Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/23/1990MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 281 NORTH COLLEGE - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM JULY 23, 1990 - 6:00 PM Board Members Present Christine Ferguson Bill Miller Tim Johnson Will Smith Deni LaRue Board Members Absent Joyce Berry Ward Luthi Charles Davis Harold Swope Dave Dubois Staff Members Present Tom Shoemaker Shirley Bruns Others Present Mike Doten Jeff Mitchell Frank Lancaster via "usiness - xecyciina ano soiia Waste Issues The purpose of the meeting was to continue discussion of the curbside recycling program and other solid waste management issues. Shoemaker noted that City Council had recently decided to hold a worksession on these issues, to review the curbside program and its relationship to potential processing facilities at the Larimer County landfill. The worksession is scheduled for Tuesday July 31 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council CIC Room at City Hall West. Shoemaker introduced Frank Lancaster, Director of the Larimer County Department of Natural Resources. Lancaster provided an extensive briefing on the County's process of evaluating the feasibility of constructing either a Material Recovery Facility or an Intermediate Processing Center at the landfill. The briefing followed the format and content of the attached briefing paper. There was extensive discussion of the alternative approaches. It was noted that comparison of the two alternatives depends on the objectives desired-. The MRF will achieve a greater waste stream reduction, at higher costs. The MRF does not offer the advantages of direct participation by individuals or the educational potential of curbside recycling, coupled with an IPC. The IPC approach allows for incentives to be built in to encourage individual participation in waste reduction and recycling, but it does not achieve the same results in terms of waste stream reduction. There was considerable discussion of the process to be followed to choose a course of action. Lancaster noted that the County Commissioners would be briefed on the issues on Wednesday, July 25 at 2:30 p.m. In that meeting, they would likely set a direction for further staff evaluation. Lancaster said that he expected that a public hearing would be held before any firm decision would be made and that would likely take at least two weeks. Shoemaker said that the City process depends on the direction taken by the Commissioners. The MRF would be incompatible with the City's curbside program, so this direction might lead to further delays in taking the curbside program to Council. The IPC would be complementary with the City program, so this direction would not likely result in any further delays. Shoemaker requested further input on the staff proposal for the curbside recycling program. Smith and Ferguson reiterated their concerns over the general design of the program, as set by City Council. In their opinion, the program is inefficient because every hauler will need to have additional trucks on the road and the subscription -based service serves as a disincentive for participation. Johnson noted that the staff program seemed to implement Council direction appropriately but wanted to know if waste oil will be included on the required pick-up list. Shoemaker responded that waste oil would be included if there are no legal restrictions on hauling and storage by the haulers. The Board reiterated its intent to submit two letters to Council on the proposed program. One letter will address the overall program and the second will comment on the staff proposal. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. t n U B R E I F I N G MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY PROPOSALS BACKGROUND Requests for proposals for a Materials Recovery Facility were solicited by Larimer County beginning in May and closing June 25th, of this year. Over 20 requests were sent out to firms throughout the U.S. Ten responses were received, eight of which were for a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) as requested. The proposals were reviewed by Rich Widmer, Estes Park, Tom Shoemaker, Ft. Collins, Jim Hanna, Loveland, Mick Mercer, Loveland and myself. Based on the review of the panel two firms were selected for possible further consideration. The two firms selected were Norcal Solid Waste Systems, and Resource Reclamation Systems (RRS). RESULTS OF RFP TIPPING FEE - The tipping fee, or the charge to the landfill/MRF customer ranged from a low of $5.00 per ton, to a high of $57.50 per ton. (Currently the landfill charges from $4.00 - $6.00 per ton.) The low fee was from U.S. Waste Systems of Denver. The U.S. Waste system included a MRF sorting facility, producing refuse derived fuel (RDF) from the remaining waste, and burning the waste on site to generate electricity. The average cost for incinerators of a size needed for our waste stream is $30 -$40 per ton. The cost of $5.00 per ton is less than we currently charge for landfilling. The company has no experience, and the cost of $5.00 per ton is not a realistic figure. Norcal's tipping fee was $16.91 per ton and RRS's tipping fee was $11.00 per ton. This would be approximately $5.64 and $3.67 per cubic yard respectively. Current landfill rates are $1.50 to $1.95 per cubic yard. COST TO COUNTY - Both of the recommended proposals would be privately financed. No county monies would be required. REVENUES - In most cases, the tipping fee is set to cover the debt service on the facility, and a minimum guaranteed return, around 12.5%. Revenues from recycling are extra above and beyond that amount receive through tipping fees. RRS proposes reimbursing the county for tipping fees out of revenues from recyclables sales. After all recyclables are sold, the county and RRS would split the recycling revenues 65/35. Norcal does not propose sharing revenue with Larimer County. Several other proposals offer a percentage of gross sales of recyclables to the county. FLOW CONTROL - Flow control legislations would be required by most firms prior to the capital investment. Flow control requires residents to take their waste to a designated facility, and it is illegal to take waste elsewhere. Because of the impact on tipping fees by this technology, the option of taking waste to a competing landfill outside of Larimer County would be eliminated. In addition, the county must agree not to site any competing facilities within the county. EMPLOYMENT - The proposals would add from 26 to 170 new jobs to Larimer County. Norcal proposes 43 jobs, RRS would add 40 jobs. CAPITAL COST - Although not paid for directly by the county, the capital cost of the project is reflected in the tipping fees. Capital costs ranged from $3,543,881 to $38,856,885. Norcal costs are $3,543,881, and RRS's are $8,296,470. VOLUME REDUCTION - All proposers would meet the 35% volume reduction goal stated in the RFP. CONTRACT LENGTH - A twenty year contract would be required for the private companies to recoup their capital investment. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS As an alternative to a MRF, two firms recommended curbside collection of recyclables with an Intermediate Processing Center (IPC) being constructed at the landfill. Several of the trash haulers have expressed a desire for this alternative. Many of the haulers to not have the resources to process and market recyclables. If curbside collection is implemented, and it looks like it will be in some form in both Ft. Collins and Loveland, there must be a way to market the materials. There are economies of scale in a centralized processing center that could bail papers, crush glass and aluminum and otherwise ready materials for market. Market prices can be more favorable with larger supplies, than for each hauler individually marketing his product. One proposal received was for an IPC to be located at the landfill, and the county to institute mandatory curbside collection. There would be no tipping fee at the IPC, and the tipping fee at the landfill would be increased to $6.90 per ton. This pricing scenario provides an incentive to the haulers to collect the maximum amount possible through recycling due to the avoid cost of disposal. ANALYSIS 1. FEASIBILITY - A Material Recovery Facility is feasible at the present time and with existing technology. 2. MARKETS - Markets are available for recyclables, and markets are quickly developing. t 3. COST TO CITIZENS - A MRF would result in increasing the tipping fee 3 to 4 times higher than it currently is. Adding an intermediate processing facility at the landfill would result in a doubling of the tipping fee. These costs pertain to the landfill costs only. The cost to the community is quite different. Curbside collection programs will increase the cost of trash collection from $1.50 to $2.00 per month per household. A full MRF would result in no additional cost in collection. Disposal costs average 20% of the total trash bill for residential service. Assuming that the average cost of collection is currently $8.00 per month, $1.60 of that figure is landfill charges. Table 1 compares the overall costs to the consumer of a MRF and an IPC. Although the costs of a MRF are twice that of an IPC, the recovery rate is 3.5 to 5 time greater. Table 1 compares the cost per unit of material recovered for both a MRF and an IPC. TABLE 1 CURRENTLY MRF IPC COLLECTION COST $6.40 $6.40 $8.40 DISPOSAL COST $1.60 $6.40 $3.20 TOTAL SERVICE COST $8.00 $12.80 $11.60 (PER MONTH) % RECOVERY OR LANDFILL SAVINGS 0% 35% 10% COST/% RECOVERED N/A 0.37 1.16 AVG. TIPPING FEE $/Cubic yard $1.50 $6.00 $3.00 4. AVOIDED COSTS - Compliance with Subtitle "D" of RCRA will result in a higher cost of landfilling. The increase will be small at our current site, but will be at least two to three times as much when we permit a new landfill. ' Prolonging the life of the current landfill will postpone these expenditures. Postponing these costs to future years dollars is in the financial interests of Larimer County citizens. 5. CITIES' ACTIVITIES - Regardless of whether the county chooses to participate, it is apparent that the city of Ft. Collins and city of Loveland will be implementing some type of materials recovery system, probably curbside collection. These programs will require materials processing, either by each individual hauler, or by each city. The cost of processing will be passed on to the consumer in any event. Those costs will be determined in part by the operator, and the scale of the material processing operation. RECOMMENDED PROCESS 1. Brief of Board of Commissioners as soon as possible. 2. Scheduling a public hearing to discuss the issues. Potentially affected parties must have a chance to discuss this issue with the BOC. The trash.collection companies in particular will be greatly impacted by any decision made by the Board regarding this issue. In addition, many environmental and public action groups have shown great interest in the issue and will want a chance to participate. DECISIONS REQUESTED 1. Should the county proceed with a recycling program at the landfill that will result in a minimum cost of doubling the tipping fee? 2. If we are to proceed, should we proceed with a MRF facility which will result in higher cost to the citizens in the near term, but more materials recovered and an 35% increase in the life of the landfill, or an IPC at a lower cost to the citizens and a 7-10% increase in the life of the landfill? I SYNOPSIS 1. A materials recovery facility is feasible and would cost 3 to 4 times more than current practices. 2. A curbside program combined with an intermediate processing center at the landfill would cost twice as much as current practices. 3. A MRF would recover 35% or more recyclables from the waste stream and extend the life of the landfill by an equal amount. 4. An IPC would recover 7%-10% of the waste stream and extend the life of the landfill by an equal amount. 5. A MRF would result in a 60% increase in the cost of residential trash service to the average county resident. 6. An IPC would result in a 45% increase in the cost of residential trash service to the average county resident.