Agenda - 10-01-2001-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

z • re-evaluation of recycling collection economics comparing current methods with commingled methods . a review of materials recovery facilities provision ofadddional technical assistance regaNing ownership, operation, impacts and • costs of various Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) sizes antl confgurations As explelnetl in the accompanying request from the SWAB Chair and Alternative Finance Committee Chair, [his Information will ba used fo assistMe SWAB in evaluating [ha Solitl Waste Management Plan and future solltl waste fund revenue requirements so that alfemative fnancing recommentlations may be made to fhe Soartl of Commissioners early in 2002. In oNer accurately to assess future solid waste costs, the SWAB needs to revlai[ elements of the approved Solid Waste Management Plan, given the aignificanf wsls associated wtth the Plait Of particular interest are quea[ione relatetl to the Materials Recovery Facility and motlificatlon/enhancement of recydables collection methotlologies from existing practices. Following the approval of the oaunty-wide solid waste management plan in 1997, the Solitl Waste Management Oeparment was authorizetl to acquire conaul[ing services to tletermine the parameters for building a materials recovery facility to serve Orange Countys recycling neetls. RRSI of Ann Arbor, Michigan was retalnetl In 1888 b provide a scope of services that inclutletl: 'mtrodutlory and background presentations about MRFs key issues analysis Nat evaluatetl cost, sizing and ownership opficns fora MRF that mould serve Oange County's recycling neetls development of a workplan to acquire the professional services to tlesign antl build a MRF RRSI completed a substantial amount of work, but reached an ongoing hiatus that was primarily tlue [c [he change of focus in 1999 among the LOG member governments bresplving solitl waste organizational mattere. No decisions have been made to this point by Ne BOCC regaNing whether a MRF will be pureustl. If a MRF is fo be considered at some point in [he future, BOCC tlaciaions will be requiretl Is[er regaNing a site, type of ownership antl financing, issuance of an RFO and RFP for a MRF designer/builtler, or selection of designers or builders. For now, however, the SWAB requeate that the BOGC authorize the use of consulting expetlise to revisit and examine the validity of assumptions usetl in earlier alternative fnancing analysis ceMatl out by the LOG. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The ultimate Flnanclelimpad of some of these topics, parflculetly [hose relatetl fo alternative financing and implementation of the Integrated Solitl Waste Management Plan, cannot be accurately forecast at this point Financial implications of some of the other topics ere addressed briefly in Ne staff memo. Soliq Waste Management staff will be preparetl to respontl to any apecifc questions the BoaN may have regartling fhe fiscal Impact of any of these topics: W ith rogaN to the proposetl services fmm RRBI, it should be noted that their previous etforts were suepentletl with a contract in place to mmplefe the necessary work, although that contrec[ and its funding have since lapsed. Stall recommantls that the BOaN approve the expenddure of an amount not to exceed $10,000 [o accomplish the wont elements outlinetl above antl in the accompanying scope of work. Atlequatefundingtc cover this wntract is available in the FV 2001-02 Solid Waste Department budget No butl9ef amendment would be required.