HomeMy WebLinkAboutI1 Solid Waste
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Steve Johnson, Solid Waste Superintendent
Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Services
Dustin Johnson, Project Engineer
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Options
MEETING DATE: July 24, 2006
BACKGROUND: At the June 19, 2006 City Commission meeting, staff presented an update
on the Solid Waste Division, as well as a rough outline of possible options for the future of the
Solid Waste Division. The Commission provided input and requested further information on
some of the options. Attached is a report that outlines the very roughly estimated costs, profits,
and timelines of each topic. The report is broken down into the following components:
• Convenience Station
• Class IV (construction debris) Cell
• Class II Cell
• Cardboard Recycling
• Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facility (MRF)
• Solid Waste District Membership
Each of these components, excluding the Transfer Station/MRF, can exist individually and can
start to be implemented immediately. The concept of a Transfer Station/MRF is a long range
plan for the ultimate future of solid waste in the Gallatin Valley and would require participation
outside the City of Bozeman.
OUTSTANDING ISSUE: Staff believes a new Class IV cell can and should be opened, but
recognize there are implications to this sensitive issue, including public opposition. If a new
Class II cell is constructed, off-site transportation issues would have to be reviewed and negative
impacts addressed. The costs of these potential transportation improvements have not been
identified nor included in the cost summary in the attached report.
RECOMMENDATION: Commission read the attached staff report, listen to staff’s
presentation, take public comment, and make a motion to direct Staff to pursue the
implementation of:
Commission Memorandum
Solid Waste Options
July 24, 2006 – Page 2
1. Construct a convenience station located at the Story Mill landfill, as outlined in the
report, and address the following outstanding issues:
a) Will the convenience station be open to residents who live outside of Bozeman
City limits for disposal of garbage and/or household hazardous wastes (HHW)?
b) If open to residents who live outside Bozeman City limits for garbage disposal,
should that household waste be deposited into the City landfill, which will
decrease the life of the existing cell, or should it be hauled to the Logan landfill?
c) If open to residents who live outside Bozeman City limits, should their disposal
rate be different than for residents who live inside Bozeman City limits for
garbage and/or HHW ?
2. Construct an addition to the existing Class IV Cell for the disposal of construction
debris generated only within City limits, as outlined in the report.
3. Enter into a contract with Full Circle Recycling for cardboard processing, as outlined
in the report.
4. At the Commission’s discretion: Construct a new Class II Cell for the disposal of
household waste for city and county residents, with profits earmarked for the
construction of a Material Recovery Facility, as outlined in the report, and begin
research as well as discussion with the Gallatin County Solid Waste District on a
MRF to address regional recycling needs.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Dependent on direction taken.
ALTERNATIVES: As may be suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ ____________________________
Debra H. Arkell, Director of Public Services Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Report compiled on 7/19/06
cc: Brit Fontenot, City Clerk
Project File / Dustin Johnson
STAFF REPORT
TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: July 24, 2006
COMPILED BY: Steve Johnson, Superintendent of Solid Waste; Debbie Arkell,
Director of Public Services; and Dustin Johnson, Project Engineer
RE: SOLID WASTE OPTIONS
Convenience Station:
It has been a long standing goal of the Solid Waste Division to offer citizens a central
location where they could bring recyclables, household hazardous waste, used motor oil,
and garbage. Currently, the City teams with Gallatin County Water Quality District to
host a large Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) event once every two years. These
events are expensive and require large amounts of manpower to put on. The proposed
convenience station would offer a self-contained HHW storage container that could be
operated once a week. The facility could safely house the waste until a designated
contractor could pick it up for its ultimate disposal.
In addition to the HHW facility, the convenience station would offer the recycling
“binnies,” used motor oil disposal, auto battery disposal, and three roll-off containers for
regular household waste. A “z-wall” would be constructed for the roll-off containers,
and customers with smaller amounts of trash would deposit their trash there, rather than
having to go into the landfill.
This facility would be constructed at the landfill, in the vicinity of the roll-off dumpster
that is currently used by residents with small amounts of trash (west and south of the
scale house). The HHW collection and storage would occur on a concrete pad,
approximately 48 feet by 24 feet, with a shed-type roof over the concrete area. The
convenience station site would need to be surveyed for grade, and some cut and fill
would be required. The driving and unloading area would be compacted gravel. Trees
and shrubs would be planted between this area and the southern boundary for screening.
The hours of operation would be 8 a.m. to noon, Tuesday – Friday, and 8 a.m. to 3:30
p.m., Saturday. HHW collection would take place on every Saturday, 8 a.m. to noon.
Cost:
The cost to construct the convenience station is estimated to be $90,000. This includes
surveying and engineering design, the HHW storage container, earthwork, paving,
screening, and other various miscellaneous site modifications. Approximately $38,000 of
this total cost is the purchase and delivery of the HHW storage container.
1
Two additional staff would be needed to work four hours on Saturday mornings at the
HHW facility. The annual training, operations, and disposal costs for the convenience
station are estimated at about $54,000 a year. The estimated annual gross revenue for
this facility would be $103,500. After the initial year, the facility should net around
$52,000 per year. The profit earned from the convenience station should be dedicated to
cover recycling expenses.
Tipping Fees:
Initially, tipping fees would be charged based on weight and/or minimum load, with a
proposed minimum of $10. The current minimum fee is $5. If county residents are
permitted to use the facility, either for all uses or just HHW disposal, their cost may be
more than city residents (see Customer Base below for more explanation). Once the
program is going and we have a better idea of the number of customers and operating
costs, an annual or quarterly “sticker” may prove more efficient.
Customer Base:
A decision will need to be made whether the convenience station will be open for city
residents, city businesses, and/or county residents. If a new Class II cell is constructed,
the facility could easily be opened to county residents, but this could only be done if the
Solid Waste District approved, because the current District Resolution states all waste
generated in the district must go to the Logan landfill. If a new Class II cell is not
constructed (or in the interim while one was being constructed), the acceptance of county
residents’ household waste would quickly fill up our landfill, so that waste would have to
be hauled to Logan. The county resident rate would have to be set to cover all costs.
That rate is estimated to be between $75 and $100 per ton to cover processing and haul
costs and tipping fees, and was based on a convenience site for county residents only.
That estimate includes some costs that could be reduced (i.e. dumpster rental, admin
costs, site inspector). We feel that the HHW facility should be opened to all, as the intent
of such a facility is to keep the waste from going into the water and/or landfills.
Schedule to Set Up Operations:
The layout of the convenience station is simple and should require minimal design effort.
The final design, permitting, and bidding could start upon City Commission approval,
and construction could begin as early as late August. Construction and setup should take
about three months. This facility could be open to the public as early as late Fall 2006.
Class IV Cell:
The location of the current Class IV cell appears to have room for expansion. Great West
Engineering was contracted to investigate future alternatives for the expansion of the
Class IV cell (please see Appendix A for Great West’s full engineering report). The
intent of a Class IV cell is to accept inert waste from construction and demolition
activities. Given the nature of a Class IV cell, there are far less siting, monitoring, and
2
operational restrictions than a Class II cell. All of these combined factors help keep setup
and operational costs low.
There are several benefits to having a Class IV area including, but not limited to: the
more valuable lined cell space does not have to be used for materials that are not required
to be placed in a lined cell; fewer construction vehicles traveling to Logan will result in
less construction debris littered along I-90; even though the proposed tipping fee is higher
than Logan Landfill’s construction waste tipping fee, there will be a cost savings to
contractors due to the fuel and time savings of traveling to the City Landfill versus
Logan; income earned can be used to supplement the recycling operations and/or saved
for the future construction of a MRF.
Great West Engineering investigated two alternatives of expanding the Class IV facility.
City staff recommends Alternative 2, which will expand the existing Class IV area to the
west of the existing Class IV area. This alternative could be constructed without
relocating the entire compost operation, and would provide approximately 24,600 tons of
capacity. Only construction waste generated within Bozeman city limits is proposed to
be accepted. Based on an estimated 5,000 tons/year, this alternative would provide
service for approximately 5 years.
The hours of operation would be the same as the rest of the landfill operations, with 8
a.m. to noon, Tuesday – Friday, and 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Saturday proposed.
Cost and Revenue:
The cost estimate provided by Great West Engineering estimates $76,500 to set up the
Class IV area. This cost includes design, permitting, excavation, removing an existing
monitoring well and installing a new monitoring well in another location, and a 10%
contingency. The estimated annual cost to operate this facility would be $150,000 a year.
This operation cost includes equipment overhead ($70,000 per year to lease a D-6 Cat)
and maintenance, fuel, and labor.
Closure and post-closure costs must be set aside, but they were not estimated by the
consultant. Staff has estimated $80,000 must be set aside for the closure, and $95,000 for
post-closure, or $35,000 per year. Based on 5,000 tons annually at a cost of $77/ton, the
annual gross revenue would be $385,000. After the initial year, the facility should net
around $215,000 per year. The profit earned from the Class IV Cell could be dedicated to
help cover recycling expenses and/or be set aside for the future construction of a MRF.
Tipping Fee:
A tipping fee of $77/ton is proposed, and is based on a modest increase over the previous
$73.55/ton fee, operating costs, and the desire to fund the future construction of a MRF.
Customer Base:
The current proposal is that this facility would only be open for construction debris
generated within the city limits.
3
Schedule to Set Up Operations:
Great West Engineering feels that it would only take about three months for the MDEQ
to review and approve the proposed design. It is estimated the cell could be designed,
permitted, and ready for construction by November of this year. Waste could be accepted
beginning in the Spring of 2007.
Class II Cell:
On May 18, 2006 Great West Engineering completed a survey to determine how much
capacity was remaining in the current Class II cell. At that time, there were 87,000 cubic
yards, or 34,800 ton remaining (please see Appendix B for the complete capacity
analysis). Based on the current tonnages being received at the landfill, the current cell
would last for many years. However, from an operational standpoint it became clear that
based on these tonnages, the landfill cannot operate at a break-even point. With the
rejection of all bids for the construction of a transfer station at the Mandeville Farm, the
Collection Division was directed to begin direct hauling waste to the Logan Landfill, cut
back operations at the Story Mill Landfill for city residents only, and investigate other
possible scenarios for the future of the Solid Waste Division.
One such scenario investigated was to site a new Class II cell next to the current Class II
cell. Great West Engineering was contracted to investigate the feasibility of siting this
cell (please see Appendix C for the complete engineering report). The results of this
report indicate that it would be feasible to site a 9.5 acre lined cell immediately west of
and adjacent to the current lined landfill area. A 9.5 acre cell would create 700,000 cubic
yards of air space, for approximately 260,000 ton of waste.
It was assumed the new Class II cell would operate at about the same annual tonnage as
the previous cell, which was 48,000 tons per year. This would give a life expectancy of
about 5.4 years for this cell. Joining the Solid Waste District and working cooperatively
with the District in the operation of this new cell, the life could be stretched considerably
by not accepting or limiting the amount of commercial haulers waste. Some of the
benefits of constructing a new Class II cell are disposal operations for both the city
collection and private collection companies would be more efficient as the maintenance,
repair, and personnel costs would be less; less traffic on the interstate resulting in
considerable fuel and time savings for everyone; less trash on the interstate, and optimize
the City’s investment in the active area of the Story Mill landfill. There will also be
revenue generated to fund a long-term future system for solid waste management.
Please see Appendix D for a map of the proposed new cell area.
Based on past working history and profit margin of when the Landfill was in full
operation, the hours of operation could be extended to better accommodate the public.
4
Cost and Revenue:
Great West Engineering has estimated the total cost for a Class II cell to be $2,056,000.
This cost includes engineering, permitting, construction, and a 10% contingency. Based
on a rate of $42/ton, the annual gross revenue for this facility would be $2,016,000.
Operations costs, including equipment, personnel, monitoring, and closure set-aside is
$1,200,000 annually. Additional money will need to be set aside for the post-closure
costs, currently estimated at $180,000/year.
Not counting the post-closure set-aside, the Class II cell should net an estimated
$825,000 per year, after the initial year. However, it will take approximately 1.5 years of
operation to pay for the facility. The net amount can be increased or decreased by
adjusting the tipping fee. It will also be dependent on how many customers use the
facility. The profit earned from the Class II cell could be dedicated to help cover
recycling expenses and/or be set aside for the future construction of a MRF.
Tip Fee:
A $42 tip fee was used for this calculation. The current tip fee at the City landfill is
$36.77/ton. The current tip fee at the Logan landfill is $27/ton.
Customer Base:
The customer base could vary, depending on what the desired outcome is. Historically,
commercial haulers contributed more than one-half the tonnage to the City landfill. If the
facility were operated in conjunction with the County Solid Waste District to serve the
eastern portion of the county, and commercial haulers were limited on the amount of
tonnage they could bring per month, the life of the cell would be extended.
Schedule:
Outlined in the report provided by Great West Engineering are two possible schedules of
this project. The one variable that cannot be controlled in this process is the amount of
time it will take for the MDEQ to review and permit the cell. The fast track schedule
indicates the cell could be designed, reviewed, permitted, and constructed in 16 months
and start accepting waste as soon as October 2007. A more conservative estimate
estimates 23 months and start accepting waste in June of 2008.
Cardboard:
As discussed at the June meeting, staff has been working with Full Circle Recycling
(FCR) on cardboard recycling. Cardboard recycling was taking two FTE 7 days a week
to keep up. For the past month or so, we have been collecting the cardboard and hauling
it to the FCR facility seven days a week. FCR processes the cardboard and sells it at
market price. They then pay the City 50% of the sale. The market fluctuates, so there is
no guarantee on the price.
FCR is proposing we enter into a 2-year contract for them to process our cardboard. We
will collect the cardboard from the recycling sites and haul it to their facility in Four
5
Corners. They will sort and process the cardboard, and we will pick up the garbage
removed from the cardboard from their facility and haul it to the landfill to be buried.
FCR will pay the tipping fee for this “garbage”.
Even with FCR processing the cardboard, we will still lose money. It is estimated it will
take over 2,900 hours per year to collect and haul the cardboard. City personnel,
equipment, and fuel costs are estimated at $163,000. Because the sales income is based
on market, we have estimated conservatively at $70/ton. With 1,560 tons of cardboard
processed, our half of the income would be $54,600, for a loss of $108,400. (For
comparison, in calendar year 2005, 1,353 ton of cardboard was sold for $102,463. It took
approximately 5 hours a day, 7 days a week just to collect the cardboard and return it to
our landfill. The baler ran close to 8 hours per day, with one or two people operating it).
Material Recovery Facility (MRF)/Transfer Station:
A Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is a facility that recovers recyclables from a
presorted waste stream. Two waste streams come into the MRF. One is containers
(plastics, aluminum/steel, glass) and the other is fiber (paper). The commodities are
sorted within the facility and bailed for transport. A MRF may only be feasible if done in
conjunction with the Solid Waste District and the private haulers. All presorted
recyclables generated in the county would have to be required to be processed through
the facility in order to maximize the efficiency of the operation. Compost is not included
in a MRF.
Because not all waste can be recycled, the facility would function adjacent to a transfer
station, as all non-recyclable products would have to be hauled to a landfill.
MRFs are expensive to operate, as they are labor intensive. The facility must also own
and operate its own transport trucks to haul the commodities to market, or must contract
to do that. Because a MRF would broker its commodities, it would be easier to begin
curbside recycling. A MRF will not pay for itself.
Solid Waste District Membership:
Staff is prepared to submit a request to the County Commission for the City of Bozeman
to join the Solid Waste District. However, the request will vary based on the chosen
future of our operations.
If the request is made under our existing operations, it would include a provision that the
City’s landfill can continue to operate until the existing cell is closed. It would include a
provision that the District support and contribute financially toward recycling.
If staff is directed to construct a convenience station, the request would include a
provision that city residents could utilize the convenience station rather than haul their
6
waste to Logan. We would propose that the District consider allowing the convenience
station to be utilized by county residents, with the county waste hauled to the Logan
landfill unless a new Class II is constructed, and then the county waste would remain at
the City landfill.
If staff is directed to construct a Class IV cell, the request would include a provision that
the City can operate a Class IV cell.
If staff is directed to construct a Class II cell, the request would include a provision that
the City can operate its landfill, and that the City and District will work jointly to
determine how best to utilize two landfills within the District. It should include a
provision that the District will consider set-aside funding for the eventual construction of
a MRF.
7