SWAC – Agenda 3/12/19 Introduction / Approval of Minutes

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation 1 Transportation Funding and Improving Roadway Services Delivery Transportation Advisory Commission.
Advertisements

County of Fairfax, Virginia Alternatives for Improving Roadway Services in Fairfax County Board Transportation Committee Meeting March 1, 2011 Department.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Review and Discussion of Draft Scope of Work for Study of Issues Associated with Increasing Transportation.
Introduction to Concurrency Management. What is Concurrency? Chapter , F.S. requires Comprehensive Plans to adopt a concurrency management system,
Calista AVCP Regional Energy Plan. Preliminary Planning and Stakeholder Involvement Resource Inventory and Data Analysis Develop and Review Draft Energy.
Barnstable County Commissioners Summary Report Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives Analysis April 7, 2010.
January 20 th, BudgetActual% YTDChange from prior year Ad Valorem Taxes $ 36,469,256$ 27,782, %$ 1,020,143 Sales Taxes 10,781,313 2,638,615.
Zero Waste Operational Plan Policy & Services Committee 3/13/2007.
Solid Waste Systems Planning Develop Scenarios for future Solid Waste Management Create a review process for the TAC Organize the Subgroup proposals to.
KY Dept. for Environmental Protection 2013 – 2017 Five Year Update KY Division of Waste Management Statewide Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Workshop.
1 Waste Tire Program Utilities Department Orange County Board of County Commissioners March 8, 2011.
Triennial Plan 2: Legal Framework. About Us  Efficiency Maine is an independent trust – Accounts and administrative responsibilities transferred from.
Funding Discussion State of Vermont Solid Waste Management Districts and State Programs.
Organics Policy Roadmap  Sub-directive 6.1: 50% reduction of organics in waste stream by 2020  Need additional capacity to process 15 million tons per.
A Comparison of Estimated Costs of Waste Disposal Options Is there a Future for Waste-to-Energy? Jeffrey F. Clunie R. W. Beck, Inc. N O V E M B E R 2 0.
Presented by: Pechanga Environmental Department Designing and Managing a Recycling Program Source Reduction Strategies for Tribal Solid Waste Programs.
Roadmap to a Sustainable Waste Management Future Waste Diversion Strategies in the Unincorporated Communities of Los Angeles County Throughout the Region.
TRP Chapter Chapter 5.4 Facility development.
Utilities Department Solid Waste System Tipping Fees November 11, 2008.
February 2, 2011 Joe Yew City of Oakland California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission Debt 2: Accessing the Market Debt Policy and Plan of Finance.
Utilities Department Solid Waste Transfer Station Update December 1, 2009.
Icfi.com © 2006 ICF International. All rights reserved. Wyoming Collector and Transmission System Project – Status Report Presented to: Wyoming Infrastructure.
Defeasance of the Solid Waste System Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 2003 Orange County Board of County Commissioners Meeting September 18, 2007 Defeasance.
ALACHUA COUNTY COMMISSION QUARTERLY RETREAT ENERGY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION BY THE ALACHUA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY.
March 2003 Focused Workshop on the Informal Draft Revised Disposal Reporting System Regulations Session #2: Transfer Station Issues.
Solid Waste Management Plans Update Webinar Training March 5, 2014.
Road Map to the Future: The Consolidation of Sewer Infrastructure in Rutherford County, NC November 16 th, 2015.
SWANA - Saskatchewan Landfill Capital and Operational Costs By Steve Johnson M.Eng., P.Eng. November 2015.
Discussion of Priority Activities for Next Eighteen Months Action Plans.
Introduction to Procurement for Public Housing Authorities Getting Started: Basic Administrative Requirements Unit 1.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS ASSESSMENT Board of County Commissioners FEBRUARY 24, 2009.
Solid Waste Study Board of County Commissioners March 20, 2012 Orange County.
John Davis Mojave Desert and Mountain Recycling Authority.
Butte County Climate Action Plan Contract for Services December 11, 2012 Butte County Department of Development Services Tim Snellings, Director.
California’s Direction: 75% Source Reduction, Recycling and Composting Goal UVWMA Board Meeting November 16, 2015.
Sausalito City Council May 7, 2013 Plan Bay Area Draft EIR.
MASON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Bond Committee Meeting #1 August 9, 2016.
CRRA Conference, August 2016 Karen Irwin U.S. EPA Region IX
Oregon State Rail Plan Update
Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Alternatives and Next Steps
Strategic Planning When Engineers and Planners Work Together
Waste Diversion Planning
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
First Nation Waste Management Initiative
Planning for Information System
2018 Preliminary budget and tax levy SEPTEMBER 25, 2017
Implementation Strategy July 2002
FY 2017 Recommended Capital Plan
Draft Transportation Element September 6, 2017
Mecklenburg County Solid Waste FY 2018.
Solid Waste Management Plan 2012 Triennial Update
Capital Improvement Plan CIP
MURDOCK VILLAGE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project Doing More with Our Waste
Sustainability-based Analytics
Tajiguas Resource Recovery Project Doing More with Our Waste
Integrated Bilateral Agreement (IBA) 2018 to 2028
GCF business model.
CP-TXT Amendment to the Capital Improvements Element & Public School Facilities Element (Annual Update) October 2008.
Capital Improvement Plans
Delta Water Supply Project
SWAC – Agenda 11/27/18 1. City of Bend – Southeast Development Plan
SWAC – Agenda 1/22/19 1. Introduction / Approval of Minutes
How Small Developers and EPC Contractors Can Add PPA Financing to their Arsenals John Langhus, VP Business Development Midwest Solar Expo 2019 New Energy.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha
Construction Management Services April 16, 2018
5 SWAC Agenda: June 2018 Introduction – Timm Schimke
SWMP Planning Process Agenda Introductions - Project Team
SWAC – Agenda 10/23/18 Chapter 6 – Alternative Technology – Draft Findings 2. Chapter 7 – Draft Landfill Disposal Existing Disposal System Disposal Options.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AB 1600 UPDATE
Presentation transcript:

SWAC – Agenda 3/12/19 Introduction / Approval of Minutes Summary of Public Meeting on Disposal Options Chapter 7 – Draft Recommendations Discussion Chapter 8 – Review / Comments Draft Recommendations Priorities and Implementation Comments of SWMP Summary Next Steps

Public Meeting on Disposal Options Open House format Attendance Feedback to date Responses from meeting Feedback from instant poll

Chapter 7 – Landfill Disposal Options Table 7-6: Evaluation of Disposal Options Primary Factors Transport Out of County New In-County Landfill 1. Implementation Considerations Regional landfills are permitted and have available capacity County transfer stations will need to be modified to accommodate long haul transportation Siting a new landfill has proven to be both environmentally and politically difficult and unpredictable for communities 2. Sound Financial Principles Proximity of several regional landfills provides competition that can result in lower fees Impacts to local economy as revenue and jobs are created in other jurisdictions County and cities control rates Revenue and jobs stay in County 3. Cost Effectiveness Estimated cost to transport and dispose varies   $47-$60/Ton Estimated costs $35 disposal + $ 7 transport $42/ton (Assumes landfill is 25 miles or less from Knott Transfer Station) Note: After initial debt is retired 2040, the operating cost will be reduced by about $4/ton

Chapter 7 – Landfill Disposal Options 4. Rate Stability Disposal contracts can be written to provide certainty of cost Factors outside control of County could impact fees (Host fees, fuel prices, road mile taxes etc.) Based on history of tip fees at Knott Landfill, disposal costs are predictable and stable 5. System Flexibility Flexibility can be part of contract; may have impacts on tip fee If minimum waste supply is committed, there may be possible impacts to County or cities to implement alternatives County controls waste and disposal system and can make changes as needed (Example if local jurisdictions implement new diversion programs) County retains ability to manage waste without contractual issues   6. Reliability Disposal is reliable Transporting waste to regional landfills may encounter interruptions In general, regional landfills have good track record for environmental compliance Transportation and disposal are reliable Transporting waste on certain roads may encounter short term interruptions County has control and can manage environmental risks County can control nature of waste is disposed in the landfill

Chapter 7 – Landfill Disposal Options 7. Environmental Considerations Disposing of waste in a regional landfill has the same impact as disposing waste In-County Disposing of waste in an In- County landfill has the same impact as disposing waste at a regional landfill. 7.1 Impact from Landfilling: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions   7.2 Impact from Transportation:  Waste Disposed 2030 – 216,000 tons/year 6,800–7,000 trips/year 2040 – 250,000 tons/year 7,800–9,000 trips/year In 2030, 2–2.1 million truck miles and emissions along local roads and highways 97 and 197 In 2040, 2.3–2.7 million truck miles and emissions along highways 97 and 197 In 2030, 340,000-350,000 truck miles and emissions along local roads and highways In 2040, 390,000-450,000 truck miles and emissions along local roads and highways 7.3 Impact on Land Existing regional landfills are permitted and will continue to fill designated sites with or without Deschutes County waste  County will need to disturb 400-500 acres* County may adopt mitigating measures as necessary *Note: Existing quarry sites might provide opportunity to restore disturbed land

Chapter 7 – Landfill Disposal Recommendations: 7.1 Recommendation – The County should site and permit a new in-County landfill to be operational when the Knott Landfill closes. The landfill should be capable to handle all waste streams generated in the County. Rational – The SWMP has identified and recommends several actions for County and cities to take to reduce the amount of waste to be disposed in a future landfill. It also recognizes that alternative technologies are continuing to develop that may at some point prove to be feasible for extracting additional resources from the waste stream and creating some form of renewable energy. Progress on these technologies can be monitored. However, the best approach for managing and disposing waste that cannot be recycled or diverted is to continue to operate an in-County landfill. It provides flexibility and maximizes control for managing the County’s waste streams, avoids impacts resulting from transporting waste long distances over highways and will be cost effective in the long run.

Chapter 7 – Landfill Disposal Recommendations: 7.2 Recommendation – The County should begin a formal process to site and permit a new landfill by 2021. Rational – The timeframe to conduct a process to select a preferred site may take from three to five years. Once the site is permitted, final engineering, obtaining construction permits and building the initial landfill cells is expected to require an additional three years. Using these assumptions, the site may be available in approximately eight years.

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Chapter 8 – Purpose: Review Current Administration / Financial Resources Examine Needs to maintain and execute to Recommendations of the SWMP Evaluate Options to Make Necessary Changes Make Recommendations to Modify / Enhance System

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Existing Solid Waste System Management County – Department of Solid Waste (DSW): Owns / Operates Transfer Stations and Knott Landfill System Structure: County Operates Facilities Contract Services County / Cities Interlocal Agreements County / Cities Franchise Collection Services

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Findings: County provides resources to operate and manage facilities that are compliant with regulations Organization is in place to carry-out services County / Cities / Franchise collection companies offer programs and services that meet state WR/R standards Participants has established coordinated promotion / education w/ Environmental Center

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Findings: Current Management system operates effectively County / Cities / Franchise collection – deliver cost effective services DSW has developed transfer system to provide convenient services DSW has operated Knott Landfill in full compliance and financially sound Effectively Use Internal Resources in Conjunction with Private Contractors DSW has managed as Solid Waste Enterprise > 25 Years

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Needs and Opportunities: SWMP provides roadmap for enhancing services, making capital investments in infrastructure and addressing long term disposal of waste Changes to collection programs / services Expand residential food waste collection Development multi-family programs Expand recycling for businesses – food waste / recyclables Establish uniform / standardization for programs and services Develop Alternative for construction / demolition (C/D) waste Changes / Improvements for facilities Evaluate options / upgrade compost facilities Upgrade transfer stations – capacity / efficiencies / future disposal system Develop facilities for managing C/D waste Implement new disposal system

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Needs and Opportunities: As new collection programs are developed – facilities must be provided to manage materials and waste cost effectively County / cities need to work with franchise collection companies to evaluate and implement new programs; considering policies; establish rates and expand promotion / education Process needs to engage special interest and affected parties Solid Waste System Infrastructure requirements estimated to be between $20M and $30M – County needs to develop financial plan to implement facility improvements

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Alternatives – Administration / Management Maintain Existing Management Structure w/ Enhancement Establish Steering Committee Appoint Special task forces Establish SWAC – oversee implementation of SWMP Update Interlocal agreements

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Financial and Funding County to Evaluate Resources Needed to Support Implementation Maintain County Enterprise System Uses County bonding authority – low cost for financing capital Establish reserves to maintain rate stability Rate setting / financial system is transparent Finance w/ Bonds Use Rates to Finance Improvements (Pay–Go)

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Recommendations: 8.1 Recommendation – Given the need to implement the necessary changes to the solid waste management system over the next 10 years, the County should meet with cities to reaffirm commitments and update, as necessary, the interlocal agreements. The agreements should also address the cities participation in the process for implementing the recommendations adopted in the SWMP. Rational – The current interlocal agreements recognize the commitment to support and rely on the County to own and operate solid waste facilities to dispose of waste generated in their jurisdictions. As the County endeavors to move forward with recommendations to the solid waste management system and to site a new in-County landfill, having the support and commitment to this arrangement is necessary. Also, in considering the agreements, cities should determine what role they wish to have in shaping the future solid waste management system.

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Recommendations: 8.2 Recommendation – The County should establish a formal process that provides for continued involvement of cities, other stakeholders, businesses and the general public in implementing the recommendations of the SWMP. This process may include establishing an ongoing advisory group and /or assigning task force committees to oversee development and implementation of specific programs. Rational – Whereas, the SWMP provides a road map and direction for shaping the future services of the solid waste management system, there are still many details to be determined. These changes will impact collection programs and services that are directed by the County and each city. Also, as changes to these services are made the County, working with the private sector, must make improvements to system infrastructure to ensure facilities can handle materials and waste streams most efficiently. Having the continued involvement of the key stakeholders and others will only enhance the ability to oversee the successful implementation of the SWMP.

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Recommendations: 8.3 Recommendation – The County should consider the current DSW organization and determine the resources that are needed to carry out implementation of the recommendations adopted in the SWMP. This will require perhaps some additional staff as well as financial resources. Rational – DSW currently operates with a staff of 24 FTE positions that operate four transfer stations and Knott Landfill. This is a fairly lean, but efficient organization, that must continue to maintain the current level of services while taking on additional responsibilities to work with cities and service providers to make changes to implement new programs, enhance facility operations and make capital improvements to existing facilities. The ability of DSW staff to take on new responsibilities should be evaluated to determine what changes might be made to execute the recommendations adopted in the SWMP.

Chapter 8 – Administration and Financial Management Recommendations: 8.4 Recommendation – DSW should prepare a financial study of current rates to determine the impacts of implementing the improvements identified in the SWMP and develop a plan for maintaining a stable financial strategy. Rational – Operating as an enterprise fund, DSW has managed the rates and the financial resources needed to provide services to all constituents in a fair and equitable manner. DSW has also established dedicated reserve funds that are used to levelize and minimize the impacts to rates, and for making scheduled capital improvements for operating the landfill and providing disposal capacity. The SWMP identified improvements to transfer stations and compost facilities and the siting and construction of a new in-County landfill. These improvements could cost between $20 to $30 million over the next 10 years. Forecasting and scheduling these new investments and evaluating the options for how these improvements can be financed will result in developing a strategy that results in the most cost effective approach.

Implementation – SWMP Priorities 1. Establish on-going process to engage stakeholders to develop waste reduction and recycling Develop standardized WR/R programs Develop strategies for expanding multi-family and business recycling programs 2. Complete waste characterization study 3. Complete facility plan and design for retrofitting Negus TS 4. Review financial needs and update CIP 5. Develop landfill siting process

Recommendations and Implementation Schedule

Recommendations and Implementation Schedule

Recommendations and Implementation Schedule

Recommendations and Implementation Schedule

Recommendation and Implementation Schedule

Recommendations and Implementation Schedule

Upcoming Schedule April 23rd SWAC Meeting - Final Draft SWMP - Executive Summary & Implementation Schedule May – Final SWMP to Board of Commissioners