HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/7/1994INUTES AMPrACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1994
1:00 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W.
Tippin, Chairman
(Dist. 4)
James E. Chandler, County
Administrator
Kenneth
R. Macht,
Vice Chairman (Dist. 3)
Fran B.
Adams
( Dist.
1)
Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney
Richard
N. Bird
(Dist.
5)
Carolyn
K. Eggert
(Dist.
2)
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to
the Board
1:00 P.M. PRESENTATION OF SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
MEETING.
L I
SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, April 7, 1994
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, April 7, 1994,
at 1:00 p.m. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R.
Macht, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Richard
N. Bird. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
PRESENTATION OF SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN
Attorney Vitunac announced that this public hearing has been
properly advertised, as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a dally newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian RIvar County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
"A
In the matter of
In the Court, was pub.
h
Iished to said newspaper in the Issues of
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the sold newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each dally and has been
entered as second class mall matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement, and afflanf further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any didcount, rebate• commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
N '
�PRA o ago subscribed before IN ' ifay, of A.D. 19
r
aP: �org9�'Py^ i ✓ (Businbds Manager)
Mr cam
Jung 19947 BMrea
LIG
Sig* W r kniJa. My Commhsiuo I .p. Ju 29.1997
ConwJ"km Number: CC3110572 r:
1'•.R •' y •e r. , • I,k,. ,t. fr 0' ..
I- r,: UARBAmA C SPRAMIF.
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners wm most to
hear a presentation of the SoOd Waste Master Plan .
for Ir dean River County. The meeting w0 be held at
9:00 am. on Thursday, April! 7, 1994 in the County
Commission Chambers, County Administration
Btdldi�, 1840 25th Street,' Vero Beall. The public
bAnyone to
awho may wish to appeal ffity dedabn
which may be made at this meedrg w0 need ro wt•
sure that a verbalim record of the proceedings is
made. which bhcbldea testimony and 1 evidence. upon
which the appeal Is based.
Anyone who needs a special scomi rodatbn for
the Cou Amekwe
with dmatorat97-8, fh9�aAC18
223 at dptL
April 2,leas 4 8 house h a dvance,ot Sha mmdeg.1088474
BOOK 92 PACE 76
I
NOK ? E'AIJE 77
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/5/94:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: APRIL 5, 1994
TO: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER f(
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT II
RE: ESTIMATED FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN
-------------------------- ------------------------- --------------
.Attached as an Exhibit to the Solid Waste Master Plan
presentation scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on April 7, 1994, is an
itemization of estimated costs related to -the implementation of
the Solid Waste Master Plan. These cost estimates were prepared
by CH2M Hill and the exhibit will be incorporated into the final
draft of the Master Plan.
2
Indian River County Solid Waste Management Master Plan
Estimated Costs and Timeframes for Implementing
Recommended Programs and Projects
1994 Through 2000
Capital Costs
O&M
Program/Project 1994 1995 1996 1997• 1998
1999 2000 Cost
Near Term Prorrams
and Proiects
Collection
Mandatory solid waste
collection • •
c'n
Improvements to current
recycling education
program $50,000
$10,000
Preparation of commercial
business recycling plans $50,000
$25,000
Recycling of construction
and demolition debris $50,000
$50,000
Compostuig of landclearing
and yard trash, possibly
with sewage sludge $350,000 $2,000,000
$300,000
Tires
Assess feasibility of
double shredding tires
Construction &
Demolition Debris
Continue development of
separate landfill area
Grit & Sludae
Assess feasibility of
disposing through
composting project
Garbage and Trash
Continue permitting and
design of landfill segment
III and infill between
$10,000
$20,000
segments I and II $300,000 $300,000
Construction of landfill
segment lII $5,000,000 $500,000
Infilling between segments
I and II 51,000,000 $1,000,000
W PR .0,7 1994- 3
ROOK 92-0 i -n 78,
SPR �� 1994 WIF 92 PACE 79
Indian River County Solid Waste Management Master Plan
Estimated Costs and Timeframes for Implementing
Recommended Programs and Projects
1994 Through 2000
Capital Costs O&M
Program/Project 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Cos
1
undin
Assessment increases • • • • • • •
Feasibility analysis to
limit number of bags per
setout under base charge $30,000
Guaranteed municipality
participation in
District's fused costs
6—Misition of
Additional Waste
Management Facility
Aquisition of property to
north of existing waste
management site 51,700,000 $1,700,000
$1,700,000
Lone Term Strateev
Update master plan
$150,000
Assess recycling program
W,000
Design and permitting of
landfill Segment IV
$150,000 $150,000
Assess funding adequacy •
+
• • •
• •
Disaster Response
No major programs *
+
+ + •
• •
aste Management Site
Development -
Additional Projects
Mitigation of Wetland
areas, if necessary
$1,200,000
$10,000
Composting project
+
+
Relocation of air
curtain incinerator
Relocation of waste tire
processing facility
55,000
Landscaping
$30,000
Administrative building
5350,000
Capital Costs
O&M
Program/Project 1994
1995
1996 1997 1998
1999 2000 Qog
Total $2,480,000
$11,665,000 $3,200,000 $175,000 50
5150,000 $150,000
4
=I
Prior to reviewing the introduction to the SWDD Operations and
Solid Waste Master Plan dated April 7, 1994, Utilities Director
Terry Pinto introduced the following representatives from CH2M
Hill: Bill Hutchinson, project manager; Isabel Gonzalez-
Jettinghoff, project economist; John Wood, project engineer; and
Rex Holmlin, disaster response engineer.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL -DISTRICT
OPERATIONS AND SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN
N T R O D_U_C T 10 N
This workshop is intended to introduce to the Board the draft of
the Solid Waste Master Plan developed and recommended by CH2M
Hill. The Solid Waste Master Plan will be presented to the Board
by the staff of CH2M Hill. In addition, District staff will
provide an update on the Solid Waste Management Operations.
e
DISTRICT HISTORY
The Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD or DISTRICT) was created
as a dependent special district by Ordinance 87-67.1-.- under the
authority of Section 125.01(5)a, Florida Statutes, for the
purpose of providing an efficient and acceptable means, funded in
an equitable manner, for the disposal of solid waste generated by
the residents of Indian River County and the municipalities
located therein.
The District consists of the unincorporated area of Indian River
County and the municipalities of Vero Beach, Indian River Shores,
Orchid, Sebastian and Fellsmere; which joined the SWDD through
approval by the governing bodies of the municipalities.
OPERATION PROCEDURES
..-The SWDD's operation procedures are adopted by the SWDD Board by
Resolution.. The SWDD is currently operating under Resolutions
91-1, 91-2, 94-1 and 94-2.
Resolutions 94-1 and 94-2 are franchises and contracts with two
waste collectors (Harris Sanitation and Treasure Coast Refuse)
for the- collection of solid waste and recyclables within
designated areas of the District.
Resolution 91-1. and 91-2 provide operation procedures and
assessment procedures. The operation procedures include
information on:
1. Operation procedures
2. Permit requirements
3. Charge account procedures
4. Recycling efforts, and
5. Management of yard trash
5
APR 0 7, MIM ma 92 TACE 89
I
APR F4 i�9 600K 92 PAGN 81
The assessment procedures include information on:
1. Property use classification
2. Waste generation rates by property use
3. Methodology for the calculation of disposal charges -
4. Preparation of the annual Assessment Roll
5. Vacancy and recycling credits
6. Changes/additions to the Assessment Roll, and
7. Petition procedures for assessment objections
The SWDD is funded by special assessments/disposal charges and
service charges and fees authorized in Ordinances 87-67 and
88-32, and Resolution 91-1.' The special assessments (disposal
charges) are collected through the offices of the Property
Appraiser and Tax Collector under the authority of Section
197.363, Florida Statutes. The assessments are collected using
the same procedures as are used for collection of ad valorem
taxes.
The owners and a description of each parcel of assessable
property are designated on a SWDD assessment roll maintained by
the Property Appraiser.
The Tax Collector collects the assessment fees and the fees are
subject to the same discounts for early payment as are property
taxes. The disposal charges are also liens against improved
property as of the first day of January preceding the fiscal year
for which the charge is imposed. Disposal charges not paid
before the delinquency date for taxes shall be cause for the Tax
Collector to sell a certificate on the property just as if the
disposal charge were a tax.
'Disposal charges for State owned properties are collected by the
SWDD through the issuance of an annual invoice during the month
of November of each year.
Disposal charges on newly assessable properties are collected at
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The charges are
prorated on a quarterly basis and are applied from the quarter
within which the CO is issued to the first of October of the
first taxable year for the improvement. The prorate procedure is
as follows:
.TIME PERIOD
PRORATE FACTOR
Oct -Dec
1.00
X
Annual
charge
Jan -Mar
1.25
X
Annual
charge
Apr -Jun
1.50
X
Annual
charge
, Jul -Sep
1.75
X
Annual
Charge
Commercial properties are assessed a waste generation rate based
upon the use, or uses, of the property and the square footage of
the structures or, portions thereof, within the use. Residential
structures are assessed a single waste generation rate by the
number of residences. Waste generation rates are identified in
terms of a waste generation unit (WGU) which is defined as:
Waste Generation Unit (WGU) shall mean the
basis for measuring the solid waste generated.
One 'WGU shall be equivalent to a waste
generation rate of 1.0 ton per year.
Pursuant t
commercial
100 square
residential
per single
mobile home
F -I
o SWDD Resolution 91-1 the waste generation rates for
properties are applied as waste generation units per
feet of structural space. Waste generation rates for
structures are applied at a single rate of 1.6 WGU's
family residence and 1.2 WGU's per multifamily unit or
park unit.
Pursuant to Section 7 of Ordinance 87-67 all assessable
properties receive benefits by the availability of the SWDD and
are assessable whether the property generates waste or not.
Commercial properties are authorized credits for vacancy and
recycling as provided in Resolution 91-1, while residential
properties are not allowed such credit. Vacancy credit can be
applied to an assessable commercial property for vacancies
exceeding 6 months within the calendar year previous to year the
assessment is:. due. Recycling credit equivalent to the tons of
material recycled can also be applied to commercial properties
for materials recycled in the calendar year prior to that in
which an assessment is due. Under no circumstances, however, is
a property or business to receive vacancy or recycling credit to
the extent that the assessment would reduce below the Readiness
to Use Fee of $21.00 per WGU. As such no business or property
can receive credit in excess of 40.5% of the original annual
assessment.
The granting of recycling credit occurs under two procedures.
There are businesses that report either monthly or quarterly
their amount. of material that is recycled directly to the
District's Recycling Coordinator: At the end of each calendar
year the Recycling Coordinator generates a report to the
District's -Tax Coordinator outlining the total tons of material
recycled by each reporting business. The Tax Coordinator then
updates the District's Annual Assessment Roll and adjusts the
credit so the business is automatically provided recycling credit
in their annual assessment.
Those businesses that do not report their recycling efforts may
still obtain recycling credit by providing a written request to
the SWDD Tax Coordinator outlining amount and type of material
recycled with substantial documentation. The Tax Coordinator
then forwards an assessment change to the Property Appraiser for
the credit.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
The discussion that follows will basically update the Board on
pursuits of land purchase of properties surrounding the landfill
as well as update the Board on professional services, reporting
requirements, permitting requirements, wastestream rates, budget,
landfill space, construction at the landfill and land purchase.
A. Professional Services - The District has contracts and
services through various engineering firms and businesses.
Exhibit I provides a breakdown of various services currently
being provided to the District.
B. Reporting Requirements - The District's waste management
operations are regulated by the US Environmental Protection
Agency, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the
St. Johns Water Management District, and the US Army Corps
of Engineers. Exhibit II provides a breakdown of the
various reporting requirements of the District.
,
7
ROOK 9% PAGE -822
APR 0 7 199
III
,Rm 92 pmF 83
C. Permitting Requirements - Exhibit III provides a breakdown
of the various permits required in the District's
operations. Exhibit IV itemizes the various Department of
Environmental Protection Regulations that address solid
waste management. Additional Federal and State laws apply
to solid waste management under the US Environmental
Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the St.
Johns Water Management District.
This fiscal year alone we are in the process, through the
services of engineering and environmental firms, of
obtaining new permits and renewed permits for the following:
1. Operations Permit Renewal for Segment II
2. Closure Permit Renewal for Segment I
3. .National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit for discharge of stormwater and industrial
wastes
4. Construction and Operations Permit for composting
5. Construction and Operations Permit for landfill gas re-
covery and flaring
6. Construction and Operations Permit for stormwater man-
agement
7. Certification for operation of a recycling facility
8. Construction of a Groundwater Monitoring System for the
Gifford Landfill
9. Consumptive Use Permit for dewatering of the existing
borrow pit
10. Construction and Operation of a new borrow pit
11. Construction and Operation of a Class I Landfill as an
infill between Segment I and Segment II
D. Wastestream - The District is required to track and report
all aspects of the waste operations. Exhibit V provides a
.fiscal year 1992-93 breakdown of the wastestream, recycling
efforts, . leachate generation rates, disposal rates,
rainfall, services to St. Lucie County, and the solid waste
collection rates of the collection centers, City of Vero
Beach, St. Lucie Waste, Treasure Coast Refuse, and Harris
Sanitation.
E. Budget and Revenues - Exhibit VI provides revenues and ex-
penses. It also includes a copy of the recently completed
full cost accounting report as well as graphic depictions of
actual operational expenses in fiscal year 1992-93 and
projected operational and capital expenses in fiscal year
1993-94.
F. Landfill Space - Exhibit VII provides a topographic survey
of Segment II and a report on space consumed and space
remaining. It is now estimated that Segment II will be
filled by the middle of 1997. The District will soon be
pursuing a permit to infill the space between Segment I and
Segment II thereby maximizing land use in the current 270
acre landfill site.
8
G. Construction - To improve maintenance and staff operations
at the landfill the District will be constructing a steel
and concrete block maintenance, storage and welding building
to•replace the existing Pole Barn. The Pole Barn will be
removed. Also, a waste oil storage facility will be built
to comply with requirements for storage of materials in -a
manner to preclude potential groundwater contamination.
A new office and major maintenance building has been
approved for site plan purposes as well as all of the
structures at the landfill. A major site plan approval was
required under the County's Planning Ordinance.
This new office and maintenance facility will provide office
space for District staff; showers, sanitary facilities, and
a lunchroom/training area; sanitary facilities for the
public, and a major maintenance and repair facility for
landfill equipment.
H. Land Purchase - The existing borrow pit has been excavated
to the point where it will now be closed and converted to a
stormwater management facility. In spite of this, however,
additional stormwater management areas are required to
maximize the use of the landfill area now encompassing 270
acres.
To provide additional borrow material for daily and final
cover as well as provide additional stormwater management
areas the purchase of additional land is necessary. Exhibit
VIII provides an illustration of properties, the purchase of
which the District may pursue. These properties are
currently planned for appraisal through the services of W.
H. Benson and Deighan Appraisal.
Project manager John Wood began a very lengthy slidefilm
presentation of the Recommended Solid Waste Management Master Plan
for Indian River County by pointing out several areas of related
operations incorporated into the proposed site plan: (THE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS)
9
APRs. 1994
BOOK 94 ; AGE 84.
P'
OZ
Oth Street (Oslo Road)
N ;N
N ;
_
C -s= Ia
C23 w
I I
------------
I
n.
I
I I II
Stommvater Management I
m
"nCD 'm
0
cD � •
Y...—�.-�.»
C-7 canal
0
7680,
J
• W BIW
ti 0
T
Q _
y
O
m
"nCD 'm
0
cD � •
Y...—�.-�.»
C-7 canal
0
7680,
J
Mr. Wood then focused on the waste management system needs:
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
NEEDS
► Reduction of Illegal Dumping and Collection Costs
► Increase County's Recycling Rate from Le ss Than 15
Percent to 30 Percent
► Additional Solid Waste Disposal Capacity by 1997
► Development of Disaster Response Plan
► Continued Development of District's Waste
Management Site
Project economist Isabel Gonzalez -Jett inghoff commented on the
funding alternatives and procurement alternatives:
FUNDING ALTERNATIVES
►- Refinancing Existing Bonds
► Issuance of New Bonds
► Assessment Increases
► Variable Rates for Residential Customers
► Impact Fees
PROCUREMENT ALTERNATIVES
► Conventional Design and Permitting with Contract
Construction
► Turnkey Approach - Single Contract for Design and
Permitting and Construction
► -Full Service - Singie Contract for Design and
Permitting, Construction, and Operation - Owned by
Private Entity
11
SPR F' 1999 BOOK
IF
I
pr -
BOOK
APR_ ` 1
Project manager Bill Hutchinson reviewed the key planning
concepts before getting into the recommendations:
KEY PLANNING CONCEPTS
► County Will Remain In Solid Waste Management Business
► County Will Meet Recommended Level of Service Standard
► County Will Achieve the State Recycling Goal of 30
Percent of the Waste Stream
► County Will Grow at Rate Forecasted in Comprehensive
Plan
► County Wlll Exercise Power of Eminent Domain If
Necessary to Acquire Larid Needed to Support the
Recommended Waste Management Plan
In conclusion, Mr. Hutchinson presented the programs and
projects recommended for implementation near term 1994-1996:
PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION
NEAR TERM.1994-1996
► Collection
- Mandatory Solid Waste Collection in
Unincorporated County
► Recycling
- Improvements in Existing Programs to Increase
Participation
- Mandatory Preparation of Commercial/Business
Recycling Plans
- Recycling of Construction and Demolition Debris
Composting of Landcleaning and Yard Trash,
Probably with Sewage Sludge
► Tires
- Assess Feasibility of Double Shredding and
Recycling
► Construction and Demolition Debris
- Continue Development of Construction and
Demolition Debris Landfill
► Grit and Sludge
- Assess Feasibility of Composting with Yard
Trash.
12
►. Garbage and Trash
— Continue Permitting and Design of Landfill Segment III,
and Begin Construction by 1996
— Continue Permitting and Design of Infill Between
Segments 1 -and 2, and Begin Construction in 1996
► Funding
— Assessment Increases as Necessary
— Feasibility Analysis of Limiting Number of Cans or Bags
Per Setout
— Guaranteed Municipality Participation in Solid Waste
Disposal District Fixed Costs
► Acquisition of Additional Waste Management
Facility
- Acquire Property to North of District's Existing
Facility ,
. Under discussion, Mr. Hutchinson explained that a density
level of 300 people per square mile generally is considered the
level at which to implement a curbside recycling program.
Commissioner Adams anticipated that mandatory curbside
collection of garbage and trash will be a highly controversial
matter in this county. She believed that rather than taking the
easy way out, we should consider alternatives to curbside
collection. However, if or when a curbside program is initiated,
she felt we should accept everything that is put out on the curb,
such as old carpeting and white goods. Perhaps there could be a
super trash pickup once every three or four months.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that they would like to avoid mandatory
curbside collection, but they just don't see how the County can
avoid it any longer.
Commissioner Macht inquired about instituting a source
separation process, and Mr. Hutchinson affirmed that is a necessary
element.
Commissioner Bird asked if we are burning everything possible,
and Mr. Hutchinson explained that the county does not receive
recycling credit for any material that is burned.
13 @OGS 9C q�J N
APR 1` J 994--
F
r -
APR X63, 71994
BOOK 92 F or- 89
Commissioner Macht asked whether those requirements stem from
state agencies' policies or from laws enacted through "over
intentions" of the legislators.
Director Pinto advised that the requirements are the law.
Mr. Wood noted that the ultimate decomposition of yard trash
will be 50 percent over 4-5 years. Fifteen out of 67 counties that
are achieving the 30 percent rate for recycling are focusing on
decomposition of yard waste.
Extensive discussion ensued regarding the quality of soil
resulting from composted yard waste, and Director Pinto explained
that the end product doesn't even resemble mulch. In fact, it is
identical to the type of potting soil sold in garden centers. He
stressed that anything we can stop from going into the Landfill has
a value because we do not have to provide space for it in the
Landfill.
Discussion next ensued regarding guaranteed municipality
participation in SWDD fixed costs and getting together with the
cities to make sure they understand how important it is for them to
continue their participation. The County needs to address this
matter so there won't be any lawsuits down the road if a
municipality decides to go a different route than using the
County's Landfill.
In discussing the consultants' recommendation for acquiring
property to the north of the Landfill, Mr. Wood explained that
operationally, it offers several advantages. We would have the
ability to use the area to the north for stormwater management and
a borrow pit at the same time we are operating in Cell #3 and Cell
#4. In addition, it may be possible to retain the current
entrance, the scale house, etc.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the property to the north also
offers a number of disadvantages in the cost because of the zoning.
Rex Holmlin, disaster response engineer, presented the
disaster response action plan:
14
h
DISASTER RESPONSE ACTION PLAN
► Clear Definition of District's Responsibilities In a
Disaster
► Understanding of Type of Debris and Amount of
Debris Likely to be Generated In.a Hurricane
► Concept for Debris Removal and Cleanup
► Areas for Staging Debris
► Recommended Policies - Include Response Plan
Comprehensive Plan, Identify People Who Will
Assume Responsibility, Contract for Quick
Execution to Permit District to Supplement Own
Forces
► Specific Coordination Process
Chairman Tippin thanked the consultants for their excellent
presentation, which he felt was not only impressive but also very
scary as to government requirements and what the operation will
cost over the long haul.
Director Pinto emphasized that solid waste will be the most
expensive operation in the county. It was only 20 years ago that
we purchased the property for the Landfill, but now we need to
provide for the next 20 years and the 20 years after that. We have
to make people aware of the tremendous costs involved in the
disposal of solid waste and how important it is that we recycle
everything possible.
Chairman Tippin agreed that we must have a plan, but he felt
that we are getting beyond our ability to pay in trying to
anticipate every emergency. He believed that state of the art is
fine if you can afford it.
Director Pinto pointed out that what we have is not state of
the art. The Landfill is at the bottom of the technology scale.
15
BOOK 9� F � r..90
F-
SPRr�1994
BOOK 92 Pbr r .91
Everything goes up from there, especially the costs. He felt that
in years to come people up north are not going to be able to tell
the difference between their electric bill and their solid waste
disposal bill. We must face the fact that wp haua t-^ o,a,,..e *U -
amount of trash we generate, and we must address mandatory curbside
pickup and other issues.
Commissioner Macht advised that we will do what we have to do,
but we just want to make sure it is necessary.
Chairman Tippin announced that the action required today is
for the Board to accept the report and consider the recommendations
presented by the consultants.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted
the Recommended Solid Waste Management Master Plan
as presented by CH2M Hill.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
i
J. K. Barton, Clerk .J hn W. Tippin, Chairman
rr
16