The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05211991 - IO.3 I.O.-3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE /_ - Costa s of = ,q May i 13 1991 �' - County 80- �P� DATE: sTq-coax REPORT ON THE PROJECTED COSTS OF THE ENTIRE COMPOSTING SUBJECT: DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM BEING UNDERTAKEN BY ACME FILL CORPORATION IN SATISFACTION OF ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF _ APPROVAL FOR THE ACME TRANSFER STATION LAND USE PERMIT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve as a working document the attached proposed cost breakdown for operating the composting demonstration program, within the parameters identified by representatives from Acme Fill Corporation, request staff from the Community Development Department to develop a monitoring program to insure that the , actual costs of the composting program identified by Acme are justified. 2 . Request Acme to implement the composting program as soon as possible and move from Phase ' I to Phase II and Phase III as soon as is practicable, in order to reduce the cost of the program to the ultimate ratepayer,, 3 . Acknowledge in approving this program that those additional costs which can appropriately be attributed by Acme to the composting program may result in an overall average rate increase equivalent to a minimum of 70 cents per ton as long as current export arrangements are in effect, which will likely be passed through to the haulers' ratepayers, the residential, commercial and industrial customer. 4. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from the 1990 Internal Operations Committee which requested that CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENi`'S YES SIGNATURE: _RECOMMENDATION OF COU Y ATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE O SIGNATURE(S): I . SCHRODER SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK ACTION OF BOARD ON May 21', 199 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED � a/, /99/ PHIL BATCH OR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Administrator County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Director, GM & ED Agency Community Development Director M382 (,o/sa)Solid Waste Manager BY DEPUTY the 1991 Internal Operations Committee check on the progress of Acme' s composting plan, which was being reviewed by the Board' s Compost Task Force. On March 5, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved Acme' s demonstration : composting project, prepared in response to one of the Conditions of Approval for the land use permit for the Acme Transfer Station. At that time, the cost data for the project was not available. The Board asked that the Task Force on Compost review the cost, data and provide our Committee with their recommendations. On May 13, 1991, our Committee received the . attached report from the Task Force on Compost. We met with representatives from Acme and from our Community Development Department. Tom Reilly from Acme reviewed the cost figures with our Committee. Mr. Reilly emphasized that for planning purposes the cost figures are accurate within + or - 300. Mr. Reilly also noted that Acme believes that, in order to assist in holding down costs, they should be able to move more rapidly from Phase I to Phase II to Phase III than the six month increments which are outlined in the attached report. We agree that the composting program should be implemented as quickly as possible and that Acme should move from Phase I to Phase III as rapidly as is prudent and practicable. The basis issue in moving from Phase I to Phase II to Phase III is that the program will start out processing 20 tons of yard trimmings and _grass daily and move by Phase III to 100 tons per day. Mr. Reilly also noted that the current tipping fee charged to franchised haulers does not cover (and was not intended to cover) the costs of the composting program. Mr. Reilly noted that if those costs were spread to all of Acme' s customers, it would result in an increase in the tipping fee of about 70 cents per ton. Mr. Reilly noted that the Compost Task Force agreed that the costs that have been estimated by Acme are, if anything, on the low side. Mr. Reilly confirmed that his estimate of 70 cents per ton includes all three phases and includes the possibility that costs will end up being as much as 30% above the estimates included in the attached report. In response to questions from our Committee regarding how soon Acme could be operational, Mr. Reilly responded that they require only one more permit, the one from the, State Integrated Waste Management Board and that, barring any unforeseen developments, Acme could have the composting program operational in August, 1991. Charles Zahn noted that composting yard wastes will be crucial in meeting AB 939' s recycling goals. He said that the Community Development Department wanted at least one year's operating data from the demonstration project for use in permitting the permanent composting facility, and .that permitting would require a minimum of six months. The demonstration project, therefore, should be expected to be in operation for at least eighteen months to two years. He said that the Community Development Department wants "hard data" because the state is developing comprehensive composting facility permitting regulations which parallel those now being applied to landfill and transfer station projects. While our Committee is concerned about the potential cost increases and wants to insure that staff are monitoring the costs closely to insure that they are appropriate and cost-effective, we recognize that compliance with the conditions of approval relating to the composting program was never intended to have been paid for from the existing tipping fee. It is important for the Board of Supervisors to recognize that approval of this report will commit the County to allowing Acme to recover those costs which are eventually determined to be appropriate through an increase in the tipping fee. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT May 9, 3991 TO: Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Schroder and McPeak) FROM: Charles. A. Zahn; Assistant. Director-Conserv ion BY: Louise Aiello, Planning CoordinatorAIA SUBJECT: Cost Analysis on ACME Fill Corporation Compost Demon- stration Project On May 8, 1991 the Compost Task Force reviewed the attached cost , analysis for the ACME Fill Corporation Compost Demonstration Project. The Compost Task Force approved , the cost analysis as reasonable recognizing that the costs could be a plus/minus 300 depending .on the types of equipment used. Additionally, the Compost Task Force _ expressed concerns about the future economic . viability of major composting projects unless sufficient waste remains available to . such projects. The Task Force requests that your Committee, and the AB939 Task Force, take into consideration economic viability and wastestream availability when composting project proposals are reviewed. a , cc: Compost -Task Force AB939 - Source Reduction Subcommittee/Siting. Committee ACME Fill Corporation aei3/a:compost. i • PRESIDENT DIRECTORS Boyd M. Olney, Jr. Bart Bisio SECRETARY - TREASURER Clark Colvis George Navone April 30, 1991 Ms. Louise Aiello Community Development Department 'Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA. 94553 Subject: Acme Fill Corp.'s Transfer Station Project Costs for Compost Demonstration Project Dear Ms..Aiello: ' Costs for the proposed project which the Compost Task Force and the Board of Supervisors have approved in concept are enclosed for purposes of discussion. Costs are "presented as Table 4-1 and Table 4-3 and can be inserted for.pages 4-2 and 4-3 of the project proposal. Very truly yours, ACME FILL CORP. Thomas.Reilly Director of Operations cc: Boyd Olney Jr. Jim Peziaglia Charles.Nicholson (Environmental Health) P CR 130&1 »off Mwnt 9,450 /� : G 228-7099 228-6525 Table 4-1 Estimated Project Cost` CAPITAL Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Total (6 months) (6 months) '(6 months) (18 months) Tub Grinder $170,000 Owned Owned $170,000 Wheel Loader Owned $80,0005 Owned $80,000 5-cubic yard bucket $6,000 n/a n/a $6,000 Water Truck Owned Owned Owned - Screening Equipment 6 6 $90,000 $90,000 Windrow Turner ' $80,000 Owned $80,000 Wastewater Storage Tanks 8 8 8 - Monitoring Equipment $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 Water Connection n/a $15,000 n/a $15,000 Demonstration Garden n/a $25,000 n/a $25,000 Site Preparation' $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 SUBTOTAL $197,000 $206,000 $96,000 $499,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Personnel $85,000 $120,000 $236,750 $441,750 Equipment Maintenance $10,000 $25,000 $50,000 $85,000 Equipment Rental $57,000 $27,000 - $84,000 Technical Consulting $25,000 $25,000 _ $25,000 575,000 Laboratory Testing $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Market Assessment $15,000 n/a n/a $15,000 Marketing10 $4,500 $10,000 $12,500 $27,000 Public Education $4,500 $10,000 $12,500 $27,000 Research $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 Collection Bags $3,125 $6,250 $12,500 $21,875 SUBTOTAL $234,125 $253,250 $379,250 $866,625 4 Anticipated demonstration project duration is 18 months. S Purchase of a second wheel loader. 6 Assumes rental costs of$9,000 per month for 3 months out of 6. Cost is included in O&M under equipment rental. I Assumes rental costs of$5,000 per month for 6 months. Cost is included in O&M under equipment rental. ` Assumes rental costs of$1,700 per month for 6 months. Cost is included in O&M under equipment rental. ° Site preparation includes a 6-inch gravel pad for the processing area. 1O Marketing costs will, when possible, be offset by sales commissions. 91005 - Acme Compost Project 4-2 April 1, 1991 Table 4-2 Existing and Required Equipment Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Existing Wheel Loader Equipment: Water Truck Purchased: Tub Grinder Windrow Turner Screening Equipment 5-cubic yard Bucket Wheel Loader Rented: Wastewater Storage Tanks Wastewater Storage Tanks Wastewater Storage Tanks Screening Equipment Screening Equipment Windrow Turner Table 4-3 Tons Processed By Phase Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Total Incoming Volume(tons) 2,600 6,500 13,000 22,100 Capital Cost $197,000 $206,000 $96,000 5499,000 O&M Cost $234,125 $253,250 $379,250 $866,625 4.2 Market Revenue While Acme expects the compost produced from the demonstration project to be marketable, offsetting Project costs with projected revenue is considered premature at this point because of the unknown nature of local compost markets. Actual revenue from selling compost (minus any ;ales commission) will be used to offset Project cost in an effort to reduce the overall costs of the demonstration project: 91005 - Acme Compost Project 473 April 1, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Louise Aiello, Community Development Department FROM: Matthew Cotton, Brown, Vence & Associates DATE: May 8, 1991 RE: Acme Compost Proposal Costs I have enclosed a copy of Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 from the Acme Composting Demonstration Project Proposal, so that you may send them out to the IO committee members prior to their meeting on Monday.. Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide. Table 4-2 Existing and Required Equipment Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Existing Wheel Loader Equipment: Water Truck Purchased: Tub Grinder Windrow Turner Screening Equipment 5-cubic yard Bucket Wheel Loader Rented: Wastewater Storage Tanks Wastewater Storage Tanks Wastewater Storage Tanks Screening Equipment Screening Equipment Windrow Turner Table 4-3 Tons Processed By Phase . ................... ......... ................. ........... Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Total Incoming Volume (tons) 2,600 6,500 13,000 22,100 Capital Cost $197,000 $206,000 $96,000 $499,000 O&M Cost $234,125 $253,250 $379,250 $866,625 4.2 Market Revenue While Acme expects the compost produced from .the demonstration project to be marketable, offsetting Project costs with projected revenue is considered premature at this point because of the unknown nature of local compost markets. Actual revenue from selling compost (minus any sales commission) will.be used to offset Project cost in an effort to reduce the overall costs of the demonstration project. 91015-Acme Compost Proposal May 8, 1991 l