Agenda - 10-17-2000-10b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Memorandum To: John Link, County Manager From: .Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: ' Solid Waste Facilities -Siting Options Date: October 3, 2000 The Soard of County'Commissioners, at their August 30 Solid Waste Work Session, asked staff to develop a report discussing the compatibility of various existing and future solid waste facilities as well as examine various siting options. This memorandum is in response to that request. The Neville and Greene tracts are assumed not to be considered available for future solid waste related use. General Siting Considerations There are several issues that are considered for any new or existing facility that staff takes into account as it evaluates potential locations and whether facilities should/could be co-located. 1~or the most part these issues tend, to varying degrees, to favor co-location. Normally these issues result in either lower costs, higher operational efficiency, 'and/or less regulatory complexity when co-location is compared to separately locating facilities. The issues below are primarily operational or financial in nature and generally are relevant to most comparisons of separate vs. co-location: • Scales -Most solid waste business is conducted based on the weight of materials, whether recyclables or solid waste and whether incoming or outgoing. The State requires scales at most facilities and State solid, waste reporting is done on the basis of weight. Finally, good solid waste business/management practice necessitates weighing materials. While new scales are not usually cost prohibitive, they do add to the cost of separate facilities and must be staffed. • Eauinment Maintenance/Sharing- Fuel, equipment maintenance garage and mechanics are present at our existing location on Eubanks Road. Duplication of fueling and maintenance services can be very expensive. Alternatively, having existing mechanics travel to the distant site makes repairs cost more and they are less timely. Since all operational (non-administrative) facilities utilize equipment, staff takes nn~aintenance into account when evaluating new facilities. Additionally, some equipment is shared between operations. Separating operations may require additional equipment. • Supervision -Proper supervision is necessary for all solid waste facilities. Co-located facilities tend to offer a more manageable span of control and often allow management to consolidate supervisory responsibilities. Operations that are separately located may add cost or a higher level of'supervisory difficulty. • Public Understanding - As facilities are geographically separated, more opportunity exists for the public/users to become confused about where specific services are located. • Cente o Materials Generation/Sales -Transportation costs are reduced when materials are transported shorter distances. Trucks travel less miles, lessening wear on roads; burning less fuel, and reducing safety risk. • ennvironmental Monitoring - Ca-locating facilities allows us to take advantage of existing environmental monitoring infrastructure. • Operational Integration _ It is operationally necessary/beneficial for certain operations to be located adjacent to other operations because they manage the same materials or draw the same specific clientele. • Siting Difficulties -The difficulty of fmding acceptable separate sites usually make it less problematical and costly to simply use existing facilities or co-located facilities. • taffin -Staff often share responsibilities for multiple operations. Some functions do not require a full position.