1. Presentation to California Integrated Waste Management Board A Review of Program Performance — Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Technology Centers Presented by Marianne P. Evashenk, Partner

2. Summary of Center Performance The two centers, Southern—administered by Los Angeles County, and Northern— administered by Sacramento County generally have complied with the majority of provisions of their contracts with the Board. Generally, the two Centers:  Respond effectively to inquiries from local public agencies  Attend public workshops, make presentations, and exhibit at trade shows  Developed attractive and useful educational and informational materials  Designed, implemented, and maintain a RAC website  Operate toll-free “hot lines” and satisfactorily respond to inquiries Our survey of local transportation agencies disclosed that most of these officials know about the RAC product and its uses. Some of these individuals know of the existence of the Technology Centers; but few knew what services the Centers offer.

3. However, we found that the Centers, as currently configured and operating, have limited effectiveness. Specifically we found:  Both Centers operate in a reactive mode  Neither Center developed targeted, proactive RAC outreach programs or protocols  Incentive programs administered through the Southern Technology Center are largely unknown and underutilized.  While staff at both Centers possess expertise and experience in RAC use and projects, staff work on Technology Center activities infrequently—on an “ as needed” basis— their principal attention resides with duties related to their county positions.  Although contract provisions require the development of performance measures or processes to assess and report center effectiveness, these measures have not been developed—Centers report to the Board using labor hours and some antidotal information regarding activities.  Weak coordination and collaboration between the two Centers and that information dissemination can sometimes be inconsistent.  Little if any coordination exists between the Centers and Caltrans—thus, not allowing Centers to seize opportunities to leverage and coordinate projects and materials, thus losing potential to lower RAC costs and availability..

4. Performance Factors Outside Center Control  Widespread perception that RAC is experimental, unproven, and more expensive than Conventional Concrete Asphalt.  Actual significant RAC cost differential between Northern and Southern California regions.  RAC is not readily available in many areas of the State outside of Southern California.  Incentive programs are underutilized—it is unclear whether underutilization is due to lack of publicity, insufficient rebate amounts, or project engineering certification requirements—or all three.  Recycling of California waste tires may not be maximized as it is reported that many crumb rubber producers are using imported tires rather than California tires to make RAC.

5. Conclusions  The Centers are reactive in nature, providing services as requested rather than on a pro- active basis.  Our survey reveals that over the years the Centers have developed valuable collateral information and have provided quality services to local agencies and stakeholders.  The current contractual organizational structure imbedding the Centers into county operations is not working as intended; Counties have not dedicated the appropriate amount of staff time, attention, and resources to fulfill the intent of the programs.  Overall, under the current structure, the Centers have limited effectiveness and are unlikely to meet the Board’s mission and expectations for the programs.

6. Recommendations  Consider alternative methods for delivering local agency RAC programs.  Utilize the assets already attained, but enhance the use of the resources—for example: Continue operating the Centers at a reduced level, but maintain only certain of the existing services such the RAC Website, toll-free hotline and email communications, distribution of collateral materials, and expert consulting on an as-requested basis. Contract for or hire one full-time retired public works manager or industry expert to: Develop a proactive program to market RAC; Coordinate and conduct demonstration projects at the local level to demonstrate RAC effectiveness; Build partnerships with Caltrans to leverage resources and opportunities; and, To conduct aggressive outreach programs to users and local government decision- makers.  Alternatively, one or both Centers may continue and the Board could amend the contracts to require a full-time dedicated individual (limited term appointment, retired annuitant, contractor) to fully develop and deliver RAC programs.

7. Recommendations—Continued  Another approach is for the Board to absorb the functions of the Centers and hire or contract for one full-time individual, either with background at the local agency level or an industry expert, to develop, administer, and deliver the RAC programs. Further, the operations of the Technology Centers can be improved—future contracts should include stronger and more detailed performance requirements to:  Develop an overall strategic plan for each Center that includes specific goals and objectives and detailed action plans.  Establish clear performance measures and reporting requirements to track progress and measure results. The measures should include baseline information attained from the database under development to track RAC projects and usage.  Require greater staff commitment to the Centers and consider alternative staffing modes such as limited term appointments from the County position, limited-term hiring, retired annuitant, or contractor.  Develop additional outreach materials such as electronic newsletters or email updates. Additionally, the Board should work with the Centers to develop a collaborative relationship with Caltrans and to ensure continuity between the two center locations.