HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 381-10TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FINANCE COMMITTEE
CITY MANAGER
OCTOBER 19, 2010
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
CMR:381:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Report on Options for the Future of Landrill and Composting
Operations in Palo Alto and Staff Recommendation to Accept LandfIll
Operations Option No. 1 to Quickly Fill the Remaining Landfill
Capacity While Retaining Existing Composting Operations and,
_________ ---'TL.Ah ... e ___ r""ea .... ft...,e----,r,£oD\'eJ"ttheM~_taParkland asJ!ast-»-:&lssible~ ---~~-----
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 5, 2010, Council directed staff to return to Council with a comprehensive cost
analysis and timeframe for closing the Byxbee Park landfill and converting the area to parkland.
In addition, Council directed staff to report back on the financial viability of the current windrow
composting operation sited on the landfill. Lastly, this year the Refuse Fund has been
particularly impacted resulting in a projected Rate Stabilization Reserve deficit of approximately
$5.6 million This deficit is offset by the reserve for landfill closure but that reserve is required
by State law to be kept at a sufficient level to fund the landfill's eventual closure. While part of
this impact is due to the recession and reduces revenues due to increased waste stream diversion
rates, it is also largely driven by legacy costs associated with maintaining two parallel waste
disposal operations: the City's own landfill operations on the one hand, and the SMaRT Station
and Kirby Canyon landfill contractual commitments oh the other hand. Given the complexity of
these i~sues, on October 4,2010, the Council voted to refer the matter to the Finance Committee
for initial discussion.
This report presents four options for closing the landfill and analyzes the associated cost impacts
to the Refuse Fund. Staff concludes that the most cost ~ffective manner of closing the landfill is
a"fast fill" option (Option 1) which would completely fill the remaining landfill capacity by the
end of 2011. This report also presents u,pdated compost facility cost information that shows the
compo sting operation at our landfill, though not profitable, is less expensive than the option of
sending curbside collected yard trimmings to SMaRT. This report does not address the issue of
funding future park improvements to the closed landfill open space as that is best discussed in a
larger policy framework relating to the overall General Fund infrastructure budget and -funding
backlog.
CMR:381:10 Page lof8
RECO~NDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend to the full Council to accept Landfill
Operations Option No.1 to quickly fill the remaining landfill capacity, while retaining existing
composting operations and thereafter convert the area to parkland as fast as possible.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting on August 5, 2010, Council passed the following motion:
Staff to return in October 2010 with all options on composting and include all options
until the close of the landfill in 2012 and to advise Council if selling compost is profitable
and to include Staff costs in the total costs
Later in the meeting on August 5, 2010 after awarding a contract to Alternative Resources, Inc.
for an Energy/Compost Feasibility Study, Council made the following related motion:
Staff to return in October 2010 with a first cut analysis of RefUse Fund costs, closure and
rent, and afinal cut by January 24,2011 with a report on a timeframefor closing of the
lan4fill and rebuilding of the park with costs.
-~~---------------
Background on Commercial Refuse Ban - A commercial garbage ban was implemented by
Council on January 12, 2009 when a motion passed containing the following provision:
"The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while
awaiting City Council action on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on
Composting (BRTF). "
The landfill ban was implemented oaMarch 1, 2009. The recommendations from the BRTF
were presented to Council on October 19, 2009 (CMR:402:09). Council did not lift the
commercial waste ban at that time. Staff returned to Council on AprilS, 2010 (CMR:165:1O)
with a recommendation that included the resumption of commercial garbage acceptance at the
landfill. Council elected to keep the ban in place pending additional discussion regarding the
feasibility of an anaerobic digestion facility at the landfill.
Background on Landfill Closure Date -On September 20, 2010 Staff presented a landfill
capacity update report (CMR 349:10) that indicated that the landfill will reach capacity in mid
2015 assuming that the commercial ban remains in place during the life of the landfill and that
the landfill would also change operations to only 5 days per week. CMR 349: 10 further
discussed that because of the commercial ban, meant to preserve options for a potential
anaerobic digestion facility, the rate of refuse filling has slowed considerably within the last year
and a half. Based on this slower rate offill, the landfill capacity could last until mid-20IS.
The landfill is currently entering a status commonly referred to as ''trickling closure". Trickling
closure is defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 27 with the following text.
If the average annual waste disposal rate to a solid waste landfill is reduced for two
consecutive years to a rate equal to or less than thirty (30) percent of the average annual
tonnage rate during the previous ten years (exclusive of the minimum and maximum
CMR:381:10 Page 2 of8
tonnage years), the operator shall begin closure activities in accordance with the time
frames specified in the closure plan unless granted an extension pursuant to {Title 27,
Section 21110J (b) (3).
The landfill's approved final closure plan estimated a refuse capacity depletion date of between
March. 2011 and September 2011 (estimated before the commercial ban was implemented).
Therefore, in order to continue accepting refuse after 2011 the City would need to apply to the
County and State for an extension to the 2011 closure plan date.
Background on Landfill Rent -In January 2007, following a recommendation from former City
Auditor Sharon Erickson, Council approved a landfill rent schedule through 2021 for Phases IIA,
B and C (CMR 104:07). The rent schedule contained the following components: back rent for
closed landfill Phases IIA and lIB from 2004-2007; reduced rent for Phases IIA and 1m through
2011 (the projected landfill closure date); full market value rent for Phase lIe through 2011 and
a smoothing schedule that would minimize dramatic rate increases attributable solely to rent
charges. Staff is currently preparing the closed phases for public access under approved Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) project RF-11001 (Landfill Closure). Additional rent beyond the
existing smoothing schedule for Phases IIA and lIB would not be appropriate once these portions
ofByxbee Park are-Openedto.-public-accessJn--SUmmer.20l1~.~-----------~-------
DISCUSSION
Composting -An updated cost analysis was prepared for the City's compo sting facility for fiscal
year 2010 and is included in Table 1 below. Table 1 compares the cost of maintaining the
compost option on site for a one year period with the costs of transporting the City's yard
trimmings to SMaRT where· they are then shipped to the composting facility at Z-Best.
Remaining compost after landfill closure will be incorporated into to the landfill cap· as
vegetative cover material. Land rent to the General Fund at $100,000 per acre was not
considered in the scenarios because the rent would be consistent with both scenarios (because the
landfill has not closed). It should also be noted that the rent is a fixed cost that would be charged
by the General Fund regardless if the Composting Facility were open or not. In addition, the cost
that SMaR T® charges the City to process yard trimmings is the current rate based on the
nominal amount of yard trimmings currently delivered by the City to SMaRT. This rate will
likely increase if the City were to substantially increase delivery of yard trimmings tonnages.
Therefore the costs in scenario 2 are subject to increase. Based on gate fees at Z-Best and
transportation the actual costs to SMaRT for processing this quantity of yard trimmlngs would be
approximately $400,000 per year.
CMR:381:1O Page 3 of8
Table 1 Composting Facility Cost Com;.a:iP:.::la:::..:ns=.o::.:n=--__ --.-_________ --,
Yard
Option: Trimmings
Scenario 1
Continue
Composting
(based on
Description: actual FY 2010
Revenues
Compost Sales
Yard Trimmings Gate Fees
(
Exnenses
Salaries and Benefits -(One full-time Heavy
Equipment Operator)
Disability I Workers Comp (per SAP report)
Vehicle Equipment Maintenance
Vehicle Equipment Replacement Allocation
Screener Rental (pO 4610000075)
Wood Grinder Rental (PO 4610000079)
Compost Testing
SMaRT Gate rate at $14 per ton (current
contract) *
Additional Transportation Costs to SMaRT
($2.00/ton)
Total Expenses
Net Annual Operating Profit/(Loss)
Palo Alto
Compost
Facility Dat~ ,
$ 88,531
$388,256
$110,000
$ 23,104
$ 201,774
$ 176,750
$ 28,560
$ 72,150
$ 2,500
,',.
'.
' "
" "
.
$ 614,838
($138,051)
Yard Trimmings
Scenario 2
Close composting and
send curbside yard
trimmings to SMaRT
(current contract prices)
"
','
"
"
,
" ,', , '. .::C ~
'"
' , ' ,"
, "
,
,', ,> " " .
"
$170,478
$ 24,354
$194,832
($194,832)
*This rate is the same rate charged to Mountain View and Sunnyvale and is a reduced
rate that is subsidized by credit for recyclables delivered to SMaRT. As Palo Alto does
not deliver recyclables there, it is expected that SMaRT would raise fees to Palo Alto in
order to balance revenues and expenses for processing the additional yard trimmings.
In the short term, considering that rent is fixed, the least expensive option to the City is to
continue operating the City's compo sting facility in conjunction with the ongoing landfill
operations. Overall, the operation does not generate a profit, but it minimizes cost to the Refuse
Fund.
CMR:381:10 Page 4 of8
Compost Grinder Engine Refurbish -On August 5, Council also deferred action on a contract
with Peterson Power Systems to refurbish the compo sting grinder engine (CMR:304: 1 0) to
permit a more thorough discussion on the economics of the existing compo sting operation on the
Palo Alto landfill. The table above indicates that closing the compo sting operation on the Palo
Alto landfill would result in greater costs to the Refuse Fund if the overall landfill rent is not
considered part of the composting operational cost. Assuming that grinding services will only be
required for 12 more months (the estimated landfill closure timeline under the "fast fill" option),
refurbishing the grinder engine does not appear to be the most economical option to maintain the
grinding operations for the compo sting program. Table 2 included as Attachment A illustrates
the costs of the options analyzed in CMR 304:10. The table includes an updated cost for contract
grinding services. Previous contract grinding service cost approximately $30,000 per month.
The monthly cost has noW dropped to under $18,000 since a recent contract award with a
different vender and a more efficient grinder. Option 2 (contracting with a private vendor) is
clearly the lowest cost even if it took only 3 months to complete the refurbishment. Therefore,
staff is no longer seeking approval of the Peterson Power Systems contract that was
recommended in CMR:304:10.
Landfill Closure Timing. 0.p1ions....---. ____ Unde~currenLState___Iegulati.on.s-foLlandfills,-stafLhas-
identified three feasible options that can affect when the landfill would cease accepting waste
and dose. A fourth option may also be viable, however, permits may be more difficult to obtain.
Additionally, the fourth option is also not compatible with the recent Council decision to defer
funding for CIP RF-I0003 (Drying Beds, Material Storage and Transfer Area). The four options
are shown in the table below. A timeline with decision pathways for each of these options is
included as Attachment B, and a matrix of pros and cons for the four options is provided as
Attachment C.
CMR:381:10 Page 5 of8
Options
No. 1 -Close the
landfill ASAP.
No.2 -Continue
current practices
with interim
decision points.
Date When
Waste
Acceptance
would cease
Mid to late
2011
2012-2015
Description
Immediately lift commercial
ban and divert curbside
garbage from SMaRT to fill
the landfill ASAP.
Continue current operations
including the commercial ban
until landfill capacity is
reached, then fill rapidly using
diverted curbside garbage from
SMaRT to complete the
landfill if needed.
No.3 -Close Cease waste acceptance from
Operations to the all sources except internal City
Estimated Impact to
FY 2011 Refuse Fund
Budget
Savings of$750,000
Extra Cost of $250,000l.
Public with operations (Utilities, CSD, ~ I {\{\ (\{\{\ ---------+~~--~~--~--~~~~--~~~~~~-~~~--~~-~~~~7~+~.~~u6~~1~v~v,v~v,H-v+----------mtenm deCISIon 2012-2015 Public Works, etc.) then fill
points. rapidly using diverted curbside
garbage from SMaRT to
complete the landfill if needed.
No.4-
Temporarily
suspend all waste
acceptance until a
decision is made
on the AD
Facility.
2012-2015
Temporarily cease all waste
acceptance, then fill rapidly
usmg diverted curbside
garbage from SMaRT to
complete the landfill if needed.
Extra Cost of $300,000
1. Option 2 is the baseline FY 2011 landfill budget without the cost savings that were to
be realized by reducing operations to only 5 days per week.
Conchision on Landfill Options:
As shown on Attachment B, all options keep the landfill site open long enough to complete the
AD Feasibility Study scheduled for September 2011. Option No.1, staff's recommendation, has
several benefits. First, it most effectively advances current Council policy of expeditiously
returning the landfill to parkland as reflected in the Baylands Master Plan and the State-approved
closure grading plan. Further, it is most cost effective and does not rt(quire any modification to
the existing landfill rent and amortization schedule. Finally, it has the least impact on current
operations, such as windrow composting, use of landfill by city crews and use of landfill by the
public. Additionally, in the short term, over the next year, this option both reduces expenses and
provides some additional revenue to the refuse fund. The major downside associated with
Option 1 is that by diverting the curbside garbage from SMaRT to the landfill, there will be a
temporary drop in the City's overall diversion rate. This is due to the fact that SMaRT is able to
recover additional recyclables from the curbside refuse stream that the City's landfill operations
are unable to recover. Notwithstanding this anticipated dip, the City's overall diversion rate is
CMR:381:1O Page 6 of8
still expected to be well above the rate required by AB 939 for 2010 and 2011. However, it may
fall below the Zero Waste Operational Plan goal of 73% diversion by 2011. Last year, PalQ Alto
already achieved that goal with a 74% diversion rate.
It is important to note that the 9-acre area for a potential AD Facility is already very close to the
permitted final grading plan. It is nearly already filled with garbage that would need to be
excavated and relocated to provide a level pad for the facility. Staff anticipates that the fast fill
option would not have a significant impact on the amount of waste that would need to be moved
if Palo Alto elects to move ahead with a new Anaerobic Digestion Facility.
OPTIONS TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the staff recommendation is not approved and disposal tonnages remain low through the end of
2010, then the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) would likely issue a stipulated order to the
City to either apply for a closure extension or follow the existing closure schedule contained
within the approved Final Closure Plan. This could require the City to implement closure
activities regardless of the grading plan status if a closure timeline extension is not obtained.
Closing the landfill before the grading plan is completely filled will result in a deviation from the
Landscape Architect's design (Hargreaves Associates) of Byxbee Park and will not be in
compliance with theBaylands-Master~~aIl.----T-<4»"-Operl¥-IDlow any-Otthe-options-that-do-ltoUiU
the remaining landfill capacity by the end of 2011, Council would need to approve an application
to extend the landfill closure date and reevaluate the land rent payments from the Refuse Fund to
the General Fund.
If closure date is not extended before the landfill has been fully filled then the City would need to
contract with a consultant to redesign the landfill's final grading plan and verify that the new
design would be seismically stable and could accommodate drainage to regulatory standards.
The environmental control systems (gas and leachate collection systems) would also need to be
reconfigured to accommodate the modifications. These changes would need to be incorporated
in a revised closure plan that would need approvals from the County and State. A landscape
architect would also need to review and approve the suitability of the altered plan for the
parkland design and the Baylands Master Plan would also need to be amended. A CEQA
analyses would also probably be needed.
Close composting facility early -Closing the composting facility early is also an option for the
(
City. Staff does not recommend this action because diverting the curbside collected yard
trimmings would cost the City an additional $56,781 based on 2010 revenues, costs and tonnages
(see Table 1 above). Closing the compo sting facility early may require a permit revision and
would also require the purchase and importation of 15,000 to 20,000 cubic yards of compost for
closure at an estimated one time cost of $200,000.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommended actions reduce the operational costs of the landfill and minimize the cost of
processing curbside yard waste. The recommended actions also minimize the costs over a 5-year
budget forecast
CMR:381:10 Page 7 of8
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommended actions are consistent with existing Council policies. set forth in the Baylands·
Master Plan. The recommended action may result in a temporary decrease in the City's waste
diversion goals, but the City is not expected to fall below the 50% goal required by AB 939. -
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended actions are related to the ongoing operation of existing facilities and do not
constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Financial Analysis of Options for Continued Grinding Operations
Attachment B: Timeline and Decision Pathways for the Four Landfill Options
:::c~y~mxSOO~P=~:;t)F~~
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:XXX: 10
MATTHEW A. RASCHKE
Senior Engineer
GL~~sl
Direct r of Public Works
Page 8 of8
Table 2
Financial Analysis of Opti~ns
for Continued Grinding Oper~tions
Grinder Option: I 1a . 1b 2 3
Refurbish Refurbish
Attachment A
4 5 6
Grinder Grinder I Continue to Nf. Engine New Grinder Used Grinder lease Grinder
Best Case: Worst Case: Contract Out 6 onths to 6 months to 6 months to 6 months to
3 months to fix 6 months to fix until Closure fix nd permit obtain permit obtain permit obtain permit
Contract Costs I $54,000 1 $108,000 1 $216,000 1 1$108,000 1 $108,000 1 $108,000 1 $108,000
RepairCostl $201,8531 $201,8531 $0' 1$237,1791 $01 $01 $0
Purchase Costl $0 1 $0 1 $0 t I $0 1 $400,000 1 $250,000 1 $0
Lease Costl $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 I $234,000
In-house maintenance Cost! $78,000 1 $78,000 1 $0 1 1 $78,000 1 $36,000 1 $36,000 1 $36,000
subtotal I $333,853 , $387,853 , $216,000' 1$423,179 , $544,000 1 $394,000 I $342,000
Estimated Salvage Value' ($150,000)/ ($150,000)/ ($40,000)/ ($150,000)1 ($250,000)/ ($150,000)1 ($40,000)
Total Costl $183,8531----$237,853' $176,000 1 1$273;179 1 $294,000 1 $244,000 1 $302,000
Current Monthly Contract Cost:
$18,000 3 6
Months needed for fontract Grinder Services
12 6 6
1. Assumes that grinding operations end when landfill ceases accepting waste.
2. Assumes that landfill life is shortened by diverting curbside collecte waste into the landfill.
10/19/2010
6 6
Page 1 of 1
~
~
>
Decision to Apply
for Closure
Timeline Extension
and Continue
Commercial Ban
Accelerate Filling
with Curbside
Garbage and Lift
Commercial Ban
Decision to
Suspend
Landfilling and
terminate City
Operations
October
2010
Option 2
“As-Is”
Option 1
“Fast Fill”
Option 4
“Stop Filling”Timeline
May
2011
Landfill Reaches
Capacity
Mid
2015
Sept.
2011
Landfill Reaches
Capacity
Mid
2013
Late
2013
Early
2014
Mid
2012
Landfill Capped
and Closed
Landfill Capped
and Closed
Mid to
Late
2011
Immediately Divert
waste from SMaRT ®
Station lowering the
overall AB 939 waste
diversion rate slightly
by 4 to 5%
Cease all
operations
including
composting
Abbreviations
AD – Anaerobic Digestion
CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
EIR – Environmental Impact Report
GHG – Greenhouse Gases
LEA – Local Enforcement Agency
Decision to Cease
Accepting Self-haul
Waste from the Public.
Accept City
Operations Waste &
Curbside Yard
Trimmings Only.
Option 3
“Slow Fill”
Council
Decision on AD
Facility
NO
Permit OK’d &
operational change can
be implemented
Closure Extension
Approved
Council
Decision on AD
Facility
Permit OK’d &
operational change can
be implemented
Council
Decision on AD
Facility
Final AD Facility
Feasibility Study and
Draft CEQA
Workplan Released
YES
Develop plans for AD
Facility, Project EIR,
amend Baylands
Master Plan, amend
Comprehensive Plan,
obtain revised landfill
closure plan approval
Landfill closure
construction
integrated with AD
Facility
Development
Council
Decision on AD
Facility
Accelerate Filling
with Curbside
Garbage and Lift
Commercial Ban
Initiate Grading
Plan Revision,
ballot measure,
CEQA & permitting
YES
Develop plans for AD
Facility, Project EIR,
amend Baylands
Master Plan, amend
Comprehensive Plan,
obtain revised landfill
closure plan approval
Landfill closure
construction
integrated with AD
Facility
Development
Initiate Grading
Plan Revision,
ballot measure,
CEQA & permitting
NO
Landfill Reaches
Capacity
Landfill Capped
and Closed
Accelerate Filling
with Curbside
Garbage
YES
Develop plans for AD
Facility, Project EIR,
amend Baylands
Master Plan, amend
Comprehensive Plan,
obtain revised landfill
closure plan approval
Landfill closure
construction
integrated with AD
Facility
Development
Initiate Grading
Plan Revision,
ballot measure,
CEQA & permitting
NO
Landfill Reaches
Capacity
Landfill Capped
and Closed
Hire contract
services to
complete landfill
using curbside
garbage diverted
from SMaRT ®
YES
Develop plans for AD
Facility, Project EIR,
amend Baylands
Master Plan, amend
Comprehensive Plan,
obtain revised landfill
closure plan approval
Landfill closure
construction
integrated with AD
Facility
Development
Initiate Grading
Plan Revision,
ballot measure,
CEQA & permitting
NO
Cease accepting
self-haul wastes
This option also needs an
initial decision on
additional landfill rent.
This option also needs an
initial decision on
additional landfill rent.
This option also needs an
initial decision on
additional landfill rent.
ATTACHMENT B
Footnotes
LANDFILL OPERATIONS ALTERNA IVES Attachment C
for October 19,2010
Option: 1 2 3 4
Close ( peratlons to the Public
Continue As"s (7·days per (City ~f erations waste and Temporary Suspension of
Description: Fast Fill (divert SMaRT waste) week) until capacity Is reached curbsk e yardwaste only) landfill Operations
A Closur& Extension NO YES YES YES Request Needed -------_ ... _---.. --_ ...... _---------.............. _------_ .. ······Needs·EiideiiSion·&new······ ·······iii eds·exteiiSion·&·new······ ······Needsextenslon·&·new······ B Landfill Rent Schedule No change required
FY 2011 Estimated Cost ----------.. ---.. ---------.. -----.. -.. -----_ .. __ .. -••••••••••••• !9[!.l~!!!!.l.r:!L •••••••••••• ---------• ••• ~.9.~~1!l~!I.L ••••••••.•. • ••••••••••••• I!9.I"!~!!'~!:'L •••••••••••
C to Refuse Fund (only
Landfill related revenues $3.6M $4.1 M $4.4M $4.6M
and costs) ............. ----.. ---_ ..... _--......... _ ... ------_ ........... --... _---..... _ .. _----------.. -_ .... -----......... -........ ---------_ .. _------.. ---_ .......... __ .... ----------.. -... _ .......... ------------........ -.... -.. ----_ ........ __ .. _-
D Affect on City Operations Provides only minimal time for transfer Provides time for transfer facility Provid ~s time for transfer facility Transfer facUlty for City operations
facility development development development will not be ready in time
E Regulatory Approval
-------_ ...... _-----_ ....... _--_ ... __ .... _----_ ............ ---·3-s·months·for·trickiirig·Closure·
............... _ .. ........ _-... -.. -----............................ _---------_ ........... _ .. -------_ .... _ .. _ .... _------.......
No permit revision required . 6·12 r nonths for permit revision . 6·12+ months for permit revision Time ........ -... -.... -................ _ .......... -.. _ .... _--_ ........ _ .... _-_ .. .!!!y~.(fJ!'I.l!Y.!:'~~f!.p.~!!!'!t.!'!'.'!l~.2.lJt _ ...... _ ...... __ .. _-_ .............. _ .. _ ............ -_ .. _ ........ __ ...... _ ........ _ .................. _ .. _ .. _ .. -........
F Layoffs after regulatory None until filling is complete None untn filling is complete 1/3rc1 Is yoff until filling is complete All except post-closure staff aooroval
G Exlstlna EQuipment ::::::E~;.P:yn~imliji.9Ii£QIDp.~t~:::::: :::E~p.!!Q!~:fj~IQa!!:Q9:~.EI~!~:::: ::::E~ :yn~imI~Ii:~QroP-~~:::: ::::::::§~npi!~[I!~ii~:y~!!~:::::::
H Existing Compostlng Close 6 months after filling is complete Close 6 months after filling Is Not 0 en to public, cease after End permanently after regulatory
Operation ........ _ .. __ .. _---_ ......... ---_ ... __ .. -.... __ ..... -.. -.. _ ........ -.. .....•........ ~!!!PJ!t~ .•....•...•••. .. ................ • ••••• 9!Q~.~~ •••••••••••••••• • •••••••••••••• ~PJlr9X~!.. ••••••••••••
I Grinder Refurbishment Not recommended Recommended Recommended Not recommended Contract· CMR 304:10 -_ ...... __ ........ _-_ .......... _ ...................... -.. -............ _ .. _ .. r·································_·····
J Estimated tlmeframe to Capacity filled by mid·late 2011 2012-2015 depending on AD ····i(j1~ .2'61S·deperidlng·on·AO··· ···2'61·i:i015deperi'din,jon·AO···
reach C8.J)acitv _ ........ __ .. _-_ ................ -.... __ .... __ .. -...... _ ...... _----.. -••••••••••••••• g~.qLl!.iR.IJ •••••••• _ •••••• • •••• .l!~S:!!l19.!! ••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••• ~~91!lQD ••••••••••• _ •••
Estimated tlmeframe
K when parkland 2013 Mid 2013 at the earliest M d 2013 at the earliest Mid 2013 at the earliest
construction could begin ........ __ .............. __ .. -............................ __ .. _---_ .......... -_ .... __ .... _ .... _ ...... _ ............................ __ ................ .... _-_ .. _ .... ............... -............ _ .. _ .. -.. -.......... -.... -.. .. _ .. -.... _ ....... _ .. -...... _ ........ -.. -...... _ .......... _-_ .. _ ..
Relative Impact on
L potential 9 acre AD Highest Impact Medium Impact Low Impact Lowest Impact
Facility Site ........ _ ......................... _ ........ -.. -.. _-_ .... _ ............................. ... ....... -....... -.... _---................ _ .. -......... -.. -_ ....... __ ... ... -.. ------.... -_ .................... -..... -.. _ .... __ ............. _ .. .. _ ................ _ ............ _-_ .. _ ...... -............. _ .. _ .. -....
More landfill operational constraints Variations: 1) Lift Commercial
Optlon-speclflc due to more tonnage and more Ban or 2) apply for permit revision Regulatory approval may be
Comments: vehicles in last remaining (more to reduce operations to 5 days per difficult to obtain week that was approved by limited) fill area. Finance Committee on 7/20/2010 ........ _ ...... __ .... __ ...... _ ...... -.. __ .. _ ....... _-... _ ....... _ ............ _--_ .. _ .... _ .. _ .. _ ...... __ .. _ .. _ ............................ -.......... .... _-_ ....... -....... _----_ ... _ .. _ .. --......... _ ............... _ .. -............... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ .... _--_ ............. _-_ .. _ ... _ .... _ .. _ ..
Assumptions:
1. All options assume that landfill would be filled to capacity as planned in the current Baylands Master Plan if s n AD Facility is not feasible.
2. Options 3 and 4 would eventually rectuire the diversion of SMaRT waste to complete grading plan per the cu rent Baylands Master Plan.
3. Option 4 requires a contracted labor force and equipment to complete grading plan per the current Baylands Master Plan.
4. Operational changes that require a permit revision cannot be made until regulatory approval is obtained. Op ion 1 can be implemented at any time.
5. Option 2 uses a 7 -day operation schedule to allow for an easier transition into a fast fill scenario with SMaRT waste if desired.
6. As of May 2010, apprOximately 100,000 cubic yards of waste would need to be excavated and relocated to p repare a 9 acre pad for an AD Facility
7. Based on the approved final landfill grading plan, if an AD facility is approved after closure then 122,000 cub c yards of waste would need to be excavated and relocated.
8. Costs to prepare a site for a potential AD Facility are not included in any of the cost estimates shown (i.e. the cost to excavate and relocate covered and compacted garbage.
10/19/2010 Page 1 of 1