation, encouraging diversity and inclusion in business, and developing responsible corporate principles.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-5

Employee Satisfaction Crowe has been ranked among the best places to work in many of our geographic markets. Crowe also conducts an annual personnel survey to gather feedback for firm leadership and to continuously improve our talent programs. Our 2017 personnel survey had an 89 percent response rate across the firm, which indicates workers believe their voices make a difference and want to spend the time to improve the culture even further. This response rate was not an anomaly as the rate has been consistently high during the past several years During the past three years, Crowe has experienced an average voluntary turnover rate of less than 15 percent. Our staff continuity enables us to develop and maintain an in-depth understanding of your operations, management style, and operating practices, which ultimately will allow us to serve your organization more effectively over time. Additionally, our culture stresses the importance of partner presence throughout projects and engagements. Active, personal involvement by partners, managers, and other experienced professionals is key to a successful client relationship.

Client Experience Why Do Our Clients Choose Crowe? Clients tell us when our technical expertise, industry knowledge, and applied technology come together, exceptional service and value result. At Crowe, we take pride in our relationships with our clients. Our vision is that our people come to work every day motivated to provide our clients with an exceptional experience in every interaction and to help our professionals maintain objectivity in the delivery of our services. Our 2018 client engagement surveys show that Crowe has achieved an 89 percent client engagement index score. According to the research firm PeopleMetrics, our score is 36 points higher than the industry average of 53 percent. An engaged client is one who agrees that it really likes working with us, is likely to continue to work with us, would go out of its way to keep working with us, and will recommend us to its colleagues.

How Do We Do This? We have learned from our clients that there are certain attributes important to their overall experience, and each client perceives value differently. To help us meet our clients’ expectations, we conduct an engagement survey that allows our clients to evaluate our performance. Proof of this can be found in what our clients say about us, in our client engagement survey results, and through recognition we have received from client experience organizations. In addition, if a client is faced with a challenge or issue that is unresolvable with their Crowe partner, we encourage clients to contact our dedicated client feedback manager by calling 877.430.3900, or emailing [email protected]. The client feedback manager works with our clients and Crowe leaders to understand the issues, and resolve the situations while taking steps to try to avoid similar situations in the future. Crowe manages, and then exceeds clients’ expectations to assure satisfaction. In Exhibit 2-1, we provide a small sample of what our clients have had to say about the Crowe personnel we propose for this project, and our approach, in providing assistance across a broad range of public sector engagements. We are extremely proud of the feedback we have received from our clients for the quality of our work and our commitment to their success. We will commit to the same enthusiasm and dedication to this project.

2-6 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-1 Select Crowe Personnel Client Testimonials Client Testimonial

Alameda County Source “Thanks for all your work on this project. I am pleased with the process and the product.” Reduction and Recycling Board (December 2012) Hawaii Department of They (Wendy Pratt, Mendi Julien, Tommy Abeyta) were very professional, easy to work with, Health (July 2019) and very helpful. We really appreciate all their work on our contract.

California Tax Credit “Aaron Coen took the time to do a lot of research before we met and was very well Allocation Committee prepared. He was also very responsive during the engagement. “ Rate Setting Project (December 2016) California Department of “Crowe staff are always professional and approachable. They go above and beyond if Resources Recycling and we have any concerns or need further information. They are extremely knowledgeable and Recovery (August 2016) keep up to date on any changes that may occur to our program.”

California Public “Crowe patiently and diligently worked with difficult auditees/examinees that refused and/or Utilities Commission unreasonably delay to provide audit documentation. Crowe's team relentlessly and closely (February 2016) worked with the CPUC and auditees to address privacy and confidentiality legal issues for a period of 10 months. At the end, auditees became cooperative and were willing to provide all the audit documentation as requested.”

City of Vallejo “Erik Nylund has always attempted to accommodate the City. Due to our long standing working Rate Studies relationship, Erik became part of our team. We trusted Erik's work product and we knew without (March 2015) a doubt that Erik would look out for the City's best interest. Erik has been loyal and a great guy to work with. He met timelines that were extremely difficult to meet, without complaining. Erik always had a "Can Do" attitude, which made him a great consultant to work with. In addition, Erik is honest, hard working, knowledgeable and an all around pleasure to work with.”

Contra Costa County “Erik Nylund went out of his way to ensure he understood our goals and expectations in Rate Study order to guide work efforts to be responsive while also facilitating the most desirable outcome. (February 2015) He was both proactive and responsive throughout the engagement, including modifying approach and the deliverable to adapt to our changing needs and circumstances.”

California Department of “Thank you. You have done an excellent job for us.” Boating and Waterways (January 2013) California Coastal “Thank you for all your hard work on this project and for meeting the fast timeline. It was a Conservancy, Ocean pleasure to do business with you.” Protection Council (November 2010) First 5 California “You are an exceptionally talented contractor. Kudos for your quick summary.” (April 2010) California Department of “You did a great job for us on the study.” Boating and Waterways (November 2009)

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-7

2. Crowe LLP Capabilities and Infrastructure Support

National Reputation and Global Reach Given today’s rapid globalization and increasingly competitive markets, business leaders are expressing needs we can help fulfill with our deep specialization and industry-focused audit, tax, advisory, risk, and performance services. At Crowe, we use the comprehensive knowledge we gain through a global network to offer timely, accurate, and cost-effective services no matter where your business is located. We can help sort through the complexities for U.S. companies with operations abroad and for global companies doing business in the United States.

Deep Specialization Our vision is built on deep specialization and a “One Crowe” approach – a focus on our clients, our people, and the hallmarks of our profession: integrity, objectivity, and independence. By aligning our specialists along industry lines, we bring deeper and broader knowledge to our services. This industry specialization gives us a better view to understand your business and the unique challenges you face. You can trust us to help you with your market and business challenges because of our proven reputation and track record for credibility among key industry players, including lenders and professional organizations.

Education and Professional Development “Our vision is built on deep specialization, At Crowe, a career is a continual learning experience. Crowe University, our firm’s which allows us to learning portal, helps our people pursue learning experiences that create opportunities deliver value to our to build deep specialization and leadership skills. Full-time professionals can take clients and people.” advantage of its online learning courses, webinars, and other resources. James Powers Crowe University is organized on a university model, with colleges and departments Chief Executive Officer providing specialized curriculum. It houses curriculum maps designed to enhance Crowe LLP technical knowledge and professional skills in areas such as project management, people development, leadership, and interpersonal skills. Learning is fundamental at Crowe, so our personnel have access to the training they need to grow and develop, regardless of their career stage or role.

Technology-Driven Solutions At Crowe, innovation is part of our culture. Our accomplished software development team works in conjunction with our firm’s thought leaders and industry specialists to cultivate original, practical solutions that help address our clients’ most pressing challenges. Connecting deep industry knowledge with innovative technology, we help clients streamline and effectively manage complex processes.

Our Values Our vision is built on deep specialization and a focus on our clients, our people, and the hallmarks of our profession: integrity, objectivity, and independence. With an equal sharing model, we invest in and engage the most effective resources available and go deeper to find valuable insights and opportunities. Starting with our core purpose of “Building Value with Values®,” our values code brings together the guiding principles that all members of the firm, regardless of title or position, are expected to use in their interactions with colleagues, with clients, and in the communities and profession in which we work. It explains to our people the standards and expectations of ethical conduct that Crowe requires when doing business, wherever that might be.

2-8 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Crowe’s core ideology is a combination of the firm’s purpose, Building Value with Values, our core values – care, share, invest, and grow – and the WIN3 management philosophy that balances the needs of the client, the individual and the firm. Our core ideology guides us in exercising professional skepticism, objectivity, and being free of conflicts of interest. They guide our people in acting with the utmost integrity and professionalism in each interaction and provide a solid foundation for the firm. This core ideology is simple and powerful. It is at the immutable center of the firm. It defines our values code. In the broadest context, building is what we do and builders are what we are. We choose to build significant and lasting value for our clients and ourselves by applying integrity and demonstrating the highest levels of professionalism in everything we do. Our results are defined by and valued for their ethical standards. WIN³ (“win cubed”) is the philosophy that Crowe management has chosen as its guide. This philosophy defines the manner in which the firm will function on a daily basis. While there is no universally “right” philosophy, the WIN³ philosophy is seen as the most effective and efficient means to attain our vision of a firm with strong integrity. The WIN³ management philosophy defines success as having a thorough understanding and being responsive to the needs of the client, the individual and the firm. It submits that the best management decisions at all levels will be made when the benefits to all three of these stakeholders are maximized. In the short term, it is expected that one or more stakeholders’ needs may take precedence, but over the longer term, success is defined as exceeding the expectations of all three stakeholders in satisfying their needs. Neither the client’s, the individual’s nor the firm’s needs are more important based on their inherent nature. There is no hierarchy among the needs of these three.

National Public Sector Services Practice Crowe’s Public Sector Consulting Team is comprised of over 300 professionals, across many of our disciplines and has worked with over 600 federal, state and local governments and other public sector entities throughout the United States. Our approach is to bring the best experience to the client to best serve the needs of the client. In today’s environment, specialized skills are needed and our team spends their time serving clients in the public sector so that the clients receive the best expertise the firm has to offer regardless of where they are located. Crowe’s solutions help address the financial and operational issues most critical to governments in challenging economic times. Our extensive scope of competencies – finance, cost assessment, business process, technology, accounting, fraud investigation, risk consulting, economic development, and performance – allows us to deliver effective, cost-efficient services and provides each agency with an in- depth understanding of the unique needs of state government. Crowe provides innovative client delivery solutions on-time and on-budget. We focus on providing total “fused” solutions to complex, multi-disciplined problems. The firm has the unique ability to integrate strategy, research, people, process, and technology in order to provide total client solutions. Our public

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-9

sector specialists we propose for this project offer in-depth capability to quickly deliver tangible value to a broad spectrum of government organizations. Our professional team understands the way that state governments operate, and we appreciate the unique challenges they face. Exhibit 2-2 is a brief summary of our public sector services.

Exhibit 2-2 Crowe LLP Government Services Overview Improve Performance

• Feasibility Studies Plan for Success: • Requests for Proposals/Offers • Shared Services Strategic Advisory Services • Procurement Management • Technology Planning and Support

• Process Optimization • Program Management Practice Operational Efficiency: • Cross-sector Collaboration Program Effectiveness Services • Organizational Change • Workload Assessments Management • Web Content Management • Performance Management Utilize Advanced Technology: • Enterprise Systems Business System • Document Management • Enterprise Content Management Implementation Services • Disaster Recovery • Online Government Services

Grow a Talented Workforce: • Human Resources Strategy Organizational • Staffing Assessment and • Compensation and Rewards Effectiveness Services Recruiting

Optimize Revenue

Maximize Fiscal Resources: • Debt Issuance and Management • Rate/Revenue Studies Financial Management Services • Financial Management • Budgeting and Forecasting

Cultivate Economic Growth: • Tax Increment Financing • Smart Growth Initiatives Economic Development Services • Fiscal Impact Studies

Manage Risk

• Financial and Single Audit Reporting • Arbitrage Rebate Mitigate Financial Risk: • Verification Financial Risk Management • Forensic Accounting & Fraud Investigation • Budgeting and Cost Allocation • Internal Audit Ensure Regulatory Compliance: • Corporate Governance Regulatory Compliance • Federal and State Programmatic • Enterprise Risk Management Risk Management Compliance • Fund Monitoring and Reporting Monitor State and Federal • Fraud Prevention/Recovery Funding: • Communication Accountability Risk Management • Benchmarking • Program Management • Vulnerability and Threat Protect Data and Technology: • Data Privacy Information Technology Management • Web Services Security Risk Management • Business Continuity Management

2-10 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

B. Crowe Integrated Solid Waste Management Experience Crowe offers a comprehensive understanding of solid waste management as evidenced by over 150 solid waste management-consulting projects completed in the areas of: • Automation planning • Performance audits • Cost-of-service studies • Privatization studies • Diversion program planning • Profitability studies • Efficiency reviews • Rate methodology and manual development • Franchise agreements and negotiations • Rate negotiation services • Franchise fee audits and reviews • Route audits and time-and-motion studies • Litigation support • Source reduction and recycling studies. • Operational assessments

Exhibit 2-3 demonstrates the breadth of expertise provided by the consultants we propose for this project. We are experienced with providing total “fused” solutions to complex, multi-disciplined solid waste management problems. Crowe personnel have the unique ability to integrate strategy, research, people, process, and technology in order to provide total client solutions. Our consultants also offer in-depth capability to deliver tangible value to a broad spectrum of government organizations on time and on budget.

Overview of Related Client Engagements Exhibit 2-4, following Exhibit 2-3, shows 33 cities, counties, and authorities for which Crowe has provided solid waste management consulting services as well as 37 franchised waste haulers that our consultants have performed rate studies, cost of service studies, rate structure analyses, compliance audits, or performance audits. Exhibit 2-5 provides an overview of 65 of these projects. Exhibit 2-6, following Exhibit 2-5, identifies 27 transfer station/Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) reviewed by Crowe staff. Exhibit 2-7 provides detailed local solid waste management project descriptions and Exhibit 2-8 provides detailed state solid waste management project descriptions.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-11

Exhibit 2-3 Crowe LLP Summary of Principal Areas of Solid Waste Management Expertise Page 1 of 2 Principal Area Summary

Solid Waste Rate and • Conducting numerous cost of service and rate studies for local governments Cost Studies • Assessing accuracy of franchise fee payments made by haulers Crowe personnel have • Reviewing the collection, transfer, and disposal costs of thirty-seven (37) waste a solid background in management companies financial and economic analyses related to solid • Implementing “pay as you throw” (PAYT) rate structures waste management, and • Developing an extensive database of comparative solid waste management have perhaps unmatched operational and cost data expertise in solid waste • Examining vehicle, container, and equipment purchases, financing practices, and rate setting and rate leasing and depreciation schedules for reasonableness structure analyses for local governments, including: • Determining new food waste, yard waste, and mixed paper recycling program equipment costs, and financing, and depreciation options

Recycling and • Preparing comprehensive solid waste plans with specific strategies to increase Diversion Planning diversion levels Crowe has developed • Developing cost-effective strategies for meeting diversion goals (e.g., Assembly Bill an array of alternative 939 in California which mandated fifty (50) percent diversion from communities) diversion strategies to • Assisting cities and counties with implementation of mandatory commercial recycling draw from, including: in California for business generating four (4) or more cubic yards of refuse per week or multi-family of five (5) or more units (Assembly Bill 341)

Performance Audits and • Conducting on-route monitoring and time and motion analyses for a variety of truck Operational Studies types (e.g., front loader, side loader, rear loader, Currotto can) and for all sectors Crowe personnel have (residential, commercial, debris box) experience with assisting • Assessing collection efficiencies local agencies to identify • Reviewing maintenance shops and assessing vehicle repair and maintenance potential inefficiencies practices and requirements throughout a solid waste system, including within • Determining optimal MRF staffing levels and facility throughput levels collection, transfer, and • Conducting an operational assessment of a refuse collection franchisee for a city disposal, including: of approximately 120,000 people, including reviewing billing, customer service systems, MRF sort line operations, recyclable marketing efforts and commodity sales, routes and route efficiencies, corporate overhead, and allocation of MRF tonnages processed to multiple jurisdictions using the MRF facility • Assessing the costs of bin, single-stream, and split cart curbside recycling systems from an operational and economic perspective • Assisting to prepare a plan to transition from manual to automated collection service (refuse, yard waste, and curbside recycling), add a new Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) sort line, measure diversion impacts, and expand curbside recyclables collected

2-12 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-3 Crowe LLP Summary of Principal Areas of Solid Waste Management Expertise (continued) Page 2 of 2 Principal Area Summary

Franchise Assessments • Evaluating whether to move from an open market to a single or multiple Crowe personnel have franchisee situation assisted cities and • Developing new franchise agreement terms and conditions and negotiating with counties with strategies a franchised hauler for transitioning from • Assessing mandatory collection pros and cons open market to franchised situations as well as with privatization considerations, including: Transfer Station/ • Assessing the staffing, equipment, materials recovery capabilities, and economics Material Recovery for over 30 MRF/transfer stations Facilities Experience • Evaluating the economics of a new “state of the art” MRF/transfer station Crowe personnel • Reviewing costs of a new resource recycling facility (yard waste processing and bring a unique blend C&D sorting) to determine reasonableness of charges and potential rate impacts of financial and operational experience. Our transfer station/MRF experience includes:

Multi-Jurisdictional • Advising jurisdictions on the pros and cons of establishing a joint powers authority Authority Experience versus remaining independent Crowe recognizes the • Providing a Joint Powers Agreement for use by a four jurisdiction authority challenges in terms of • Comparing public versus private operations coordinating delivery of services between neighboring jurisdictions while trying to maintain an efficient overall solid waste system. Our experience includes:

Organizational • Evaluating several solid waste organizations for optimal organizational design Assessments • Preparing work load and staffing studies for numerous public sector entities Crowe personnel have developed methodologies for organizational assessments. Our experience includes:

Urban/Rural • Assisting a regional agency with a transfer station/MRF/truck parking facility Communities Experience feasibility study Crowe personnel have • Developing long-range strategic plan for new facility and programmatic diversion assisted communities strategies to meet the unique needs of rural community with urban and rural • Assisting a regional agency with a transfer station/MRF/truck parking facility mixes, including: feasibility study

Other • Assisting with an objective evaluation of customer service functions, customer Crowe personnel bring satisfaction, and hauler performance in the context of franchise extension negotiations other experience to this • Examining a City’s refuse billing function, lien process, and associated project including: administrative costs

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-13

Exhibit 2-4 Crowe LLP Solid Waste Management Experience

Cities and Counties Provided Solid Waste Private Waste Haulers Reviewed Management Audit and Consulting Services

1. Alameda County Waste Management Authority 1. Allied Waste Services 2. Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board 2. Allied Waste Services of Contra Costa County 3. City of Barstow 3. Amador Disposal Service 4. City of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga 4. American River Disposal Service 5. City of Concord 5. Bay View Refuse Service, Inc. 6. City of Coronado 6. Camarillo Sanitation Service 7. City of Escondido 7. Concord Disposal Service, Inc. 8. City of Farmington, NM 8. Crockett Garbage Service 9. City of Fremont 9. Desert Disposal Service 10. City of Los Angeles 10. El Dorado Disposal Service 11. City of Martinez 11. Garaventa Enterprises 12. City of Pleasant Hill 12. Golden Gate Disposal, Inc. 13. City of Pleasanton 13. Green Valley Disposal 14. City of San Jose 14. Independent Disposal Service 15. City of San Luis Obispo 15. Napa Valley Disposal Service 16. City of Vacaville 16. Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. 17. City of Vallejo 17. Nortech Waste, LLC 18. City of Victorville 18. Pleasant Hill-Bayshore Disposal, Inc. 19. Butte County 19. Pleasanton Garbage Service 20. Contra Costa County 20. Recology Vallejo 21. Douglas County, NV 21. Recology Yuba-Sutter 22. El Dorado County 22. Republic Services, Inc. 23. King County, WA 23. Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. 24. Napa County 24. Rodriguez Brothers Disposal Service 25. Orange County 25. San Anselmo Refuse & Recycling 26. Sacramento County 26. San Luis Obispo Garbage 27. San Bernardino County 27. Sanitary Fill Company 28. San Diego County 28. Sierra Disposal Service 29. San Diego Solid Waste Authority 29. South Tahoe Refuse Company 30. South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority 30. Sunset Scavenger, Inc. 31. Ventura County 31. Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal 32. Town of San Anselmo 32. Turlock Scavenger Company 33. Regional Waste Management Authority 33. Vacaville Sanitary Service, Inc. (Yuba-Sutter Counties) 34. Vallejo Garbage Service, Inc. 35. Vallejo Recycling 36. Waste Management of Alameda County 37. Waste Management of New Mexico

2-14 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-5 Crowe LLP Personnel Related Solid Waste Management Projects Page 1 of 4 Individual Client Area(s) Served Project Hauling Companies (if Applicable) 1. Alameda County Alameda County Report and Case Studies N/A Source Reduction on Source Reduction and Recycling Board Measurement 2. Alameda County Alameda County Five Year Financial and Multiple Source Reduction Compliance Audit and Recycling Board 3. Alameda County Alameda County Five Year Financial and Multiple Source Reduction Compliance Audit and Recycling Board 4. Butte County Butte County Base and Interim Year Multiple Rate Reviews 5. Calaveras County Calaveras County Disposal Economics Evaluation Calaveras County 6. Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Operational Review of Garaventa Enterprises – Rodeo/Oakley New Residential Refuse and Recycling Program 7. Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Rate Setting Manual and Garaventa Enterprises – Rodeo/Oakley Base/Interim Year Rate Reviews, and Cost Analyses 8. Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Rate Setting Manual and Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal – Bay Point Base/Interim Year Rate (Allied Co.) Reviews, and Cost Analyses 9. Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Rate Setting Manual and Richmond Sanitary Service – El Sobrante Base/Interim Year Rate (Republic Co.) Reviews, and Cost Analyses 10. Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Cost and Rate Study Crockett Garbage Service – Crockett 11. Douglas County, NV Douglas County, NV Refuse Rate Setting Manual Douglas Disposal, Inc. and Rate Review 12. El Dorado County El Dorado County Refuse Rate Setting Manual El Dorado Disposal Service and Rate Review 13. El Dorado County El Dorado County Rate and Service Study; Amador Disposal Service, System Planning; Recycling American River Disposal Service, Program Options Assessment; El Dorado Disposal Services Comparative Surveys; Transfer (Waste Connections), Sierra Station/MRF Operations Disposal Service, South Tahoe Review; Assessment of Refuse Company, and Tahoe- Franchise Extension Options; Truckee Sierra Disposal and Franchise Valuations 14. King County, WA King County, WA Performance Audit (Review of King County Financial Reserve and Replacement Fund Policies, and System Costs) 15. Napa County Napa County Rate Setting Assistance and Napa Valley Disposal Service Cost Analyses 16. Orange County Orange County Program Audit and Privatization Orange County

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-15

Exhibit 2-5 Crowe LLP Personnel Related Solid Waste Management Projects (continued) Page 2 of 4 Individual Client Area(s) Served Project Hauling Companies (if Applicable) 17. Sacramento County Sacramento County Five-Year Operations Review Sacramento County and Rate Study 18. Sacramento County Sacramento County Refuse Rate Review and Independent Disposal Service Cost Analyses 19. Sacramento County Sacramento County Refuse Rate Review and Camarillo Sanitation Service Cost Analyses 20. San Bernardino San Bernardino Development of Solid Waste Various County County Rates (Including Funding for $82 Million in Capital Projects) 21. San Bern. Desert San Bernardino Financial Review of $50 Million Various Mountain Waste County Enterprise Fund Management Coalition 22. San Diego County San Diego County Management Audit and San Diego County Solid Waste Division Financial Review (Internal Controls, Operating Reserves, Expenditures and Funding Requirements, and Fund Solvency) 23. San Diego County San Diego County Bond Financing Pro-Forma Various Solid Waste Authority 24. Yuba County Yuba County Disposal Economics Evaluation Yuba County 25. City of Barstow City of Barstow Cost of Service Study, Rate Desert Disposal Service Review, Route Audit, and Time and Motion Study 26. City of Campbell City of Campbell Performance Audit Green Valley Disposal 27. City of Commerce City of Commerce Disposal Economics Evaluation City of Commerce 28. City of Concord City of Concord Operational Review of Concord Concord Disposal Service Disposal Service 29. City of Concord City of Concord Rate Setting Manual, Base/ Concord Disposal Service Interim Year Rate Reviews, Franchise Extension Evaluations, Tipping Fee Study, Three–Cart System and Automation Planning, Recycling Program Development, and MRF Sort Line Assistance 30. City of Coronado City of Coronado Solid Waste Management Study EDCO 31. City of Farmington, City of Farmington, Cost-of-Service Study and Waste Management of N.M. N.M. Rate Review New Mexico 32. City of Fremont City of Fremont Close Out Audit and Balancing Waste Management of Account Audit Alameda County 33. City of Los Gatos City of Los Gatos Performance Audit Green Valley Disposal

2-16 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-5 Crowe LLP Personnel Related Solid Waste Management Projects (continued) Page 3 of 4 Individual Client Area(s) Served Project Hauling Companies (if Applicable) 34. City of Martinez City of Martinez Rate Setting Manual, Base/ Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal Interim Year Rate Reviews, (was BFI Co., now Allied Co.) Yard/Mixed Paper Recycling Cost Study, and Single Stream Recycling Program Review 35. City of Monte Sereno City of Monte Sereno Performance Audit Green Valley Disposal 36. City of San Jose City of San Jose Curbside Recycling Study Norcal 37. City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Rate Setting Manual and San Luis Obispo Garbage Obispo Financial Statement Review 38. City of Saratoga City of Saratoga Performance Audit Green Valley Disposal 39. City of Vacaville City of Vacaville Rate Reviews Vacaville Sanitary Service 40. City of Vallejo City of Vallejo Refuse and Recycling Rate Vallejo Garbage/ Reviews, Automation Planning, Vallejo Recycling MRF Operations Assessment, and Operational and Financial Review (Performance Audit) 41. Durham Rd. Landfill City of Fremont, Landfill Closure and Waste Management of Trust Authority Newark, and Post Closure Alameda County Union City 42. Integrated Several areas, OR Hauler Profitability Study Integrated Collection Service Collection Service 43. Morrison & Foerster City of Fremont Litigation Support for Waste Management of Multi-Year, Multi-Jurisdictional, Alameda County Balancing Account Amount 44. Morrison & Foerster City of Newark Litigation Support for Waste Management of Multi-Year, Multi-Jurisdictional, Alameda County Balancing Account Amount 45. Morrison & Foerster City of Union City Litigation Support for Waste Management of Multi-Year, Multi-Jurisdictional, Alameda County Balancing Account Amount 46. Rouge Disposal Medford, OR Hauler Profitability Study Rouge Disposal 47. Roy F. Weston City of Los Angeles Solid Waste Disposal City of Los Angeles Information System 48. Tahoe Basin JPA El Dorado County, Rate Setting Manual and South Tahoe Refuse Company City of South Lake Rate Review Tahoe, and Douglas County, NV 49. Tahoe Basin JPA El Dorado County, Update to Rate Setting Manual South Tahoe Refuse Company City of South Lake and Rate Review Tahoe, and Douglas County, NV

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-17

Exhibit 2-5 Crowe LLP Personnel Related Solid Waste Management Projects (continued) Page 4 of 4 Individual Client Area(s) Served Project Hauling Companies (if Applicable) 50. Town of San Anselmo Town of San Anselmo Refuse Rate Review San Anselmo Refuse & Recycling 51. California Department Statewide Statewide Cost of Recycling Over 300 hauling companies of Conservation Study, Multiple Years 52. California Department Contra Costa County Curbside Program Cost Study Bay View Refuse Service, Inc. of Conservation – Kensington 53. California Department City of San Marino Curbside Program Cost Study Rodriguez Brothers of Conservation Disposal Service 54. California Department City of Torrance Curbside Program Cost Study City of Torrance of Conservation 55. California Department City of Turlock Curbside Program B Turlock Scavenger Company of Conservation 56. California Department Statewide Plastics White Paper Assessment of Plastics of Conservation Recycling and Resource Conservation in California 57. California Department Statewide Paper Recycling N/A of Conservation Efficiency Project 58. California Department Statewide Compliance Audit of N/A of Conservation Recycling Facilities 59. California Energy County of Del Norte Disposal Economics Evaluation County of Del Norte Commission 60. California Energy County of Lassen Disposal Economics Evaluation County of Lassen Commission 61. California Statewide Outreach and Research N/A Environmental Project on Pay-as-You-Throw, Protection Agency Variable Rate Pricing 62. California Statewide Study on Factors Inhibiting N/A Integrated Waste Market Demand for Management Board Secondary Materials 63. California Statewide Study on Factors Inhibiting N/A Integrated Waste Market Demand for Management Board Secondary Materials 64. California Statewide Proposals for Specific Actions N/A Integrated Waste to Increase Demand for Management Board Secondary Materials 65. California Statewide Cost-Benefit Analysis of Six N/A Integrated Waste Market Development Policies Management Board 66. California Statewide Household Battery N/A Integrated Waste Waste Management Management Board Stream Assessment

2-18 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-6 Crowe LLP Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facilities Reviewed by Crowe LLP Transfer Stations/Material Recovery Facilities 1. Blue Line MRF/Transfer Station, City of South San Francisco 2. Cal Sierra MRF/Transfer Station, City of Sonora 3. Contra Costa Waste Transfer Station and Mt. Diablo Recycling Center 4. CR&R Solid Waste MRF and Transfer Station, City of Perris 5. CR&R MRF, City of San Juan Capistrano 6. CR&R MRF, City of Stanton 7. Del Norte Regional Recycling and Transfer Station, City of Oxnard 8. Devlin Road Transfer Station, City of Napa 9. Eastern Regional Transfer Station/MRF, Placer County 10. Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station 11. Health Sanitation Services MRF, City of Santa Maria 12. IMS Recycling MRF, San Diego Area 13. Laytonville Solid Waste Transfer & Recycling Center, City of Laytonville 14. Marin Resource Recovery Center, City of San Rafael 15. Mt. Diablo Paper Stock, City of Concord 16. Nevada County MRF, City of Grass Valley 17. North San Diego MRF, San Diego Area 18. Pier 96, City of San Francisco 19. Sacramento Recycling and Transfer Facility, City of Sacramento 20. South Lake Tahoe MRF, City of South Lake Tahoe 21. Tri-CED MRF, City of Union City 22. Turlock Recycling Center, City of Turlock 23. Recology Vallejo MRF, City of Vallejo 24. Victor Valley MRF, City of Victorville 25. Western El Dorado County MRF, City of Placerville 26. West Contra Costa County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRFF), Contra Costa County 27. Western Placer Waste Management Authority MRF, Placer County

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-19

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications Page 1 of 12 1. City of Barstow – Time and Motion and Cost of Service Study Crowe personnel assisted the City with an operational and financial review of the City’s franchise hauler Desert Disposal Services, Inc. (DDS). We evaluated the DDS vehicle and equipment inventory, performed residential and commercial time-and-motion studies and route audits, assessed truck and equipment efficiencies, and examined DDS recycling operations. We benchmarked DSS performance with other comparative jurisdictions. We recommended a rate structure that covered DDS’s costs of operation and provided a reasonable financial return.

2. Cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and Los Gatos, California – Refuse Collection and Disposal Performance Audit Crowe personnel performed a refuse collection and disposal performance audit of a franchised garbage company. The performance audit included the following areas: (1) efficiency of operations, (2) overall organizational structure, management systems, and procedures, (3) staffing and personnel practices, and (4) financial management practices. The study provided detailed recommendations for improved future operation efficiencies, which would then be reflected in customer billing rates.

3. City of Concord – Operational Assessment of Franchised Hauler Crowe personnel conducted a 2010 Operational Assessment of Concord Disposal Service. As part of this operational review, we conducted on-site reviews of a new materials recovery facility sort line, including appropriateness of new equipment and facility costs, financing, staffing levels. We assessed markets for recycled materials and commodity pricing trends. We conducted operational reviews of residential refuse, recycling, and yardwaste collection services, including performing route audit assessments, and examining participation rates, setout rates, and setout amounts. We benchmarked transfer station operations and costs with similar comparative jurisdictions. We assessed curbside recycling route needs following the City’s recent transfer to single stream, cart-based recycling (formerly, the City had used a two crate system). We also reviewed City diversion results. We also recommended changes to the construction and demolition (C&D) ordinance to maximize potential City diversion. The City of Concord is somewhat similar to the City of Pleasanton in terms of demographics, economics, and integrated waste management program goals and objectives.

4. City of Concord – 2007 Residential Refuse Collection Service Restructuring Crowe personnel assisted the City to restructure residential refuse collection rates and services. This major collection system change included a significant capital investment by Concord Disposal Service (CDS), the City’s franchised hauler, of over $7 million for eleven new automated trucks and nearly 80,000 new carts. Under the new system, customers chose either a 32-, 64-, or 96-gallon refuse cart. Customers also received upgraded and expanded recycling services, including new 64-gallon, single stream, recycling cart and a 96-gallon yard waste cart. Over this year-long engagement, we assisted City staff and CDS to plan the transition to the new system. We helped the City and CDS develop a survey to identify customer preferences under various rate and service level scenarios. This survey was administered to 400 City customers. CDS submitted a one-time rate restructuring application to the City in support of the system change. Our review of this application addressed: (1) revenue, cost, and profit impacts; (2) changes to disposal costs from expected waste stream shifts; (3) cost reductions from new, more efficient, trucks; (4) future inflationary cost adjustments allowed through the rate setting process; and (5) CDS plans for a new state-of-the-art Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) sort line to process the City’s new single stream recyclables. The report described the collection system before, and after, the system change. The report identified a new expanded list of acceptable curbside recycling materials and quantified potential impacts to City diversion levels. The report documented benefits and costs of the new system. Also included are recommendations for City customer outreach and education. To arrive at our recommended rate structure and frequency distribution, we analyzed impacts of various rate structures, rates, price elasticities, and customer frequency distributions. We also assessed multiple-year cash flow impacts to CDS from these different assumptions. We identified areas of the City Municipal Code that require revision. We developed new franchise agreement language codifying terms and conditions the City and CDS agreed to for the new system. As part of this project, we updated the City’s Manual to version 4.0. This new version of the Manual added newly agreed upon terms and conditions.

2-20 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 2 of 12 5. City of Concord – Franchise Extension Evaluation Crowe personnel assisted the City to review a request from the City’s franchise refuse hauler, Concord Disposal Service (CDS), for an extension to the franchise term. For this review, we compared City rates with those of other jurisdictions. We summarized CDS performance as determined by the 2004 City of Concord Citizen Survey. We identified franchise terms and conditions agreed upon by other jurisdictions in conjunction with franchise extensions. We worked with the City to identify potential terms and conditions for an extension, including: • Relocate CDS’s maintenance and recycling facility • Increase expected future annual City franchise fees • Increase the number of free City debris boxes • Provide free disposal of refuse collected by the City from City parks • Agree to diversion performance requirements, if needed, to meet AB 939 goals • Add customer service enhancements (e.g., a new company web site, an increase in community clean-up days, and a new annual newsletter) • Eliminate the toter rental business, over time • Change the interim year calculation to a percentage of the CPI • Place a cap on interim year rate increases. Based on CDS’s agreement to the nine terms above, all of which added significant value to both the City and the City ratepayers, the City granted CDS an extension.

6. City of Concord – 2006 Base Year Rate Review of Concord Disposal Service Crowe personnel assisted the City to conduct the fourth base year rate review of the City’s franchised refuse collection hauler, Concord Disposal Service (CDS). Our analysis followed guidelines contained in the City’s Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Residential Solid Waste Fees (Manual). For the review, we evaluated: (1) increases in direct labor wages, health and welfare benefits, and pension benefits required by union agreements, (2) increases in tipping fees, (3) increases in franchise fees, (4) increases in costs for a new website and online bill pay system, and (5) increases in toter rental revenues. From our review, we recommended material reductions in office salaries, general and administrative costs, trucking charges, and profits. We conducted a comparative survey of neighboring jurisdiction rates. We also included a survey of franchise fees and a survey of recent rate changes in 29 California jurisdictions. We recommended that the City and CDS work together to develop a five-year transition plan to move from manual to automated collection service. As part of this project, we updated the City’s Manual to version 3.0. This new version of the Manual included previously agreed upon terms and conditions (Section I. Rate Setting Overview) and a new more simplified and streamlined interim year rate setting process (based on applying 70 percent of the most recent change in the CPI to the rate). CDS requested a 10.90 percent rate increase. We recommended a 6.22 percent rate increase. The City Council voted 5-0 in favor of our recommendation.

7. City of Concord – 2002 Base Year Rate Review of Concord Disposal Service Crowe personnel assisted the City on a four-year rate review of the City’s franchise solid waste hauler, Concord Disposal Service. In addition to performing a comprehensive cost-of-service review, we also assessed the impact of a new 20- gallon mini-can service. The objectives were to suggest rates that were fair, reasonable, and justifiable to the ratepayers. Over the past 10 years since developing the methodology for setting rates in Concord, the City has seen rate increase by a level that is approximately one half the increase in the CPI for that period. The City Council unanimously approved our recommendations for a rate adjustment.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-21

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 3 of 12 8. City of Concord – 1997 Base Year Rate Review of Concord Disposal Service Crowe personnel conducted a four-year base rate review of the City’s franchise solid waste hauler, Concord Disposal Service. In addition to performing a comprehensive cost-of-service review, we also assessed disposal and transportation costs, reviewed senior citizen rates, and examined the hauler’s request for a franchise extension. The objectives were to suggest rates that were fair, reasonable, and justifiable to the rate payers, and to develop a modified franchise agreement which both the City and hauler could adopt.

9. City of Concord – 1993 Development of Rate Setting Process and Methodology and Base Year Rate Review of Concord Disposal Service Crowe personnel developed the process and methodology to prepare and approve changes in residential garbage collection rates. Objectives of this study were to: (1) establish policies regarding rate setting, (2) establish a standardized rate review process and methodology, (3) assess alternative methodologies for determining reasonable profits, and (4) develop a comprehensive manual describing the entire process for establishing new collection fees. The manual establishes rate change policies, provides application forms, specifies reporting formats, identifies required supporting documentation, and describes the procedure to be followed in requesting, reviewing, and adopting residential rate changes. Crowe personnel performed the first and second rate reviews based on the new methodology.

10. City of Coronado – Solid Waste Management Review This project was a solid waste management study for the City of Coronado. The study evaluated and recommended alternative collection, transportation, and disposal rate structures which provide for equity and fairness among all users. The study evaluated the City's fee objectives, cost considerations, user fee constraints, and new rate implementation effects. Finally, the study identified potential revenue sources or cost-saving opportunities for relieving fiscal pressures of both refuse disposal services and adding a new recycling program.

11. City of Farmington, New Mexico – Cost-of-Service Study Crowe personnel conducted a study for the City of Farmington's waste hauler, Waste Management of New Mexico, Inc. This study focused on determining whether residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste rates were aligned with costs of providing these services. We assessed the overall profitability and profitability by service type, reviewed costs for reasonableness, examined allocation methodologies, and created a detailed cost-of-service model. We also conducted a rate survey of neighboring jurisdictions, and a consumer satisfaction survey of residential and commercial customers. We made recommendations for realigning rates with the costs-of-service and for moving the hauler's financial return closer to industry averages, using prospective rate adjustments. Our final report and recommendations were accepted by the City Council by a 5-0 vote.

12. City of Fremont – Franchise Close-Out Audit Crowe personnel performed on a final close-out audit of the franchise agreement for solid waste and recycling services for the City of Fremont. The City had a franchise agreement with Waste Management of Alameda, formerly Oakland Scavenger. This engagement involved detailed testing of various revenue and expense accounts as a basis for determining the current size of a franchise close out balancing account. Results were presented and a final determination and recommendation made related to closing out an existing balancing account.

13. City of Fremont – Closure and Post-Closure Analysis Crowe personnel reviewed the City of Fremont’s obligation for funding closure and post-closure care costs of their local landfill, the Tri-Cities Recycling and Disposal Facility. An analysis of various closure and post-closure estimates, landfill expansion, historical funding levels, trust fund balances, and rate applications was conducted to determine the City’s remaining closure and post-closure obligation.

2-22 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 4 of 12 14. City of Los Angeles – Solid Waste Geographic Information System Crowe personnel acted as a Technical Advisor and subcontractor to Roy F. Weston, Inc., an engineering consulting firm. Analyzed requirements, and designed and developed a custom software system to track, analyze, and map the generation of solid waste in the City of Los Angeles. The system's ability to manipulate large amounts of constantly changing data, and present it in both concise numerical form and intuitive geographic form enables the City of Los Angeles to: understand volumes and compositions of solid waste being generated, and make fact-based decisions on how to reduce the quantity reaching landfills.

15. City of Martinez – 2008 Base Year Rate Review of Allied Waste Services Crowe personnel completed a rate review of Allied Waste Service of Contra Costa County’s (AWSCCC) 2008 Base Year Rate Application. In the Application, AWSCCC requested a 1.11 percent rate increase. AWSCCC also proposed two new program changes, including: (1) provide expanded multi-family recycling services to approximately 150 multi-family customers (including new wheeled carts and/or new bins), and (2) provide residential on-call bulky recyclables and yardwaste collection services. We recommended a rate increase of 0.0 percent, including the two new programs. We calculated that, with no rate change, AWSCCC’s 2008 operating ratio (OR) in this base year would be 88 percent. Based on the City’s methodology, at an 88 percent OR, subsequent 2009 to 2011 interim year adjustments will be based on 80, 90, and 100 percent of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) applied to controlled costs. The City unanimously approved our recommendation by a 5-0 vote.

16. City of Martinez – 2004 Base Year Rate Review of Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal Crowe personnel completed the second base year rate review of Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal (PHBD). In 2000, we had prepared a rate setting process and methodology manual for this hauler, and had assisted the City to implement a new greenwaste and mixed paper recycling program. In this rate review, our focus was on determining the projected base year operating ratio (OR) for the hauler in 2004. This review was conducted consistent with a new methodology set for this City, called the Incentive/Risk-Based Operating Ratio Methodology. As part of this review, we made several rate setting adjustments that reduced the overall OR. We also considered a couple of new program options available to the City at the time.

17. City of Martinez – 2000 Development of Rate Setting Process and Methodology and Base Year Rate Review of Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal Crowe personnel performed a rate review of Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (dba Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal) to assess the impact of implementing new AB 939 programs (including a new yardwaste program, mixed paper recycling program, and automated refuse/yard truck fleet). To perform this engagement, we developed a new rate setting process and methodology for the City of Martinez and used this methodology to establish new rates incorporating the above new programs. This engagement involved extensive negotiations with a City Council subcommittee, City representatives, and Allied Waste management. The City reached agreement with Allied Waste on proposed rates for 2000 and as well as the new programs. As part of this engagement, the City finally implemented a rate setting process and methodology, something it had been unable to do since the franchise agreement required the methodology in 1993. Crowe personnel also performed an interim year rate review in 2001 that resulted in an interim year rate increase.

18. City of San Jose – Economics of Curbside Recycling The objective of this engagement was to review the City of San Jose Curbside Recycling Program. Study tasks included: (1) identifying demand and supply markets, (2) compiling relevant demographic data, (3) reviewing the current curbside program, including recovery and participation rates, (4) reviewing and assessing economics of the curbside program, (5) identifying other recovery efforts that could be used in San Jose, and (6) preparing economic projections for future recycling programs.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-23

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 5 of 12 19. City of San Luis Obispo – Development of Rate Setting Policies and Procedures and Franchise Agreement Crowe personnel developed the process and methodology for establishing integrated solid waste management rates of the franchise hauler. A step-by-step manual also was prepared which establishes the rate setting policies, provides all application forms, identifies the required supporting documents, and describes all of the procedures for submitting, reviewing, and adopting residential and commercial rate changes. We then prepared the draft franchise agreement between the City and hauler. This franchise agreement is intended to guide the collection, transport, and disposal of both solid wastes and recycle materials from residencies and businesses located in the City, and identifies the rights and responsibilities of both the City and franchise hauler. Nearly all cities in San Luis Obispo have since adopted this rate setting methodology and a manual.

20. City of Vacaville – Three-Year Collection and Disposal Study Crowe personnel assisted the City of Vacaville on a three-year review of the franchised solid waste hauler that included a focused operating ratio survey, landfill closure/post-closure liability evaluation, assessment of future permitted landfill capacity impacts, analysis of new programs (e.g., household hazardous waste, battery program, and yardwaste collection), and evaluation of semi-automated refuse collection options. This review included an audit of both disposal and collection financial statements.

21. City of Vallejo – 2009/10 Base Year Rate Review of Vallejo Garbage Service Crowe personnel assisted the City with a rate review of Vallejo Garbage Service’s (VGS’s) FY 2009/2010 Base Year Rate Application. In the Application, VGS requested a 13.11 percent rate increase. For this review, we incorporated recommendations from an Operational and Financial Review of VGS, dated June 1, 2009, which we assisted the City with in the early part of 2009. We conducted a detailed rate review of VGS, using the recommended new rate application, cost projection and escalation format, and capital outlay justification procedures. This rate review reflected cost savings in the areas of collection driver and MRF sort line staffing. The review came at a time when several unfavorable factors influenced the review, including declining recycled materials sales revenues, declining commercial and industrial revenues, and a sizable revenue balancing account amount. We recommended an effective rate increase of 8.56 percent; however we recommended that the rate increase be applied differentially by customer area (sector) as follows: 5.95 percent residential, 10.0 percent commercial, and 13.1 percent industrial sector.

22. City of Vallejo – Operational and Financial Review of Vallejo Garbage Service, Inc. (a Recology Company) Crowe personnel recently assisted the City with performance audit of Vallejo Garbage Service (VGS). We conducted a comprehensive operational and financial review of VGS. The review methodology included reviews of the materials recovery facility operations, route audits, analyses of revenue and cost data, an examination of franchise agreement and related documentation terms and conditions, and transactional sampling and reviews. We identified fifteen (15) findings, and associated recommendations, for the City to use in the next fiscal year 2009/10 refuse rate review of VGS. We made recommendations for rate treatment of future equipment and facility improvements and for furnishing supporting documentation for large capital outlays. The review also included recommendations for reduced staffing levels (collection drivers and MRF sort line staff), and cost allocations to other jurisdictions sharing the MRF. One of the primary recommendations included establishment of a clear cost projection and escalation methodology, with a greater emphasis on prior actual results. We recommended use of a new more streamlined rate application and provided a sample of this new application.

23. City of Vallejo – 2008/09 Base Year Rate Review of Vallejo Garbage Service Crowe personnel assisted the City with a rate review of Vallejo Garbage Service’s (VGS) FY 2008/2009 Base Year Rate Application. In the Application, VGS requested a 6.84 percent rate increase. We conducted a detailed review, with particular attention to the following cost items: (1) a second Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) sort line staffing shift, (2) corporate overhead, (3) benefit escalations provided to laborers, (4) fluctuating recycling commodity pricing, (5) declining debris box business, (6) fuel cost increases/decreases, and (7) the second baler which was not yet activated. We recommended a rate increase of 4.9 percent. The City approved our recommendations by a 5-1 vote.

2-24 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 6 of 12 24. City of Vallejo – 2007/08 Base Year Rate Review of Vallejo Garbage Service Crowe personnel assisted the City with a rate review of Vallejo Garbage Service’s (VGS) 2007/2008 Base Year Rate Application. In the Application, VGS requested a 1.95 percent rate increase. We conducted a detailed review, with particular attention to the following cost items: (1) Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) sort line conveyer system improvements, (2) a new backup baler and conveyer system, (3) excess inventory of wheeled carts, (4) mechanic staffing levels, (5) new MRF facility rolled doors, and (6) debris box driver staffing levels. We also incorporated the City’s desire for a new litter clean up program and to raise its franchise fee. We recommended a rate increase of 1.02 percent. The City unanimously approved our recommendations by a 6-0 vote.

25. City of Vallejo – 2006/07 Base Year Rate Review of Vallejo Garbage Service Crowe personnel assisted the City with a rate review of Vallejo Garbage Service’s (VGS) 2006/2007 Base Year Rate Application. In the Application, VGS requested a 9.15 percent rate increase. In this Application, we evaluated the impact of the first year of VGS’s automated residential refuse, recycling and yardwaste collection program. We conducted a detailed review, with particular attention to the following cost items: (1) recycling commodity sales, (2) disposal expenses, (3) truck retrofit charges for ARB compliance, and (4) debris box business. We also incorporated the City’s desire to raise its franchise fee and add funding for street maintenance. We recommended a rate increase of 9.26 percent. The City unanimously approved our recommendations by a 6-0 vote.

26. City of Vallejo – Automation of Refuse, Recycling, and Yardwaste Services Crowe personnel assisted the City with a plan to transition its refuse collection fleet from a manual service to automated service. We worked closely with the City public works director, City staff, and Norcal representatives to identify the goals of transitioning to automation, estimate the timing and costs of the transition, and determine reasonable rate treatment for the transition. We prepared a transition plan for City Council consideration.

27. City of Vallejo – 2005/06 Base Year Rate Review of Vallejo Garbage Service and Vallejo Recycling Crowe personnel assisted the City with rate reviews of its franchised garbage hauler, Vallejo Garbage, a Norcal company, and franchised curbside recycler, Vallejo Recycling, a Waste Management company. For Vallejo Garbage we reviewed a complex rate model, conducted an on-sight assessment of the truck shop and operations, and assessed recent ARB regulations requiring retrofits to refuse collection truck diesel engines (for NOx compliance). For Vallejo Recycling (VR), we worked with the City and hauler to include new recycling volume accounting changes and processing facility changes so that the hauler’s costs were more accurately reflected in the new rate. We assisted the City to reconcile remaining payments owed to VR for 2006.

28. City of Vallejo – 2004/05 Base Year Rate Review of Vallejo Garbage Service and Vallejo Recycling Crowe personnel assisted the City with rate reviews of its franchised garbage hauler, Vallejo Garbage, a Norcal company, and franchised curbside recycler, Vallejo Recycling, a Waste Management company. For Vallejo Garbage we reviewed a complex rate model, conducted an on-sight assessment of the truck shop and operations, and assessed recent ARB regulations requiring retrofits to refuse collection truck diesel engines (for NOx compliance). For Vallejo Recycling (VR), we worked with the City and hauler to include new recycling volume accounting changes and processing facility changes so that the hauler’s costs were more accurately reflected in the new rate. We assisted the City to reconcile remaining payments owed to VR for 2004 and to develop a process for budgeting and tracking VR bills and payments in 2005. For both reviews, we obtained unanimous Council approval of our recommended rate changes.

29. City of Vallejo – 2006/07 Review of Valcore Recycling Crowe personnel conducted a review of Valcore, Inc., a not-for-profit recycling center located in the City. The City provided a subsidy to this recycling center and requested that we review the financial position of the company. We conducted an on-site visit, tested revenues and costs to invoice level detail, and evaluated current and planned company equipment acquisitions.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-25

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 7 of 12 30. Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board – Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit Crowe personnel completed the first phase of a five-year financial and compliance audit of funds raised through the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (“Measure D”). Measure D was passed by Alameda County voters in 1990. Measure D established a surcharge on each ton of waste landfilled in the County (currently $8.17 per ton). This audit was conducted in two phases. We completed both Phase I and Phase II of the work. Phase I included Measure D compliance for the three (3) fiscal years of 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14. Phase II includes fiscal years 2014/15 and 2015/16. Crowe personnel conducted on-site reviews of the thirteen (13) member agencies currently receiving Measure D funding. These member agencies included the Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, and San Leandro, as well as the Castro Valley Sanitary District, and Oro Loma Sanitary District. Crowe personnel reviewed jurisdictional Measure D reporting and conducted detailed testing of sampled Measure D transactions. We assessed whether program and services expenditures reported by jurisdictions where consistent with the “recycling” intent of Measure D. We determined beginning and ending Measure D fund balances for each jurisdiction. We assessed whether jurisdictions complied with specific Measure D reporting requirements and procedures (e.g., interest calculations). We reviewed Measure D compliance for 15 non-profits receiving grant funds from the Board. We reviewed Recycling Board finances, examining revenues received from landfill surcharges, and expenditures by Measure D program area. We validated whether the Board correctly allocated Measure D distributions to each program area and to member agencies. We assessed the Board’s progress toward meeting its own aggressive seventy-five (75) percent diversion goal. We commented on the Board’s use of seventeen (17) performance metrics to assess diversion progress. We provided recommendations for improving how the Board could monitor and assess diversion progress. Crowe personnel developed a comprehensive report of our Phase I findings and recommendations and presented results to the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board.

31. Contra Costa County – Allied Waste Services - 2008 Base Year Rate Review of Allied Waste Services and Automation of Refuse and Recycling Services Crowe personnel completed a rate review of Allied Waste Service of Contra Costa County’s (AWSCCC) 2008 Base Year Rate Application. In the Application, AWSCCC requested a 0.14 percent rate increase. AWSCCC also proposed to automate refuse and recycling collection services, and provide all residents with a new 64-gallon recycling cart in place of the current two 14-gallon bins. We determined the incremental costs to automate refuse and recycling collection services. We recommended a rate increase of 0.0 percent, including these new automation/cart services. We specified an implementation timeline. The County Board unanimously approved our recommendation by a 5-0 vote.

32. Contra Costa County – 1998 Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal/Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. Crowe personnel developed of a first-generation solid waste rate setting process and methodology for the unincorporated areas of Central and East Contra Costa County serviced by one of the County’s franchise haulers, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. Prior to development of this process, rate setting in these County areas was not formally rate regulated. The methodology incorporated County goals and policies, reflected industry norms and practices, and was calibrated and tested concurrently with a rate review. The manual was incorporated by reference into the existing franchise agreement.

2-26 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 8 of 12 33. Contra Costa County – 1998 Base Year Rate Review of Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal/Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. Crowe personnel performed a recent rate review of one of the County’s franchise waste haulers, Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal/Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (PHBD). The review examined ten unincorporated County service areas, each with different current rates and rate structures, and historical rate changes. We assessed reasonableness of regional and corporate overhead, related-party transfer station/disposal costs, and extensive allocations from consolidated financial information. Goals of the review were to simplify the rate structure and recommend a uniform rate change, incorporating use of a new rate setting process and methodology.

34. Contra Costa County – Crockett Garbage Service - 2006 Base Year Rate Review of Crockett Garbage Service Crowe personnel conducted a rate review of Crocket Garbage Service (CGS), a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc. CGS provides service to a part of unincorporated Contra Costa County. As part of the review, we reviewed revenues, costs, and profitability of the hauler to determine whether a rate change of 11 percent was reasonable. We evaluated the impact of changes to the company’s cost allocation methodology and additional costs associated with transferring waste from its West County landfill to Potrero Hills landfill in Solano County.

35. Contra Costa County – Cost of Service and Rate Assessment Crowe personnel conducted on a high-level review of one of the County's unincorporated areas, the Crockett service area. The review included an assessment of whether the costs of service and associated residential refuse collection rates were reasonable.

36. Contra Costa County – Operational Review of New Refuse and Recycling Program In 2010, Crowe personnel conducted a review of a proposed new three-cart refuse collection system for one of the County’s franchised haulers. We assessed the operational changes required to transition to a single stream recycling program, a choice of 32-, 64-, or 96-gallon refuse cart, and a new 96-gallon yardwaste cart. We assessed alternatives for truck and equipment amortization and replacement options in light of the remaining term on the franchise agreement. We assessed truck and staffing requirements for the new recycling system and benchmarked these requirements with implementations results from other similar jurisdictions. We determined impacts to diversion levels from increased curbside recycling and yardwaste volumes.

37. Contra Costa County – Garaventa Enterprises - 2008 Base Year Rate Review of Garaventa Enterprises Crowe personnel completed a rate review of Garaventa Enterprises’ (Garaventa) 2008 Base Year Rate Application. In the Application, Garaventa requested an 11.02 percent rate increase. We recommended a rate decrease of 6.44 percent. We made adjustments to direct labor, tipping fees, general and administrative costs, trucking and equipment, and residential bad debt. We followed the County’s Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual. We also conducted a rate survey of neighboring communities. The County Board unanimously approved our recommendation by a 5-0 vote.

38. Contra Costa County – 1999 Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Garaventa Enterprises Crowe personnel developed a solid waste rate setting process and methodology for the unincorporated areas of East Contra Costa County serviced by one of the County’s franchise haulers, Garaventa Enterprises. Prior to development of this process, rate setting in these County areas was not formally rate regulated. The methodology incorporated County goals and policies, reflected industry norms and practices, and was calibrated and tested concurrently with a rate review. The manual was incorporated by reference into the existing franchise agreement.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-27

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 9 of 12 39. Contra Costa County – Richmond Sanitary Service - 2008 Base Year Rate Review of Richmond Sanitary Service Crowe personnel completed a rate review of Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc.’s (RSS) 2008 Base Year Rate Application. RSS is a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc. In the Application, RSS requested a 0.54 percent rate increase. We recommended a rate decrease of 4.39 percent for the service portion of the rate. The remaining portion of the rate, for the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF), is regulated by a separate authority. For 2008, the separate authority approved a 2.0 percent IRRF rate increase. The net rate impact was a 2.4 to 3.1 percent rate decrease, depending on the rate category. In our report, we offered the County options for retaining the surplus rather than reducing rates. The County Board ultimately approved an option that had RSS paying the surplus to the County to be used for related programs.

40. Contra Costa County – 2003 Base Year Rate Review of Richmond Sanitary Service Crowe personnel conducted a rate review of Republic Services, Inc., dba Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. (RSS). The objective of this engagement was to review the revenues, costs, profit levels, allocation methodologies, and operational metrics to recommend a reasonable rate change to RSS during this first base year rate review.

41. Contra Costa County – Rate Setting Process and Methodology Manual for Richmond Sanitary Service Crowe personnel prepared a rate setting manual for one of the County's refuse collection haulers, Republic Services, Inc., dba Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. (RSS). The objective of this engagement was to develop a manual for West Contra Costa County areas that is consistent with other County areas and complete a rate review of Republic, following its relatively recent acquisition of RSS. The manual is intended to replace a dated methodology used by the entire west County area that was essentially developed for the City of Richmond.

42. Contra Costa County – 1997 Modification of Rate Setting Methodology Crowe personnel conducted a focused review of one of the County’s franchise haulers, Richmond Sanitary Service, Inc. The objective of this engagement was to provide recommendations for modifying an existing rate setting methodology and to assess the reasonableness of existing residential collection rates for unincorporated West Contra Costa County areas. To conduct this evaluation, we recreated a complex multiple jurisdiction cost allocation methodology, examined an extensive affiliated company structure, traced historical sources and components of residential rate changes, and benchmarked certain costs and practices with waste industry norms.

43. County of Sacramento – Allowable Profit Evaluation Crowe personnel evaluated two solid waste haulers to determine if each realized the guaranteed profit allowed as exclusive permits in the South County. This work involved a detailed review of several years of operating and financial data for each solid waste hauler and a determination of what profit over expenses was earned by each. We developed the format and forms to request information from each company, identified the specified amount of revenues, operating expenses, and depreciation of each of the five years, and determined the actual profit earned by each company. A final report for the Department of Public Works was prepared for each company which compared allowable profit and actual profit and determined the net amount either owed by each company to the County, or owed by the County to each company.

44. County of Sacramento – Financial Review Crowe personnel performed a detailed review of the financial condition of the franchise refuse hauler, Independent Disposal Service (IDS). Monthly service rates, the number of accounts, revenues and expenses for all jurisdictions within the County were examined for a five-year period. Results were summarized in a report showing a cumulative profit shortfall. IDS subsequently used this information in support of raising refuse collection rates to adequately cover the previous profit shortfall.

2-28 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 10 of 12 45. County of Sacramento – Disposal and Transfer Station Operations Review Crowe personnel conducted an evaluation of the County’s solid waste disposal and transfer station operations. The objectives of the study were to: (1) identify changes in operating policies, methods, and procedures that could increase efficiency and effectiveness, leading to lower costs, and (2) evaluate rate-setting policies and procedures for transfer station and disposal fees. The study included a review of historical operations, costs, and revenues and formulation of short- and long-term policy alternatives.

46. Douglas County, Nevada – Buyback Provision Evaluation Crowe personnel recommended an appropriate materials recovery facility/transfer station buyback provision for the County to incorporate into its franchise agreement. We subsequently evaluated the impacts of various buyback options and developed franchise agreement language.

47. Durham Road Landfill Authority – Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Care Evaluation Crowe personnel managed an evaluation of the remaining unfunded closure and post-closure costs of the Tri-Cities Recycling and Disposal Facility (TCRDF, formerly Durham Road Landfill). This landfill is due to close in 2001. The engagement was conducted for the Durham Road Landfill Authority, comprised of representatives from the Cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City (Tri-Cities). We provided an objective, third-party evaluation (in 1996) of the potential exposure of the Tri-Cities to fund the TCRDF closure and post-closure costs. Currently, the landfill owner, Waste Management of Alameda County (WMAC) has filed a formal complaint to the Tri-Cities regarding this and other franchise-related issues.

48. El Dorado County – Solid Waste Rate and Service Study Crowe personnel conducted a comparison of solid waste residential, commercial, and industrial rates and service levels between the unincorporated County and 14 comparative jurisdictions. Our extensive comparative survey analyses were complicated by the County’s six (6) separate franchised areas served by six (6) refuse collection companies with three (3) parent companies. The comparative jurisdictions had multiple providers and rates within them making the data set extremely robust (200 area rates). We compared solid waste residential, commercial, and industrial rates and service levels between the County and 12 comparative jurisdictions meeting AB 939 goals. We also performed the following analyses: • A comparison of franchise fees between the County and 14 comparative jurisdictions • A comparison of profitability levels between the County and 22 comparative jurisdictions, as well as published publicly and privately held industry profitability levels • A valuation assessment of each of the six (6) franchise agreements over five, ten, and fifteen year terms (using discounted cash flow analyses). We provided a range of statistically based comparisons, including means, medians, minimums, and maximums. The report included hundreds of data points and is likely one of the most robust comparative surveys performed of its kind. We provided the County with an analysis of four (4) potential franchise agreement options for consideration, including: (1) franchise extension in conjunction with new services, (2) franchise extension with County option to purchase new facilities, (3) no franchise extension (use competitive bid process), and (4) no franchise extension with the County providing service. We recommended changes in the areas of: (1) County franchises and authorities, (2) “non-mandatory” residential refuse collection, (3) regulated yard waste burning and yard waste collection, and (4) disposal facilities and waste management facilities. We recommended changes to current County rate setting practices. We prepared a comprehensive report that the County expects to use in planning new service levels and rates, and for future negotiations with its franchised haulers. We also presented results to the County Board of Supervisors. The County was very pleased with the quality and extent of the work performed.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-29

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 11 of 12 49. El Dorado County – Property Leases Analysis Crowe personnel performed an evaluation of the treatment of property leases by the County’s franchise solid waste hauler, El Dorado Disposal. Our analysis included property value appraisals, descriptions of lease options, and discounted cash flow analyses.

50. King County Solid Waste Division, Washington – Performance Audit Crowe personnel conducted an objective third-party performance audit of the King County Solid Waste Division, Washington. The audit involved an evaluation of the Division’s organizational structure, assessment of system-wide operational efficiencies, and review of the financial reserve and replacement fund policies using interviews of management and key stakeholders and a benchmark comparison analyses. Following the analysis, we reported on the status of the Division by identifying potential areas of improvement in the areas of organizational structure, fund balance policies, system costs, landfill and transfer station operations, future waste disposal and export options, and other process issues. We developed approximately 50 recommendations.

51. Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department – Management and Operations Audit Crowe personnel conducted this major multi-year project to ensure that the organizational structure and operating procedures of the department would result in the most effective and efficient agency operation possible. Part of the project was concerned with exploring new opportunities for more efficient privatization operation options and to determine sensitive management changes required to accommodate dynamic new waste management programs. The project developed a comprehensive set of effectiveness recommendations for: (1) department organizational structure, (2) intradepartment coordination, (3) policies and procedures, (4) landfill operations, (5) administrative support, and (6) performance measures.

52. San Bernardino County – Solid Waste Rates Development Crowe personnel developed solid waste rates for the Solid Waste Management Department, County of San Bernardino. This is one of the largest counties in the United States in terms of geographical area. The county maintains and operates 17 active landfills and one transfer station, and monitors 16 inactive landfills. The complex solid waste system operated in four autonomous geographical subareas in the County. Through the use of a large-scale computer database and a complex financial model, this study developed solid waste disposal rate schedules for the County. These rates had to fund: (1) annual operating and maintenance costs, (2) annual closure and post-closure maintenance reserve requirements, and (3) capital expansion reserve requirements. Three different types of fees had to be developed: tipping fees (charge per ton of solid waste), per capita fees (charge per person per month), and equivalent single family residence fees (charge based on the waste stream of an ESFR and the amount of waste generated by all types of land use parcels relative to an ESFR). The proposed rates also had to cover state and local surcharges, and environmental and infrastructure surcharges. The County's solid waste capital improvement plan covered $82 million in capital projects. The rate-setting study included a review of solid waste rates in other counties and analysis of waste generation factors by land use codes. Finally, the study presented recommendations for future rate setting development.

53. San Bernardino Desert and Mountain Waste Management Coalition – Financial Review This project was a financial review of the San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management Enterprise Fund. This study determined total revenues to this $50 million fund for a period of six fiscal years and verified that funds were expended for appropriate operations, capital outlays, and reserves related to Enterprise Fund activities. The study also assessed adequacy of closure and post-closure reserve funds, identified and reviewed significant fixed asset acquisitions and dispositions, and reviewed rate setting processes. The study provided findings and recommendations based upon the specified financial work and procedures performed.

2-30 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-7 Selected Crowe Local Government Rate Setting and Cost Analyses Qualifications (continued) Page 12 of 12 54. San Diego County, Solid Waste Division – Management Audit and Financial Review Crowe personnel conducted a multi-year major project whose objective was to perform an integrated management audit and financial review of the Solid Waste Division. The management audit reviewed: (1) operations compliance with laws, regulations, and ordinances; (2) internal organizational and operational effectiveness, efficiency, and costs, (3) contracting practices and costs, (4) North County Recycling Center operating requirements, costs, and effectiveness, and (5) County recycling program effectiveness. The financial review determined: (1) adequacy of internal controls, (2) sufficiency of operating reserves, (3) expenditures and funding requirements, (4) future landfill tipping fees, and (5) overall fund solvency. The bottom line result of this enterprise fund turnaround management consulting project was to determine the immediate need to drastically increase mixed waste tipping fees or risk financial insolvency of the $100 million a year operating cost and capital cost enterprise fund. Several additional related engagements spun off from this primary engagement. For the multiple additional related engagements we served as a financial advisor to the Enterprise Fund and provided complex financial analyses of alternative debt and no debt funding analyses, including the use of revenue bond and tipping fee funding plans. Multiple short and long-term funding plans were developed considering impacts on rate payers, system life-cycle costs, and facility reserves.

55. San Diego Solid Waste Authority – Technical Assistance for Landfill and Transfer Station Feasibility Study Crowe personnel assisted with an initial financial feasibility study for a $100 million Municipal Bond Issuance project which included sensitivity analyses of projected fixed and variable costs, five-year forecasting of revenues under various system tipping fee scenarios, regional competitor studies, and valuation analysis of landfill assets and worth. This analysis was completed prior of the entire sale of the San Diego landfill system to Allied Waste.

56. South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority – Rate Setting Policy and Procedures Manual Development Crowe personnel are assisting the Authority with an update to the solid waste rate setting policies and procedures manual. As part of this project, we are benchmarking the franchised haulers’ operations, equipment and truck requirements, diversion capabilities, and operating costs with other jurisdictions. This jurisdiction is similar to the City of Pleasanton in that they utilize a “dirty MRF.”

57. Tahoe Basin Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority (JPA) – Rate Setting Policy and Procedures Manual Development Crowe personnel developed a formal comprehensive solid waste rate setting process and procedures manual for the Tahoe JPA. The manual describes treatment of allowable costs and profit and established a process for submitting and reviewing rate applications.

58. Town of San Anselmo – Rate Review Crowe personnel performed a rate review for the Town of San Anselmo by reviewing the rate application and compiled financial statements of the franchised refuse collection hauler. We tested reported costs and revenues for reasonableness and made recommendations for a rate adjustment in this base year. The process required a thorough detailed review of the hauler’s financial accounting records, cost allocations, allowable expenses, revenue projections, and allowed profit. Because the current hauler recently purchased the franchise, we extensively analyzed the first year revenue and expense projections to set a reasonable baseline and presented results to the City Council.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-31

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications Page 1 of 16 California Department of Conservation – 2017 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys

Crowe conducted the sixth combined processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling the technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. While this project is substantially larger than the proposed Evaluation, it demonstrates the Crowe team’s deep knowledge of handling fees and factors influencing the cost of recycling that are directly relevant to the Evaluation.

The objective of this 14-month engagement was to determine the costs of recycling beverage containers in California, by material type, and by recycler type. The 2017 processing fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2016 cost of recycling, by material type, for the January 1, 2018, processing payments and processing fees. The 2017 handling fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2016 cost per container to recycle for recyclers that do not receive handling fees (processing fee recyclers), and recyclers that do receive handling fees (handling fee recyclers). The difference between these costs per container (handling fee recycler cost minus processing fee recycler cost), determines the handling fee payment, effective July 1, 2018.

The State’s beverage container recycling program requires that a processing payment be paid to recyclers, and a processing fee be paid by beverage manufacturers, on any container type (aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and plastic (resins #1 through #7) when the scrap value paid for the recycled materials is less than the cost to recycle material, plus a reasonable financial return. CalRecycle conducts the processing fee cost survey every two years in order to obtain the material-specific costs per ton to recycle.

The beverage container recycling program also requires that the State pay a per container handling fee to supermarket-site recyclers to support convenient recycling opportunities. Starting in July 2008, Assembly Bill (AB) 3056 required the handling fee to be based on the actual cost per container to recycle. CalRecycle now conducts a handling fee cost survey every two years, in conjunction with the processing fee cost survey, to obtain the costs per container to recycle for processing fee recyclers, and handling fee recyclers. This was the fourth such handling fee cost survey.

The processing fee cost survey included one stratified random sample. The handling fee cost survey included two stratified random samples. For each stratified random sample, Crowe developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with at least a 10 percent error rate.

We performed on-site visits to processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites across the state to collect the necessary financial and operating data. We utilized an Excel-based labor allocation model and indirect cost allocation sub-models to allocate costs between the ten different beverage container materials, and to determine costs per container. We prepared detailed data collection instruments and documentation standards. We also prepared for and conducted a comprehensive training session on the planning, execution, and documentation of on-site surveys for new survey team members. Nineteen of our contract team personnel attended the trainings.

During on-site visits, survey teams interviewed site management, collected financial and operating data, and conducted activity- based interviews to determine labor hour allocations for each CRV material and other businesses. We reviewed all site data collected for accuracy and then entered information into the automated cost survey model. Based on this information, we determined costs per ton for aluminum, bi-metal, glass, PET #1, and HDPE #2. We also determined costs per container to recycle for processing fee and handling fee recyclers. We prepared extensive analyses and comparisons of the results of this cost survey with the previous seven processing fee cost surveys (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015) and five previous handling fee cost survey (2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015), also conducted by Crowe personnel. We prepared a final report on the processing fee cost survey, a final report on the handling fee cost survey, recommendations on sample methodology alternatives for future processing fee and handling fee cost surveys, and a series of additional analyses covering areas such as alternative recycling programs, transportation, geographic differences, and costs by category. The 2017 cost survey also included curbside sorters, for the first time in the survey’s history. Crowe surveyed 72 curbside sorting operations to determine costs per container and costs per ton to recycle beverage containers. For the eighth time since the 2003 processing fee cost survey, the processing fee cost survey met and exceeded all statistical requirements. The handling fee cost survey, conducted for the sixth time, also met and exceeded all statistical requirements. In all cases the error rate at the 90 percent confidence level was below 10 percent. It was a significant accomplishment to achieve these error rate goals in this cost survey, which was among the most detailed and complex of any previous CalRecycle and DOC cost survey effort. One reason that we consistently achieve the error rate goal is that our methodology includes extensive file oversight and six levels of quality control review.

2-32 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 2 of 16 California Department of Conservation – Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys Crowe conducted the fifth combined processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. For the first time since the early 1992, CalRecycle formally included processors in the cost survey. This was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling the technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. The objective of this multi-year engagement was to determine the costs of recycling beverage containers in California, by material type, and by recycler type. The 2015 processing fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2014 cost of recycling, by material type, for the January 1, 2016, processing payments and processing fees. The 2015 handling fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2014 cost per container to recycle for recyclers that do not receive handling fees (processing fee recyclers), and recyclers that do receive handling fees (handling fee recyclers). The difference between these costs per container (handling fee recycler cost minus processing fee recycler cost), determines the handling fee payment, effective July 1, 2016. The State’s beverage container recycling program requires that a processing payment be paid to recyclers, and a processing fee be paid by beverage manufacturers, on any container type (aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and plastic (resins #1 through #7) when the scrap value paid for the recycled materials is less than the cost to recycle material, plus a reasonable financial return. CalRecycle conducts the processing fee cost survey every two years in order to obtain the material-specific costs per ton to recycle. The beverage container recycling program also requires that the State pay a per container handling fee to supermarket- site recyclers to support convenient recycling opportunities. Starting in July 2008, Assembly Bill (AB) 3056 required the handling fee to be based on the actual cost per container to recycle. CalRecycle now conducts a handling fee cost survey every two years, in conjunction with the processing fee cost survey, to obtain the costs per container to recycle for processing fee recyclers, and handling fee recyclers. This was the fourth such handling fee cost survey. The processing fee cost survey included one stratified random sample. The handling fee cost survey included two stratified random samples. For each stratified random sample, Crowe developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with at least a 10 percent error rate. We performed on-site visits to processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites across the state to collect the necessary financial and operating data. We utilized an Excel-based labor allocation model and indirect cost allocation sub- models to allocate costs between the ten different beverage container materials, and to determine costs per container. We prepared detailed data collection instruments and documentation standards. We also prepared for and conducted a comprehensive training session on the planning, execution, and documentation of on-site surveys for new survey team members, and a shortened refresher course for returning survey team members. Fifteen of our contract team personnel attended the trainings. During on-site visits, survey teams interviewed site management, collected financial and operating data, and conducted activity-based interviews to determine labor hour allocations for each CRV material and other businesses. We reviewed all site data collected for accuracy and then entered information into the automated cost survey model. Based on this information, we determined costs per ton for aluminum, bi-metal, glass, PET #1, and HDPE #2. We also determined costs per container to recycle for processing fee and handling fee recyclers. We prepared extensive analyses and comparisons of the results of this cost survey with the previous six processing fee cost surveys (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013) and four previous handling fee cost survey (2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013), also conducted by Crowe personnel. We prepared a final report on the processing fee cost survey, a final report on the handling fee cost survey, and recommendations on sample methodology alternatives for future processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. For the seventh time since the 2003 processing fee cost survey, the processing fee cost survey met and exceeded all statistical requirements. The handling fee cost survey, conducted for the fifth time, also met and exceeded all statistical requirements. In all cases the error rate at the 90 percent confidence level was below 10 percent. It was a significant accomplishment to achieve these error rate goals in this cost survey, which was among the most detailed and complex of any previous CalRecycle and DOC cost survey effort. One reason that we consistently achieve the error rate goal is that our methodology includes extensive file oversight and six levels of quality control review. Processors are integral participants in the Program and in the recycling of beverage container materials. Crowe obtained costs from over

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-33

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 3 of 16

California Department of Conservation – 2015 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys (continued) 50 percent of the 172 certified processors. As this was the first large scale measure of processor expenses since the 1990s, there is no benchmark for costs in the historical context. This survey was used to estimate California statewide, weighted-average, 2014 certified processor costs per container, and costs per ton for four beverage container types. In addition, Crowe conducted an analysis of scrap values for CalRecycle that evaluated the major material-types (aluminum, glass, and plastic) and three categories of recyclers (HF recyclers, PF recyclers, and curbside programs (CS)). The purpose of the analysis is to identify and evaluate trends within the scrap material markets and provide a preliminary evaluation of the impacts of scrap value fluctuations on recyclers. Crowe conducted a workshop to present the results of the processing fee cost survey, successfully answering stakeholder questions.

California Department of Conservation – 2013 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys Crowe conducted the fourth combined processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling the technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. The objective of this twelve-month engagement was to determine the costs of recycling beverage containers in California, by material type, and by recycler type. The 2013 processing fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2012 cost of recycling, by material type, for the January 1, 2014, processing payments and processing fees. The 2013 handling fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2012 cost per container to recycle for recyclers that do not receive handling fees (processing fee recyclers), and recyclers that do receive handling fees (handling fee recyclers). The difference between these costs per container (handling fee recycler cost minus processing fee recycler cost), determines the handling fee payment, effective July 1, 2014. The State’s beverage container recycling program requires that a processing payment be paid to recyclers, and a processing fee be paid by beverage manufacturers, on any container type (aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and plastic (resins #1 through #7) when the scrap value paid for the recycled materials is less than the cost to recycle material, plus a reasonable financial return. CalRecycle conducts the processing fee cost survey every two years in order to obtain the material-specific costs per ton to recycle. The beverage container recycling program also requires that the State pay a per container handling fee to supermarket- site recyclers to support convenient recycling opportunities. Starting in July 2008, Assembly Bill (AB) 3056 required the handling fee to be based on the actual cost per container to recycle. CalRecycle now conducts a handling fee cost survey every two years, in conjunction with the processing fee cost survey, to obtain the costs per container to recycle for processing fee recyclers, and handling fee recyclers. This was the fourth such handling fee cost survey. The processing fee cost survey included one stratified random sample. The handling fee cost survey included two stratified random samples. For each stratified random sample, Crowe developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with at least a 10 percent error rate. We performed on-site visits to processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites across the state to collect the necessary financial and operating data. We utilized an Excel-based labor allocation model and indirect cost allocation sub- models to allocate costs between the ten different beverage container materials, and to determine costs per container. We prepared detailed data collection instruments and documentation standards. We also prepared for and conducted a comprehensive two-week training session on the planning, execution, and documentation of on-site surveys for new survey team members, and a shortened three-day refresher course for returning survey team members. Fifteen of our contract team personnel attended the trainings. During on-site visits, survey teams interviewed site management, collected financial and operating data, and conducted activity-based interviews to determine labor hour allocations for each CRV material and other businesses. We reviewed all site data collected for accuracy and then entered information into the automated cost survey model. Based on this information, we determined costs per ton for aluminum, bi-metal, glass, PET #1, and HDPE #2. We also determined costs per container to recycle for processing fee and handling fee recyclers. We prepared extensive analyses and comparisons of the results of this cost survey with the previous five processing fee cost surveys (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011) and three previous handling fee cost survey (2007, 2009, and 2011), also conducted by Crowe personnel. We prepared a final report on the processing fee cost survey, a final report on the handling fee cost survey, and recommendations on sample methodology alternatives for future processing fee and handling fee cost surveys.

2-34 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 4 of 16

California Department of Conservation – 2013 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys (continued) For the sixth time since the 2003 processing fee cost survey, the processing fee cost survey met and exceeded all statistical requirements. The handling fee cost survey, conducted for the fourth time, also met and exceeded all statistical requirements. In all cases the error rate at the 90 percent confidence level was below 10 percent. It was a significant accomplishment to achieve these error rate goals in this cost survey, which was among the most detailed and complex of any previous CalRecycle and DOC cost survey effort. One reason that we consistently achieve the error rate goal is that our methodology includes extensive file oversight and six levels of quality control review.

California Department of Conservation – 2011 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys Crowe management and staff personnel conducted the third combined processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling the technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity- based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. The objective of this eleven-month engagement was to determine the costs of recycling beverage containers in California, by material type, and by recycler type. The 2011 processing fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2010 cost of recycling, by material type, for the January 1, 2012, processing payments and processing fees. The 2011 handling fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2010 cost per container to recycle for recyclers that do not receive handling fees (processing fee recyclers), and recyclers that do receive handling fees (handling fee recyclers). The difference between these costs per container (handling fee recycler cost minus processing fee recycler cost), determines the handling fee payment, effective July 1, 2012. The State’s beverage container recycling program requires that a processing payment be paid to recyclers, and a processing fee be paid by beverage manufacturers, on any container type (aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and plastic (resins #1 through #7) when the scrap value paid for the recycled materials is less than the cost to recycle material, plus a reasonable financial return. CalRecycle conducts the processing fee cost survey every two years in order to obtain the material-specific costs per ton to recycle. The beverage container recycling program also requires that the State pay a per container handling fee to supermarket- site recyclers to support convenient recycling opportunities. Starting in July 2008, AB 3056 required the handling fee to be based on the actual cost per container to recycle. CalRecycle now conducts a handling fee cost survey every two years, in conjunction with the processing fee cost survey, to obtain the costs per container to recycle for processing fee recyclers, and handling fee recyclers. This was the third such handling fee cost survey. The processing fee cost survey included one stratified random sample. The handling fee cost survey included two stratified random samples. For each stratified or simple random sample, Crowe personnel developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with at least a 10 percent error rate. We performed on-site visits to processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites across the state to collect the necessary financial and operating data. We utilized an Excel-based labor allocation model and indirect cost allocation sub- models to allocate costs between the ten different beverage container materials, and to determine costs per container. We prepared detailed data collection instruments and documentation standards. We also prepared for and conducted a comprehensive two-week training session on the planning, execution, and documentation of on-site surveys for new survey team members, and a shortened three-day refresher course for returning survey team members. Sixteen (16) of our contract team personnel attended the trainings. During on-site visits, survey teams collected financial and operating data, and conducted activity-based interviews to determine labor hour allocations for each CRV material and other businesses. We reviewed all site data collected for accuracy and entered information into the automated cost survey model. Based on this information, we determined costs per ton for aluminum, bi-metal, glass, PET #1, and HDPE #2. We also determined costs per container to recycle for processing fee and handling fee recyclers. We prepared analyses and comparisons of the results of this cost survey with the previous four processing fee cost surveys (2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009) and two previous handling fee cost survey (2007 and 2009), also conducted by Crowe personnel named in this proposal. We prepared a final report on the processing fee cost survey, a final report on the handling fee cost survey, and recommendations on sample methodology alternatives for future processing fee and handling fee cost surveys.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-35

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 5 of 16

California Department of Conservation – 2011 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys (continued) For the fifth time since the 2003 processing fee cost survey, the processing fee cost survey met and exceeded all statistical requirements. The handling fee cost survey, conducted for the third time, also met and exceeded all statistical requirements. In all cases the error rate at the 90 percent confidence level was below 10 percent. It was a significant accomplishment to achieve these error rate goals in this cost survey, which was conducted on a significantly shorter time schedule than prior or subsequent cost surveys.

California Department of Conservation – 2009 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys Crowe management and staff personnel conducted the second combined processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling the technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity- based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. The objective of this thirteen-month engagement was to determine the costs of recycling beverage containers in California, by material type, and by recycler type. The 2009 processing fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2008 cost of recycling, by material type, for the January 1, 2010, processing payments and processing fees. The 2009 handling fee cost survey determined the calendar year 2008 cost per container to recycle for recyclers that do not receive handling fees (processing fee recyclers), and recyclers that do receive handling fees (handling fee recyclers). The difference between these costs per container (handling fee recycler cost minus processing fee recycler cost), determines the handling fee payment, effective July 1, 2010. The State’s beverage container recycling program requires that a processing payment be paid to recyclers, and a processing fee be paid by beverage manufacturers, on any container type (aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and plastic (resins #1 through #7) when the scrap value paid for the recycled materials is less than the cost to recycle material, plus a reasonable financial return. CalRecycle conducts the processing fee cost survey every two years in order to obtain the material-specific costs per ton to recycle. The beverage container recycling program also requires that the State pay a per container handling fee to supermarket- site recyclers to support convenient recycling opportunities. Starting in July 2008, AB 3056 required the handling fee to be based on the actual cost per container to recycle. CalRecycle now conducts a handling fee cost survey every two years, in conjunction with the processing fee cost survey, to obtain the costs per container to recycle for processing fee recyclers, and handling fee recyclers. This was the second such handling fee cost survey. The processing fee cost survey included one stratified random sample, two simple random samples, and a census. The handling fee cost survey included two stratified random samples. For each stratified or simple random sample, we developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with at least a 10 percent error rate. We performed on-site visits to 351 sampled and census processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites across the state to collect the necessary financial and operating data. We utilized an Excel-based labor allocation model and indirect cost allocation sub-models to allocate costs between the ten different beverage container materials, and to determine costs per container. We prepared detailed data collection instruments and documentation standards. We also prepared for and conducted a comprehensive two-week training session on the planning, execution, and documentation of on-site surveys for new survey team members, and a shortened three-day refresher course for returning survey team members. Approximately 23 of our contract team personnel attended the trainings. During on-site visits, survey teams interviewed site management, collected financial and operating data, and conducted activity-based interviews to determine labor hour allocations for each CRV material and other businesses. We reviewed all site data collected for accuracy and then key-entered into the automated cost survey model and sub-models. Based on this information, we determined costs per ton for aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and each of the plastic resins #1 through #7 beverage containers. We also determined costs per container to recycle for processing fee and handling fee recyclers. We prepared analyses and comparisons of the results of this cost survey with the previous three processing fee cost surveys (2003, 2005, and 2007) and one previous handling fee cost survey (2007), also conducted by Crowe personnel. We prepared a final report on the processing fee cost survey, a final report on the handling fee cost survey, a summary report on the impact of recent scrap metal laws on recyclers, and recommendations on sample methodology alternatives for future processing fee and handling fee cost surveys.

2-36 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 6 of 16

California Department of Conservation – 2009 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys (continued) For the fourth time since the 2003 processing fee cost survey, the processing fee cost survey met and exceeded all statistical requirements. The handling fee cost survey, conducted for the second time, also met and exceeded all statistical requirements. In all cases the error rate at the 90 percent confidence level was below 10 percent. It was a significant accomplishment to achieve these error rate goals in this cost survey, which was among the most detailed and complex of any previous Department cost survey effort. One reason that we consistently achieve the error rate goal is that our methodology includes extensive file oversight and six levels of quality control review.

California Department of Conservation – 2007 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys Crowe personnel conducted the first ever combined processing fee and handling fee cost survey project. This was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. The objective of this fourteen month engagement was to determine costs of recycling beverage containers in California, by material type, and by recycler type. The processing fee cost surveys determined the calendar year 2006 cost of recycling, by material type, for the January 1, 2008, processing payments and processing fees. The handling fee cost surveys determined the calendar year 2006 cost per container to recycle for recyclers that do not receive handling fees (processing fee recyclers), and recyclers that do receive handling fees (handling fee recyclers). The difference between these costs per container (handling fee recycler cost minus processing fee recycler cost), determined the new handling fee payment, effective July 1, 2008. The State’s beverage container recycling program requires that a processing payment be paid to recyclers, and a processing fee be paid by beverage manufacturers, on any container type (aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and plastic (resins #1 through #7)) when the scrap value paid for the recycled materials is less than the cost to recycle material, plus a reasonable financial return. The Department conducts the processing fee cost surveys every two years in order to obtain the material-specific costs per ton to recycle. The beverage container recycling program also requires that the State pay a per container handling fee to supermarket- site recyclers to support convenient recycling opportunities. Historically, this handling fee payment has been set in statute, most recently at 1.8 cents per container, with a maximum monthly payment of $2,300 per month, per site. Starting in July 2008, AB 3056, requires the handling fee to be based on the actual cost per container to recycle. The Department will conduct a handling fee cost survey every two years, in conjunction with the processing fee cost survey, to obtain costs per container to recycle for processing fee recyclers, and handling fee recyclers. The processing fee cost survey included one stratified random sample, two simple random samples, and a census. The handling fee cost survey included two stratified random samples, one simple random sample, and a census. For each stratified or simple random sample, Crowe personnel developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with a 10 percent error rate. We performed on-site visits to 385 sampled and census processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites across the State to collect the necessary financial and operating data. We utilized an Excel-based labor allocation model and indirect cost allocation suA-models to allocate costs between the ten different beverage container materials, and to determine costs per container. We prepared detailed data collection instruments and documentation standards. We also prepared for and conducted a comprehensive two-week training session on the planning, execution, and documentation of on-site surveys for new survey team members, and a shortened three-day refresher course for returning survey team members. Approximately 22 of our contract team personnel and Department staff attended the trainings. During on-site visits, personnel from Crowe personnel and our accounting services firm subcontractor interviewed site management, collected financial and operating data, and conducted activity-based interviews to determine labor hour allocations for each CRV material and other businesses. We reviewed all site data collected for accuracy and then key- entered into the automated cost survey model and suA-models. Based on this information, we determined costs per ton for aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and each of the plastic resins #1 through #7 beverage containers. We also determined costs per container to recycle for processing fee and handling fee recyclers.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-37

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 7 of 16

California Department of Conservation – 2007 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Surveys (continued) We prepared analyses and comparisons of results of this cost survey with the previous two processing fee cost surveys (2003 and 2005), also conducted by Crowe personnel. In addition, Crowe personnel prepared and presented a briefing document on results of the processing fee and handling fee cost surveys to Department of Conservation management. We prepared a final report on the processing fee cost surveys, a final report on the handling fee cost surveys, assisted the Division in preparing for a workshop to present results of the surveys to interested stakeholders, conducted an economic impact analysis of certified recycling center activity, and prepared recommendations on sample methodology alternatives for future processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. For the third time since the 2003 processing fee cost survey, the processing fee cost survey met and exceeded all statistical requirements. The handling fee cost survey, conducted for the first time, also met and exceeded all statistical requirements. In all cases the error rate at the 90 percent confidence level was below 10 percent. It was a significant accomplishment to achieve these error rate goals in this cost survey, which was the most detailed and complex of any previous Department cost survey effort. One reason that we consistently achieve the error rate goal is that the Crowe personnel methodology includes extensive file oversight and six levels of quality control review.

California Department of Conservation – 2005 Processing Fee Cost Survey Crowe personnel determined the cost of recycling for the January 1, 2006, processing payments and processing fees. The objective of this engagement was to determine the costs of recycling beverage containers in California. The State’s beverage container recycling program requires that a processing payment be paid to recyclers, and a processing fee be paid by beverage manufacturers, on any container type [aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and plastic (resins #1 through #7)] when the scrap value paid for the recycled materials is less than the cost to recycle material, plus a reasonable financial return. Crowe personnel developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with a 10 percent error rate. The survey utilized three separate samples; a stratified random sample for aluminum, glass, PET #1, and HDPE #2, a simple random sample for bi-metal, and a census of sites recycling plastic resins #3 through #7. We performed on-site visits to 189 sampled and census sites across the State to collect the necessary financial and operating data. We utilized an Excel-based labor allocation model and indirect cost allocation suA-models to allocate costs between the ten different beverage container materials. We prepared detailed data collection instruments and documentation standards. We also prepared for and conducted a comprehensive two-week training session on the planning, execution, and documentation of on-site surveys for new survey team members, and a shortened three-day refresher course for returning survey team members. Approximately 24 of our contract team personnel and Department staff attended the trainings. During on-site visits, personnel from Crowe personnel and our accounting services firm subcontractor interviewed site management, collected financial and operating data, and conducted activity-based interviews to determine labor hour allocations for each CRV material and other businesses. We reviewed all site data collected for accuracy and then key- entered into the automated cost survey model and suA-models. Based on this information, we determined costs per ton for aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and each of the plastic resins #1 through #7 beverage containers. Using a weighted-average scrap value for each material, the Department then determined processing payments for each material, as necessary. We prepared analyses and comparisons of results of this cost survey with the previous 2003 processing fee cost survey, also conducted by Crowe personnel. In addition, Crowe personnel prepared and presented a briefing document on results of the cost survey to Department of Conservation management. We prepared a final report on the processing fee cost survey, and assisted the Division in preparing for a workshop to present results of the surveys to interested stakeholders. For the second time since the 2003 processing fee cost survey, this cost survey met and exceeded all statistical requirements. In all cases the error rate at the 90 percent confidence level was below 10 percent. It was a significant accomplishment to achieve these error rate goals in this cost survey, in particular because the lower error rates were achieved even with a smaller stratified random sample. There were two reasons for the improved error rates. The first reason was the highly experienced survey team, including a majority of team members that had field experience in the 2003 cost survey. The second reason is that the Crowe personnel methodology again included extensive file oversight and six levels of quality control review. As one outcome of the high degree of accuracy, results of the 2005 processing fee cost survey are extremely stable in comparison to results of previous years’ surveys.

2-38 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 8 of 16 California Department of Conservation – “Most Accurate” Refund Value Review Crowe personnel prepared a technical report, Refund Value Analysis, for the California Department of Conversation, Division of Recycling. This comprehensive report analyzes the extent of overpayment and underpayment of California redemption value (CRV) that results due to the conversion from CRV paid per container at the point of sale, to CRV paid by weight, at the point of recycling. Recently, some consumers have expressed concern that they are not receiving back the full amount of CRV that they paid upon purchase. The Division determines a statewide weighted-average refund value for each material type to be used in this conversion. As the beverage container market has diversified, and new containers have been added to the recycling program, there are an increasing number of containers that are not paid the “full” amount of CRV using the weighted-average rate. This report quantified the extent of the problem, examining overpayment and underpayment statewide, by recycling program, by material type, and for individual CRV product types. The report identified three different solutions to three different types of CRV underpayment concerns. The report is used by the Division to inform program decisions related to most accurate refund values.

California Department of Conservation – Market Analysis Report for Recycled Beverage Container Materials Crowe personnel prepared a comprehensive market analysis for the Division of Recycling (DOR). The primary objective of the market analysis is to provide the DOR with a better understanding of material markets and industry participants involved in beverage container material markets, and how investments through grant funds may impact competitive forces in the industry. The report, over 120 pages in length, includes detailed analyses of supply and demand, key players, material flows, end-uses, and market issues for the ten beverage container material types. The report also summarizes and synthesizes the details, and provides recommendations for the Beverage Container Recycling Market Development and Expansion Grant Program that are expected to guide the program for the next few years. The market report represents the analysis and compilation of five months of research, including review of more than 150 secondary sources and interviews with over 25 industry experts. The Department published this market analysis report on their website for the benefit of their industry stakeholders.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling – Preparation of a Market Analysis for All Beverage Container Material Types, 2007 Update Crowe personnel prepared a comprehensive market analysis for the Division of Recycling. The report built on, but did not duplicate, Crowe personnel’s 2005 Market Analysis for Recycled Beverage Container Materials, and the brief Market Status Update of September 2006, Market Analysis for Recycled PET and HDPE in California. This report, prepared in early 2007, provides an overview of the current status of recycled beverage container material markets; California processing/reclaiming capacity today and in 2010; market issues and barriers, competitive concerns related to the Beverage Container Recycling Market Development and Expansion Grant Program; and potential grant opportunities. The focus in writing the report was to emphasize implications of these various market elements for the Grant Program. In preparing the report, Crowe personnel conducted a literature review of published and Internet sources, and interviewed 36 individuals closely involved with national and/or California recycled material markets. Reflecting the complex and dynamic nature of recycled beverage container material markets, this report provides detailed information on market dynamics, market issues, alternatives, and recommendations. The 2007 Update was published on the DOC’s web site for use by prospective grant applicants, and used by Division of Recycling staff to assist in the review process prior to awarding grants in the 2007 grant cycle.

California Department of Conservation – Workshop on Municipal Curbside Recycling Crowe personnel developed this study on the financial impact of the California Beverage Container Act on municipal curbside recycling programs to determine the projected economic impact of establishment of statewide certified recycling centers on municipal curbside programs. The intended audience for the study was local government elected and management officials.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-39

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 9 of 16 California Department of Conservation – Determination of the Costs of Alternative Recycling Programs Crowe personnel determined costs of alternative recycling programs. The goal of this project was to determine the average statewide costs, per container and material type, of various recycling programs. These programs included automated recycling programs, staffed recycling programs, nonprofit drop-off programs, curbside collection programs, material recovery facilities, and bar/restaurant collection programs. A law passed in California which required the DOC to: (1) conduct a study on alternative methods of funding for, and expansion of, curbside programs, (2) provide a summary of the funds used to support these programs, and, (3) calculate the average monthly volumes per household collected by curbside programs. We developed the survey protocol to enable DOC personnel to determine costs of the different programs listed above. This included developing methodologies for determining the costs, selecting pilot samples of the programs to be surveyed, preparing appropriate survey forms and data collection sheets, training personnel in conducting these surveys, and conducting 40 pilot surveys of the recycling programs. This information was evaluated to determine costs of each recycling program. Secondary literature then was reviewed and a final report prepared stating the costs of recycling using the different methods including the cost of certified staff and improvements required.

California Integrated Waste Management Board – Plastics White Paper Crowe personnel prepared a white paper that included a comprehensive assessment of, and recommendations for, plastics recycling and resource conservation in California for the California Integrated Waste Management Board, and the Department of Conservation. Crowe personnel organized and facilitated a two-day Plastics White Paper Workshop attended by 50 diverse stakeholders. Crowe personnel prepared an extensive presentation and resource document for the workshop. Crowe personnel participated in over twelve stakeholder meetings and conducted secondary research on the plastics industry. The white paper included policy recommendations in six program categories including: (1) modifications to existing laws, (2) collection and market development, (3) public information, relations, and education, (4) research/development and new technologies, (5) a structured collaborative process, and (6) funding mechanisms/ long-term policies. These policy recommendations were intended to guide Board and Department legislation and plastics programs over the next five years.

California Department of Conservation – 2003 Processing Fee Cost Survey Crowe personnel completed a year-long project for the Department of Conservation. The objective of this engagement was to determine costs of recycling beverage containers in California. The State’s beverage container recycling program requires that a processing payment be made by beverage manufacturers on any container type (aluminum, bi-metal, glass, and plastic (resins #1 through #7), when the scrap value paid for the recycled material is less than the cost to recycle material, plus a reasonable financial return. Crowe personnel performed on-site cost surveys at a statistically valid sample of recycling centers across the State. Crowe personnel collected and compiled the necessary financial and operating data for the cost survey. Crowe personnel had to develop a new major economic model to estimate costs of recycling the minority material types (plastics resins #2 through # 7, and bi-metals).

California Integrated Waste Management Board – Market Development Policies Development Crowe personnel managed a project to provide a menu of potential “fast track” market development policy options for consideration by the CIWMB, public officials, and others. Three types of policies were considered: (1) tradable credits and similar credits, (2) minimum recycled content, and (3) disposal price reforms. We identified a menu of policies that would affect many of the 22 materials in the waste stream. Special emphasis was placed on three secondary materials for which the CIWMB has established priority: mixed waste paper, unsorted/HDPE plastics, and compostables.

2-40 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 10 of 16 California Integrated Waste Management Board – Cost Benefit Analysis of Six Market Development Policies Crowe personnel conducted a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits, solid waste impacts, and administrative impacts of six potential policies to increase market demand for recyclable materials: • 50 percent manufacturer responsibility (similar to German Green Dot) • Refillable plastic and glass beverage containers • 80 percent recycled content in boxboard and corrugated • 30 percent recycled content in printing and writing paper • Government procurement of compost and mulch • 40 percent recycled content in plastic industrial containers. Particular attention was given to impacts of tradable credits on these policy options, estimating the costs of these proposals with, and without tradable credits. The analysis presented in detail the administrative challenges and opportunities of such a system. We prepared a final report for the CIWMB.

California Department of Conservation – Plastic Scrap Value and Transportation Cost Study Crowe personnel determined the scrap value and transportation costs for recycled plastic beverage containers. We performed financial analyses and conducted telephone interviews with a sample of approximately 60 recycling sites as a basis for computing the costs of transporting California Refund Value (CRV) scrap plastic from a certified recycler to a processor. We then prepared a report summarizing results and the methodology used to determine the cost of transportation.

California Integrated Waste Management Board – Development of Proposals for Specific Actions to Increase the Demand for Secondary Materials This engagement performed policy analyses of the demand for California secondary materials. The engagement developed proposals for specific actions to increase the demand for California secondary materials. The study included development of: (1) a five-year market program plan for secondary materials, (2) an industry information reporting system for secondary materials, and (3) financial incentives for secondary materials. Financial incentives analyzed included a business consumer tax credit, a last re-manufacturers tax credit, a secondary materials use tax credit, and an investment tax credit. The study included the following tasks: • Identify recyclable material market conditions in California • Quantify supply of, and demand for, California MSW and document prices of, and quantities consumed of, California secondary materials • Conduct survey of selected major end-users of recyclable materials • Identify economic, and non-economic, factors which inhibit the demand for recyclable materials • Conduct a comprehensive review of, and analysis of, existing and proposed state and federal programs which provide financial incentives to increase the demand for secondary materials • Identify existing regulations which provide subsidies to virgin materials • Perform research to identify market information and state-of-the-art technology • Prepare financial case studies of four manufacturers • Analyze specific California market data and develop recommendations to resolve current market/financial/ technological/institutional constraints, and encourage increased demand of recyclable materials • Prepare a comprehensive five-year market development plan.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-41

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 11 of 16 California Department of Conservation – Development of Curriculum Materials and Conduct Audited Cost Survey Training for Determining the Costs of Recycling Crowe personnel developed a training curriculum and manual and conducted a formal four-week training course on how to measure the costs of recycling aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers. This project provided a comprehensive training program for the Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling, to conduct annual training sessions. The training program provided various training modules, materials, techniques, problem sets, case studies, and a laptop computer-based model, so that DOC management could conduct the training. We prepared 17 training modules, consisting of lesson plans, classroom instruction materials, exercises/quizzes, and answers to tests. This project also included training the trainer and training Department staff survey teams to conduct financial and labor activity interviews and use results to measure the costs of recycling aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers.

State of Missouri – Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery Report Crowe personnel developed a Statewide Resource Recovery Planning and Feasibility Report for the State of Missouri Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority (EIERA). The Missouri State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, Senate Bill 475, mandating the EIERA to conduct this study and report to the Legislature. We conducted research and prepared a seven volume report to the Legislature. The overall project goal was to identify and recommend actions the State could take to encourage waste reduction and enhance resource recovery. Objectives of this year-long project included: • Determine the quantity and composition of solid waste by 114 counties, for 26 separate categories of materials • Determine integrated solid waste management practices statewide • Identify the amount/flow of solid waste within and between 114 counties and estimate remaining landfill capacity • Identify county/regional markets for recyclable materials and evaluate the economics of resource recovery • Evaluate existing laws and regulations in Missouri which inhibit demand for recovered materials and energy • Identify optimum conditions necessary to make resource recovery economically feasible • Prepare a primer on a recycling and refuse-to-energy for solid waste management planning • Prepare Resource Recovery Update newsletter • Assess resource recovery technologies, ranging from composting to curbside collection of secondary materials • Develop recommendations which were county and regional specific to increase resource recovery activities, and include mixes of alternatives to landfill disposal for management of municipal solid waste. • Among the solid waste management practices reviewed and recommended in the study were:  Waste reduction  Recycling depositories  Curbside collection  Transfer station separation  Landfill salvage  Waste-to-energy facilities.  Incineration facilities This study resulted in the following seven volume report: I. Summary Report – Including 18 Major Policy Recommendations for Resource Recovery II. Solid Waste Characterization Report III. Solid Waste Management Practices Report IV. Secondary Materials and Energy Markets Report V. Resource Recovery Alternatives Report VI. Resource Recovery Policy Report VII. Supplementary Information Report.

2-42 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 12 of 16 California Department of Conservation – Processing Fee Public Workshops Crowe personnel assisted the Department's Division of Recycling by developing and presenting Processing Fee Workshops for industry representatives and other interested members of the public. Under the California law, the Department must determine processing fees paid on beverage containers each year. The fees are calculated based on costs of recycling and processing beverage containers. Public workshops are held in order to address questions and concerns from those affected by this legislation after annual processing fees have been set by the Department. The authorizing legislation, methodology used to calculate fees, cost data analyzed, and implementation requirements are discussed at the workshops. We assisted the Department with processing fee workshops for three consecutive years.

California Department of Conservation – Validation of the Department's Methodology for Measuring the Costs of Recycling and Scrap Value of Materials Crowe personnel conducted a validation study of the Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling's approach to measuring the costs of recycling and scrap value payments for aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers in California. During the study, on-site surveys were conducted of 15 representative certified recycling centers. Results were summarized into a report with recommendations on how to improve the measurement of costs and scrap value.

California Department of Conservation – Development and Implementation of a Cost Survey Model Used for On-site Surveys Statewide Crowe personnel developed and implemented a cost survey model used for on-site surveys statewide. We developed an automated model for measuring the actual costs of recycling aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers. Based on a comprehensive labor hour allocation methodology developed by Crowe personnel, the Department measures the costs of recycling beverage containers at over 2,500 recycling centers and 100 processors throughout the State. Costs are allocated to beverage containers and other secondary materials based on labor activity at the site. The model was designed for DOC staff to easily conduct financial and labor activity interviews as part of on-site cost surveys of certified recyclers and processors in California. The survey model automated part of the surveying process by accepting labor and cost information and automatically determining the cost of recycling each beverage container material at the survey site. The model performed all of the required calculations, incorporating financial statements, labor interviews, recycling volumes, and commingled rates, and provided the on-site survey team with real-time cost estimates for each beverage container material type. We also provided comprehensive training sessions on the model.

California Department of Conservation – Determination of Commingled Rates and Container Weights Crowe personnel determined commingled rates and container weights. We assisted the Department's Division of Recycling to develop a methodology for determining commingled rates and container-per-pound rates for CRV containers. Certified recycling centers, curbside programs, and other collection programs typically sell their collected material to certified processors. Processors pay these operators the refund value on CRV containers. The CRV paid is based on the weight of the material and on the Department of Conservation's estimate of the number of containers per pound. Because loads of redeemed materials contain both CRV and non-CRV containers, only a portion of a mixed, or “commingled”, load of material is eligible for CRV. The Department sets reimbursement rates per pound for aluminum, glass, plastic, and non-aluminum metal containers based on commingled rates. Also, a separate commingled rate for each CRV container material is set for recycling centers, collection programs, curbside programs, and community service programs to recognize different volumes and mixes of non-CRV materials collected by each program. We conducted on-site surveys of 12 recycling operations to obtain and analyze data for determining commingled rates and container-per-pound rates. The methodology that we developed on this engagement served as a protocol for sampling containers at all future sites chosen for commingled rate surveys.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-43

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 13 of 16 California Department of Conservation – Preparation of a White Paper for the Seventh Annual International Conference Crowe personnel drafted a white paper titled Comparison of Costs of California's Container Recycling Program with a Traditional Deposit Program. This paper then was presented by the Director of the California Department of Conservation at the Seventh Annual International Conference on Solid Waste Management and Secondary Materials. This paper provided a perspective on California's innovative beverage container recycling law, a program enacted with support of both the environmental community and traditional bottle bill opponents: the beverage, retail, container, and recycling industries. Information in this paper and speech was based on the first and only major evaluation of California's program and the costs of other state's programs, an evaluation performed by Crowe personnel. The white paper presented financial, recycling, and organizational efficiencies of the California program, and showed the significant ($250 million annually) savings to industry and the public from the program when compared to a traditional bottle bill program.

California Department of Conservation – Revisions to Processing Fee Crowe personnel conducted three statewide focus groups to obtain comments, findings, and suggestions from industry participants regarding revisions or reforms to the processing fee. We prepared a report which summarized recommendations for changes to the cost and scrap value measurement methodology, as well as improvements to other process and program requirements.

California Department of Conservation – Comprehensive Blueprint for a New California Container Redemption Program This multi-year engagement developed a blueprint plan to improve performance of the State of California's $350 million a year recycling program, the only one of its kind in existence anywhere in the United States. The scope of work included performing a review and evaluation of the State's present recycling program, and developing new future state program alternatives, which would improve performance of the program into the next millennium. Tasks included facilitating an interagency advisory group of top level government officials, briefing the California State legislature, performing over 100 structured industry interviews, conducting industry focus groups, holding public workshops, and coordinating consumer surveys. The project proposed a major overhaul and redesign of the State's program taking a free-market approach while still internalizing the cost of recycling. The report served as the first step in a rewrite of California's beverage container redemption law from top to bottom. The report was featured in a national Wall Street Journal article that depicted innovative leadership trends in California. The project principles have had a successful track record of providing on-going management consulting services to this department over the last ten years.

California Department of Conservation – Financial Impact Analysis of AB 2020 on California Curbside Recycling Programs Crowe personnel evaluated the costs and funding sources of curbside recycling programs. The objective of this engagement was to provide the Department of Conservation with technical assistance in preparing its report for the Legislature on the costs and funding of curbside collection programs. Assembly Bill 87 required the DOC to conduct a study on alternative methods of funding for, and expanding of, curbside collection programs. Our report provided a summary of the methods used by local governments to fund such programs and presented estimates of average monthly volumes collected by curbside programs. A profile of 456 curbside collection programs operating in the state was developed. The profile included geographic coverage, demographics, operating characteristics, and material types collected for the programs. The report also presented five case studies of operating curbside programs which provided detailed information on program operations, costs, revenues, and funding sources. We used a number of techniques to collect the information for the report including a review of existing DOC documents, a formal statewide mail survey, in-depth and on-site interviews and operations reviews, a formal opinion survey of curbside program participants, and a public workshop held by the DOC to present the initial findings and conclusions of this study. Using this information, the Division determined the level of AB 2020 funding to curbside recycling programs, and the contribution of this funding to total curbside program revenues received for CRV materials. CRV funds were found to contribute a significant amount toward curbside program revenues relative to other secondary material revenue sources.

2-44 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 14 of 16 California Integrated Waste Management Board – Analysis and Calculation of the Glass Container Market Development Payments The objective of this engagement was to develop a cash flow projection model to determine the amount of glass market development payments available to in-state glass container manufacturers. California glass container manufacturers which purchase cullet, as well as processors which sell cullet to end-users other than container manufacturers, were eligible for these payments under California's beverage container recycling program. We developed a computer-based model to forecast the flow of funds into and out of the State fund used for the purpose of making these payments, and Department personnel were trained in the use of this model. We made an initial estimate of the level of the payment, considering the level of recycling statewide and use of cullet by container manufacturers.

California Integrated Waste Management Board – Report on California Glass Container Manufacturing Markets Crowe personnel examined glass container production in California. The primary objectives of the study were to: (1) determine the capacity of in-state producers to use cullet, by color; (2) estimate the total supply of cullet in the State, by color; and (3) determine the value of cullet as feedstock to in-state glass container manufacturers. The project focused primarily on glass container manufacturing processes, raw material use, cullet use, production volumes, and economics. This project included a determination of the supply and uses of post-consumer cullet in the State, by color, the cost of making new containers with and without cullet, and the marginal economic value of cullet to a container manufacturer. We also evaluated methods of reducing costs of post-consumer container cullet collection and processing.

California Department of Conservation – Evaluation of the Impact of Adding New Containers to the Beverage Container Program Crowe personnel evaluated the impact of adding new containers to the beverage container program. We assisted the DOC with analyzing non-CRV container unit sales and evaluating which containers should be added to the California recycling program. Because sales information on these containers was not readily available, a method of collecting this information had to be devised. We identified sources of unit sales data and other descriptive data for the following products: wine, distilled spirits, still water, juice, and food. We then evaluated alternative data sources and the costs associated with retrieving the proper information from them. In addition, we performed selected analyses on the data, which were stored in computer data bases, including data validation, summary statistics, and histograms of unit sales by container capacity for each product type and material type. We also analyzed effects key drivers such as pricing and seasonal effects had on sales.

California Energy Commission – Tipping Fee Technical Assistance Crowe personnel provided technical assistance to the County of Lassen, California. The objectives of this engagement were to: (1) determine the costs of solid waste management in the County, (2) estimate required tipping fees needed to fund the costs of solid waste management, and (3) prepare five-year projections of the County’s Solid Waste Management operations.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-45

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 15 of 16 California Energy Commission – Three-Year Refuse Energy Technical Assistance Program This major project was a three-year technical assistance program to the Energy Efficiency and Local Assistance Division, Local Assistance Office. The program provided technical assistance to local governments assessing and implementing refuse energy and wastewater treatment options. The technical assistance program provided in-kind economic and financial consulting services to California municipalities. The program helped local governments assess and choose energy options, overcome development barriers, and determine if the economics and other basic project components exist for a feasible project. The following local governments were assisted by the program: For Lassen County, we examined the estimated landfilling costs over a five year period and determined what the tipping fee would be at a restarted Lassen Community College cogeneration (refuse energy) facility. The County landfills included Bass Hill, Westwood, Herlong, Madeline/Ravendale, and Beiber. We identified total budgeted costs of operation/maintenance, capital outlays (on a “pay-as-you-go basis”), and overhead costs. We then prepared an analysis of the County’s solid waste management budget and prepared projections for the next five years. Material costs included the following: • Operating costs ● Eastin surcharge (AB 2448) • Air monitoring costs ● Fixed asset costs • Subchapter 15 water monitoring costs ● Closure and post-closure care costs. We determined total disposal costs and examined possible financial assurance mechanisms for the County to fund closure and post-closure care (i.e., issuance of long-term debt, or Certificates of Participation). For Del Norte County, we examined potential financing techniques for the siting, development, and construction of the new landfill including Certificates of Participation, General Obligation Bonds, Lease Revenue Bonds, Municipal Revenue Bonds, and Variable Rate Bonds. For Merced County, we evaluated the feasibility of recovering landfill gas (LFG) from the 118,000 ton per year Highway 59 Landfill and selling either the gas or electricity generated by combustion of the gas. As a basis for the evaluation, we estimated the volume and quantity of LFG available, identified potential users and markets for the LFG, estimated costs to recover the gas and convert it to usable energy. We also examined refuse energy as an opportunity to reduce landfilled waste. The County wanted to reduce the current 600 tons per day in order to extend the life of the two County landfills. We evaluated the feasibility of a 500-ton-per-day refuse energy facility that would have increased the system tipping fee to $77 per ton. We evaluated the feasibility of recovering landfill gas (LFG) from Greer Road Landfill in Stanislaus County and selling either the gas or electricity generated by combustion of the gas. As a basis for the evaluation, we estimated the volume and quantity of LFG available, identified potential users and markets for the LFG, estimated costs to recover the gas and convert it to usable energy. As a consultant to the Southeast Regional Solid Waste Commission, we assisted in the final technical and economic evaluation of four disposal proposals. We examined the feasibility of the City of Santa Clara’s developing its own refuse energy facility and lower the tipping fee. The City had recently negotiated an agreement with a private operator calling for a $30 per ton tipping fee. For Kern County, we reviewed the economics of a 500 ton per day facility as a way to reduce the approximately 1.1 million tons of refuse generation landfilled. At the time the County was closing China Grade, replacing the landfill with a newly permitted one and adding a large transfer station. Energy from this facility would act as a cheaper source of thermal energy for use in recovering oil through the thermally enhanced oil recovery process.

2-46 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 2-8 Selected Crowe State Resource Recycling and Solid Waste Management Qualifications (continued) Page 16 of 16 California Energy Commission – Three-Year Refuse Energy Technical Assistance Program (continued) We evaluated whether a refuse energy facility in Amador County was economically feasible. We reviewed waste flows from the Counties of Amador, Calaveras, and El Dorado and based on an estimated 300 ton per day facility and facility construction costs of over $30 million, the proposed tip fee would rise from Amador tip fees of $6 per ton to $79 per ton. We concluded the project was not economically feasible. For Calaveras County, we evaluated whether a modular incinerator facility was economically feasible. We reviewed waste flows from the Counties of Amador, Calaveras, and El Dorado and based on an estimated 50 ton per day facility and facility construction costs of over $3 to $4 million, the proposed residential fees would need to be set an $80 to $104 per residential equivalent, an increase of 50 to 100 percent over current fees. Due to the week steam market, we concluded the project was not economically feasible. We examined five alternatives to replace the existing landfill serving Yuba and Sutter Counties by comparing various technical and economic aspects. The Bi-County area was utilizing a privately owned and operated landfill with 18 months of capacity. The Bi-County Solid Waste Management Board had approved the 261 acre Ostrom Road landfill site however this site was blocked by two incorporated cities. Alternatives included the following: • Enlarge existing landfill • Close existing landfill and open Ostrom Road • Close existing landfill, open Ostrom Road, and construct transfer station • Close existing landfill, open Ostrom Road, and construct refuse energy facility • Enlarge existing landfill and construct refuse to energy facility.

California Energy Commission – Curbside Recycling Technical Assistance Crowe personnel provided technical assistance to the City of San Jose. The objective of this engagement was to review the City of San Jose Curbside Recycling Program. Study tasks included: (1) Identifying demand and supply markets, (2) Compiling relevant demographic data, (3) Reviewing the current curbside program, including recovery and participation rates, (4) Reviewing and assessing economics of the curbside program, (5) Identifying other recovery efforts that could be used in San Jose, and (6) Preparing economic projections for future recycling programs.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-47

C. Crowe Peer Review

Crowe Peer Review

Quality Control Review Process Crowe places strong emphasis on maintaining a high level of professional audit quality. To achieve this level of quality we have developed an internal quality control system led by our Assurance Professional Practice (APP) Group. We also undergo a triennial external peer review and as one of eleven firms auditing more than 100 public companies, Crowe is subject the full, detailed annual inspection process of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). In addition, Crowe has a long-standing role of participation and leadership in national professional standards associations and regulatory organizations. Members of our firm serve on the Ethics Committees in their relevant states, the AICPA’s national ethics committee and the AICPA’s State and Local Government Expert Panel and CPE Advisory Committee.

Internal Quality Control Review Crowe has a fully developed set of policy, procedure and review activities supporting our audit practice. Quality control for all assurance efforts is established by the national office of Assurance Professional Practice (“APP”) and documented in our Quality Control Manual that includes the following six elements along with the related objectives: • Leadership Responsibilities for Quality Within the Firm • Relevant Ethical Requirements • Acceptance and Continuation of Client Relationships and Specific Engagements • Human Resources • Engagement Performance • Monitoring.

APP is also responsible for managing and communicating independence and ethics directives of the Firm. All audit personnel are responsible for knowing and understanding important Firm protocol, including: • Independence • Integrity and Objectivity • Technical and General Standards, including AICPA and accounting principles • Information about our responsibilities to clients, including listings regarding commissions, confidential information and contingent fees • Information about our other responsibilities and practices, including general information and listings related to commissions and discreditable acts.

In addition, APP is responsible for handling inquiries from engagement teams on matters related to those policy areas. APP also performs a function within our firm that we believe is unique among major firms. All public audit engagements are subject to a pre-issuance review by APP. All other audit engagements are subject to a pre-issuance review by APP or designated individuals in the Audit Business Unite that are not part of the engagement team. This includes a review of the financial statements and certain other deliverables and may include a review of the work papers supporting the judgments made on key accounting and auditing areas. Another important quality control procedure is subjecting all public-company audit engagements to an engagement quality review by an individual other than the engagement authorized signer. In addition to the PCAOB and peer review inspections, the firm also performs annual internal inspections of selected audit engagements. These inspections focus on adherence to professional standards and firm policies and procedures. This process is led by a member of APP.

2-48 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

External Quality Control Review Crowe is subject to a Peer Review of our audit practice every three years and has been since 1980. Crowe’s current external quality control review organization is Cherry Bekaert LLP. Cherry Bekaert LLP has more than 15 offices located primarily in the Southeastern United States. Our most recent peer review was conducted by Cherry Bekaert LLP, for the year ended March 31, 2016, and our Firm received the highest rating. The review included reviews of specific public sector engagements as well as quality control aspects of our Firm's operations. We will provide a copy of our most recently completed peer review report upon request.

National Professional Standards Associations and Regulatory Organizations Crowe has a long-standing role of participation and leadership in national professional standards associations and regulatory organizations such as: • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Governmental Audit Quality Center • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Standing Advisory Group • Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) • Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) • Tax Executives Institute (TEI) • International Federation of Accountants • Internal Revenue Service (IRS) • U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) • Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) • American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) • Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE)

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-49

D. References

REFERENCE 1 Name of Firm Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Street Address City State Zip Code 1537 Weber Street Oakland CA 94612 Contact Person Telephone Number Wendy Sommer, Executive Director (510) 891-6500

Dates of Service Cost of Service December 2014 to October 2017 $179,800 BriefSeptember Description 2017 of Service Provided Crowe conducted a five-year financial and compliance audit of funds raised through the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (‘Measure D”). Alameda County voters passed Measure D in 1990. Measure D established a surcharge on each ton of waste landfilled in the County (currently $8.23 per ton). We conducted on-site audits of the sixteen member agencies that received Measure D funding over five-year period (FY 2011/12 to 2015-16). We also reviewed Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board finances, examining Measure D revenues received from County landfill surcharges, and Measure D expenditures by program area. We validated whether the Board correctly distributed Measure D funds to each program area and to each member agency. We also audited Measure D compliance for 15 non-profits receiving grant funds from the Board. Crowe also performed the previous five-year financial and compliance audit for fiscal years 2006/07-2010/11, totaling approximately $40 million in audited funds.

2-50 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

REFERENCE 2 Name of Firm: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)

Street Address: 801 K Street, MS-19 City: Sacramento State: CA Zip Code: 95814

Contact Person: Hieu Le, Project Manager Telephone Number: (916) 323-1493

Dates of Service: 2/1/2017 to 4/30/2018 Value or Cost of Service: $2,299,150

Brief Description of Service Provided: Crowe conducted the 2017 Processing Fee and Handling Fee Cost Survey for CalRecycle’s Division of Recycling. The objective of this engagement was to conduct extensive business analyses to ultimately determine the costs of recycling beverage containers in California, by material type by container and by recycler type. The 2017 cost survey also determined the cost of curbside sorting of beverage container materials for the first time. The Department utilizes the business analysis results to calculate over $100 million in payments to recyclers and industry fees. Tasks included developing a statistical sampling approach, selecting a sample, updating training materials, conducting training, scheduling and deploying field auditors, analyzing data, reporting, presenting results at a public workshop, and extensive quality control. In the first months of the engagement, we focused on designing and selecting the sample and conducting training of our field auditors, emphasizing recycling program operations and the survey methodology. In addition, Crowe developed a secure online system for the project team to store and review site files, eliminating the paper-intensity of the engagement. The foundation of the cost survey is a labor allocation cost model that utilizes labor interviews of recycling center managers and owners to capture labor activities of all employees at each recycling location. Crowe utilizes a customized Excel model to sum labor hours and wages across business lines, activity categories, and recycled material types. The model uses the resulting labor allocation percentages to allocate indirect costs to the appropriate categories. During the survey, our field auditors conducted 405 processing fee recycler, handling fee recycler, and curbside sorter site visits across the State. Crowe worked closely with recyclers and curbside sorters throughout the survey to ensure that site visits were efficiently scheduled and that we obtained accurate recycling information.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 2-51

REFERENCE 3

Name of Firm South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority

Street Address City State Zip Code 2850 Fairlane Ct, Bldg C Placerville CA 95667 Contact Person Telephone Number Greg Stanton, Director (530) 621-6658 Dates of Service Cost of Service May 2017 to November 2017 $40,000 Brief Description of Service Provided Crowe assisted the South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority (JPA), and each respective JPA jurisdiction including the City of South Lake Tahoe, Douglas County, and El Dorado County (Specified Parties), with their establishing solid waste collection rates charged by South Tahoe Refuse Company Inc. (STR). The analysis of The JPA contracted with Crowe to conduct an analysis of the rates charged by STR, and to provide potential refuse collection rate changes for the JPA. We assisted with detailed reviews of the costs of providing services, including reviewing labor costs, truck/equipment costs, lease/depreciation costs, G&A costs, and recyclable processing costs (net revenues).

REFERENCE 4 Name of Firm Contra Costa County

Street Address City State Zip Code 30 Muir Road Martinez CA 94553-4601 Contact Person Telephone Number Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager (925) 674-7023 or 674-7825 Dates of Service Cost of Service December 2012 to Present $250,000 Brief Description of Service Provided Crowe has provided a range of different services to the County during this contract period, including assisting with developing new curbside programs and services to County areas served by Republic Services (previously Allied Waste and Richmond Sanitary Service), Garaventa Enterprises and Crockett Garbage Services. We have assisted with detailed reviews of the costs of providing curbside recycling services in Contra Costa County areas, including reviewing curbside recycling labor costs, truck/equipment costs, lease/depreciation costs, G&A costs, and recyclable processing costs (net revenues). We have assisted with analyzing the costs of new diversion planning programs, including commercial recycling, shifting from bi-weekly to weekly curbside recycling and yardwaste collection services, and new foodwaste collection services. We also developed and worked closely with the County’s franchise haulers on methods to allocate various franchise specific costs from consolidated area-wide costs using a number of allocation bases (labor hours, routes, accounts, tonnage). We have performed these analyses in conjunction with on-going rate setting services which serve to set the County’s refuse, recycling, and yardwaste collection rates.

2-52 Firm Qualifications and Experience Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

REFERENCE 5 Name of Firm City of Martinez

Street Address City State Zip Code 525 Henrietta Street Martinez CA 94553 Contact Person Telephone Number Michael Chandler (925) 372-3517 Dates of Service Cost of Service July 2010 to present (multiple contracts) Multiple Contracts Brief Description of Service Provided Establish Solid Waste Rates – Crowe personnel set solid waste rates and rate structures for the City. We provided ongoing consulting to the City to assist with reviewing rate applications for rate adjustments, reviewing hauler financial statements, evaluating reasonableness of revenues and costs of haulers, and assessing whether prior franchise fee payments were made in accordance with franchise requirements (10% of gross revenues). Franchise Agreement Negotiations – Crowe personnel assisted the City to determine new franchise terms and conditions for a franchise with the City’s refuse collection hauler, Allied Waste Services, Inc. We evaluated various new franchise terms and conditions including mandatory commercial recycling, residential and commercial food waste collection, e-waste/universal waste collection, rate caps, rate freezes, changes to the rate setting methodology, and on-call recycling pickups, litter and debris control on City streets. We benchmarked the proposed terms and conditions with terms and conditions in 31 recently completed California refuse collection franchises. We developed language to use in the franchise agreement. Crowe personnel assisted the City with implementation of a new mandatory commercial recycling program within the City. This program was implemented in accordance with Assembly Bill 341 which required commercial customers generating above four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week and multi-family dwellings in excess of five (5) units to implement recycling service by July 1, 2012. We assisted with determining the costs and rate impacts of implementing this new program.

Section 3 Methodology

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-1

3. Methodology In this section we provide our proposed methodology for the Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit for the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board. This methodology is based on the Scope of Services outlined in the RFP. This section is organized as follows: A. Background and Approach B. Methodology Description C. Detailed Tasks and Subtasks.

A. Background and Approach The Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (Measure D), passed by Alameda County voters in 1990, placed Alameda County at the forefront of source reduction and recycling in California, and the nation. Measure D was intended to ensure that Alameda County meet and exceed the State’s AB 939, 25 percent and 50 percent, waste diversion mandates. Measure D established the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board (Recycling Board) to create a framework for comprehensive source reduction and recycling programs, and established a $6.00 per ton landfill fee to support source reduction and recycling in the County. The Recycling Board has since increased the fee to $8.23 per ton as of 2011 and remains unchanged, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI)). Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the flow of Measure D fees generated from landfill fees, and distributed to municipalities and specific program areas. Since inception of Measure D, the Recycling Board and the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, known together as StopWaste, have developed and implemented a wide range of programs including: waste prevention, public education, home composting, recycled product procurement, technical assistance, low interest loans, and grants to non-profit organizations. In 1995, Alameda County had a 37 percent diversion rate, well above the 25 percent mandate; in 2000, Alameda County had a 54 percent diversion rate, above the 50 percent mandate. In 2007, the County’s diversion rate was 61 percent. Based on the CalRecycle diversion methodology, the County’s diversion rate was 71 percent in 2012. In 2016 and 2017, the County’s diversion rate was 72 percent and 67 percent, respectively. The Measure D landfill fee provides the County with revenues to support proactive source reduction and recycling-related policies and programs. Measure D also provides for fiscal responsibility and accountability. This Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit is mandated under Measure D, to ensure that the Recycling Board, County, and municipalities are spending Measure D funds appropriately, and complying with Measure D requirements. These requirements include specific funding allocations, as well as programmatic elements. Exhibit 3-2 identifies Measure D compliance mandates which are to be evaluated in this Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit. Measure D sets high source reduction and recycling standards for Alameda County, the Recycling Board, and the member municipalities. In their planning and budgeting efforts, StopWaste is focused forward, “dedicated to achieving the most environmentally sound solid waste management and resource conservation program for the people of Alameda County.”1 Additionally, project work more recently shifted in focus to upstream projects, targeting “reduce” and “reuse” in the waste reduction hierarchy.2 While this proposed project is primarily a technical review, we believe that the focus of this Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit should keep in mind StopWaste’s broader mission and vision. On page 3-7, we identify four factors we will consider within our overall approach to this project.

1 From StopWaste’s Mission Statement. 2 From StopWaste’s Annual Budget – FY19-20 and The Materials-Climate Nexus.

3-2 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 3-1 Schematic of Measure D Funds Raised and Spent

a Operated as one integrated organization, including the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board and Alameda County Waste Management Authority (a joint powers authority). This authority is comprised of seventeen (16) jurisdictions (fourteen cities, two sanitary districts, and the County). The Recycling Board was created by Measure D to support programs to achieve 75 percent diversion. The Board manages this audit. The Authority maintains the accounting records.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-3

Exhibit 3-2 Summary of Measure D Compliance Mandates Page 1 of 4 Measure D Requirement Subsection

Recycling Board 1. Development of The Recycling Board shall develop, within one (1) year of the effective date of this Act, Subsection a Recycling Plan a plan to establish the recycling programs necessary to meet the recycling policy goals set 64.040(b) forth in Subparagraph 64.040(A)(1) (all citations contained in this Act are, unless otherwise noted, to this Act), said plan to be known as the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Plan (Recycling Plan). The Recycling Board subsequently shall amend the Recycling Plan as necessary to meet said recycling policy goals, and as necessary to meet the further recycling policy goals established by the Recycling Board pursuant to Subparagraph 64.040(A)(2). The Recycling Plan shall incorporate all Alameda County recycling programs, whether funded by this Act or not. In developing and amending the Recycling Plan, the Recycling Board shall consult with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors (hereinafter the "Board of Supervisors"), the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (hereinafter the "Authority") and Alameda County municipal governing bodies, and furthermore shall seek to maximize public input as to the contents of the Recycling Plan by holding public hearings and establishing public advisory committees. 2. Compliance with Commencing twenty-eight (28) months after the effective date of this Act, the Recycling Subsection Fund Allocations Board shall support recycling programs and otherwise fulfill the provisions of this Act by 64.060(B) disbursing monies from the Recycling Fund as follows: 1. Fifty percent (50%) shall be disbursed on a per capita basis to municipalities for the continuation and expansion of municipal recycling programs. 2. Ten percent (10%) shall be applied to a grant program for nonprofit organizations engaged in maximizing recycling, composting, and reducing waste within Alameda County. The Recycling Board shall be an organization eligible to receive funds under this Subparagraph, for the purposes of conducting planning, research, and studies directed at furthering the purposes of this Act. 3. Ten percent (10%) shall be applied to the Source Reduction Program. 4. Ten percent (10%) shall be applied to the Recycled Product Market Development Program. 5. Five percent (5%) shall be applied to the Recycled Product Purchase Preference Program. 6. Fifteen percent (15%) shall be disbursed on a discretionary basis by the Recycling Board to support any of the activities described within this Paragraph. A portion of said fifteen percent (15%) may be retained by the Recycling Board to cover the necessary costs of administering the Recycling Fund, provided, however, that said portion shall not exceed three percent (3%) of the total funds paid to the Recycling Fund in a given year. 3. Analysis and For the purpose of apportionment of funds under the provisions of this Subsection, Subsection Review of Waste and for the purpose of sound discarded materials management, the Recycling Board shall 64.060(C) Characterization cause accurate, reliable, and up-to-date estimates to be maintained of the amounts and Studies kinds of recycling and refuse generation occurring in each municipality. For the purpose of ensuring comparability of data, any composition study or waste characterization study performed with Recycling Fund monies shall comply with standards to be established by the Recycling Board. Said standards shall include, but shall not be limited to, both methodology and categories of discarded materials. In establishing said standards, the Recycling Board should utilize the categories for discarded materials outlined in Paragraph 64.150(0). 4. Compliance with The Recycling Board shall disburse monies allocated in Subparagraphs 64.060(A)(2) and Subsection Source Reduction 64.060(B)(3), on a discretionary basis, for the development of an Alameda County-wide 64.080 Program Requirements Source Reduction Program. Funded components of the Source Reduction Program shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A. A county waste minimization program with a goal of reducing the weight of County purchases, and with a specific goal of reducing the weight of County purchase of paper products by ten percent (10%) by January 1, 1995, and by fifteen percent (15%) by

3-4 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 3-2 Summary of Measure D Compliance Mandates (continued) Page 2 of 4 Measure D Requirement Subsection

Recycling Board (continued) 4. Compliance with January 1, 2000. Said program shall emphasize the conservation of paper products by Subsection Source Reduction means of a comprehensive employee education program. The Recycling Board may 64.080 Program Requirements establish further goals for reduction in County purchases. (continued) B. An annual non-monetary award program for businesses which demonstrate a significant reduction in the use of packaging materials or the use of materials in manufacturing processes, or waste reduction through the durability and/or recyclability of their products. C. An industry and/or university program to research and develop source reduction opportunities and incentives. D. An intensive public education campaign to promote alternative individual consumer habits and in-house source reduction programs for businesses and institutions. E. Disposal cost reduction studies and waste audit services to demonstrate to businesses and institutions the efficacy of recycling programs. 5. Compliance with The Recycling Board shall disburse monies allocated in Subparagraphs 64.060(A)(2) and Subsection Recycled Product Market 64.060(B)(4) of this Act, on a discretionary basis, for a program to develop and expand 64.110 Development Program markets for recycled products. Funded components of the Recycled Product Market Requirements Development Program shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A. A regional cooperative marketing strategy; B. Grants for demonstration projects targeted at new uses of recycled materials and new techniques for recycling materials; C. An Alameda County-wide information exchange which targets potential users and sources of recycled products; and D. Municipal programs to administer permit assistance to recycling industries. 6. Compliance with Each Recycling Board member shall receive compensation not to exceed three thousand Subsection Limits on Board Member dollars ($3,000.00) for one (1) calendar year, not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) 64.130(M) Compensation for each regular meeting of the full Recycling Board, or each special meeting or committee meeting of at least two (2) hours duration, which said member has attended. Alameda County Compliance 1. Collection of A. Commencing not later than three (3) months after the effective date of this Act, each Subsection Measure D per-ton landfill or incinerator in Alameda County shall collect a surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) 64.050(A-C) Surcharge per ton on all refuse accepted for landfilling or incineration at said landfill or incinerator. All monies collected through said surcharge shall be paid by the operators of each landfill or incinerator into a fund, to be known as the Alameda County Recycling Fund hereinafter the "Recycling Fund"), established for the purpose of receiving and disbursing monies pursuant to this Act. The Board of Supervisors shall ensure the collection of said surcharge, either by modifying the use permits of said landfills and incinerators or by any other necessary means. B. Should the collection of said surcharge be found to be in violation of an existing contract or agreement to import refuse generated outside of Alameda County for landfilling or incineration within Alameda County, the Board of Supervisors may vote to waive collection of said surcharge for the refuse described within said contract or agreement. However, any future contract or agreement for the importation of refuse for landfilling or incineration within Alameda County, executed or negotiated after the effective date of this Act, shall provide for the collection of said surcharge for the refuse described within said contract or agreement. C. Any necessary costs of collection of said surcharge incurred by landfill or incinerator operators shall not be subtracted from said surcharge but, consistent with Subsection 64.070, shall be passed through to refuse generators by means of the refuse collection rates set by each municipality.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-5

Exhibit 3-2 Summary of Measure D Compliance Mandates (continued) Page 3 of 4 Measure D Requirement Subsection

Alameda County Compliance (continued) 2. Recycled Product A. The County shall purchase Recycled Products where they are comparable in function Subsection Purchase Preference and equal in cost to products manufactured from virgin materials. 64.120 Program Requirements B. The County shall apply, to the extent made possible by the availability of monies under Subparagraphs 64.060(A)(2) and 64.060(B)(5), a price preference of ten percent (10%) to its purchases of Recycled Products where said Recycled Products are comparable in function to products manufactured from virgin materials. 1. Price preferences shall be applied to a full range of recycled product categories, including, but not limited to, recycled paper products, compost and co-compost products, recycled glass, recycled oil, and recycled solvents and paints. 2. The Recycling Board may establish a price preference which is greater than ten percent (10%) for certain recycled product categories, if it is demonstrated that the manufacturing costs for said recycled product categories are higher than the manufacturing costs for similar products produced with virgin materials such that a ten percent (10%) preference is insufficient for said recycled products to be competitive. 3. Commencing January 1, 1995, the Recycling Board may reduce the price preference for certain recycled product categories, if it is demonstrated that the manufacturing costs for said recycled product categories are competitive with the manufacturing costs for similar products produced with virgin materials, and that any such reduction will not result in a substantial decrease in the percentage of recycled products purchased in the category affected by the reduction. 4. Any monies remaining after fulfilling the other requirements of this Paragraph in a given year shall be apportioned by the Recycling Board to municipalities which have established similar price preferences and recycled product specifications. C. Consistent with Paragraphs 64.120(A) and (B), the County shall modify its purchasing forms and procedures to ensure that, beginning no later than one (1) year after the effective date of this Act, information as to the recycled content, including both postconsumer discards and secondary discards, of all supplies and materials purchased by the County is available and taken into account during the purchasing process. Said information shall also be obtained for the supplies and materials portions of all public works contract bids that are received by the County. D. Any County agency which has responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for procurement items shall be required to revise said specifications, within one (1) year of the effective date of this Act, to eliminate exclusions of recovered materials and requirements that said items be manufactured from virgin materials. E. To the extent that the practice of accepting bids for multiple products inhibits the purchase of recycled products, the County shall accept bids for individual products and/or bids for fewer products. F. The Recycling Board may establish standards for a recycled product category which exceed the levels of postconsumer and secondary discard content established by this Act, provided, however, that said standards will not result in a substantial decrease in the percentage of recycled products purchased in said category. G. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, this Subsection shall apply to the supplies and materials portions of all public works contracts made by the County. The County may set minimum amounts of recycled products, both by quantity and by category, to be utilized in the execution of said contracts; and shall contract separately for the supplies and materials portions of said contracts where such separate contracting would result in more complete compliance with this Act while not significantly increasing the cost of a given contract, except as allowed by Paragraph 64.120(B). H. It shall be a County policy goal to purchase recycled paper products such that, by January 1, 1995, at least fifty percent (50%) of the total dollar amount of paper products purchased or procured by the County shall be purchased or procured as recycled paper products. Not later than January 1, 1999, the Recycling Board shall recommend to the Board of Supervisors further policy goals for County purchases of all types of recycled products.

3-6 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 3-2 Summary of Measure D Compliance Mandates (continued) Page 4 of 4 Measure D Requirement Subsection

Municipal Compliance 1. Requirement For In order to be eligible to receive monies from the Recycling Fund, each municipality must, Subsection Local Refuse either by adjusting local refuse collection rates or by instituting a product disposal fee, 64.070(A) Hauler Surcharge provide for full reimbursement to its local refuse hauler(s) for the costs of the surcharge Reimbursement established by Paragraph 64.050(A). 2. Residential Recycling Within two (2) years of the initiation of the Recycling Fund, each municipality receiving Subsection Program Requirements monies from the Recycling Fund shall provide a Residential Recycling Program to every 64.090 resident to whom refuse collection service is offered on a regular schedule which is as frequent as said refuse collection. However, it shall not be mandatory to provide said program to residents more than once a week. 3. Commercial Recycling Within two (2) years of the initiation of the Recycling Fund, each municipality receiving monies Subsection Program Requirements from the Recycling Fund shall make an adequate Commercial Recycling Program available to 64.100 every business, government, and public or private institution to which refuse collection is offered, on a regular schedule. Municipalities may determine that a Recyclable Materials Recovery Program is an appropriate means of satisfying a part of this requirement. General Compliance (All Entities Receiving Fund Monies) 1. Compliance with Contracts using Recycling Fund monies shall be made for periods of not more than five (5) Subsection Restriction Against years, except that, upon a finding of the Recycling Board that a longer period is necessary 64.060(D) Use of Fund Monies in order to capitalize a specific project, the Recycling Board may vote to allow a particular for Contracts Longer contract to be made for a period of not more than ten (10) years. No contract using than Five Years Recycling Fund monies shall provide for an option to renew or any similar provision that would result in the extension of a contract, on a less than fully competitive basis, for a cumulative period of more than five (5) years or, in the case of a contract which the Recycling Board has authorized to be made for a longer period for purposes of capitalization, more than ten (10) years.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-7

“Look Forward” Alameda County has established a challenging goal of meeting and exceeding 75 percent diversion by 2020. The County has a commitment to promoting sustainable consumption and disposal patterns. While the County has made significant progress on diversion, the Agency’s focus is in looking ahead, “75% and Beyond”. Similarly, the focus of this financial and compliance audit should be on looking forward. In regards to the audit, the goal is full compliance. If that goal is not met, the question is, how to get there? Our audit approach will include a thorough evaluation of financial and compliance metrics. When we find problems, the emphasis will be on correcting them. “Corrections” may be accomplished by providing municipalities and/or the Recycling Board with better tools to comply; developing recommendations for new policies or procedures; and/or identifying metrics that better reflect established goals and requirements.

Evaluate Compliance within the Context of Ongoing Planning StopWaste initiated a strategic planning process in June 2009, to update the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Plan Vision 2010: 75% and Beyond (Recycling Plan), and the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP). This planning effort resulted in the Strategic Workplan 2020. This document provides specific projects and the timing of these projects intended to achieve “75% and Beyond.” The Strategic Workplan is organized into three areas: Discard Management, Product Decisions, and Communications, Administration and Planning (CAP). The Strategic Workplan set a long-range target of reducing the portion of readily recyclable or compostable materials in the disposal stream to no more than 10 percent by 2020, starting from a baseline of 57 percent in 2008 (called “good stuff in the garbage”). The review and evaluation of waste generation, diversion, and performance metrics in Phases I and II of this audit may assist StopWaste in focusing future strategies, and/or refining performance metrics presented in these key strategic planning documents.

Focus on Recommendations for Further Improvement The Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit completed in July 2007 provided recommendations to improve municipality reporting and better track expenditures over time. The 2012 Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit further refined member agency Measure D reporting requirements, indirect cost allocations, Measure D landfill tonnage reporting, and provided recommendations for conveying diversion performance. The 2017 Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit included additional recommendations for improvement related to developing a list of allowable Measure D categories and expenses, implementation of an electronic submission process for member agency reports and documentation, reducing field visits during the five-year audit, and re-emphasis on landfill tonnage reporting. We propose to build on these previous reports, to identify further improvements that will assist municipalities in meeting their Measure D requirements.

Recognize Potential Impacts of Diversion and Economic Climate on Measure D Program One significant indicator of an economic downturn is a reduction in the amount of waste generated, disposed, and potentially recycled. This audit will cover the time period following an economic recovery and possible decline. Prior declines in County waste disposal rates have resulted from the County’s success with source reduction and recycling activities as well as potentially some lingering effects of the recession. Those declines in waste disposal rates also resulted in declines in Measure D revenues. It will be important to be sensitive to these issues, particularly when evaluating performance metrics. With its auspicious goal setting and an evolving and innovative approach to managing and measuring performance, the Board inevitably faces some hurdles to overcome. Each program, project, or activity performed in alignment of these goals and strategies, whether new or established, carries its own unique challenges. Exhibit 3-3 provides a description of some of these current Board challenges.

3-8 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 3-3 Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Potential Challenges Page 1 of 2 Potential Challenge Description 1. Long-term revenue As of fiscal year 2019/20, approximately 92 percent of revenue comes from fees stream uncertainty associated with landfill disposal; the remaining 8 percent is from miscellaneous sources such as property leases, and interest on fund balance and reserves. The success of the Board implies a declining revenue stream, due in large part to the downward trend in landfill tonnage and associated fees. Despite the increase between 2016 to 2017, county landfill tonnage still remains low compared to pre-2010. Additionally, as of March 2019, Altamont landfill no longer accepts disposal from outside the nine Bay Area Counties. The Board’s management of various grants and pass-through funds are usually tied to specific projects, therefore more of a secondary, fully discretionary funding stream, rather than core funding. However, the Board has taken steps to address the reduction in the revenue stream, including controlling costs, maximizing revenues from existing fees, and pursuing external funding. Alignment of core expenditures to core revenues is expected to occur by fiscal year 2020/21 as reported in the fiscal year 2018-19 Annual Budget.

2. San Francisco Zero The City and County of San Francisco aim to send nothing to landfill or incineration by Waste by 2020 2020. This will further decrease expected revenues generated.

3. Benchmark Information The Board adopted a benchmarking fee in June 2012, taking effect July 1, 2013, Service funding supporting divertible materials measurements. StopWaste Benchmark Service provides random anonymous measurements of recyclable and compostable material content quantities in refuse containers, analysis of those measurements, and reports sent directly to garbage service account holders. As of July 1, 2014, annual fees were imposed on residential and commercial customers who did not opt out within the limited timeframe. Collected benchmark service data between 2013 to 2016 showed an inconsistent trend in the volume of recyclables in garbage, which indicates a need for continued improvement. However, in April 2016, the Board decided to phase out the program by June 30, 2017. The decision was made upon a determination that there are alternative approaches to the benchmark service and fee to communicate recycling best practices.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-9

Exhibit 3-3 Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Potential Challenges (continued) Page 2 of 2 Potential Challenge Description 4. Increased tonnages StopWaste is challenged with increased tonnages landfilled as the economy recovers. landfilled related to As diversion rates climbed to a high of 73% in 2015, increased landfill tonnages in economic recovery recent years heavily contributed to diversion rates being pushed back down to 67% as of 2017. Implementation of the plant debris ban, member agency C&D ordinances, and other ordinances and bans may help prevent a rebound in tonnages landfilled as the economy recovers.

5. Disposal reporting CalRecycle operates the disposal reporting system for landfills, including reporting by accuracy haulers that transport to landfills outside of Alameda County. The potentially inaccurate reporting of materials transported to out-of-County landfills results in fee revenue losses.

6. Communications, Communication is a key factor in StopWaste meeting its strategic goals. StopWaste is administration, addressing communication challenges, including: (1) poor understanding of StopWaste’s and planning purpose, authority and achievements; (2) public mistrust of government; (3) audience diversity; and (4) emphasis on individual programs with insufficient coordination.

7. Product decisions and To achieve its strategic goals, StopWaste will need to establish a strong retail discard management presence, influencing product purchases within the County; and ensure behavioral change for virtually all County residents and businesses in discard behaviors, in order to achieve the necessary reach and scale.

8. Organic waste SB 1383 was signed into law in 2016 establishing methane emissions reduction targets methane emissions in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived pollutants. As it pertains to reductions landfills, SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020, a 75 percent reduction by 2025, and 20 percent of edible food currently disposed of recovered for human consumption by 2025. Cities and counties are responsible for implementation, enforcement, and funding at the local level. Additionally, the definition of organics is very broad, and includes plant debris, food scraps, paper, cardboard, textiles, carpet, manure, and biosolids. By January 2022, CalRecycle will start enforcing and imposing penalties for non-compliance. Compliance may require a significant increase in resources from StopWaste and member agencies.

9. China’s National As of 2016, 9.3 of the 15 million tons, or about 62%, of California recyclable material Sword policy (Poor exports were shipped to China. In February 2017, China began implementing policies, Market for Recycled often referred to collectively as National Sword, that restrict the importation of foreign Plastic and Paper) recyclables. The country plans to restrict imports of all ‘solid waste’ by the end of 2019. In July 2018, China declared their intent to ban all recyclable material imports by 2020. Additionally, other countries have been imposing bans on recyclable material imports, a trend that may increase in future years. As a result, the series of events caused a poor market for plastic and paper recycling. These changes potentially force StopWaste to allocate more resources to monitoring and outreach and education, especially the reduce, reuse, and recycle messaging, as well as enhancing local recycling programs. Also, pushing for additional ordinances and bans may be needed to mitigate the impacts of a poor recycling market. Despite the additional effort, the potential impact of these policies in conjunction of an improving economy may cause landfills to experience increased disposal tonnages, which may lower diversion rates.

10. Vasco Road Landfill As of January 2013, Vasco Road reported a remaining capacity of about 5.6 million Closure tons of waste, which set the estimated closure date of 2022. The closure of Vasco Road Landfill may result in waste being transported to out-of-County landfills, potentially decreasing revenue associated with fees.

3-10 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

B. Work Plan Description This subsection provides a description of our activities and approach to complete the two phases of this financial and compliance audit. We have divided the major tasks (A to N) of the two phases in Exhibit 3-4. Phase I consists of the financial and compliance audit for fiscal years 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19, and reporting Phase I results and recommendations. Phase II consists of the financial and compliance audit for fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21, and reporting final results and recommendations. Phase II consists of the same major tasks as Phase I. Exhibit 3-8 provides a detailed breakdown of the 14 major tasks and 94 subtasks that define our work plan. In the remainder of this section, we provide an overview description of each major task.

Exhibit 3-4 Proposed Project Phases and Tasks Phase I – Fiscal Years 2016/17 through 2018/19 A. Perform Project Management B. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County Financial and Measure D Compliance C. Review Municipalities Financial and Measure D Compliance D. Review and Evaluate Achievement of Performance Metrics E. Review Grant Compliance F. Prepare Preliminary Audit Results and Recommendations G. Present Preliminary Audit Results and Recommendations

Phase II – Fiscal Years 2019/20 and 2020/21 H. Perform Project Management I. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County Financial and Measure D Compliance J. Review Municipalities Financial and Measure D Compliance K. Review and Evaluate Achievement of Performance Metrics L. Review Grant and Contract Compliance M. Prepare Final Audit Results and Recommendations Report N. Present Final Audit Results and Recommendations

Tasks A./H. Perform Project Management Crowe believes that strong communication between the client and consultant is essential to a successful project. Our project management approach thus involves frequent in-person, telephone, and or e-mail contact with our clients to discuss progress, and potential problems. We will meet with the Recycling Board project management team as soon as the contract is awarded to “kick-off” the project. Our San Francisco office makes it convenient to meet with the Recycling Board, as needed, through the course of the project. An important aspect of this task will be to develop the letter for municipalities requesting audit materials.

Tasks B./I. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County Financial and Measure D Compliance This task includes the County-level financial and compliance review components. We expect to obtain all necessary documentation through StopWaste’s online portal that member agencies use to submit Measure D reports and supporting documentation such as financial statements. However, we will be ready to perform visits to member agency offices as needed. This review will include an evaluation of Measure D

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-11

fund distributions, as well as compliance with various Measure D requirements. Exhibit 3-5 provides the actual Measure D fund distribution in fiscal year 2016/17, and the projected Measure D fund distribution for fiscal year 2019/20 (Source: FY 16-17 Audit Report, FY 19-20 Annual Budget). Should we find compliance problems, we will carefully document the problems, and identify appropriate tools to improve compliance. We will prepare detailed review workpapers for this audit task.

Exhibit 3-5 Measure D Fund Disbursements

*Includes carry over funds from previous fiscal year.

Tasks C./J. Review Municipalities Financial and Measure D Compliance The Phase I audit will include sixteen (16) jurisdictions, as identified in Exhibit 3-1. Phase II will include these same sixteen jurisdictions as Phase I. Exhibit 3-6 identifies each of the sixteen jurisdictions and their Measure D disbursements as of June 30, 2016. We will follow a uniform audit procedure for each municipality; however, from our experience we will likely spend more time auditing larger municipalities. Once we have sent out the audit notification letters, we will contact each municipality to discuss the upcoming audit, answer questions, and schedule the audit date(s). The Crowe team will extract available documentation from the online portal for reporting. We will conduct phone interviews, webinars, or other agreed upon methods with the appropriate municipality staff to clarify programmatic documents and request potentially missing documentation. We will use a review protocol so that we perform consistent steps across all municipalities. Should we find cases of non- compliance, we will discuss our concerns with the municipality, and identify tools to improve compliance going forward. We will compile review workpapers for each municipality, which we will utilize in preparing the preliminary and final reports.

3-12 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 3-6 Municipality Measure D Disbursements as of June 30, 2016 Jurisdiction Disbursements as of June 30, 2016 1. Alameda $201,460 2. Albany 48,728 3. Berkeley 312,047 4. Dublin 142,755 5. Emeryville 28,314 6. Fremont 590,989 7. Hayward 401,550 8. Livermore 224,710 9. Newark 115,611 10. Oakland 1,072,671 11. Piedmont 29,044 12. Pleasanton 192,909 13. San Leandro 139,883 14. Union City 189,795 15. Castro Valley Sanitation District 142,679 16. Oro Loma Sanitation District 319,719

Total $4,152,864

Tasks D./K. Review and Evaluate Achievement of Performance Metrics The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Plan, Vision 2010: 75% and Beyond, sets ambitious goals for the county’s recycling, source reduction, composting, and diversion. Measuring diversion has been a challenging aspect of AB 939, as evidenced by CalRecycle’s switch from a diversion-based measurement system, to a per capita disposal measurement system. The Recycling Board has evolved its thinking with respect to diversion measurement from the traditional methods of reporting diversion (disposed tons landfilled, or diversion per the California state method) to a “good stuff in the garbage” method. To monitor this discard management measure, the Board has conducted ongoing sampling of materials in the single-family and commercial residents to determine progress against its new “good stuff in the garbage” targets. Alameda County’s Recycling and Sustainability Index recognizes the value of broader performance measurements to better monitor and evaluate progress in source reduction, recycling, composting, diversion, education, and broader sustainability. Currently, StopWaste staff provide the Recycling Board and ACWMA with an annual progress report on meeting the Recycling and Sustainability indices. Exhibit 3-7 provides an overview of Alameda County performance in 2007 and 2013 (Source: Annual Budget, FY 2009-2010, FY 2015-2016). As part of this financial and compliance audit, we will review and evaluate the County’s progress in meeting the State mandates and goals, as well as the County’s own, more stringent, targets. Within this evaluation, we also will seek to identify additional performance metrics that may help the County monitor future progress.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-13

Exhibit 3-7 Selected Alameda County Recycling and Sustainability Indices, 2007 and 2013 Performance Metric 2007 Value 2013 Value 1. Annual tons disposed (adjusted) 1,441,499 tons 1,069,782 tons 2. Population 1,522,597 1,603,501 3. Annual waste disposed per capita 0.95 tons/person 0.67 tons/person (adjusted) 4. Annual waste disposed per occupied 2.63 tons/household 1.95 tons/household household (adjusted) 5. Annual waste disposed per business 29.2 tons/business 19.3 tons/business (adjusted) 6. Annual waste disposed per employee 2.01 tons/employee 1.48 tons/employee (adjusted) 7. Taxable sales $25.8 billion $26.1 billion 8. Annual waste disposed per $1,000 in 0.47 tons/$1,000 in sales 0.30 tons/$1,000 in sales unallocated taxable sales (adjusted) 9. County-wide diversion rate 61 percent 71 percent 10. Average recyclables capture rate 0.52 pounds/person/day 0.77 pounds/person/day 11. Average organics capture rate 0.58 pounds/person/day 0.71 pounds/person/day 12. Annual electricity usage 11,864 million kWh 10,559 million kWh 13. Annual electricity use per capita 7,792 kWh 6,585 kWh 14. Annual natural gas usage 443 million therms 423 million therms 15. Annual natural gas use per capita 291 therms 264 therms 90 million hcf 83 million hcf 16. Annual water usage (hundred cubic feet) (hundred cubic feet) 17. Annual water use per capita 59 hcf 52 hcf

Tasks E./L. Review Grant and Contract Compliance This task involves two components. The first component is to measure compliance with the Measure D requirement that specifies that contracts using Recycling Fund monies shall not be made for a period of more than five (5) years, unless approved by the Recycling Board, for a period of not more than ten (10) years. The second component of this task is to evaluate a sample of non-profit grants to ensure that they are in compliance with the grant terms and agreements. Measure D specifies that 10 percent of funds be applied to a grant program for non-profit organizations engaged in maximizing recycling, composting, and reducing waste within Alameda County. Within Tasks B and I, we will ensure that 10 percent of Measure D funds are awarded through grants. Within Tasks E and L, we will ensure that the grantees are performing as specified in their grant applications. We will select a sample of grants awarded in each fiscal year for review, which represent testing from the major grant and contract types, and from both large and small funding amounts. We will present our initial selection of grants/contracts to StopWaste for approval, making any necessary adjustments from the feedback.

3-14 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Tasks F./M. Prepare Preliminary and Final Audit Results and Recommendations Following the completion of Task E in Phase I, we will compile preliminary results and develop recommendations for improvements to policies and procedures. We will meet with Recycling Board project management to present our preliminary results, and discuss recommendations that could be implemented between Phase I and Phase II. Following the completion of Task L in Phase II, we will prepare a final report that incorporates the audit and compliance results of both project phases, as well as recommendations from both project phases. We will provide the Recycling Board with a Draft Final Report, meet with project management to discuss the draft, and then prepare a Final Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit Report.

Tasks G./N. Present Preliminary and Final Audit Results and Recommendations We will prepare a PowerPoint presentation that summarizes findings and recommendations for each project phase. We will be available to present both preliminary and final audit results to the Recycling Board at their regular meetings. The presentation will provide a high-level overview of our audit procedures and approach, findings, changes between Phases I and II, and recommendations.

C. Detailed Tasks and Subtasks Exhibit 3-8 provides a detailed graphical overview of our proposed work plan, including two phases, 14 major tasks, and 94 subtasks, as well as the project deliverables and milestones for each task. We further outline the deliverables and milestones in the Work Schedule provided in Section 6 of this proposal. Dates in Exhibit 3-8 assume a project start date of January 13, 2020.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-15

Exhibit 3-8 Work Plan Tasks, Subtasks, Deliverables and Milestones Five (5) Year Financial and Compliance Audit Page 1 of 7 Deliverables Phase I – Fiscal Years 2016/17 to 2018/19 and Milestones

A. Perform Project Management • Meeting(s) with Recycling Board project team (Week 1. Meet with the Recycling Board project management team to review work plan, of January 13, 2020, clarify project goals and objectives, and agree on guidelines and timing  and to be determined) 2. Develop audit request letter for municipalities to identify documents required • Audit request letter for upcoming audit for municipalities 3. Schedule audit for Recycling Board and Alameda County (January 31, 2020) 4. Monitor project progress • Schedule for Recycling Board and Alameda County 5. Conduct periodic status update meetings with the Recycling Board audit (February 7, 2020)

B. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County Financial • Meetings with Recycling and Measure D Compliance Board and Alameda County Waste Management 6. Meet with Recycling Board staff to obtain appropriate financial and Authority staff programmatic documentation  (to be determined) 7. Review audited financial statements of the Recycling Board and Alameda • Audit of Recycling Board County for fiscal years 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19 and Alameda County 8. Measure compliance with Measure D fund allocations (Subsection 64.060(B)) (April 30, 2020) 9. Determine compliance with recycling plan requirement (Subsection 64.040(B)) • Completed audit workpapers for Recycling 10. Determine compliance with waste characterization studies requirement Board and Alameda County (Subsection 64.060(C)) (April 30, 2020) 11. Determine compliance with source reduction program requirements (Subsection 64.080) 12. Determine compliance with recycled product market development requirements (Subsection 64.110) 13. Determine compliance with limits on Board member compensation (Subsection 64.130(M)) 14. Determine Alameda County compliance with recycled produce purchase preference program requirements (Subsection 64.120) 15. Identify tools to improve compliance, if required 16. Compile audit workpapers for the Recycling Board and Alameda County

3-16 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 3-8 Work Plan Tasks, Subtasks, Deliverables and Milestones Five (5) Year Financial and Compliance Audit (continued) Page 2 of 7 Deliverables Phase I – Fiscal Years 2016/17 to 2018/19 and Milestones

C. Review Municipalities Financial and Measure D Compliance • Audit for each of 16 jurisdictions (February 17. Schedule audit date(s) with each of the 16 jurisdictions 2020, through April 2020) 18. Confirm online availability of requested documentation at the time of the audit  • Completed audit date(s) workpapers for each of 16 19. Review municipality audited financial statements, recycling budgets, Annual jurisdictions (February Measure D Program Reports, program descriptions, and other relevant 2020, through April 2020) documentation for each of the three fiscal years 20. Review accounting systems for Measure D funds via webinar or other agreed upon methods 21. Review Measure D income, interest, and expenditures for each fiscal year 22. Review compliance with written expenditure plan requirement for those municipalities with fund balances in excess of the sum of the last eight quarterly payments (#RB 2006-12) 23. Review compliance with interest reporting threshold requirement (#RB 2003-11) 24. Determine compliance with local refuse hauler surcharge reimbursement requirement (Subsection 64.070(A)) 25. Determine compliance with residential recycling program requirements (Subsection 64.090) 26. Determine compliance with commercial recycling program requirements (Subsection 64.100) 27. Identify tools to improve compliance, as needed, for municipalities with compliance issues 28. Compile audit workpapers for each municipality

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-17

Exhibit 3-8 Work Plan Tasks, Subtasks, Deliverables and Milestones Five (5) Year Financial and Compliance Audit (continued) Page 3 of 7 Deliverables Phase I – Fiscal Years 2016/17 to 2018/19 and Milestones

D. Review and Evaluate Achievement of Performance Metrics • Workpaper review and recommendations related 29. Obtain aggregated countywide California Integrated Waste Management to performance metrics Board diversion/per capita disposal measurements for the relevant years  (April 30, 2020) 30. Evaluate Alameda County progress as measured by CIWMB diversion/per capita disposal measurements 31. Review StopWaste.org annual progress reports on the Recycling and Sustainability Index, including: Annual tons disposed • Disposal comparisons with other Bay Area counties • Population and taxable sales • Annual waste disposed per capita • Annual waste disposed per business and job • Annual waste disposed per $1,000 in unallocated taxes • Capture rates in municipal programs • Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) use • Summary of jurisdictional programmatic efforts • Annual electricity, natural gas, and water use • Percent recycling rate

32. Evaluate progress for each factor, overall, and toward the 75 percent diversion goal, over the three Phase I fiscal years 33. Prepare a workpaper summary of the performance metrics evaluation, including recommendations to improve progress, and/or revise performance metrics

E. Review Grant and Contract Compliance • Meeting(s) with selected grantees (March and April 34. Identify grants and contracts awarded by the Recycling Board and 2020) municipalities for each fiscal year

 • Completed audit 35. Obtain start and end-dates for grants and contracts workpapers for grant and 36. Identify grants and contracts that received Recycling Board allowances for contract compliance review greater than 5 years (April 30, 2020) 37. Determine compliance with restriction against use of Fund monies for contracts longer than 5 years (Subsection 64.060(D)) 38. Select sample of approximately one-third to one-half of non-profit grants to further review for each fiscal year 39. Contact selected grantees to discuss data required for review 40. Conference call with selected grantees to review documentation and determine compliance with terms and conditions of grant agreements 41. Prepare workpapers for grant and contract compliance review

3-18 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 3-8 Work Plan Tasks, Subtasks, Deliverables and Milestones Five (5) Year Financial and Compliance Audit (continued) Page 4 of 7 Deliverables Phase I – Fiscal Years 2016/17 to 2018/19 and Milestones

F. Prepare Preliminary Audit Results and Recommendations • Preliminary Phase I Audit Report (June 30, 2020) 42. Compile Phase I audit results from Tasks B through E • Phase 1 Audit 43. Develop a list of Phase I recommendations  Recommendations 44. Meet with Recycling Board project management to discuss preliminary findings (June 30, 2020) and recommendations • Meeting with Recycling Board (Week of July 6, 2020) • Final Phase I Audit Report (July 31, 2020)

G. Present Preliminary Audit Results and Recommendations • Presentation materials for preliminary Phase I audit 45. Develop presentation materials for the Phase I audit results (July 17, 2020) 46. Present Phase I audit results and recommendations to the Recycling Board  • Participation in Recycling Board meeting (By July 31, 2020)

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-19

Exhibit 3-8 Work Plan Tasks, Subtasks, Deliverables and Milestones Five (5) Year Financial and Compliance Audit (continued) Page 5 of 7 Deliverables Phase II – Fiscal Years 2019/20 and 2020/21 and Milestones

H. Perform Project Management • Meeting(s) with Recycling Board project team (Week 47. Meet with the Recycling Board project management team to review work plan, of January 10, 2022, clarify project goals and objectives, agree on guidelines and timing, and and to be determined) discuss any procedural changes from Phase I  • Audit request letter 48. Develop audit request letter for municipalities to identify documents required for municipalities for upcoming audit (January 31, 2022) 49. Schedule audit for Recycling Board and Alameda County • Schedule for Recycling 50. Monitor project progress Board and Alameda County audit (February 7, 2022) 51. Conduct periodic status update meetings with the Recycling Board

I. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County Financial and • Meetings with Recycling Measure D Compliance Board and Alameda County Waste Management 52. Meet with Recycling Board staff to obtain appropriate financial and Authority staff programmatic documentation  (to be determined) 53. Review audited financial statements of the Recycling Board and Alameda • Audit of Recycling Board County for fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21 and Alameda County 54. Measure compliance with Measure D fund allocations (Subsection 64.060(B)) (April 30, 2022) 55. Determine compliance with recycling plan requirement (Subsection 64.040(B)) • Completed audit workpapers for Recycling 56. Determine compliance with waste characterization studies requirement Board (Subsection 64.060(C)) and Alameda County 57. Determine compliance with source reduction program requirements (April 30, 2022) (Subsection 64.080) 58. Determine compliance with recycled product market development requirements (Subsection 64.110) 59. Determine compliance with limits on Board member compensation (Subsection 64.130(M)) 60. Determine Alameda County compliance with recycled produce purchase preference program requirements (Subsection 64.120) 61. Identify tools to improve compliance, if required 62. Compile audit workpapers for the Recycling Board and Alameda County

3-20 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 3-8 Work Plan Tasks, Subtasks, Deliverables and Milestones Five (5) Year Financial and Compliance Audit (continued) Page 6 of 7 Deliverables Phase II – Fiscal Years 2019/20 and 2020/21 and Milestones

J. Review Municipalities Financial and Measure D Compliance • Audit for each of 16 jurisdictions (February 2022, 63. Schedule audit date(s) with each of the 16 municipalities through April 2022) 64. Confirm online availability of requested documentation at the time of the audit date(s)  • Completed audit workpapers for each of 16 65. Review municipality audited financial statements, recycling budgets, Annual jurisdictions (February 2022, Measure D Program Reports, program descriptions, and other relevant through April 2022) documentation for each of the two fiscal years 66. Review accounting systems for Measure D funds via webinar or other agreed upon methods 67. Review Measure D income, interest, and expenditures for each fiscal year 68. Review compliance with written expenditure plan requirement for those municipalities with fund balances in excess of the sum of the last eight quarterly payments (#RB 2006-12) 69. Review compliance with interest reporting threshold requirement (#RB 2003-11) 70. Determine compliance with local refuse hauler surcharge reimbursement requirement (Subsection 64.070(A)) 71. Determine compliance with residential recycling program requirements (Subsection 64.090) 72. Determine compliance with commercial recycling program requirements (Subsection 64.100) 73. Identify tools to improve compliance, as needed, for municipalities with compliance issues 74. Compile audit workpapers for each municipality

K. Review and Evaluate Achievement of Performance Metrics • Workpaper review and recommendations related 75. Obtain aggregated countywide California Integrated Waste Management to performance metrics Board diversion/per capita disposal measurements for the relevant years (April 30, 2022) 76. Evaluate Alameda County progress as measured by CIWMB diversion/per  capita disposal measurements 77. Review StopWaste.org annual progress reports on the Recycling and Sustainability Index, including: • Annual tons disposed • Disposal comparisons with other Bay Area counties • Population and taxable sales • Annual waste disposed per capita • Annual waste disposed per business and job • Annual waste disposed per $1,000 in unallocated taxes • Capture rates in municipal programs • Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) use • Summary of jurisdictional programmatic efforts • Annual electricity, natural gas, and water use • Percent recycling rate

78. Evaluate progress for each factor, overall, and toward the 75 percent diversion goal, over the two Phase II fiscal years 79. Prepare a workpaper summary of the performance metrics evaluation, including recommendations to improve progress, and/or revise performance metrics

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 3-21

Exhibit 3-8 Work Plan Tasks, Subtasks, Deliverables and Milestones Five (5) Year Financial and Compliance Audit (continued) Page 7 of 7 Deliverables Phase II – Fiscal Years 2019/20 and 2020/21 and Milestones

L. Review Grant and Contract Compliance • Meeting(s) with selected grantees (March and April 80. Identify grants and contracts awarded by the Recycling Board and 2022) municipalities for each fiscal year

 • Completed audit 81. Obtain start and end-dates for grants and contracts workpapers for grant and 82. Identify grants and contracts that received Recycling Board allowances for contract compliance review greater than five years (April 30, 2022) 83. Determine compliance with restriction against use of Fund monies for contracts longer than five years (Subsection 64.060(D)) 84. Select sample of approximately one-third to one-half of non-profit grants to further review for each fiscal year 85. Contact selected grantees to discuss data required for review 86. Meet with selected grantees to review documentation and determine compliance with terms and conditions of grant agreements 87. Prepare workpapers for grant and contract compliance review

M. Prepare Final Audit Results and Recommendations • Compiled Audit Results (June 15, 2022) 88. Compile Phase II audit results from Tasks H through L • Phase II Audit 89. Identify and summarize Phase I and Phase II recommendations,  Recommendations based on audit findings (June 15, 2022) 90. Prepare a Draft Final Audit report, combining results of Phase I and Phase II • Draft Final Audit Report 91. Meet with Recycling Board project management to discuss draft report (June 30, 2022) and recommendations • Meeting with 92. Prepare a Final Audit Report Recycling Board (July 2022) • Final Audit Report (July 31, 2022)

N. Present Final Audit Results and Recommendations • Presentation materials for Phase I and Phase II audit 93. Develop presentation materials for the Phase I and Phase II audits results (July 2022) 94. Present final audit results and recommendations to the Recycling Board  • Participation in Recycling Board meeting (July 2022)

3-22 Methodology Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Section 4 Project Management

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 4-1

4. Project Management Within this section, we describe our project organization and project management approach. We also discuss Crowe’s objectivity and address the issue of conflict of interest. This section is organized as follows: A. Description of Project Team Organization B. Project Management C. Project Team’s Commitment

A. Description of Project Team Organization Under Measure D, the Recycling Board is mandated to conduct financial, compliance, and program audits every five years. This project’s two phases address the financial and compliance audit requirements for fiscal years 2016/17 to 2020/21. For this audit, the Recycling Board seeks the services of a consulting team with resources, experience, and expertise in a broad range of specialized skills and programmatic knowledge areas to enable a quick, efficient, and high-quality execution of the audit. Our project organizational structure is illustrated in Exhibit 4-1. The Project Director is responsible for overall planning, design, and analysis activities necessary for the financial and compliance audit. The person designated as Project Director, Erik Nylund, will be responsible for: • Coordinating Crowe resources • Planning and executing work tasks • Providing technical direction during the project • Monitoring task progress and ensuring schedule compliance • Actively participating in tasks, where appropriate • Performing final technical review of all project deliverables.

Ms. Julien, with a strong background in project management, program financial and compliance auditing, and solid waste management, will provide the team with leadership in the financial compliance areas of audit. Ms. Julien will be the team’s liaison, and the first point of contact for day-to-day communications between Crowe and the Recycling Board and/or member jurisdictions. Ms. Pratt, with a thorough understanding of Measure D and recycling and source reduction programs, will provide the team with leadership in the programmatic, source reduction, and diversion areas the audit. Ms. Voeller, Project Executive, will have overall responsibility for quality control of project deliverables.

B. Project Management Effective and efficient project management of this contract will be essential to maintaining the high quality and on-time products and processes to which Crowe is committed. In this subsection, we outline our approach to project management. In addition, this subsection provides supporting details on the policies, processes, and systems used by Crowe to manage and control consulting engagements. Key aspects of our approach, as they relate to this important five year financial and compliance audit, are summarized in the following paragraphs. • A Structured Approach to Project Management is Essential Each major work task should be performed within a structure that provides for systematic selection of resources, development of individual assignments, and standardized documentation requirements. The project management structure must support effective coordination between the Crowe team and the Recycling Board so that everyone understands their individual roles in achieving the project objectives. • Crowe’s Management Team Has Both Technical and Managerial Capability Our management team has substantial project management experience and technical experience in Measure D financial and compliance audit engagements for the Recycling Board. This experience enables our team to function effectively in both an administrative/ managerial capacity, and in directing and performing technical project work.

4-2 Project Management Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• Periodic Reviews of Overall Project Direction and Priorities The Crowe project management team will meet periodically to review achievement of the overall goals of the project. The planned-to-actual expenditure of personnel resources will be analyzed and, if required, corrective action steps will be initiated. • High Priority on Effective Communication Between the Recycling Board and our Project Team The importance of ongoing communication cannot be overemphasized. Our project management team places a high value on internal and external communications. Our first priority includes the establishment and maintenance of close working relationships among the Recycling Board and ourselves.

Exhibit 4-1 Proposed Organization Chart Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 4-3

1. Crowe Prime Contractor Responsibilities For work performed under this contract, the project scope, schedule, and budget for each will be approved by the Recycling Board’s Project Manager. The actual costs of all completed work will not exceed the fixed price overall contract amount. Crowe will have the sole responsibility of delivering high quality products to the Recycling Board. We will be personally responsible for the quality control of every product delivered to the Recycling Board. Our goals are to provide personalized service to the Recycling Board, and to deliver high quality products on time, and within budget. We will work closely with Recycling Board and member agency staff in order to respond to all work tasks in a timely manner. The fact that our team is comprised of only one firm, with offices located in Sacramento and San Francisco, attests to our belief that we will be able to provide required professional service on a timely and effective basis.

2. Crowe Project Management and Control Approach In this proposal subsection, we describe our planning, scheduling, and budgeting procedures, which we consider subjects that fall under overall project management responsibilities. Our structured approach to managing contracts for the government agencies has been an important factor in our successful performance of consulting and auditing engagements. Our approach to managing this project involves four (4) phases, which we summarize below. a. Pre-engagement Our initial efforts in planning our response to the RFP were to obtain, and carefully review, a number of background documents to gain a better understanding of the current needs for the Measure D audit, review results from the prior audit we conducted, and determine the key issues currently impacting the Recycling Board. We reviewed current strategic plans and supporting documents, funding levels, diversion reports, Measure D programs status, and Recycling Board minutes. b. Engagement Start-Up We will conduct a kickoff meeting with the Recycling Board to confirm the project’s objectives and scope, to establish an efficient means to coordinate all areas of the contract, to determine a mutual understanding of the project, and to clearly communicate Recycling Board and Crowe roles. We will establish our internal engagement control files, which include project and task budgets, the approved work plan and subsequent deliverables and reports. We also will establish the standards and contents for Deliverable Expectations Documents (DEDs) and for review and approval of our work products. We will utilize our internal Crowe project time and expense reporting system to track and report each individual’s hours and out-of-pocket expenses on this project. We also will assign every team member specific responsibilities for managing and/or completing work tasks. c. Engagement In-Process Project management activities during this project will include the following: • Maintain close liaison and communication with the Recycling Board Project Manager and other key personnel • Address any problems promptly, and obtain approval for a solution, if appropriate • Supervise the technical quality of our work, which includes frequent reviews of work completed and plans for subsequent work, and close inspection of deliverable products before release to the Recycling Board • Report time, expenses, and work completed each month to the Recycling Board • Monitor project progress, including reviewing work completed vs. planned schedule and budget, and taking action in areas of schedule slippage, if any

4-4 Project Management Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• Thoroughly review drafts and finals of all draft and final procurement examination reports, as well as the final report with the Recycling Board • Prepare and submit formal monthly client progress reports • Prepare monthly invoices. d. Post Engagement At the project’s conclusion, we will: • Conduct a meeting with the Recycling Board to determine that all of Crowe’s responsibilities have been fulfilled • Consolidate and store project work papers and the engagement control file, and as necessary provide the Recycling Board copies of requested work papers • Complete internal project documentation • Review performance of project personnel • Maintain project files for five years.

Strong project management will be critical to the successful implementation of this Measure D audit. Our proposed team consists of four certified Project Management Professionals. Crowe has experience performing project and program implementation services within both the public sector (federal, state, and local) and private sector for over forty years. Exhibit 4-2 is an illustrative summary of Crowe’s methodology for managing an individual project.

Exhibit 4-2 Project Management Methodology

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 4-5

Throughout the project, all parties must stay aligned on the purpose (what needs to be done), the organization (who is responsible for each activity), the methodology (how the work will be executed) and the timing (when the work will be done). Crowe will work with the Recycling Board to be: • Aligned on Purpose (What are we doing?) Crowe will work with the Recycling Board to define and regularly communicate the purpose and priorities for the project. Keeping the team focused and aligned on the scope of what needs to be delivered requires daily attention and is critical to an initiative’s success. • Aligned on Organization (Who is doing it?) Crowe will work with the Recycling Board to define and regularly communicate the structure and organization of the initiative. Ownership, accountability and communication are essential in eliminating confusion and delay in resolving issues, particularly when the team is comprised of a significant number of resources from many different departments. • Aligned on Methodology (How are we doing it?) Crowe will work with the Recycling Board to define and communicate the overall methodology for the audit. • Aligned on Timing (When are we doing it?) Crowe will work with the Recycling Board to establish and manage a project management plan with key delivery dates. Our proposed team and the Recycling Board must be able to easily understand whether or not the project is delivering on time and budget, identify potential problems early, and make the necessary adjustments to deliver successfully.

Throughout the project, all parties must stay aligned on the purpose (what needs to be done), the organization (who is responsible for each activity), the methodology (how the work will be executed) and the timing (when the work will be done). Below, we briefly describe aspects of our five-stage methodology: • Initiate – Define the scope and structure of the project, including roles, responsibilities and communication. • Plan – Establish tools, processes, standards and templates needed to support the project. Here we will develop the specific work plan and budget for each task. Our master plan will outline tasks, activities and deliverables, including refinement of the work plan and schedule. • Execute – Execute the project, and keep all activities within the project aligned, including plans, issues, risks, quality, scope and budget. Communicate regularly. • Control – Execute the necessary controls to ensure the project is running effectively. During the engagement we will provide the Recycling Board with monthly budget reports and detailed progress reports, and will communicate immediately should problems arise. • Close – Wrap up all necessary details from the project. Evaluate project performance and document lessons learned in preparation for future program needs.

Through our methodology, in Exhibit 4-3, we provide examples of activities and tasks we generally complete within each project.

4-6 Project Management Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 4-3 Crowe’s Project Management Activities and Tasks Phase Objective Activities and Tasks

Initiate Define and confirm the • Define the project and key • Define budget scope, as well as the overall milestones • Define the project structure structure of the project, • Define project scope including roles, • Review initial project responsibilities and • Define risks charter communication flow. • Define major milestones • Develop project Establish an initial high-level and due dates organizational chart milestone plan. • Review and sign-off on the acceptance of deliverables

Plan Establish tools, processes, • Establish planning and • Manage scope standards and templates reporting standards • Control quality and approve needed to support managing • Review project planning deliverables the project. Develop a standards detailed project plan. • Track budget to actual • Develop detailed project plan • Review and sign-off on the • Review detailed project plan acceptance of deliverables • Develop processes for execution and control

Execute Execute the project, and • Monitor and review • Quality assurance manage the activities, control processes • Review and sign-off resources, issues, risks, • Scope management on the acceptance quality, scope and budget. of deliverables Communicate regularly to all • Budget management necessary parties.

Control Execute the necessary • Monitor and review • Request corrective controls to keep the project action where necessary • Quality of deliverables running effectively. These • Quality or delivery issues controls include monitoring • Scope changes and managing issues, risks, • Budget • Scope issues resources, quality, scope • Execute the approval processes • Budget issues and budget. • Review scope changes (with • Review and sign-off on the possible budget changes) acceptance of deliverables

Close Wrap up all necessary details • Perform end of project quality • Project documentation from the project. Document assurance reviews and deliverables complete

lessons learned in • Deliverables • Final budget preparation for future projects. • Budget • Vendor contracts • Perform administrative and contractual closure

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 4-7

3. Deliverable Review and Approval This subsection outlines the process for creation, submission, and review of deliverables for this project. We propose the following procedures for deliverable review and approval: a. Setting Deliverable Standards • Purpose: To agree on the format, content and review process for deliverables • Description: Early in the project, Crowe and the Recycling Board will agree on the format, content, and the process for review associated with each deliverable, as appropriate. The agreed-upon format will comply with the scope of work requirements and expectations for project deliverables, both in content and format. In advance of delivery of the deliverable, we will provide the Recycling Board with a Deliverable Expectation Document (DED) that details the content of the deliverable, schedule for delivery, and the deliverable acceptance criteria. b. Performing Deliverable Walkthroughs • Purpose: To validate deliverable content and quality during the development process. • Description: To promote effective deliverable submission, review, and sign-off, Crowe will provide the opportunity for the Recycling Board to review interim deliverable outlines and report sections, as applicable. This technique will allow deficiencies to be identified and corrected early in the process, ultimately conserving time and resources. It also helps to maintain quality: by the time a product reaches the final stage, it has already undergone much scrutiny. Another benefit to this approach includes a high level of confidence in the deliverable’s accuracy. At the time to review and approve our Deliverable Acceptance Documents, the Recycling Board project manager is familiar with the deliverable through ongoing evaluation. c. Submitting the Deliverable • Purpose: Formal submission of the deliverable for Recycling Board approval • Description: Crowe will submit the deliverable to the Recycling Board Project Manager within the agreed upon time frame specified in the project work plan. Each deliverable will comply with agreed upon standards. d. Reviewing and Acceptance of Deliverable • Purpose: Formal review and approval of the deliverable by the Recycling Board Project Manager. Description: The key project deliverables, the draft and final examination reports, shall be subject to review by the Recycling Board to verify that the deliverable satisfies the Recycling Board’s acceptance criteria. Crowe staff will be available for questions and answers during the Recycling Board’s review period to provide explanation and clarification of deliverable contents when required. Once all criteria have been met, and questions/ concerns addressed, the Recycling Board/Project Manager will sign off on the Deliverable Acceptance Document (DAD) and return a copy to Crowe. In the event of a deliverable’s non-acceptance or partial acceptance by the Recycling Board, an additional review period will be designated for the Recycling Board to examine the re-submitted deliverable.

4-8 Project Management Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

C. The Project Team’s Commitment We state the strong professional and personal commitment of Crowe, and each of our personnel, to this financial and compliance audit. The team is fully supportive of the scope of work presented in the RFP. The team feels privileged to respond to the RFP for this important project, and would welcome the opportunity to undertake the proposed audit.

1. Contract Policy Crowe understands our overall responsibility to the success of this project. This project, should we be awarded the contract, will be a high priority for our entire firm. Our consultants will be available to the Recycling Board upon a 24-hour notice.

Section 5 Project Timeline

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 5-1

5. Project Timeline The Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board (Recycling Board) Request for Proposal (RFP) requires that a schedule or timeline for the proposed activities. As mandated in Measure D, an independent audit of the Recycling Board shall be completed within one (1) year (of the close of the five- year period). To meet this requirement, building off of Crowe’s methodology described in Section 3, this section summarizes the proposed project timeline. Our project timeline for this proposal is summarized in Exhibit 5-1. We expect to complete Phase 1 tasks by July 31, 2020, and expect to complete Phase 2 tasks by July 31, 2022. The dates in the schedule within Exhibit 5-1 refer to Phase 1 work only, however, we expect that the Phase 2 work would follow a similar time- schedule, with work to be conducted in 2019-20 and 2020-21, rather than 2016-2017 through 2018-2019. Our proposed timeline is directly dependent on a January 13, 2020 project start date. We also assume that the Recycling Board staff performs their review of the draft report within two weeks of receiving the deliverable from Crowe. The Crowe team will be available to meet with the Recycling Board, and the Recycling Board staff, as appropriate during the course of the project.

Exhibit 5-1 Project Timeline Phase 1 of Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit Project Tasks Start Date End Date A. Perform Project Management January 13, 2020 July 31, 2020 B. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County Financial and February 3, 2020 April 30, 2020 Measure D Compliance C. Review Municipalities Financial and Measure D Compliance February 1, 2020 April 30, 2020 D. Review and Evaluate Achievement of Performance Metrics April 1, 2020 April 30, 2020 E. Review Grant Compliance March 1, 2020 April 30, 2020 F. Prepare Preliminary Audit Results and Recommendations May 1, 2020 July 6, 2020 G. Present Preliminary Audit Results and Recommendations July 6, 2020 July 31, 2020

5-2 Project Timeline Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 5-2 Project Timeline Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit Phase I – 2020

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

A. Perform Project Management

B. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County Financial and

Measure D Compliance

C. Review Municipalities Financial and Measure D Compliance

D. Review and Evaluate Achievement of

Performance Metrics

E. Review Grant and Contract Compliance

F. Prepare Preliminary Audit Results and Recommendations

G. Present Preliminary Audit Results and Recommendations

Phase II – 2022

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

H. Perform Project Management

I. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County Financial and

Measure D Compliance

J. Review Municipalities Financial and Measure D Compliance

K. Review and Evaluate Achievement of

Performance Metrics

L. Review Grant and Contract Compliance

M. Prepare Final Audit Results and Recommendations

N. Present Final Audit Results and Recommendations

Section 6 Disclosures

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 6-1

6. Disclosures In this section, we provide Crowe disclosures related to conflict of interest. We also include our approach for objectively managing this financial and compliance audit for the Recycling Board. This section is organized as follows: A. Conflicts of Interest B. Objectivity.

A. Conflicts of Interest Crowe has no real or perceived conflicts of interest in conducting this financial and compliance audit for the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board. Crowe is not currently working for the Recycling Board, Waste Authority, or any local waste or recycling companies in the County. We do not currently have any grants in Alameda County. Crowe has recently conducted an engagement with the City of Pleasanton to assist this City with independent third-party reviews of applications for rate changes submitted by the City’s franchise hauler, Pleasanton Garbage Service. We envision that this engagement will be substantially completed by the time that this Measure D audit would begin. Further, none of this work was paid for with Measure D funds. Crowe employees have previously worked for the Authority and Board; however, these relationships are since past. Ms. Pratt, as an employee of Global Futures Foundation, participated in a source reduction measurement project for the Recycling Board that was completed in 1999. Mr. Nylund completed a small project in 2010 to assist the Waste Management Authority with ARRA reporting. None of this project work poses a conflict of interest for Crowe to conduct this work at this time. Additionally, while with Deloitte & Touche in 1996 and 1997, Mr. Nylund worked on a closure/post-closure analysis for the Durham Road Landfill Trust Authority, and also a closeout balancing account audit for the City of Fremont. None of this project work poses a conflict of interest for Crowe to conduct this work at this time. Crowe has maintained ongoing professional relationships with several jurisdictions in neighboring Contra Costa County, however, we do not believe this work presents a conflict of interest. Crowe and its employees do not have financial interests in any projects or companies doing business in Alameda County that may raise a conflict. If business opportunities arising during the course of conducting this project could result in real or perceived conflicts, Crowe will discuss these potential conflicts with the Recycling Board’s Project Manager before proceeding.

B. Objectivity Crowe understands the need for an unbiased, objective, and transparent audit. To maintain credibility and instill confidence in the results of this mandatory financial and compliance audit, the consultant must be objective, and clear in the presentation of results. Crowe, with our unique and established position in the solid waste management and recycling field, has maintained a record of objectivity. As independent consultants with no vested interest in the results of the audit, we are in a position to present clear, concise, and accurate results. We maintain a high degree of pragmatism and realism, in a field that can be influenced by political trends, as opposed to actual policy objectives. Our project team members come from diverse backgrounds – finance, engineering, accounting, and environmental policy. By blending these diverse perspectives, we can develop insights and provide a high degree of objectivity that is reflected in the results. The balance of our own views ensures that each perspective has been considered, evaluated, and fairly presented in the course of conducting the project.

6-2 Disclosures Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Section 7 Cost Proposal

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit 7-1

7. Cost Proposal This section presents our cost proposal to conduct the five-year financial and compliance audit for the Recycling Board. The cost proposal is presented in Exhibit 7-1. Consistent with the requirements of the RFP, we propose to conduct the five-year audit in two phases and our bid is as follows: • Phase I $98,570.00 • Phase II $89,682.50 • Total $188,252.50

This bid corresponds to a total of 1,054 hours of consulting time, divided into 553 hours in Phase I and 501 hours in Phase II. The number of hours compared with the prior submission is approximately 13 percent lower due to expected efficiencies in our getting up to speed on the project, the fact that the RPPP program is phased out, and the fact that we already have data collection templates set up. We are confident that we can complete the project in these budgeted hours, given the prior experience of the core staff proposed and the seniority of the team. Consulting hours are less in Phase II because we have budgeted less time for municipality and grantee reviews, reflective of the two (2) fiscal year versus three (3) fiscal year time period (and some efficiencies gained from our Phase I efforts). Offsetting some of these Phase II cost reductions are slightly higher costs for final report preparation (compared to preparation of Phase I preliminary audit results). Hourly rates of our consultant staff are as follows: • Executive/Director/Specialist Level $245 per hour • Project Manager Level $210 per hour • Senior Auditor Level $185 per hour • Staff Auditor Level $145 per hour.

Our professional fees include all out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., travel and work processing). Crowe will bill the Recycling Board monthly, in arrears, for our services. We expect that the monthly billings will be relatively evenly spread throughout the period of time that we will be actively working on the project. For the Phase I period, we expect that the work will begin January 13, 2020, and end on July 31, 2020. Therefore, the $98,570 budget would be spread roughly over an approximately seven-month period, at approximately $14,000 per month. We would expect Phase II billings during the seven months from January 2022 to July 2022 to average approximately $12,800 per month. Our project team will be mobilized to work diligently and efficiently to complete the work required for the two phases. We will make sure that the Recycling Board has continuity of our project staff during both phases so that the project team knowledge will carry from one phase to the next.

7-2 Cost Proposal Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Exhibit 7-1 Project Hours and Costs Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit

Executive/Director/ Project Senior Staff Specialist Manager Auditor Auditor Hourly Rate $245 $210 $185 $145

Executive/Director/ Project Senior Staff Phase I – Fiscal Years 16/17, 17/18, and 18/19 Hours Cost Specialist Manager Auditor Auditor A. Perform Project Management 2.0 14.0 – – 16.0 $3,430.00 B. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County 6.0 20.0 72.0 12.0 110.0 $20,730.00 Financial and Measure D Compliance C. Review Municipalities Financial and 1.0 30.0 76.0 100.0 207.0 $35,105.00 Measure D Compliance D. Review and Evaluate Achievement of 5.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 $8,875.00 Performance Metrics E. Review Grant and Contract Compliance 1.0 12.0 22.0 32.0 67.0 $11,475.00 F. Prepare Preliminary Audit Results 8.0 12.0 44.0 24.0 88.0 $16,100.00 and Recommendations G. Present Preliminary Audit Results 1.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 15.0 $2,855.00 and Recommendations Subtotal Phase I 24.0 97.0 242.0 190.0 553.0 $98,570.00

Executive/Director/ Project Senior Staff Phase II – Fiscal Years 19/20 and 20/21 Hours Cost Specialist Manager Auditor Auditor H. Perform Project Management 2.0 14.0 – – 16.0 $3,430.00 I. Review Recycling Board and Alameda County 6.0 15.0 68.0 12.0 101.0 $18,940.00 Financial and Measure D Compliance J. Review Municipalities Financial and 1.0 25.0 67.0 80.0 173.0 $29,490.00 Measure D Compliance K. Review and Evaluate Achievement of 5.0 10.0 21.0 16.0 52.0 $9,530.00 Performance Metrics L. Review Grant and Contract Compliance 0.5 10.0 20.0 28.0 58.5 $9,982.50 M. Prepare Final Audit Results 7.0 10.0 40.0 24.0 81.0 $14,695.00 and Recommendations N. Present Final Audit Results and 2.0 4.0 10.0 3.0 19.0 $3,615.00 Recommendations Subtotal Phase II 23.5 88.0 226.0 163.0 500.5 $89,682.50 Total Phases I and II 47.5 185.0 468.0 353.0 1,053.5 $188,252.50

Section 8 Required Contract Elements

Appendix A Resumes

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-1

Appendix A Resumes We propose nine personnel for this financial and compliance audit. This appendix presents detailed resumes for each of the Crowe personnel proposed to perform the Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit. The resumes for each of these nine (9) team members are provided in the order shown in Exhibit A-1.

Exhibit A-1 Proposed Project Team Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit Name Project Position Crowe Position 1. Lisa Voeller, PMP Project Executive Partner-Principal 2. Erik Nylund, PMP Project Director Director 3. Wendy Pratt, PMP Recycling and Diversion Specialist Director 4. Mendi Julien, PMP Project Manager Senior Manager 5. Aaron Coen, PMP Senior Auditor Manager 6. Tommy Abeyta Senior Auditor Senior Staff 7. Jason Chan Senior Auditor Senior Staff 8. Kenneth Smith Staff Auditor Staff 9. Brandon Williams Staff Auditor Staff

A-2 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Lisa M. Voeller, PMP, OCMP, CBAP

Lisa M. Voeller [email protected] PMP, OCMP, CBAP – Partner-Principal www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Ms. Voeller has 31 years of management consulting experience, Services: working primarily with the State of California departments and • Economic and Financial Analysis agencies. She has led and managed many large and complex • Program and Project Management consulting engagements involving waste management, recycling • Strategic Planning • Business Process Management, and collection programs, financial analysis, program statutory and Reengineering, and Design regulatory modifications, training, facilitation, and numerous large • Large-Scale Technology technology implementations. She has extensive knowledge and Implementations experience working with state and local government clients • Program and Project Management dealing with a large variety of recycling program management and • Performance Improvements Action Plans Development and Monitoring administration. In addition, Lisa is a certified trainer and facilitator • Organizational Change Management as well as an organizational change management professional. • Organizational Structure Alignment • Knowledge Transfer and Training • Quality Assurance Professional and Industry Experience Industries: Ms. Voeller possesses extensive knowledge of California’s • Public Sector Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act and has lead and managed dozens of State-level environmental and natural Community Involvement: resource projects, including working with California Department of • Sacramento Children’s Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) since 1992. She Receiving Home has extensive recycling program experience, beginning in 1992 with • St. John’s Shelter the performance of two of the early cost surveys which included a wide variety of recycler types. In the past several years, Lisa was the lead Project Executive for the 2017 and 2015 CalRecycle processing fee and handling fee cost survey. In addition, Lisa successfully managed the implementation of the Division of Recycling Integrated Information System (DORIIS) and understands the various data elements and cost components. Lisa was the project executive on the past Measure D financial and compliance audit for StopWaste. Lisa, a certified Project Management Professional (PMP), leads our national Government and the State of California government consulting practice. Her experience offers clients a unique mix of understanding complex business strategies, operational management, and organizational effectiveness. In all of her engagements, she has proven herself as an executive leader who can perform critical analysis tasks, as well as manage schedule, scope and resources.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-3

Education & Certifications • Master of Business Administration, Finance o University of Southern California | Los Angeles, California • Bachelor of Arts, Economics, Graduated Magna Cum Laude o University of Southern California | Los Angeles, California • Project Management Professional (PMP), Project Management Institute (PMI) • Organizational Change Management Professional (OCMP), Prosci® • Business Analyst Professional (CBAP), International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA) • Awarded Top 25 Consultant in 2016, Consulting Magazine

Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge • Economic, Financial, and Statistical Analyses • Knowledge of AB 2020 and AB 939 Programs and Studies • Working with AB 2020 Stakeholders • Financial and Cost Accounting • Knowledge of Recycling Markets and • Activity-Based Costing/ Cost Accounting Materials • Large-Scale Survey Research • Knowledge of Recycling Economics and • Staff Training Business Operations • Financial Auditing and Agreed Upon • Knowledge of Processing Fees and Procedures Processing Payments • Experience with Resistant Participants • Knowledge of Convenience Zones and Handling Fees • Experience Conducting Research

Representative Clients • California Department of Resources Recycling • California Department of Motor Vehicles and Recovery • California Department of Parks and • State of California, Integrated Waste Recreation Management Board • California Public Utilities Commission • California Department of Conservation • California Governor’s Office • Hawaii Department of Health • United States Department of Treasury • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Numerous California Counties, • State of California, Department of including: San Francisco, Santa Clara, Water Resources Solano, Los Angeles, Orange, • California Department of Pesticide Regulation Sacramento, San Luis Obispo • California Employment Development Department

Selected Project Listing • Project Executive managing the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2017 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This 10-month project, initiated in February 2017, was a large cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. The team performed on-site visits to 405 sampled recycler sites, handling fee recycler sites, and processor sites. This survey, performed by the sixth time utilizing our proven and successful methodology, calculated the cost per container to recycle containers covered under the Act. • Project Executive managing the Hawaii Department of Health handling fee cost survey. This project, initiated in February 2018, is the first study of handling fees since the inception of Hawaii’s Deposit Beverage Container (DBC) Program enacted in 2002 by state law. This project is a large cost- accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art,

A-4 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. The team performed on-site visits to nearly 70 recycler sites. This survey, utilizing our proven and successful methodology, will provide the basis for determining recommended per container handling fees by material type, county, and processor/non-processor for Hawaii’s DBC program. • Project Executive managing the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2015 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This 14-month project, initiated in May 2015, was a large cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. The team performed on-site visits to 413 sampled recycler sites, handling fee recycler sites, and processor sites. This survey, performed by the fifth time utilizing our proven and successful methodology, calculated the cost per container to recycle containers covered under the Act. • Project Manager to assist the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to implement the Rigid Plastic Packaging Container Act. Under this law in California, every rigid plastic packaging container (RPPC) sold in the State after January 1, 1995, was supposed to be: (1) made of 25 percent post-consumer material, (2) recycled at least 25 percent, (3) source reduced by 10 percent, or (4) reused or refilled. The two primary goals of this project were to identify RPPCs in California and develop alternative approaches for implementing the Act. A comprehensive report was prepared for the CIWMB and Legislature which presented an implementation plan. This plan included: (1) a definition of measuring each of the four compliance options, (2) procedures for certifying compliance with the Act, (3) procedures for enforcing compliance, (4) CIWMB administrative and funding requirements, (5) tasks required to implement the plan, and (6) suggested modifications to statutory language to clarify the Act and make it more effective. • Project Manager to evaluate the costs and funding sources of curbside recycling programs for the CalRecycle (formerly part of Department of Conservation). The objective of this engagement was to provide the Department of Conservation with technical assistance in preparing its report for the Legislature on the costs and funding of curbside collection programs. Assembly Bill 87 requires the DOC to conduct a study on alternative methods of funding for, and expanding of, curbside collection programs. The report included a summary of the methods used by local governments to fund such programs and presented estimates of average monthly volumes collected by curbside programs. A profile of 456 curbside collection programs operating in the state was developed. The profile included geographic coverage, demographics, operating characteristics, and material types collected for the programs. The report also presented five case studies of operating curbside programs which provided detailed information on program operations, costs, revenues, and funding sources. Data collection techniques to gather the information included a review of existing DOC documents, a formal mail survey, in-depth and on-site curbside recycler interviews and operations reviews, a formal opinion survey of curbside program participants, and a public workshop held by the DOC to present the initial findings and conclusions of this study. Using this information, CalRecycle determined the level of AB 2020 funding to curbside recycling programs, and the contribution of this funding to total curbside program revenues received for CRV materials. CRV funds were found to contribute a significant amount toward curbside program revenues relative to other secondary material revenue sources. • Project Executive to implement the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Division of Recycling’s Integrated Information System (DORIIS), an Internet-based ERP system for all members of the recycling community: recyclers, dealers, grantees, beverage manufacturers and distributors, curbside programs, processors, volunteer organizations, and external stakeholders. DORIIS has helped the CalRecycle improve its business processes, increase ease of data entry, and provide program participants with more timely and accurate information. The system also was designed to be flexible enough to respond to constantly changing environmental, legislative, and technical demands while also reducing paper use and lessening the State’s carbon footprint. As a key project leader, Lisa defined existing CalRecycle business processes, defined future processes and technology requirements, and facilitated the organization’s transition to the new system. The project deliverables included user-friendly tools and access to information, as well as analysis and

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-5

decision support tools to help participants be more informed and make more effective decisions related to their participation in the California Redemption Value (CRV) program. • Project Director on a project to develop a portfolio of process improvement strategies and manage organizational change management for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Automatic License Data System (ALDS). Specifically, the team conducted a change readiness assessment, conducted an external stakeholder assessment, developed an organizational change management plan, developed a communications and stakeholder enrollment plan, and developed and implemented training. • Project Director on a strategic initiative for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR) Pesticide Regulation Branch (PRB). The PRB currently maintains registrations for approximately 13,000 pesticide products containing 1,000 different active ingredients. PRB receives and processes approximately 5,000 registration submissions each year, as well as manages pesticide product license renewals and data storage for the existing products. PRB largely manages these processes manually, with some technology support. The DPR undertook an initiative to redesign the way the Department does business and to improve efficiencies throughout the Department. This initiative encompassed the following phases: (1) redesigning the core business processes; (2) developing a feasibility study report; and (3) developing a Request for Proposal for procuring a new Registration Program IT solution. The first phase of this initiative, the strategic planning and business process assessment and design phase, was undertaken with a team that included information technology professionals, business process experts, DPR leadership, and consultants. As Project Director, Lisa led the project team. The project had the following five (5) objectives: (1) develop a strategic vision for the PRB; (2) identify, gather, and document the core pesticide registration processes and sub-processes; (3) identify business process issues and strategic improvement opportunities; (4) develop and define the future business processes with key technology and other enablers; and (5) document any necessary statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. • The California Department of Parks and Recreation conducted an organizational and operational assessment of the Concessions Program. This assessment looked for opportunities to maximize efficiencies and revenues, streamline operations, and achieve Program objectives. The Program handles over 200 contracts generating $85 million in gross sales and $10 million in direct grants, maintenance, program costs, housekeeping, interpretive, etc. The objectives of the Assessment were to: o Provide an independent analysis and review of the organizational structure regarding the Concessions Program and its resulting effectiveness. o Mitigate risks (financial, compliance and service level) associated with the concessions contracting. o Define roles and responsibilities (e.g. centralization vs. decentralization, degree thereof), organizational structure, processes and skill sets of the Concessions Program and staff. o Document, analyze and recommend information requirements and database needs. o Implement improvement opportunities. • Project Executive for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways to provide environmental consulting services for the DBW’s new Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program (AIPCP). The project entailed the design and development of the new program, which is DBW’s strategic and operational business plan to control the growth and spread of aquatic invasive plants in the Sacrament-San Joaquin Delta. The new AIPCP, enabled by a legislative change (AB763), provides a flexible, adaptable approach to invasive plant control that enables DBW to respond to changing conditions in the Delta. In developing the AIPCP, the Crowe team performed the following activities (among others): 1) research and evaluate new aquatic invasive plant treatment tools and methods; 2) provide assistance in the design and development of new performance metrics; 3) evaluate program policies and procedures related to resource allocation and organizational effectives; 4) define site prioritization for floating and submersed aquatic plants; 5) develop a new adaptive management model as part of the new AIPCP; 6) collaborate with other State agencies; 7) compose and submit a Biological Assessment and other supporting documentation.

A-6 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• Project Executive on a management audit of the California Public Utilities Commission's Transportation Enforcement Branch (TEB). The goals of the audit are to: 1) analyze and evaluate TEB activities in the context of their effectiveness in adhering to existing safety regulations; 2) provide the CPUC with new ideas, insights, and practical, implementable recommendations; and 3) develop implementation plans designed to evolve the program into one that is more proactive in addressing transportation enforcement issues. The evaluation includes research, management interviews, and facilitated sessions with staff to assess TEB’s current activities. Crowe is also identifying best practices and transportation enforcement performance metrics. • Project Director on a management audit of the California Public Utilities Commission's Gas Safety and Reliability Branch (GSRB). The goals of the audit are to 1) analyze and evaluate GSRB activities in the context of their effectiveness in adhering to existing safety regulations; 2) provide the CPUC with new ideas, insights, and practical, implementable recommendations; and 3) develop implementation plans designed to evolve the program into one that is more proactive in addressing gas safety issues. The evaluation includes research, management interviews, and facilitated sessions with staff to assess GSRB’s current activities. Crowe is also identifying best practices and natural gas safety performance metrics. • Project Manager to lead a technology-enabled solution project within the State of California Employment Development Department, a tax collection agency. This project included reengineering the business processes, implementing a workflow and document management system, and helping the organization move towards a new, automated work environment. Each year, the tax processing and accounting division (TPAD) processes 23.9 million tax returns and collects $20 billion in payments by California’s 800,000 employers. The goals of the project were to: (1) reduce or eliminate paper handling; (2) streamline, simplify and automate the tax processes; (3) improve resource efficiency; (4) improve customer service; and, provide a flexible technology infrastructure to meet the business needs. The project leveraged the workflow and imaging solution by enabling significant changes of how work is performed, processed and organized. The expected benefits of this project will be a cost savings of more than $60 million over 5 years. The project consists of over 60 full-time client and consultant personnel, and an additional 70 part-time client personnel. Lisa’s activities included the following: o Evaluating the existing three business processes: employment tax remittance processing, information capture, and customer service o Developing a project roadmap and overall plan for the business process reengineering and change leadership efforts, integrating with key technology development activities o Determining the organization's readiness for change by administering surveys to 700 employees, conducting focus groups, and interviewing key personnel o Developing a communication and stakeholder enrollment strategy, targeting internal and external audiences o Identifying employers and agents business requirements and expectations by interviewing over 80 organizations o Assisting with executive sponsorship and ensuring the organization understands the executive support for the project o Redesigning the business processes by eliminating and consolidating inputs and forms, streamlining and simplifying the work processes, automating simple tasks and fund allocations, and reorganizing work around the newly designed processes o Developing detailed process designs and determining the changes required in policies and procedures o Identifying new job roles and responsibilities, mapping the new knowledge, skills, and abilities required in the new environment o Creating a new organization structure and foundation aligning with the new business processes

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-7

o Working with Human Resources to determine appropriate classifications and assisting in the staff selection process o Developing new performance measures and workshops to help supervisors and managers manage in a new, automated environment o Coordinating with training to ensure training materials incorporate the appropriate non-technical skills required for the new environment. • Consultant to manage the overall project for numerous California counties, including Sacramento County Department of Health Services and Human Assistance. The objectives of these engagements were to: o Enhance existing federal funding sources o Improve revenue collection processes o Identify creative methods to enhance revenues. In six months, the project identified and collected $3.0 million in additional revenues for the County of Sacramento. In addition, during this project, Lisa was responsible for assessing their relational database and recommending improvements in their automated processes.

A-8 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Erik Nylund

Erik Nylund [email protected] PMP, EVP, CEP – Director www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Mr. Nylund is a Managing Director with Crowe. Mr. Nylund has Services: performed over 200 management consulting engagements for a • Cost Studies variety of government departments and agencies over the past • Performance Audits twenty-four (24) years. He was formerly a Principal with • Procurement NewPoint Group for more than fifteen (15) years. Mr. Nylund also • Project Management spent several years with Ernst & Young LLP and Deloitte & • Rate Reviews Touche LLP as a management consultant. • Strategic Planning

Clients Served: Professional and Industry Experience • California Department of Conservation; CalRecycle Mr. Nylund has successfully completed over 100 separate • California Energy Commission integrated waste management consulting projects, most involving • Over 25 local government agencies, fiscal, financial, operational, and data analyses. He has a solid departments, and authorities, working knowledge of local government waste management and including: recycling programs. He has assisted a number of clients with • City of Coachella/Inyo County planning new refuse/recycling collection program in the areas of • City of Concord greenwaste, organics, and curbside recycling. He has made over • City of Martinez 40 solid waste related presentations to city councils, board of • City of Pleasant Hill • City of San Luis Obispo supervisors, and other governmental entities. In almost every • Alameda County Resource and case, he has received a unanimous vote in favor of Recycling Board (16 jurisdictions) recommendations. Mr. Nylund was project director on the past • Butte County two Measure D financial and compliance audits for StopWaste. • Contra Costa County • El Dorado County He has recently worked on integrated waste consulting projects • King County, WA for the following California cities and counties: City of Martinez, • Napa County City of Vallejo, City of Pleasant Hill, City of Pleasanton, City of • Sacramento County Marysville, City of Live Oak, City of Wheatland, South Lake Tahoe • San Diego Solid Waste Authority Basin Waste Management Authority, Contra Costa County, • Regional Waste Management Alameda County, Butte County, Sutter County, and Yuba County. Authority (6 jurisdictions) • South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority (3 Education & Certifications jurisdictions) • Ventura County • M.B.A. – Finance o University of California | Davis, California • B.S. – Civil Engineering o University of California | Davis, California • Project Management Professional (#1672566) • Certified Estimating Professional • Earned Value Professional • Engineer-in-Training Certificate

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-9

Selected Project Listing

Integrated Waste Strategic Planning and Facilitation (23+ years) • Project Director on the past two five-year financial and compliance audit of funds raised through the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (“Measure D”). Measure D was passed by Alameda County voters in 1990. Measure D established a surcharge on each ton of waste landfilled in the County. Crowe professionals conducted on-site reviews of the sixteen (16) member agencies receiving Measure D funding. We assessed whether program and services expenditures reported by jurisdictions where consistent with the “recycling” intent of Measure D. We developed an audit sampling plan and tested transactions to the invoice level. We determined beginning and ending Measure D fund balances for each jurisdiction. We assessed whether jurisdictions complied with specific Measure D reporting requirements and procedures (e.g., interest calculations). Crowe reviewed Measure D compliance for a total of 23 non-profits receiving grant funds from the Board for recycling related projects and activities. We also reviewed Recycling Board finances, examining revenues received from landfill surcharges, and source reduction expenditures by program area. We validated whether the Board correctly made Measure D distributions to each program area and to member agencies. Crowe professionals developed a report of our findings and recommendations and presented it to the 16-member Board and received unanimous approval of our report from the Board. • Project Manager to prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan for El Dorado County (150,000 population). We developed a profile of the County’s solid waste system, population growth and waste generation and diversion projections, and a vision for managing County solid waste through 2030 and beyond. The plan was oriented as a more detailed operations plan, rather than as a high- level conceptual framework. The plan was highly customized because the County has a unique urban and rural mix, large geographic range, and dynamic environmental conditions (e.g., weather fluctuations). He partnered with Tetra Tech BAS (subcontractor) on this project. We developed the plan to address facility requirements, including development of a resource recovery park (EcoPark), updates to the County’s landfill system, and consideration of new small volume transfer stations for remote County areas. The plan identified opportunities for use of alternative conversion technologies, should they become available and feasible. Additionally, the plan included a range of different strategies to enhance curbside recycling programs, cart-based collection efforts, composting, and diversion. He evaluated various options for public, private, and/or public/private ownership of future facilities. We worked closely with the various County stakeholders throughout this project to customize the plan to meet the needs of this County. • As a subcontractor to Tetra Tech BAS, Crowe provided assistance on a feasibility study for the Regional Waste Management Authority (Authority). The Authority consists of six jurisdictions including the cities of Live Oak, Marysville, Yuba City, Wheatland, Sutter County, and Yuba County. The Authority is made up of a mix of urban and rural area, but mostly rural areas (both Sutter and Yuba Counties are considered rural California counties). We assessed alternative locations for a new MRF/transfer station/fleet maintenance facility. As part of this study, we conducted a siting analysis using our proven methodology for site selection based on objective land use criteria (primary and secondary). We estimated current and future waste generation levels, developing a general design and site use plan, estimating broadly the facility diversion potential, and identifying permit and approval requirements. We defined capital cost requirements, conducting various financial analyses, developing a pro-forma operating budget, and determining potential rate impacts for the facility scenarios. Finally, we assessed alternative facility ownership models for Authority consideration (e.g., public, public-private, and private). • Project Manager to conduct a review of a new Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) and separate truck parking facility built in South Lake Tahoe. The approximately $15 million RRF included C&D sorting and green waste processing equipment. The facility was pre-funded through rates charged to unincorporated El Dorado County, unincorporated Douglas County, and City of South Lake Tahoe

A-10 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

ratepayers. This diversion facility augmented a dirty MRF already operated by South Tahoe Refuse, and provided the Authority with an ability to increase C&D and green waste tons diverted from the landfill. This Authority includes many rural areas, has bear issues, is made up of vacation home owners, and deals with seasonal weather/snow issues. Consequently, many of the diversion programs must be cost-effective to suit the unique needs of this Authority. We assessed costs for the facility, including permitting costs, engineering costs, regulatory (CEQA compliance) costs, construction, sorting equipment, and California Pollution Control Financing Authority (CPCFA) bond financing. Personnel also evaluated operating costs associated with the new facility. • Project Manager to assist the City of Concord to restructure residential refuse collection rates and services to a three-cart refuse collection system. This major collection system change included a significant capital investment by Concord Disposal Service (CDS), the City’s franchised hauler, of over $7 million for eleven new automated trucks and nearly 80,000 new carts. Under the new system, customers choose from a 32-, 64-, or 96-gallon refuse cart. Customers also received upgraded and expanded recycling services, including a new 64-gallon, single stream, recycling cart and a 96-gallon yard waste cart. Over this year-long engagement, we assisted City staff and CDS to plan the transition to the new system. We helped the City and CDS develop a survey to identify customer preferences under various rate structure and service level scenarios. This survey was administered to 400 City customers. We assessed: (1) revenue, cost, and profit impacts, (2) changes to disposal costs from expected waste stream shifts, (3) cost reductions from new, more efficient, trucks, (4) future inflationary cost adjustments allowed through the rate setting process, and (5) CDS plans for a new state-of-the-art Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) sort line to process the City’s new single stream recyclables. • Lead Consultant for CalRecycle to develop a training curriculum and manual, and conduct a 3.5 week training course on how to measure the costs of recycling aluminum, glass, and plastic beverage containers. This project provided a training program for the Department to conduct training sessions. • For CalRecycle, Consultant on a project to estimate the costs of recycling aluminum, glass, and types #1 through #7 plastic beverage containers in California. The study included nearly 200 randomly selected certified recyclers and processors from the 2,400 California sites. Mr. Nylund conducted 70 on-site allowable cost surveys, including obtaining and reviewing detailed financial statements and payroll records, and conducting interviews of site management to allocate labor to three types of CRV materials, or to other materials. • Project Manager to conduct a review of a proposed new three-cart refuse collection system for one of the Contra Costa County’s franchised haulers. We assessed the operational changes required to transition to a single stream recycling program, a choice of 32-, 64-, or 96-gallon refuse cart, and a new 96-gallon yard waste cart. We assessed alternatives for truck and equipment amortization and replacement options. We assessed truck and staffing requirements for the new recycling system and benchmarked these requirements with other similar jurisdictions. We determined impacts to diversion levels from increased curbside recycling and yard waste volumes. • Project Manager to examine diversion tracking and recycling programs for the City of Pleasanton (60,000 population). Specific tasks included reviewing City tonnage data, assessing single stream MRF and transfer station practices, contacting large businesses to identify recycling practices and opportunities, and comparing City diversion results with those reported by the County’s source reduction and recycling board and waste management authority (collectively known as StopWaste.org). We developed recommendations for alternative recycling strategies to increase City diversion. • Project Manager to assist the City of Martinez with implementation of the new mandatory commercial recycling program within the City. This program was implemented in accordance with Assembly Bill 341 which required commercial customers generating above four (4) or more cubic yards of solid waste per week and multi-family dwellings in excess of five (5) units to implement recycling service by July 1, 2012. We assisted with the cost and rate impacts of implementing this new program.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-11

Integrated Waste Rate/Fee Setting, Cost Studies, and Finance Experience (22 Years) • Developed proprietary rate setting cost guide for regulated utilities, including details for determining allowable and non-allowable costs, allowable profit levels, cost allocations, indirect and direct costs categories. • Conducted over 100 utility rate studies. Work included detailed analyses of the costs of providing services funded solely by users of the services, including recovering costs of long-term capital investments. Performed cash flow analyses and assessed the nexus between rates charged and the utility’s cost of service. Developed recommendations related to rate structures, billing functions, and financing methods. Made over 40 presentations to government councils, boards, and authorities on rate cases. • Lead consultant in performing a refuse rate study and franchise analysis for the City of San Luis Obispo. The primary objectives of the study were to assist the City in developing rate setting policies, a rate setting process, and a franchise agreement. A detailed, step-by-step rate setting process and methodology manual was prepared for the City, providing a structure for setting commercial and residential garbage fees. Most cities in San Luis Obispo County adopted this formal rate setting methodology • Assisted the joint powers authority with a financial feasibility study for a $100 million municipal bond issuance project which included analyses of projected fixed and variable costs, forecasting/ sensitivity of revenues under various scenarios, regional competitor studies, and analysis of various ownership alternatives. • For Contra Costa County, he has been Project Manager for the past 20 years on financial and rate studies of franchised haulers that provide refuse, recycling, and yardwaste collection service to unincorporated Contra Costa County. As part of each study, he develops projections for revenues, costs, and profits and develops recommended rate structures and rates. • For the City of Pleasanton, he recently was Project Manager on a project to assist the City with a rate study of its franchised hauler, Pleasanton Garbage Service. He evaluated a four-year rate application, including a detailed examination of labor costs, operating revenues and costs, transfer station revenues and operating costs, transportation costs, operations and maintenance costs, franchise fee payments, and related party transactions. • For the City of Farmington, N.M., he managed a cost-of-service study for the City’s waste hauler, Waste Management of New Mexico, Inc. This primary study goal was to determine if residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste rates were aligned with the cost of providing these services.

Integrated Waste Rate/Fee Setting, Cost Studies, and Finance Experience (23+ Years) • Project Manager to lead a team of staff support to the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSR) in the areas of accounting, budgeting, contract administration, grants, and reporting. Involved in many aspects of the HSR’s financial office functions, including departmental budgeting, contract administration, funding analysis, workload analysis/reporting, financial statement development/reporting using the State’s FI$Cal system, and federal grant reporting. • Project Manager working for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Energy Division, on a 4-year $1.0M project to conduct an assessment of NRG Inc. compliance with provisions contained in a Settlement Agreement between the State of California and NRG EVgo (now Vision Ridge) under AICPA rules. The Settlement Agreement requires NRG to spend $100 million on new electric vehicle charging infrastructure over four years. • Project Manager reporting to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Division of Water and Audits on a year-long procurement compliance examination of an investor-owned Class A water utility that serves approximately 300,000 California customers. The project was an examination of procurement and contracting practices used for engineering and capital construction projects, including review of over five hundred (500) contracts/projects spanning a twenty-year period.

A-12 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• Project Manager on a forensic audit of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority. • Project Manager on the CPUC Division of Water Audits’ examinations of 25 telecommunication carrier’s compliance with CPUC requirements for surcharge payments related to each of six (6) CPUC public purpose programs (PPP). PPP surcharges, collected from telecommunications carriers, provide funds for the California Advanced Services Fund, California High Cost Fund A (CHCF-A), California High Cost Fund B (CHCF-B), California Lifeline Program, California Teleconnect Fund, and Deaf and Disabled Fund. Mr. Nylund managed the Crowe team in assessing carrier compliance with applicable PUC codes, CPUC decisions, CPUC resolutions, CPUC general orders, and other guidance. • Provided multiple State of California agencies with economic and financial assistance, environmental and engineering assistance, training assistance, regulatory and legal assistance.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-13

Wendy Pratt

Wendy Pratt [email protected] PMP – Director www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Ms. Pratt is a Director in the Public Sector Services Group of Services: Crowe, and is located in our Sacramento office. Ms. Pratt is the • Program Evaluation Project Director on the CalRecycle 2019 (and previously 2017, • Economic Modeling 2015, and 2013) processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. • Surveys and Data Analysis • Environmental Policies and She was also the Project Director for the State of Hawaii’s Programs Department of Health Handling Fee Survey. Ms. Pratt was significantly involved in more than 25 consulting projects for the Industries: California Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling • State Government • Local Government since 1991, including 22 projects since 2002. During this time, she acquired an extensive understanding of recycling infrastructure, markets, and stakeholders.

Professional and Industry Experience In her 28 years of professional public sector consulting experience, Ms. Pratt has successfully completed a wide range of engagements, including: • Developed economic modeling and fund allocation applications for Hawaii Department of Health, First 5 California, the California Department of Conservation (now CalRecycle), and the California Department of Boating and Waterways. These models applied to $900 million per year in tobacco tax revenues, the $1 billion Beverage Container Recycling Fund, and the $1.7 billion economic impact of non-motorized boating in California • Managed several large-scale statewide survey research projects, from developing statistical sampling plans, survey implementation, data analysis, and final report preparation, for the California Department of Conservation and CalRecycle, California Department of Boating and Waterways, and the Hawaii Department of Health • Conducted over three hundred individual interviews and group meetings, then organized, analyzed, and synthesized results from primary and secondary sources as a first step in developing performance metrics, strategic plans, market analyses, program evaluations, benchmarking, and research reports • Prepared dozens of analyses and reports that support day-to-day implementation of State of California grant and loan programs, fund distributions, facility development, organizational development, and program design • Conducted program and performance evaluations and assisted in strategic planning efforts for the California Public Utilities Commission, California Department of Conservation, California Department of Boating and Waterways, Bureau of State Audits, City of Los Angeles, and California Ocean Protection Council.

A-14 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Prior to joining Crowe, Ms. Pratt was a management consultant with NewPoint Group, a Sacramento-based management consulting firm serving the public sector. She had thirteen years of management consulting experience with NewPoint Group. She specialized in recycling, environmental policy and programs, business process improvement, regulatory improvement, performance metrics, large-scale surveys, statistical analysis, and economic analyses, including utilization of economic impact IMPLAN modeling. In her early career, Ms. Pratt spent eight years with Global Futures, an environmental and economic research organization. While at Global Futures, she specialized in policy analysis, program evaluation, and strategic planning, and helped develop the handling fee concept for convenience zone recyclers. She also worked at the University of California, Davis, as a researcher for five years, where she co-authored the book Hazardous Waste from Small Quantity Generators: Strategies and Solutions for Business and Government, proposing a deposit-refund approach for hazardous wastes such as motor oil. Ms. Pratt has the ability to research, analyze, and present complex issues with a balanced and clear approach.

Publications and Speaking Engagements Wendy has written numerous reports and white papers: • Environmental Impact Reports and Biological Assessments for Aquatic Invasive Plants • Non-Motorized Boating in California Report • Towards Improving the California Ocean Protection Council White Paper

Education & Certifications • Master of Science - Ecology (Environmental Policy) • Bachelor of Science - Physiology o University of California | Davis, CA • Project Management Professional, Project Management Institute

Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge • Economic, Financial, and Statistical Analyses • Knowledge of AB 2020 and AB 939 Programs and Studies • Working with AB 2020 Stakeholders • Financial and Cost Accounting • Knowledge of Recycling Markets and • Activity-Based Costing/ Cost Accounting Materials • Large-Scale Survey Research • Knowledge of Recycling Economics and • Staff Training Business Operations • Financial Auditing and Agreed Upon Procedures • Knowledge of Handling Fees, Processing Fees and Processing Payments • Experience with Resistant Participants • Knowledge of Convenience Zones and • Experience Conducting Research Handling Fees

Representative Clients • Hawaii Department of Health • California State University Sacramento • California Department of Resources Recycling Foundation and Recovery • California State Treasurer’s Office • Carpet America Recovery Effort • U.S. EPA Region 9

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-15

• California Department of Conservation • Alameda County Source Reduction and • California Integrated Waste Management Board Recycling Board • California Department of Boating and Waterways • Mitsubishi Electric Company, America • California Public Utilities Commission • Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America • California Earthquake Authority • MacMillan Bloedel, Limited • California Department of Parks and Recreation • Coors Brewing Company • Waste Management, Incorporated

Relevant Experience • Project Advisor to perform the past two StopWaste.org five-year financial and compliance audits of funds raised through the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (“Measure D”). Measure D was passed by Alameda County voters in 1990. Measure D established a surcharge on each ton of waste landfilled in the County. Crowe professionals conducted on-site reviews of the sixteen (16) member agencies receiving Measure D funding. We assessed whether program and services expenditures reported by jurisdictions where consistent with the “recycling” intent of Measure D. We developed an audit sampling plan and tested transactions to the invoice level. We determined beginning and ending Measure D fund balances for each jurisdiction. We assessed whether jurisdictions complied with specific Measure D reporting requirements and procedures (e.g., interest calculations). • Crowe reviewed Measure D compliance for a total of 23 non-profits receiving grant funds from the Board for recycling related projects and activities. We also reviewed Recycling Board finances, examining revenues received from landfill surcharges, and source reduction expenditures by program area. We validated whether the Board correctly made Measure D distributions to each program area and to member agencies. Crowe professionals developed a report of our findings and recommendations and presented it to the 16-member Board and received unanimous approval of our report from the Board. • The costs will be utilized to calculate processing payments and handling fees to support recycling centers. Ms. Pratt leads all aspects and phases of the project, including training, sample selection, team management, data analysis, reporting, and presenting results. Additionally, Ms. Pratt serves as the final reviewer for all 550 sites. • Project Director to perform the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2019 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. The cost survey initiated in February 2019, is a 17-month cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. A primary task is to determine the costs of recycling for approximately 550 certified recycling centers to include 300 processing fee sites and 250 handling fee sites. The costs will be utilized to calculate processing payments and handling fees to support recycling centers. Ms. Pratt leads all aspects and phases of the project, including training, sample selection, team management, data analysis, reporting, and presenting results. Additionally, Ms. Pratt serves as the final reviewer for all 550 sites. • Project Director to perform the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) 2019 Cost Analysis. In support of the 2018-2022 California Carpet Stewardship Plan’s goal to achieve a 24 percent recycling rate, the six-month cost analysis, started in March 2019, was conducted as an economic study to evaluate the post-consumer carpet (PCC) subsidy and new carpet assessment levels. As part of the analysis, Crowe performed a cost survey to collect and analyze the weighted average costs to recycle PCC across 55 (out of 67) carpet collectors, processors, and manufacturers located in California and across the U.S. Additionally, Crowe analyzed CARE’s economic, cost conversion, financial, and subsidy justification models to provide a deep understanding of the connection between subsidy and assessment development. The results of the cost analysis were presented to CalRecycle and provided feasible recommendations for implementing immediate to long-term program improvements.

A-16 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• Project Director to perform the Hawaii Department of Health handling fee cost survey. This project, initiated in December 2017, was the first study of handling fees since the inception of Hawaii’s Deposit Beverage Container (DBC) Program enacted in 2002 by state law. This project was a large cost- accounting and analytical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity- based costing techniques. The team performed on-site visits to nearly 70 recycler sites and analyzed two fiscal years of financial and operational data. This survey, utilizing our proven and successful methodology, provided the basis for determining recommended per container handling fees by material type, county, and processor/non-processor for Hawaii’s DBC program, as well as the Handling Fee Adjustment Model. • Project Director to perform the CalRecycle 2017 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This project, initiated in February 2017, was a large cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. Ms. Pratt led all aspects and phases of the project, including training, sample selection, team management, data analysis, reporting, and presenting results. The team performed on-site visits to 227 processing fee sites, 106 handling fee sites, and 72 curbside sorter sites (405 sites total). Ms. Pratt served as the final reviewer for all 405 sites. Additionally, Ms. Pratt visited a total of 4 PF sites and 8 curbside sorter sites. • Project Director to perform the CalRecycle 2015 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This project was a large cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. Ms. Pratt led all aspects and phases of the project, developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of on-site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with a 10 percent error rate, of the results developed from the project. The team performed on-site visits to 414 sampled processing fee recycler, handling fee recycler sites, and processing sites; Ms. Pratt reviewed all 414 files. She facilitated a presentation to program stakeholders to describe the processing fee survey methodology and results. This survey, for the fifth time, included a calculation of the cost per container to recycle for two categories of California’s certified recycling centers. • Project Co-Director to perform the CalRecycle 2013 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This twelve-month project was completed in March 2014. Ms. Pratt led all aspects and phases of the project, developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of on-site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with a 10 percent error rate, of the results developed from the project. The team performed on-site visits to 320 sampled and census processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites; Ms. Pratt reviewed all 320 files. This survey, for the fourth time, included a calculation of the cost per container to recycle for two categories of California’s certified recycling centers. • Lead Consultant to perform the CalRecycle 2011 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This was an eleven-month project, completed in May 2012. Ms. Pratt helped developed a comprehensive training program and provided eight days of training to all of personnel who would conduct on-site reviews of recycling entities statewide. She developed a survey sampling plan to identify the number of on-site visits necessary to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval, with a 10 percent error rate, of the results developed from the project. We performed on-site visits to 292 sampled and census processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites. This survey, for the third time, included a calculation of the cost per container to recycle for two categories of California’s certified recycling centers. • Lead Consultant to perform the California Department of Conservation (now CalRecycle) 2009 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This thirteen-month project was completed in March 2010. Ms. Pratt managed all aspects of the engagement, including developing the sampling plan, training, data analysis, and quality control reviews. We performed on-site visits to 351 sampled and census processing fee recycler and handling fee recycler sites. This survey, for the second time, included a calculation of the cost per container to recycle for two categories of California’s certified recycling centers. • Lead Consultant to perform the California Department of Conservation 2007 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This fifteen-month project was completed in April 2008. Ms. Pratt managed all aspects of the engagement, including developing the sampling plan, training, data analysis, and quality control reviews. We performed on-site visits to 385 sampled and census processing fee recycler and

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-17

handling fee recycler sites across the state to collect the necessary financial and operating data. This survey, for the first time, included a calculation of the cost per container to recycle for two categories of California’s certified recycling centers: those that received the handling fee, and those that did not. • Lead Consultant to perform the California Department of Conservation 2005 processing fee cost survey, a major primary-data economic cost survey of California certified recycling centers. In addition to determining the cost of recycling for ten beverage container materials, Ms. Pratt conducted comparative analyses of the results with previous surveys, prepared a briefing document for DOC management, and developed a workshop presentation and final report. • Lead Consultant to design the sample plan and select the recycling centers surveyed during the California Department of Conservation 2005 processing fee cost survey. We developed the population frames, precision estimates, and the statistical formulas required to calculate the number of recycling centers needed from each population frame. • Lead Consultant to perform the California Department of Conservation 2003 processing fee cost survey, a major primary-data economic cost survey of California certified recycling centers. We performed on-site visits to 186 sampled and census sites across the state to collect the necessary financial and operating data. This processing fee cost survey was the largest, most detailed, and complex; and the most accurate cost survey undertaken by the DOR, prior to the 2005 processing fee cost survey. • Project Manager to develop for the California Department of Conservation an updated market analysis of recycled beverage container materials. In researching this report, Ms. Pratt interviewed over 35 recycling industry experts, in addition to conducting secondary literature reviews. This report, published on the Division of Recycling (DOR) web page in June 2007, was used by both grant applicants and DOR staff in the 2007 and 2008 Market Development and Expansion Grant Program cycles. • Project Manager to facilitate workshops for the California Department of Conservation. Ms. Pratt assisted in developing a meeting agenda and presentation, and then facilitated a two-day workshop for four companies proposing PET bottle-to-bottle facilities in California. • Project Manager to prepare a technical report for the California Department of Conservation to analyze the extent of overpayment and underpayment of CRV, and to develop recommendations to determine the “most accurate” refund value. The project identified three different solutions to three different types of CRV underpayment concerns. • Project Manager to assist the California Department of Conservation in preparing business process documentation for each of fifteen key Market Research Branch (MRB) processes and programs. • Project Manager to prepare a letter report for the California Department of Conservation to review and analyze a 1997 NewPoint Group report to the Department, Conceptual Alternatives for a New California Beverage Container Program. • Project Manager to prepare a market status update for PET and HDPE for the California Department of Conservation. The report built on, but did not duplicate, NewPoint Group’s 2005 Market Analysis for Recycled Beverage Container Materials. The report was prepared just prior to reviewing grant applications for the 2006-2007 fiscal year, and it was used by the DOR to assist in evaluating grant applications. • Lead Consultant to develop for the California Department of Conservation a multi-user grant management system to assist grant managers in all phases of the grant management process. The system was used by the Division of Recycling for the Market Expansion Grant Program applications and related documents. • Lead Consultant to develop for the California Department of Conservation the 2003/2004 Market Development and Expansion Grant Program Application (with supporting schedules), the Grant Agreement Terms and Conditions, and the Grant Program Evaluation Process. • Lead Consultant to develop for the California Department of Conservation a report for a comprehensive market analysis of recycled beverage container materials. The report, over 120 pages in length, includes detailed analyses of supply, demand, key players, material flows, end-uses, and market issues.

A-18 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• Lead Consultant to assist the California Department of Conservation to design and develop a new Beverage Container Recycling Infrastructure Loan Guarantee Program. • Lead Consultant to assist the California Department of Conservation to determine a series of statistical formulas and calculations for the mixed resin commingled rate and for sampling techniques to determine quantities of plastic resins in mixed bales. • Project Consultant for the California Department of Conservation to revise a software program used to calculate the cost of recycling for the processing fee. The scope of work included updating a 1994 Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the cost per ton to recycle aluminum, glass, and PET plastic. Tasks included updating the model to incorporate cost of recycling calculations for plastics resin types #2 to #7, as well as updating equations, data entry forms, and printing options to make the model compatible with legislative revisions to the program. The work included improving the user-computer interface, Visual Basic Applications programming, and revising and adding equations to improve the 22-worksheet model. Ms. Pratt also provided training to DOC staff on the use of the new model. • Lead Consultant for the California Department of Conservation and California Integrated Waste Management Board to prepare a white paper that includes a comprehensive assessment of, and recommendations for, plastics recycling and resource conservation in California. The white paper included an assessment of plastics use, recycling, and disposal in California, and policy recommendations in six program categories including: (1) modifications to existing laws, (2) collection and market development, (3) public information, relations, and education, (4) research/ development and new technologies, (5) a structured collaborative process, and (6) funding mechanisms/long-term policies. • Consultant for the California Department of Conservation with a team that identified and assessed alternatives to California’s Bottle Bill, AB 2020. She conducted stakeholder interviews, researched program alternatives, developed a set of key recommendations, conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses, prepared briefing documents and a report, and conducted briefings for DOC and stakeholders. • Consultant for the California Department of Conservation to prepare the Processing Fee Task Force Report, the state's official report on the proceedings of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Processing Fees. The report described the theory and philosophy of the processing fee system, presented a legislative and regulatory history, presented 45 policy alternatives for revising the processing fee system, presented six alternative packages of reform proposals, and reviewed 51 separate issues regarding the current system presented by a cross-section of Task Force participants. • Project Manager for the California Department of Conservation for an analysis of the costs and policy impacts of the DOC’s 1992 legislative proposal for amendments to the AB 2020 system. The project team developed and analyzed an alternative approach for the Department. • Project Manager to conduct economic analyses of the impact of boating on California, as Phase II of the Boating Facilities Needs Assessment, prepared for California State University Sacramento Foundation and the California Department of Boating and Waterways. The analysis included an inventory of boating-related businesses statewide, and the use of IMPLAN models to determine the impact of boating on the Gross State Product, tax revenues, and employment. The project also included an assessment of the recreational value of boating and the development of a cost-benefit model for determining whether potential boating projects result in a net gain to the State. Phase II expanded on the facility and boater inventories of the first project phase to develop forecasts of the first project phase of boaters and boating facility needs by regions through 2020. This information was used to assist the DBW in allocating funds for boating facilities. • Project Manager for the California Department of Boating and Waterways to determine the economic contribution of non-motorized boating in California. The study utilized IMPLAN modeling to determine the direct, indirect, and induced effects of this complex industry/activity. • Project Manager for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways to provide environmental consulting services for the DBW’s new Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program (AIPCP). Ms. Pratt led the design and development of the new program, which is DBW’s strategic and operational business plan to control the growth and spread of aquatic invasive

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-19

plants in the Sacrament-San Joaquin Delta. The new AIPCP, enabled by a legislative change (AB763), provides a flexible, adaptable approach to invasive plant control that enables DBW to respond to changing conditions in the Delta. Ms. Pratt led the core team to research and evaluate new aquatic invasive plant treatment tools and methods; provide assistance in the design and development of new performance metrics; evaluate program policies and procedures related to resource allocation and organizational effectives; define site prioritization for floating and submersed aquatic plants; develop a new adaptive management model as part of the new AIPCP, and other tasks. She facilitated sessions with external stakeholders (including CDFW; NMFS; Delta council groups, and others) and assisted the client with the development of formal reports, including the AIPCP Programmatic Biological Assessment and the AIPCP Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. • Environmental specialist to prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan for El Dorado County (150,000 population). She developed a profile of the County’s solid waste system, population growth and waste generation and diversion projections, and a vision for managing County solid waste through 2030 and beyond (with a 75% diversion target). The plan was oriented as a more detailed operations plan, rather than as a high-level conceptual framework. The plan was highly customized because the County has a unique urban and rural mix, large geographic range, and dynamic environmental conditions (e.g., weather fluctuations). • Project Manager to perform an independent evaluation of the Ocean Protection Council (OPC). The OPC, established by the California Ocean Protection Act in 2004, is tasked with ensuring California maintains healthy, resilient, and productive ocean and coastal ecosystems. In conducting the analyses, Ms. Pratt reviewed five years of OPC activities, including: OPC reports, legislation, meeting minutes and webcasts, OPC resolutions, and OPC project funding records. The OPC began implementing evaluation findings related to communication, outreach, and strategic planning, even as the report was in a draft phase. At its November 2010 meeting, the Ocean Protection Council adopted a resolution to implement the white paper recommendations, as follows: “The Ocean Protection Council (OPC) recognizes that the Five-Year Program Evaluation Report (Evaluation Report) provided valuable suggestions for improving the ability of the OPC to meet its mandate as defined by the California Ocean Protection Act. The OPC hereby resolves to make improvements to its organizational processes and structure based on the recommendations from the Evaluation Report to the extent feasible, as part of a comprehensive effort to refine and improve OPC’s processes, and more specifically, as part of the OPC’s current strategic plan process.” • Project Manager on a management audit of the California Public Utilities Commission's Gas Safety and Reliability Branch (GSRB). The goals of the audit were to 1) analyze and evaluate GSRB activities in the context of their effectiveness in adhering to existing safety regulations; 2) provide the CPUC with new ideas, insights, and practical, implementable recommendations; and 3) develop implementation plans designed to evolve the program into one that is more proactive in addressing gas safety issues. The evaluation included research, management interviews, and facilitated sessions with staff to assess GSRB’s current activities. Crowe also identified best practices and natural gas safety performance metrics. Ms. Pratt presented the results of the study to the Commission and the California State Legislature. • Project Manager to provide Alternatives Analysis services for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Exide Cleanup Unit (ECU). The ECU within the DTSC is responsible for the State’s oversight of sampling for approximately 10,000 properties, including residential, schools, parks and daycares. Crowe was hired to conduct a review of the system used for environmental remediation efforts, including tracking soil sampling data, data collection efforts, and public health investigations. The system supported an environmental remediation effort needed to facilitate, manage and provide reporting and analysis for the testing and remediation of contaminated properties. Ms. Pratt managed the project and oversaw the Crowe team to develop the current and future information process flows and work with DTSC SMEs to complete documentation required for the State of California’s new Project Approval Lifecycle (PAL) Stage Gate process. This included the following SIMM 19 Stage 2 and 3 documents: As-is and To-be Process Workflows, Mid-Level and Detailed Solution Requirements, Market Analysis, Alternative Solutions, Recommended Solution and Financial Analysis Worksheets.

A-20 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Mendi Julien

Mendi R. Julien [email protected] PMP, LSSGB – Senior Manager www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Ms. Julien is a Senior Manager in the Public Sector Services Services: Group of Crowe, and is located in our Sacramento office. She • Survey Analysis and Research has 14 years of professional experience in the consulting and • Project Management operations management fields and over nine years of experience • Cost and Labor Allocation Analyses • Business Process Analysis/ consulting with the State of California. Ms. Julien is trained and Improvement/ Reengineering specializes in business process assessment, reengineering and • Feasibility Studies design, organizational analysis, data analysis, program • Performance and Compliance Audits evaluation and performance auditing, procurement support, State • Federal Funded Program of California PAL support, and information technology solution Evaluations • Solid Waste Rate Setting analysis/feasibility studies. • Cost Studies • IT Market Analysis • Procurement Support Professional and Industry Experience • PAL Support Services Ms. Julien has conducted on-site cost surveys in the prior five Industries: processing fee and handling fee cost surveys and first Hawaii • Public Sector handling fee survey, completing approximately 300 site visits and 200 management file reviews. Ms. Julien has extensive experience in CalRecycle’s beverage container recycling program and local government refuse and diversion programs. She was the Project Manager for the current and prior CalRecycle Cost Survey and first ever State of Hawaii’s Department of Health Handling Fee Survey. During her career, Ms. Julien has spent her time focusing on the State and local public sector, providing a number of services to state and local governments. Prior to joining Crowe, she was an Associate with NewPoint Group, a Sacramento-based management consulting firm serving the public sector. She has substantial experience conducting structured interviews and synthesizing qualitative data for a broad range of State of California agencies.

Education & Certifications • Bachelor of Science, Industrial Engineering o California Polytechnic State University | San Luis Obispo, California • Project Management Professional (PMP) • Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Certification

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-21

Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge • Economic, Financial, and Statistical Analyses • Knowledge of AB 2020 and AB 939 Programs and Studies • Working with AB 2020 Stakeholders • Financial and Cost Accounting • Knowledge of Recycling Markets and Materials • Activity-Based Costing/ Cost Accounting • Knowledge of Recycling Economics and • Large-Scale Survey Research Business Operations • Staff Training • Knowledge of Handling Fees, Processing Fees • Financial Auditing and Agreed Upon Procedures and Processing Payments • Experience with Resistant Participants • Knowledge of Convenience Zones and Handling Fees • Experience Conducting Research

Representative Clients • Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling • California Energy Commission Board • California Office of Statewide Health • Hawaii Department of Health Planning and Development • California Department of Resources Recycling • California Public Utilities Commission and Recovery • California State Treasurer's Office • Carpet America Recovery Effort • South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste • California Department of Conservation Management Authority • California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs • Various local government clients • California Department of Parks and Recreation • Sacramento-based Lithographer • California Department of Pesticide Regulation • United Parcel Service • California Department of Social Services

Relevant Experience • Consultant on a five-year financial and compliance audit of funds raised by the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board through the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (“Measure D”). Measure D was passed by Alameda County voters in 1990. Measure D established a surcharge on each ton of waste landfilled in the County. This audit is planned for two phases. We completed both Phase I and Phase II of the work, which includes Measure D compliance for the fiscal years of 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15, and 2015/16. Ms. Julien conducted on-site reviews of the 16 member agencies currently receiving Measure D funding. She reviewed jurisdictional Measure D reporting and conducted detailed testing of sampled transactions. She assessed whether program and services expenditures reported by jurisdictions where consistent with the “recycling” intent of Measure D. She determined beginning and ending Measure D fund balances for each jurisdiction. She assessed whether jurisdictions complied with specific Measure D reporting requirements and procedures (e.g., interest calculations). For Phase I, Ms. Julien reviewed Measure D compliance for a total of 15 non-profits receiving grant funds from the Board. She validated whether the Board correctly made Measure D distributions to each program area and to member agencies. She developed a report of our Phase I findings and recommendations, including process improvement for the allocation of Measure D funds to local jurisdictions. • Consultant on a five-year financial and compliance audit of funds raised by the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board through the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (“Measure D”). Measure D was passed by Alameda County voters in 1990. Measure D established a surcharge on each ton of waste landfilled in the County. We completed our review of the Measure D compliance for the five (5) fiscal years of 2006/07 through 2010/11.

A-22 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Ms. Julien conducted on-site reviews of the 16 member agencies receiving Measure D funding. She reviewed jurisdictional Measure D reporting and conducted detailed testing of sampled transactions. She assessed whether program and services expenditures reported by jurisdictions where consistent with the “recycling” intent of Measure D. She determined beginning and ending Measure D fund balances for each jurisdiction. She assessed whether jurisdictions complied with specific Measure D reporting requirements and procedures (e.g., interest calculations). In total, Ms. Julien reviewed Measure D compliance for a total of approximately 25 non-profits receiving grant funds from the Board. She also reviewed Recycling Board finances, examining revenues received from landfill surcharges, and expenditures by program area. She validated whether the Board correctly made Measure D distributions to each program area and to member agencies. She developed a report of our Phase I findings and recommendations, including process improvement for the allocation of Measure D funds to local jurisdictions. • Project Manager to perform the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2019 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. The cost survey initiated in February 2019, is a 17-month cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. A primary task is to determine the costs of recycling for approximately 550 certified recycling centers to include 300 processing fee sites and 250 handling fee sites. The costs will be utilized to calculate processing payments and handling fees to support recycling centers. Ms. Julien co-leads all aspects and phases of the project, including training, sample selection, team management, data analysis, reporting, and presenting results. • Consultant to perform the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) 2019 Cost Analysis. In support of the 2018-2022 California Carpet Stewardship Plan’s goal to achieve a 24 percent recycling rate, the six-month cost analysis, started in March 2019, was conducted as an economic study to evaluate the post-consumer carpet (PCC) subsidy and new carpet assessment levels. As part of the analysis, Crowe performed a cost survey to collect and analyze the weighted average costs to recycle PCC across 55 (out of 67) carpet collectors, processors, and manufacturers located in California and across the U.S. Additionally, Crowe analyzed CARE’s economic, cost conversion, financial, and subsidy justification models to provide a deep understanding of the connection between subsidy and assessment development. The results of the cost analysis were presented to CalRecycle and provided feasible recommendations for implementing immediate to long-term program improvements. • Consultant to perform the Hawaii Department of Health handling fee cost survey. This project, initiated in December 2017, was the first study of handling fees since the inception of Hawaii’s Deposit Beverage Container (DBC) Program enacted in 2002 by state law. This project was a large cost- accounting and analytical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques. The team performed on-site visits to nearly 70 recycler sites and analyzed two fiscal years of financial and operational data. This survey, utilizing our proven and successful methodology, provided the basis for determining recommended per container handling fees by material type, county, and processor/non-processor for Hawaii’s DBC program, as well as the Handling Fee Adjustment Model. • Project Manager to perform the CalRecycle 2017 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This project, initiated in February 2017, was a large cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. Ms. Julien co-led all aspects and phases of the project, including training, sample selection, team management, data analysis, reporting, and presenting results. The team performed on-site visits to 227 processing fee sites, 106 handling fee sites, and 72 curbside sorter sites (405 sites total). Ms. Julien served as a reviewer for 141 sites. Additionally, Ms. Julien visited a total of 10 PF/HF sites and 22 curbside sorter sites. • Consultant to perform the CalRecycle 2015 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This 14- month project, initiated in May 2015, was a large cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-23

techniques. We performed on-site visits to 413 sampled and census processing fee recycler sites, handling fee recycler sites, and processor sites. This survey, for the fifth time, included a calculation of the cost per container to recycle for two categories of California’s certified recycling centers. Ms. Julien performed over 20 site visits and related file completion, including processing fee, handling fee, and processor sites. In addition, she completed approximately 150 management file reviews and assisted in developing and conducting thirty hours of surveyor training. Ms. Julien was instrumental in analyzing survey data to create final reports and present cost survey data and results to CalRecycle stakeholders. • Consultant to perform the CalRecycle 2013 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This twelve-month project, completed in March 2014, was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling the technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. After participating in two weeks of classroom training, Ms. Julien visited over 83 randomly selected recycling centers certified by the state to handle California Redemption Value (CRV) beverage containers, conducting labor hour interviews at each site with site managers and owners, reviewing and confirming detailed financial records at each site for prior calendar year operations, and developing a detailed and structured file for each site that documents each site visit, labor interviews, and financial reviews. Ms. Julien captured much of the site information in a detailed cost model. She also developed a detailed and structured file for each recycling center visit that documents each site visit, labor interviews, and financial reviews. • Consultant to perform the CalRecycle 2011 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This eleven- month project, completed in May 2012, was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling the technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. After participating in two weeks of classroom training, Ms. Julien visited over 35 randomly selected recycling centers certified by the state to handle California Redemption Value (CRV) beverage containers, conducting labor hour interviews at each site with site managers and owners, reviewing and confirming detailed financial records at each site for prior calendar year operations, and developing a detailed and structured file for each site that documents each site visit, labor interviews, and financial reviews. Ms. Julien captured much of the site information in a detailed cost model. She also developed a detailed and structured file for each recycling center visit that documents each site visit, labor interviews, and financial reviews. • Consultant to perform the California Department of Conservation 2009 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This thirteen-month project, completed in March 2010, was a large cost-accounting and statistical challenge, rivaling the technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques, used by private industry. After participating in two weeks of classroom training, Ms. Julien visited over 100 randomly selected recycling centers certified by the state to handle California Redemption Value (CRV) beverage containers, conducting labor hour interviews at each site with site managers and owners, reviewing and confirming detailed financial records at each site for prior calendar year operations, and developing a detailed and structured file for each site that documents each site visit, labor interviews, and financial reviews. Ms. Julien captured much of the site information in a detailed cost model for these processing fee and handling fee surveys. She also developed a detailed and structured file for each recycling center visit that documents each site visit, labor interviews, and financial reviews. • Consultant to perform a general fund/reimbursement analysis to support the current California State Treasurer’s (STO) workload and staffing levels. Ms. Julien examined each Division’s current and forecasted workload and the relative alignment of this workload with the sources of funding (including general funding, or State agency and other methods for reimbursement). • Consultant to perform an analysis and evaluation of the California Energy Commission administered $314.5 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funded energy programs. The Commission engaged Crowe (Perry-Smith LLP) in May 2010 to provide program support to the Commission for the ARRA programs implemented by the Commission, over a multiple year period, and preparing a client final deliverable report, for the final deliverable. Her work included: (1) researching, analyzing, and evaluating ARRA expenditures, energy savings, and jobs creation data from disparate sources, including from the Commission, other states, and federal government, (2) consolidating the

A-24 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

data and information to assist with evaluating the effectiveness of the Commission’s ARRA programs, (3) comparing Commission ARRA program effectiveness with results she developed from the ten next most populous states, (4) developing findings and conclusions based on her research, and (5) preparing a draft final report to the client. Document the effectiveness of the Energy Commission’s ARRA energy programs, including energy program management effectiveness, subrecipient energy efficiency and jobs creation effectiveness, and recommendations for future Commission energy efficiency and financing programs. • Consultant to perform the California Public Utilities Commission’s Golden State Water Company Procurement and Contract Management Examination. She assisted the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on a large procurement and contract management examination of Golden State Water Company (GSWC). The GSWC is an investor-owned Class A water utility that provides water service to approximately 300,000 customers throughout California. The project is an examination, in accordance with AICPA rules, of GSWC procurement practices used for outside engineering and capital construction projects, that span twenty (20) years and over 33,760 contracts ($1.34 billion total contract value). Ms. Julien helped analyze exceptions found during the contract review process, reviewing over 1,200 GSW responses to the identified exceptions. • Consultant for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to provide assistance with product compliance feasibility study, pest management and licensing feasibility study, business process improvements, and program evaluation and development. She assisted with process documentation and improvements, and systems design and implementation, of the product compliance and mill assessment system (PCMAS). The PCMAS project will implement a comprehensive data capture, analysis, and reporting capability to support mill assessment (fee assessed on sales of pesticide in California), product compliance, auditing, legal support, mill disbursement, and recycling support. Ms. Julien also led efforts to document, and identify potential improvements to, pesticide enforcement processes that are primarily conducted by the 55 California Agricultural Commissioners statewide. She also led efforts to review and document DPR’s pesticide registration process, a mission critical business process. She assisted with developing improvements to the process, and preparing business requirements that the DPR can use to define enhanced and upgraded information technologies that support the registration process. • Consultant for the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development to provide business process reengineering services for the logbook redesign project. The objective of this reengineering project was to simplify and standardize Facilities Development Division’s (FDD’s) business processes. The OSHPD’s FDD reviews and approves construction documents and issues building permits for hospital and skilled nursing facility construction projects in California. This work involved over 240 authorized FDD positions performing numerous activities that generally fall within the following primary business processes: o Reviewing and approving construction documents submitted by hospital owners, and issuing a building permit o Reviewing projects under construction, reviewing inspection reports, and reviewing final project costs o Developing fire and life safety officers who are qualified to review hospital construction plans and projects o Reviewing proposed seismic retrofit plans and projects o Responding to natural disasters (e.g., an earthquake) to evaluate impacted health care facilities and support recovery efforts. Our project team developed detailed descriptions of current FDD business processes, evaluated extensive operational and business process performance data maintained by the FDD, and developed potential people, process, and technology improvement opportunities. We identified over 360 potential improvement recommendations, involving changes in policies, organization, processes, technology, management reporting, and methodology and tools. We then refined these recommendations and developed a document containing approximately 200 quick returns, or improvements that can be completed in less than three months and that are generally accepted by the FDD. We then conducted formal workshops with FDD management to prioritize the remaining 160 longer-term recommendations.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-25

Based on resources available to the FDD, we developed an implementation plan to implement the high priority improvement opportunities over the next three years. • Consultant to assist the South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority (El Dorado County, California, City of South Lake Tahoe, California, and Douglas County, Nevada), with a rate review of South Tahoe Refuse Company’s (STR’s) 2015 Base Year Rate Application. We conducted a comprehensive and detailed financial review of the company, with particular attention to the following cost items: (1) consumer price index adjustments, (2) benefit escalations provided to laborers, (3) hazardous materials disposal expense projections, (4) sale of equipment, (5) operating profit, (6) fuel cost increases/decreases, and (7) franchise fee adjustments. • Consultant to streamline several California Department of Social Services (CDSS) administrative business processes to: (1) improve organizational performance, (2) free up resources for redirection to critical functions not currently being performed, and (3) address new and existing requirements that are currently unmet. The business processes included approval/sign-off process for county letters and information notices, legislative review process, regulations development and review, Public Records Act (PRA) requests, and Internal Correspondence/ Memos and Executive Control Correspondence. For the selected business processes, we: (1) evaluated each process (and associated system, if applicable), (2) analyzed the strengths and improvement needs of each process, (3) identified barriers to process improvement, and (4) provided viable, actionable, and cost-effective improvement recommendations. Our project team identified process issues and root causes, quantified these process issues, identified objectives for improved processes, performed gap analyses, and developed a broad portfolio of process improvement recommendations. The CDSS management team asked our project team to help implement many of the recommendations, which we completed. The CDSS also asked our team to help improve their use of SharePoint technology already installed at the Department, which would significantly improve the management and coordination of several of the cross-Divisional business processes we reviewed.

A-26 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Aaron Coen

Aaron W. Coen [email protected] PMP – Manager www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Mr. Coen is a Manager in the Public Sector Group of Crowe, Services: and is located in our Sacramento office. He has ten years of • Economic and Financial Analysis experience working with the public sector in a variety of • Performance/Compliance Auditing capacities, including project management, financial analysis, • Strategic Planning performance audits, compliance audits, budgeting and policy • Regulatory Rate Setting • Cost Allocation development and implementation. Mr. Coen has worked on • Cost Estimating projects with the California Public Utilities Commission, • Project Management CalRecycle, California High-Speed Rail Authority, State • Policy Development Treasurer’s Office, National Science Foundation, Alameda • Business process benchmarking County, Contra Costa County, Butte County, the City of Martinez, Industries: City of Sacramento and LA Unified School District while working • Public Sector at Crowe. • Integrated Solid Waste Management • Refuse Recycling • Organics Recycling Professional and Industry Experience • Transportation • Utilities Since joining Crowe, Mr. Coen has specialized in performing a variety of performance and financial analyses with a focus on cost of service, rate setting, compliance, financial reporting and budgeting. Mr. Coen has extensive experience with budgeting, forecasting, strategic planning, integrated solid waste management, refuse recycling and organizational assesments.

Education & Certifications • Master of Business Administration, Finance o University of California, Davis • Bachelor of Art in Political Science o University of California, San Diego • Project Management Professional (PMP), Project Management Institute

Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge • Economic, Financial, and Statistical Analyses • Knowledge of Government Codes and and Studies California State Laws • Financial and Cost Accounting • Knowledge of Comprehensive Fee Analysis • Activity-Based Costing/ Cost Accounting • Knowledge of Cost Reporting • Large-Scale Survey Research

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-27

Representative Clients • California Department of Resources Recycling • California State Treasurer’s Office and Recovery • Various California Cities and Counties • California High-Speed Rail Authority • California Department of Healthcare Services • California Public Utilities Commission • Alameda County

Relevant Experience • Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board – Consultant on a Five Year Financial and Compliance Audit of funds raised through the Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (“Measure D”). Mr. Coen performed a detailed review of approximately ten member agencies’ (municipalities) compliance with requirements related to Measure D funds. The audit was divided into tasks. Each task had multiple subtasks, including scheduling and attending meetings, obtaining and reviewing financial statements and other appropriate supporting documentation, and evaluating compliance with various Measure D requirements. In addition to reviewing the appropriateness of the financial tracking and fund activities, Mr. Coen evaluated current Measure D processes and procedures, and identified opportunities for improvement. Finally, Mr. Coen reviewed and evaluated the Recycling Board’s achievement of performance metrics and made recommendations related to advancing diversion planning. • California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) – Consultant to perform the CalRecycle 2019 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys, currently being conducted by Crowe. Mr. Coen assisted with the sample design and selection and is conducting recycling center cost surveys and management reviews. He will also be involved in data analysis and reporting. • California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) – Consultant to perform the CalRecycle 2017 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This 14-month project is a large cost accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the- art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. We performed on-site visits to 413 sampled and census processing fee recycler sites, handling fee recycler sites, and processor sites. This survey, for the fifth time, included a calculation of the cost per container to recycle for two categories of California’s certified recycling centers. Mr. Coen performed approximately 50 site visits and related file completion. • California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) – Consultant to perform the CalRecycle 2015 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. This 14-month project, initiated in May 2015, was a large cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. We performed on-site visits to 414 sampled and census processing fee recycler sites, handling fee recycler sites, and processor sites. This survey, for the fifth time, included a calculation of the cost per container to recycle for two categories of California’s certified recycling centers. Mr. Coen performed 47 site visits and related file completion. He also developed the Access database used during the project to track site visit scheduling. • Various California Cities and Counties – Consultant to perform Solid Waste Rate Setting and Technical Assistance for Contra Costa County, Butte County, and the City of Martinez. Consultant on multiple projects to assist local authorities with rate setting for solid waste activities. Reviewed rate proposals from waste management companies for accuracy and reasonableness. Each project involved reviewing audited financial statements, detailed payroll records and other source documents to determine the reasonableness of the proposed rate increase for solid waste services. Developed a detailed report outlining the proposed rate increase and provided a recommendation to each local entity. • City of Sacramento – Consultant to conduct a performance audit in accordance with government auditing standards for the City of Sacramento Division of Waste Management. Mr. Coen was the lead on a team that reviewed the City of Sacramento’s contract with Republic Services for compliance with various aspects of the contract. Mr. Coen reviewed financial and operational information and performed onsite time studies of various processes required in the contract.

A-28 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• California High-Speed Rail Authority – Manager leading a team of approximately ten consulting staff providing budget and financial reporting consulting services to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Mr. Coen provided budget and financial reporting expertise consulting services to senior leadership at the Authority and mentored staff supporting the Authority’s budget and financial reporting function. Mr. Coen is also responsible for organization wide business process improvements with a focus on data management, which include data validation and research to reconcile multiple cost management systems and databases. • California State Treasurer’s Office – Consultant to develop a detailed financial model to determine the adequacy of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s (TCAC), a division of the California State Treasurer’s Office (STO), current user fee structure to continue to support its business operations. The model included TCAC’s direct and indirect costs, forecasts of TCAC revenues through fees, TCAC program costs, and associated TCAC fund balances over time. Mr. Coen conducted interviews with TCAC management and reviewed detailed financial, operational and historical program data to forecast the adequacy of the current user fee structure into the future. The project resulted in a detailed report that outlined the forecasts for TCAC’s user fee revenue and program costs and recommendations for TCAC’s user fee structure. • California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) – Consultant to conduct an independent management audit and deliver a formal report to California State Legislature, which mandated the assessment of the Transportation Enforcement Branch (TEB), located within the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC’s) Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division (CPED). TEB is responsible for the licensing and enforcement of approximately 11,000 transportation providers in the state and suffered from antiquated technology, cumbersome paper-based processes, inefficiencies, and limited resources. There was widespread awareness that the branch was struggling to meet its statutory mandates to protect consumers and ensure public safety on California’s roadways. Crowe was contracted to assess TEB's current state and provide recommendations for future state improvements. Mr. Coen performed business analysis regarding licensing and enforcement processes; diagramming as-is business processes and facilitating discussion sessions to obtain feedback; conducting staff and management interviews; conducting data analysis; reviewing documentation and artifacts; conducting a benchmarking analysis; interviewing 28 external stakeholders; interviewed 13 representatives from national transportation entities; synthesizing all research into a formal report; and delivering presentations to TEB staff, Commission advisors, and the Governor's office. In the report, Crowe identified 14 challenges/opportunities and made 29 recommendations for improvement, including many business process improvement and reengineering opportunities (especially in licensing and enforcement processes). TEB was able to use the results of Crowe's analysis to obtain funding and leadership support for the identified improvements. • California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) – Consultant to conduct an assessment on behalf of California Public Utilities Commission of NRG Inc. compliance with provisions contained in a Settlement Agreement between the State of California and NRG EVgo (now Vision Ridge) under AICPA rules. Reviewed NRG compliance with procurement and contracting policies and procedures of NRG/EVgo as well as requirements contained within the Settlement Agreement (e.g., sole source, single source, RFP/RFQ/RFI, pre-qualifications, evaluation). • California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) – Consultant to perform the CPUC examination of 46 telecommunication carriers to determine compliance with the California Universal Telecommunications Services public purpose program surcharges and PUC User Fees. Mr. Coen performed examinations of eight (8) carriers, which included a review of billing files, audited financial statements, tax returns and other source documentation to determine if the carrier complied with the requirement to assess, collect and remit surcharges and User Fees to the CPUC. • National Science Foundation – Consultant on multiple independent cost assessments (ICA) for multimillion-dollar budget proposals on behalf of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Analyzed cost estimate data, including labor and related costs required to meet NSF strategic objectives. Reported findings to NSF on cost estimates’ reasonableness based on staffing levels and other metrics. Presented recommendations to improve budget justifications and planning efforts.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-29

Tommy Abeyta

Tommy E. Abeyta [email protected] Senior Staff www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Mr. Abeyta is a Senior Staff member in the Public Sector Services Services: Group of Crowe, and he is located in our Sacramento office. Mr. • Economic and Financial Analysis Abeyta has worked on a number of industry related engagements • Labor and Cost Allocation from performing solid waste rate setting to recommending • Surveys and Data Analysis recycling benchmarks and best practices. Mr. Abeyta has ten (10) • Cost Estimating years of experience performing financial analysis with extensive • Budget Planning experience in pension funding and investment management • Project Management programs. Mr. Abeyta also has his Master’s in Business • Strategic Planning Administration, Finance. • Regulatory Rate Setting • Policy Development • Auditing • Business process benchmarking Professional and Industry Experience • Asset management Since joining Crowe, Mr. Abeyta has specialized in performing a Industries: variety of performance and financial analyses with a focus on • Public Sector labor, cost, funding, and budget planning. Mr. Abeyta was a • Transportation Consultant for the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health • Utilities Handling Fee Survey. Prior to working for Crowe, Mr. Abeyta • Financial Services worked at CalPERS as an Investment Officer where he specialized on fund allocation and liquidity analysis, cash management forecasting and reconciliation activities, interagency business continuity planning, and banking relationship and communication planning. Mr. Abeyta also specializes in financial reporting and policy frameworks, financial systems implementation design, organizational analysis, data analysis, program evaluation and performance auditing. Prior to joining CalPERS, Mr. Abeyta spent two years as a Senior Treasury Analyst at Aerojet Rocketdyne, a Sacramento-based defense and rocket manufacturing company, overseeing debt and cash management activities.

Education & Certifications • Master of Business Administration, Finance o University of California | Davis, California • Bachelor of Arts, English and Political Science o University of California | Santa Barbara, California

A-30 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge • Economic, Financial, and Statistical Analyses • Knowledge of AB 2020 and AB 939 and Studies Programs • Financial and Cost Accounting • Knowledge of Recycling Economics and • Activity-Based Costing/ Cost Accounting Business Operations • Large-Scale Survey Research • Knowledge of Handling Fees, Processing Fees and Processing Payments • Staff Training • Knowledge of Convenience Zones and • Financial Auditing and Agreed Upon Procedures Handling Fees • Experience with Resistant Participants • Experience Conducting Research

Representative Clients • Hawaii Department of Health • California State Controller’s Office • California Department of Resources Recycling • California State Treasurer’s Office and Recovery • California Counties: El Dorado, Butte, • Carpet America Recovery Effort Yuba, Sutter • California Public Employees’ • National Science Foundation Retirement System • California Department of Transportation

Relevant Experience • Consultant to perform the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2019 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. The cost survey initiated in February 2019, is a 17-month cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. A primary task is to determine the costs of recycling for approximately 550 certified recycling centers to include 300 processing fee sites and 250 handling fee sites. The costs will be utilized to calculate processing payments and handling fees to support recycling centers. Additionally, Mr. Abeyta leads survey teams to conduct financial and labor reviews, complete files, perform quality controls, perform site tours, and other project-related activities. • Consultant to perform the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) 2019 Cost Analysis. In support of the 2018-2022 California Carpet Stewardship Plan’s goal to achieve a 24 percent recycling rate, the six-month cost analysis, started in March 2019, was conducted as an economic study to evaluate the post-consumer carpet (PCC) subsidy and new carpet assessment levels. As part of the analysis, Crowe performed a cost survey to collect and analyze the weighted average costs to recycle PCC across 55 (out of 67) carpet collectors, processors, and manufacturers located in California and across the U.S. Additionally, Crowe analyzed CARE’s economic, cost conversion, financial, and subsidy justification models to provide a deep understanding of the connection between subsidy and assessment development. The results of the cost analysis were presented to CalRecycle and provided feasible recommendations for implementing immediate to long-term program improvements. • Consultant to perform the Hawaii Department of Health handling fee cost survey. This project, initiated in December 2017, was the first study of handling fees since the inception of Hawaii’s Deposit Beverage Container (DBC) Program enacted in 2002 by state law. This project was a large cost-accounting and analytical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques. The team performed on-site visits to nearly 70 recycler sites and analyzed two fiscal years of financial and operational data. This survey, utilizing our proven and successful methodology, provided the basis for determining recommended per container handling fees by material type, county, and processor/non-processor for Hawaii’s DBC program, as well as the Handling Fee Adjustment Model.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-31

• Consultant to perform the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2017 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys, a large cost-accounting engagement incorporating activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. Mr. Abeyta conducted 8 on-site visits, including 2 handling fee recycler sites and 6 curbside sorter sites. Mr. Abeyta completed related site files to determine the cost per container to recycle based on cost allocation analyses for California’s certified recycling centers. Mr. Abeyta received extensive training to conduct financial and labor reviews, complete files, perform quality controls, perform site tours, and conduct other project-related activities. • Consultant to design the annual risk assessment for the Risk Management Division within the Financial Office at CalPERS. Conducted enterprise-wide surveys with Division leaders and upper management to obtain an understanding of CalPERS’ risk appetite. Designed risk intelligence reporting framework using the information gathered from surveying the enterprise. Reported on recommendations to mitigate risks, such as pension funding status (and its implication to the discount rate), employer bankruptcy issues, pension fraud and emergency issues, such as natural disasters. • Consultant to develop two Board approved policies for the Treasury Management Program at CalPERS: (1) Treasury Management Policy and (2) Treasury Management Reserve Policy. Interviewed and facilitated meetings with CalPERS CFO, CIOO, Controller and other enterprise stakeholders to develop two policy documents specifying the governance framework for the Treasury Management Program. Developed the Treasury Management Policy, which defined roles and responsibilities throughout the enterprise to ensure the payment of member benefits regardless of financial or economic conditions. Developed the Treasury Management Reserve Policy that identified reserves for the PERF and Affiliates in order to mitigate funding risk. • Consultant to perform independent cost assessments (ICA) on multimillion-dollar budget proposals on behalf of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Analyzed cost estimate data, including labor and related costs required to meet NSF strategic objectives. Reported findings to NSF on cost estimates’ reasonableness based on staffing levels and other metrics. Presented recommendations to improve budget justifications and planning efforts. • Consultant to perform budget and funding prioritization planning for the California Department of Transportation, Division of Maintenance. Assessed funding sources and cost allocations for the maintenance of nearly 400 transportation related facilities. Developed prioritization metrics to optimize funding sources and to meet facilities’ needs based on criticality and condition. • Consult to conduct solid waste management rate analyses for Butte, Yuba-Sutter, and El Dorado Counties. Performed data analysis on costs associated with providing waste management services. Recommended rate adjustments based on cost allocation analyses. • Consultant to mobilize the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) CFO, CIOO, Controller to agree on multi-million dollar reserve plans for the Long Term Care Fund (LTCF) and the Legislators’ Retirement Fund (LRF). Performed complex investment and financial analysis to determine appropriate funding levels needed for the LTCF and LRF given each funds’ expected cash and investment activities. Assessed different securities and fund profiles to hold LTCF and LRF reserves. Presented findings at the Enterprise Treasury Team (ETT) meeting and, in April 2017, the Board approved both reserves for the LTCF and LRF. • Consultant to perform a general fund/reimbursement analysis to support the current California State Treasurer’s (STO) workload and staffing levels. We examined each Division’s current and forecasted workload and the relative alignment of this workload with the sources of funding (including general funding, or State agency and other methods for reimbursement). • Consultant to promote liquidity management best practices between the Financial and Investment Offices at CalPERS. Developed guidelines and processes that ensured the enterprise could meet its $1.8 billion monthly pension obligation regardless of financial market conditions. Met with team members from Asset Allocation, Risk, and Operations teams to monitor, manage, and execute liquidity thresholds for the PERF and Affiliate funds.

A-32 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• Consultant to develop a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) for CalPERS. Worked with stakeholders throughout the enterprise to define critical business processes that needed to function in the event of financial or natural disaster crises. Met with State Controllers’ Office (SCO) and State Treasurers’ Office (STO) to document each agencies’ respective BCP in order to evaluate gaps within their processes with the end goal of ensuring CalPERS could meet its $1.8 billion monthly payment of member benefits. • Consultant to manage the implementation of Kyriba, a treasury and cash management solution, at CalPERS. Developed technical requirements, risk management, strategy and budget planning for the Kyriba implementation project. Analyzed legacy cash management and forecasting processes and revamped these processes to function in Kyriba. Updated desktop procedures for team members to use post implementation to process daily cash positioning for the PERF and Affiliates. Trained CalPERS team members in the Treasury Management Section on daily cash positioning, monthly forecasting and creating management reports for the PERF and Affiliates within Kyriba. • Consultant to manage the implementation of Sungard XE, a treasury/cash management/debt management solution at Aerojet Rocketdyne. Analyzed legacy cash and debt management processes and revamped these processes to function in Sungard XE. Developed desktop procedures on daily cash and debt management processes. Trained team members on desktop procedures post implementation to manage the company’s $500+ million in cash and $2 billion in debt. • Consultant to develop the Board of Administration reporting framework for the Treasury Management Section within the Financial Office at CalPERS. Managed deadlines, risks and other critical components. Developed a reporting framework that illustrated the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (PERF) and Affiliate Funds’ (Affiliates) liquidity health during normal, stressed and crisis scenarios. This report applied a Basel III liquidity metric, called the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), which indicated whether the PERF and Affiliate funds maintained enough liquidity to meet their operational needs. Presented reporting framework to CFO, CIOO, Controller and other enterprise stakeholders.

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-33

Jason Chan

Jason K. Chan [email protected] Senior Staff www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Mr. Chan is a Senior Staff member in the Public Sector Services Services: Group of Crowe, and is located in our Sacramento office. Mr. • Business Process Improvement Chan has eight (8) years of experience working on a variety of • Data Analysis public sector engagements including business process • Business Analysis reengineering, cost surveys, decision-support tool development, • Grant Management • Project Management to managing multi-million dollar grants for major California • Data Management agencies. Mr. Chan has a Bachelor’s Degree in Plant Sciences. • Budget Management • Financial Accounting • Financial Analysis Professional and Industry Experience • Financial Reporting Mr. Chan recently joined Crowe from public sector and he brings • Financial Forecasting • Strategic Planning extensive experience in succesfully developing and • Management Consulting implementing large-scale business process reengineering • Cost Allocation projects at California Department of Food and Agriculture. In the • Auditing short time with Crowe, he has made notable public sector contributions that has helped several agencies overcome Industries: challenges and meet their strategic goals. Mr. Chan has • Public Sector demonstrated success in providing proactive solutions to ensure • Financial Services continued acheivement of mission-critical tasks. The experience • Technology, Media and Mr. Chan gathered from his high-value accomplishments are Communications maximized with each client.

Education & Certifications • Bachelor of Science, Plant Sciences o University of California | Santa Cruz, California • UC Davis Executive Leadership Program o University of California Cooperative Extension | Sacramento, California

A-34 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge • Large-Scale Business Process Improvement • Regulatory Compliance • Adaptive Project Management • Cost Allocation • Data Management, Analysis, and Modeling • Cost and Trend Analysis • Business Analysis and Modeling • Auditing • Quantitative Research • Business Intelligence • Budget Planning • Performance Review and Benchmarking • Strategic Planning • Task Management • Quality Assurance • FI$CAL and CALSTARS • Large-Scale Training • CA State Administrative Manual • Change Management • CA State Contracting Manual • Management Consulting • CA State Budget Process • Financial Analysis, Reporting, and Forecasting • Microsoft Excel, PowerBI

Representative Clients • California Department of Resources Recycling • California Department of Food and and Recovery Agriculture • Carpet America Recovery Effort • California Citrus Pest and Disease • California Public Utilities Commission Prevention Committee • California Department of Transportation • United States Department of Agriculture • California Department of Parks and Recreation • Los Angeles County

Relevant Experience • Consultant to perform the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2019 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. The cost survey initiated in February 2019, is a 17-month cost-accounting and statistical engagement, incorporating technical requirements of state-of-the-art, activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. A primary task is to determine the costs of recycling for approximately 550 certified recycling centers to include 300 processing fee sites and 250 handling fee sites. The costs will be utilized to calculate processing payments and handling fees to support recycling centers. Additionally, Mr. Chan received extensive training to conduct financial and labor reviews, complete files, perform quality controls, perform site tours, and other project-related activities. • Consultant to perform the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) 2019 Cost Analysis. In support of the 2018-2022 California Carpet Stewardship Plan’s goal to achieve a 24 percent recycling rate, the six-month cost analysis, started in March 2019, was conducted as an economic study to evaluate the post-consumer carpet (PCC) subsidy and new carpet assessment levels. As part of the analysis, Crowe performed a cost survey to collect and analyze the weighted average costs to recycle PCC across 55 (out of 67) carpet collectors, processors, and manufacturers located in California and across the U.S. Additionally, Crowe analyzed CARE’s economic, cost conversion, financial, and subsidy justification models to provide a deep understanding of the connection between subsidy and assessment development. The results of the cost analysis were presented to CalRecycle and provided feasible recommendations for implementing immediate to long-term program improvements. • Consultant to perform a compliance exam of Golden State Water Company (GSWC), a southern California-based public utilities company, under the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In order to comply with the Settlement Agreement between GSWC and CPUC, a third-party firm was required to perform a review of GSWC’s procurement process against CPUC’s General Orders and Standard Practice, as well as standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Mr. Chan was heavily involved with the initial data gathering, validation, and analysis prior to testing, which involved over 250 rate-funded procurement contracts. Additionally, he

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-35

was the primary consultant to configure and perform user acceptance testing of the web-based review system used to track and report the team’s testing process. During the testing phase, Mr. Chan cumulatively reviewed over $20 million in procurement contracts. Throughout this process, several material findings were identified and documented by Mr. Chan. Additionally, Mr. Chan supported the development of the independent accountant’s report. • Consultant to develop the Transported Related Facilities (TRF) Preservation and Repair Implementation Plan for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Plan outlined how available data, performance measures, facility demands, and decision-support tools came together to implement an asset management framework that supports the Caltrans’ TRF planning and budgeting activities. The plan’s framework was built by using strategic concepts from the State Highway System Management Plan and the California Transportation Asset Management Plan. Mr. Chan’s focus was on TRF future demands, funding impact analysis, and the communication plan. Future demands involved researching California government sustainability targets and providing feasible recommendations to reach them. The funding impact analysis involved scenario analyses to illustrate the impact to performance targets through various ways of applying the available $150 million in capital funding. The communication plan served as a path forward for Caltrans to implement the preservation and repair plan for the next 10 years. Upon submission of the final plan, Caltrans management was relieved that they now have a tool to maximize millions in funding in the coming years. • Consultant to develop performance metrics for California Department of Parks and Recreation’s (CDPR) Aquatic Invasive Plant Control Program (AIPCP) to assist in evaluating, revising, refining, improving treatment alternatives, measurements, monitoring, and overall AIPCP operations. This was accomplished by building a framework to evaluate existing and developing new treatment and measurement protocols, including development of infestation thresholds, and refining environmental monitoring protocols and plans. To support these efforts, Mr. Chan performed a multi-state survey of best management practices of aquatic invasive plant control programs, led brainstorming sessions with CDPR and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) subject matter experts, determined data requirements including a gap analysis, and provided recommendations on feasible implementation steps. The newly developed performance metrics are expected to add significant value to AIPCP by informing operations and adaptive management. • Consultant to restructure and improve legacy business workflow for California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). In order to comply with federal audit requirements, the department needed large-scale business improvements of dated processes for managing a $70 million program supporting 600 staff. This required upgrading the expenditure and project tracking system for over 80 dynamic projects related to pest detection, eradication, suppression and biological control. Mr. Chan managed all phases of the business improvement project including background research, identifying stakeholders, requirements gathering and analysis, identifying potential solutions, defining the scope, staff training and change management, implementation, evaluation and maintenance. This resulted in saving millions in audit costs annually and greatly improved overall management of the state’s largest pest detection network. Upon the exit interview of a later audit, federal auditors, executive management, division directors and branch chiefs across CDFA congratulated Mr. Chan for the extraordinary success. • Consultant to manage the digital conversion of a legacy field data collection and tracking system for CDFA and Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (LA CAC). Prior to conversion, CDFA and its 50 funded counties manually track field data with outdated methods organized in large physical binders. In preparation for a statewide process conversion, the first phase was to digitize the 500,000+ paper records to build an inventory of pest detection sites (pest trap locations). The second phase was led by LA CAC who led the development portion to create a mobile application to capture field data in a digital format. Mr. Chan managed Phase I of the project through planning, development of self-validating data templates, training and managing multiple data centers with over 15 staff, and coordination of transferring high-quality quantitative data to LA CAC’s Deputy Agricultural Commissioner and their GIS team. The average error rate prior to Mr. Chan’s implementation of validation procedures was nearly 20%, which reduced to an average of less than 1%.

A-36 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

• Consultant to develop and implement a project tracking system for CDFA. Prior to this system, CDFA lacked a unique coding system for identifying individual projects, which caused the inability to report activities and expenditures at the project-level. Through numerous brainstorming sessions with upper management, subject matter experts, and field staff, a new system was implemented. Utilizing CDFA’s Pest and Damage Record (PDR) system along with institutional knowledge of key field activities, Mr. Chan developed the Project-Activity-Code system that allowed CDFA to change from reporting at the grant-level down to the project-activity level. This represented two additional layers of detail that resulted in the Department’s ability to track and report activities to a level that satisfied their many stakeholders. The additional detail also enabled the Department the ability to perform valuable cost- benefit analysis by linking project-activity-location expense detail with spatial data from area-wide pesticide applications. • Consultant to manage $30 million in federal, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Center for Plant Heath Science and Technology (CHPST)) grants for CDFA. Mr. Chan served as the funding liaison between the federal and state agencies and ensured compliance with the scope of work and budget through activity and expenditure tracking of over 20 grants. Mr. Chan ensured state match relating to emergency projects caused by introductions of federal A-rated pests. Additionally, a system to track supporting documentation and multi-million dollar reimbursement requests were developed. This resulted in continuity of federal funds each year. • Consultant to manage pest survey data for CDFA, which were required to go into the federal Integrated Plant Heath Information System (IPHIS) database as part of grant compliance. The monitoring data from pen and paper methods were systematically entered into the federally approved database by a team of data entry staff managed by Mr. Chan. Training and quality assurance measures to ensure data integrity were implemented. The uploaded data experienced a 25% error rate prior to implementing data quality assurance measures. The error rate was reduced to less than 1.5%, which were able to be corrected through GIS analysis. Mr. Chan also managed the internal database for the branch’s recorded exotic pest monitoring data. • Consultant using strategic accounting management to save $1 million per year in excessive indirect costs for both CDFA and California Citrus Pest and Disease Prevention Committee (CA CPDPC). Mr. Chan performed analysis of costs and federal regulations to advise executive management on a new allocation method for the Statewide Cost Allocation Plan (SWCAP) and departmental indirect. The new indirect allocation method became the new standard across all projects involving federal funds saving an average amount equaling 30% of all personnel expenditures, which was cumulatively over $1 million per year across all federal funded projects. This new method freed up existing resources. This increased the direct to indirect cost ratio, increasing the value of all projects at the program-level. This improvement also resulted in a more defensible level of CA CPDPC pro rata, which has been a historical issue among appointed committee members. Overall, this improved the ability for CDFA and CA CPDPC to protect the state’s $3.3 billion citrus industry. • Consultant to develop and implement a process to dynamically allocate expenditures in temporary general fund holding accounts on a monthly basis for CDFA. Each month, $2 to $4 million in expenditures were allocated/distributed resulting in 50,000 to 75,000 transaction lines of financial data (50 – 75% of all CDFA transactions) processed. Mr. Chan collaborated with upper management between CDFA programs and the Financial Services Branch. Workload increased in order to keep up with the necessary monthly allocations. Staffing requirements were analyzed as part of this process. Additionally, Mr. Chan developed business ‘desks’ for administrative and finance staff to ensure monthly accounting results were reliable and consistent. • Consultant to develop and implement the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance financial statement structure and process for CDFA and CA CPDPC. A legacy structure lacked the capability to properly display the financial status of the $40 million program protecting the $3.3 billion citrus industry. Mr. Chan performed extensive research and interviews with executive management, administrative, and finance staff. Mr. Chan gave a recommendation on the structure based on alignment to Department objectives. The new display achieved a unanimous vote among all

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-37

the committee members upon a public presentation during a year-end conference. The new financial statement structure has been the standard since 2013. • Consultant for emergency fund budget projections for CDFA, which are necessitated due to the need to respond to exotic invasive pest introductions. Historical trends were analyzed, work-load analysis was performed, budgets were developed using a timeline based on pest lifecycles generated from degree-day modeling. A very similar model was adopted by the USDA for providing cost-matching federal funds. Mr. Chan collaborated with the primary state entomologist and the Chief Operations Officer (COO) to gather both scientific and logistical aspects of the proposed projects. Mr. Chan defended the resource needs of each project in front of the Department’s emergency fund committee chaired by top leaders from each division along with a representative from the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA). The funding is limited so therefore it is competitive among all CDFA divisions, only the most urgent and well-defended budgets were funded. An average of $2 to $5 million dollars, representing the majority available, of emergency funds per year were issued for rapid response. • Consultant to perform the cost and trend analysis for a successful $4.4 million Budget Change Proposal (BCP) resulting in 177 permanent state positions for CDFA. Mr. Chan projected the annual funding needs of both converting seasonal staff and adding new permanent full-time positions. Research was performed involving population growth dynamics focusing in high-risk areas, international travel through California, agricultural crop value and production, state border agricultural inspection station interceptions, number of emergency staff overtime hours, and numbers of seasonal staff with five nine-month seasons or more. These related to risk factors and metrics relating to exotic pest introductions were compared to actual numbers of emergency eradication projects over a five- year period. The risk factors and number of eradication projects showed an ever-increasing trend while the funding level that represented agricultural protection remained almost entirely consistent. Comparing these with a rolling percent change, Department of Finance (DOF) analysts were convinced to give their funding recommendation to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) and eventually made it into the 17-18 Governor’s Budget. • Consultant to develop a modified projection model for CDFA’s mid-year budget drills. A modified method was needed to address weaknesses relating to a cash-based accounting system paired with unique expenditure lags and the dynamic nature of emergency project expenditures. Mr. Chan developed an expense sub-category lag factor and modified projection model that the department’s Financial Services Branch later adopted. The model involved deep knowledge of the interface between operational challenges and the resulting financial data. Each expense category were broken down into units that aligned with operational needs and allowed for a more refined expenditure lag detail to be captured. A projection model was built from this information. This new method allowed analysis of thousands of lines of financial data within a few days, saving weeks of staff time each year and meeting critical annual milestones.

A-38 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Kenneth Smith

Kenneth Smith [email protected] Staff www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Mr. Smith is a Staff member in Crowe’s Public Sector Consulting Services: Group, and is located in our Sacramento office. Mr. Smith has • Survey Design two (2) years of experience in financial, statistical analysis, cost • Cost and Funding Analysis surveys, and solid waste rate reviews. As a former teacher, he is • Financial Planning & Analysis a versatile communicator adept with writing, proofreading, and • Statistical Modeling & Analysis • Business Analysis public speaking. • Data Analysis

Professional and Industry Experience Industries: • Public Sector At Crowe, Mr. Smith has focused on projects for solid waste and • Solid Waste and Recycling recycling clients, e.g., waste hauler rate setting, transfer station • Electric Vehicles financing, and a recycling cost survey. During his MBA program, Mr. Smith completed projects for public and private sector entities involving succession planning, investment strategy, statistical analysis, and financial analysis. Prior to joining Crowe, Mr. Smith taught music and math for four years in the Roseville area.

Education • Master of Business Administration o University of California | Davis, California • Single Subject Teaching Credentials in Music and Math o California State University, Northridge | Northridge, California • Bachelor of Music Education o California State University, Sacramento | Sacramento, California

Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge • Knowledge of Solid Waste and Recycling • Quantitative and Qualitative Research Economics and Business Operations • Microsoft Excel • Economic and Financial Analysis • Project Management • Statistical Analysis, Modeling, and Forecasting • Experience with Resistant Participants

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-39

Representative Clients • California Department of Resources Recycling • Contra Costa County and Recovery (CalRecycle) • Cities of Coachella and Indio JPA • California Public Utilities Commission

Relevant Experience

• Consultant to perform the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2019 processing fee and handling fee cost surveys. The cost survey is a 17-month cost- accounting and statistical engagement incorporating state-of-the-art activity-based costing techniques and statistical survey techniques. A primary task is to determine the costs of recycling for approximately 550 certified recycling centers to include 300 processing fee sites and 250 handling fee sites. The costs will be utilized to calculate processing payments and handling fees to support recycling centers. Additionally, Mr. Smith received extensive training to conduct financial and labor reviews, complete files, perform quality controls, perform site tours, and other project-related activities.

• Consultant to research and recommend public and private financing options for a transfer station feasibility study conducted for the Joint Powers Authority of the Cities of Coachella and Indio. While Mr. Smith was primarily responsible for recommending public and private financing options for the transfer station project, he also assisted in the development of a financial model to forecast potential future cash flows related to the financing, construction, and operation of a new transfer station. The preliminary construction cost estimate of $16.6 million included potential land acquisition, design, permitting, construction, and equipment costs. It also included an estimate of the future transfer station cost per ton of material, based on a forecast of future annual waste tonnage, allowing the JPA to easily compare the cost of operating its current transfer station with the cost of constructing a new transfer station.

• Consultant to conduct solid waste management rate analyses for various waste haulers in Contra Costa County. Performed data analysis on costs associated with providing waste management services. Recommended rate adjustments based on cost allocation analyses.

• Consultant to perform NRG Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Settlement compliance examination for the California Public Utilities Commission. As part of a settlement agreement related to the 2001 California energy crisis, NRG spent $100 million on electric vehicle charging stations, research, technology demonstrations, and infrastructure. A primary task is to survey randomly sampled charging stations to determine whether they comply with settlement requirements, e.g., location, site host type, installed equipment. Mr. Smith is responsible for coordinating the site survey portion of the project, including scheduling meetings and trainings, verifying client file submissions, selecting a sample of charging stations to survey, designing a site survey schedule, and communicating with clients and subcontractors.

A-40 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

Brandon Williams

Brandon Williams [email protected] Staff www.crowe.com

Profile Client Focus Mr. Williams is an Staff Consultant in Crowe’s Public Sector Services: Services Consulting Group, located in the Sacramento office. He • Financial Reporting has three (3) years of professional experience working in internal • Financial Analysis and external audit, financial reporting and financial consulting. • Data Gathering • Site Inspections • Internal Audit Professional and Industry Experience Industries: Brandon has a background in internal audit and public sector • Financial Services management consulting. Prior to joining Crowe as a full-time • Healthcare • Public Sector consultant, he worked as an intern for Crowe, and as a • Resources Management consultant for a Big 4 accounting consulting firm.

Education & Certifications • Bachelor of Science, Finance o San Diego State University | San Diego, California • Master of Science, Finance (Graduation date: 2022) o Georgetown University | Washington, D.C.

Technical Skills and Programmatic Knowledge • Knowledge of Solid Waste and Recycling • Quantitative and Qualitative Research Economics and Business Operations • Microsoft Excel • Economic and Financial Analysis • Financial Reporting • Financial and Compliance Auditing • Solid Waste Rate Analysis

Client Listing • Consultant to perform financial reporting for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Mr. Williams prepared financial HSR Board reports from raw data, developed new financial and analytical models, reviewed, analyzed and edited financial Board reports, improved documentation processes and procedures, and provided project support to upper-level management. These reports provided Board members with important decision-making information regarding the HSR project status, cost, budget, funding, and accounting. • Consultant to perform the rate application assessment for the South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority. Mr. Williams assessed the rate application to determine it was mathematically accurate and logically consistent, verified that the application complied with the terms

Five Year Financial Compliance Audit A-41

and conditions of a rate setting manual, assessed supporting data, worksheets, and documentation, obtained and reviewed support for landfill disposal tonnage and the assumptions used to project future tonnage and tipping fees. He prepared draft and final reports for use by the South Lake Tahoe Basin Waste Management Authority. • Consultant to perform NRG Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Settlement compliance examination for the California Public Utilities Commission. As part of a settlement agreement related to the 2001 California energy crisis, NRG spent $100 million on electric vehicle charging stations, research, technology demonstrations, and infrastructure. A primary task is to survey randomly sampled charging stations to determine whether they comply with settlement requirements, e.g., location, site host type, installed equipment. Mr. Williams is currently inspecting and preparing documentation of findings of various public and multi-family/commercial electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and make ready stubs throughout the State to determine compliance. • Consultant to provide finance, integrated waste management, and compliance auditing support for various State of California Clients.

A-42 Resumes Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board

[This page intentionally left blank.]