Agenda - 02-18-1999 - Attachment 10

Browse Search

Agenda #3 Memorandum To: Landfill Owners Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director Subject: Presentation on Materials Recovery Facility Date: February 11, 1999 � i� 1�+ ?ocY -re ' f 10 �i✓ err �,�0 �% �•:> � Attached is a presentation from RRSI, our consultant on the Materials Recovery Facility Development project. The presentation includes four parts: 1. An analysis of three different scenarios of tonnage for a MRF beginning in 2002 -03, low (21,000 tons per year), medium 30,000 tons and high 38,000 tons, that might be achieved on our own or with different degrees of outside participation. It demonstrates the economies of scale that are possible. RRSI is reasonably certain that we should not build the smallest facility that would handle only short term, Orange County recycling tonnage. 2. Comparison of current recycling system costs with costs that incorporate commingled collections and a materials recovery facility to collect. This is an element requested by the Owners Group. The analysis by RRSI shows a lower overall annual system cost with the materials recovery facility due to the increased collection efficiencies of commingled collection. 3. Evaluation of existing solid waste facility at Eubanks Road for Materials Recovery Facility and future transfer station site. RRSI has conducted an engineering site analysis and preliminary site layout in cooperation with solid waste management department staff and determined that the Eubanks Road site is suitable for these solid waste management facilities. 4. Comparison of pros and cons of a variety of public and private ownership and operation options for a materials recovery facility. At the direction of the Owners Group, RRSI has prepared analyses of the pros and cons of the full spectrum of options. They recommend a blended option of public land and building ownership with private operation. Equipment ownership could be public or private depending upon the precise details of the deal. With the presentation of this material, we believe the Owners Group could make the preliminary decisions that would enable us to prepare a draft of the "Key Issues" report. The MRF development schedule shows one additional plenary meeting that would answer additional questions and enable finalizing the Key Issues report for presentation to the individual boards for approval.