2021-696-E-Solid Waste-Gershman, Brickner & Bratton-Development of A Solid Waste Master Plan

Browse Search

Page | 16 The final report should include details showing how the above mentioned plans and reports, as well as any other known plans and reports not mentioned, have been considered and integrated in to the final Solid Waste Master Plan. 7.5 Deliverables for the Solid Waste Master Plan Task 1: Provide a thorough assessment of current waste reduction, recycling, and solid waste management programs and facilities shown in the background information and reports attached to the RFP and input gathered from the SWAG and other stakeholders. Provide a written report containing the Firm’s observations and judgments about the current system and any short-term (one to two years) improvements that could be made within current program limits. Task 2: Provide and present to SWAG an equitable comprehensive public engagement process that: (a) effectively includes input by the general public and key interest groups, including the municipal and university partners, in developing the final solid waste master plan. The process should be designed so as to insure inclusion of persons and groups that historically have been marginalized in public participation (“Engagement Plan”), and (b) provides a detailed plan for keeping the public and municipal and university partners informed about the development of the plan (the “Information Plan”). A draft of the Engagement and Information plan must be presented to the SWAG and their input received prior to finalizing the Engagement and Information plan. Task 3: Provide a list of options for reducing waste and increasing /recycling /diversion/reuse/composting, types of generator and jurisdiction to achieve the goals identified in Paragraph 2.1 Purpose of the RFP. Options may include new or changed collection or processing arrangements, facilities, change of policies, financial mechanisms, outreach and education, proven technologies or other options. Options should be reviewed with SWAG and receive public input to help determine the comprehensive systems to be subject to Task 4. Task 4: Create and compare integrated comprehensive systems and select a ‘recommended best’ system. Based on input received on the options evaluated and then selected, combine those highly ranked options into up to three integrated systems, each to include waste reduction, recycling, collection, and ‘final materials management/disposal programs and facilities; approaches to public education and outreach; financial structure, including funding approaches; and suggested, but not necessarily fully detailed legal, administrative, and regulatory structures. The details of any proposed system or systems will be defined and developed with stakeholder input, however if a County integrated materials management facility is to be developed, it is likely to have a significant impact on these systems. Thus, guidelines for system or systems development are offered as follows: A. One system may assume no additional facilities in the County but identify how existing facilities and programs will be better used to achieve greater reduction in waste and/or increased effectiveness; B. One system may assume the development of a full-scale integrated materials management (IMM) facility; and C. Another system may assume some additional facility(ies) that may handle a subset of the recovered materials/waste generated (i.e., transfer station, single-stream processing facility, composting or anaerobic digestion facility, etc.) but not a full-scale IMM Facility at a single location. Task 5: Report describing, comparing and selecting from among the integrated systems, including the results of the evaluation of integrated systems, the process used to select the final system for implementation, and the final waste reduction, recycling and solid waste management system to be implemented. DocuSign Envelope ID: 00C54720-9DC0-4A3D-ABED-77E0FD28E0CD