|
Services Secondary Menu
|
 |
Tertiary Menu
Oakland County Capital and Cooperative Initiatives Revolving Fund
Summary Report
Project Approach
Scope of Work
Through the Oakland County Capital and Cooperative Initiatives
Revolving Fund, Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) was retained to
assist the seven participating communities of Brandon, Groveland,
Independence, Springfield, Waterford, West Bloomfield and White Lake
Townships to evaluate and report on the alternatives for a
cooperative solution for the processing of residential solid waste
and recycling services. The primary scope of activities and
deliverables identified by the retainer included:
- Identification of Cooperative Structures
- Identification of Procurement/Contracting Structures
- Identification of Potential Cooperative Partners
- Evaluation of Existing and Emerging Technologies
- Quantification of Potential Community Costs/Benefits
- Community Input/Feedback
- Final Recommendations
To develop the products above with the greatest relevancy,
utility, and potential for community acceptability, RRS organized
the communities and its own activities around three major areas of
work:
- Analysis and Evaluation of Current Conditions and Best
Practices
- Conversion Technology Fact Finding and Preliminary Analysis
- Stakeholder Education and Discussion
These activities, in turn, would provide the basis for a set of
conclusions and recommendations and a proposed implementation and
transition plan for the development of a significantly improved set
of service offerings for residents in the CCIRF communities and
potentially other adjacent communities in north Oakland County.
Project Meetings
Project Kick Off & Participants
The project was launched on January 13, 2009 with a meeting of
all project communities and Oakland County representatives. The
participating communities and representatives for this project are:
- Kathy Thurman, Supervisor, Brandon Township
- Robert DePalma, Supervisor, Groveland Township
- David Wagner, Supervisor, Independence Township
- Mike Trout, Supervisor, Springfield Township
- Carl Solden, Supervisor, Waterford Township
- Michele Economou Ureste, Supervisor, West Bloomfield
Township
- Mike Kowall, Supervisor, White Lake Township
Other representatives from the communities that participated in
the project meetings included:
- Charlene Carlson, Trustee, Brandon Township
- Sharon Howard, Supervisor’s Office, Independence Township
- Stacy St. James, Environmental Coordinator, Waterford
Township
- Marshall Labadie, Development Services Director, West
Bloomfield Township
Representatives from Oakland County who also participated:
- Whitney Calio, Solid Waste/Environmental Program Coordinator
- Brad Hansen, Brownfield/Environmental Program Coordinator
- Art Holdsworth, Deputy Director of Purchasing
At this meeting, a pattern of providing information about project
focus areas, discussing for understanding and utility, providing any
course correction, and establishing methods for involving broader
community feedback was established.
Community Direction and Needs
After the project kick-off meeting,
RRS conducted one-on-one
interviews with each participating community. Prior to each meeting,
the communities were asked to compile solid waste and recycling
information for their community. These meetings assisted with data
collection on current conditions and also identified the three main
questions the participating communities wanted to answer as a result
of this study:
- Are there efficiencies in these communities working
together?
- What systems can increase recycling and waste diversion in
these communities?
- Are conversion technologies feasible?
The eventual answers to these questions became central
conclusions which informed the recommendations and transition
implementation steps proposed for consideration by the communities.
Regular Project Meetings
The project meeting schedule was developed to conduct meetings
every other week to undertake the various aspects of the project. A
total of six regular meetings were conducted, (in addition to the
conversion technology vendor interviews and one‐on‐one
stakeholder meetings described elsewhere). The meetings served
as educational opportunities for the participating communities to
receive presentations on established best practices and proven
options for of successful solid waste and recycling programs and to
discuss their applicability to the participating communities
circumstances. Information about organizational structures,
processing technologies, and contracting techniques were discussed,
along with the practical considerations involved with the adoption
of the various strategies, to facilitate informed evaluation of
recommended options at the end of the study.
A complete set of meeting materials is included in Appendix C
Information provided and reviewed at the project meetings included:
- Waste and recycling estimates for the participating
communities
- Projected growth in waste and recycling over the next 20
years
- Identifying and reviewing comprehensive solid waste and
recycling program components
- Case studies of programs in and around Oakland County
- Review of benefits and considerations of different solid
waste system models
- Projections by community of potential waste diversion under
different system model scenarios
- Projections by community of potential cost savings under
different system model scenarios
- An overview of various conversion technologies—alternatives
to conventional solid waste landfills
- A tour and briefing at a regional recycling authority in
Oakland County (SOCRRA)
Technology Review
Conversion Technology Basics
As part of the regular meetings described above, RRS provided
briefings regarding the various types of established conversion
technologies, their processes, attributes and their applicability
for typical waste processing requirements. A discussion regarding
the process for evaluating and developing these early technologies
was also prepared and conducted.
Conversion Technology Options
To determine the current compatibility of the alternative (or
conversion) technologies with the participating communities, RRS
conducted a literature review of current and ongoing studies being
conducted in areas around the country and released a Request for
Information (RFI) to vendors of these technology systems. Vendors
that met the identified criteria were invited to a vendor interview,
held April 21, 2009. Of the nine responses received, four companies
were invited, and three participated (one could not attend due to
scheduling conflicts). The interviews allowed the participating
communities to ask further questions and interact with these types
of vendors to determine if their system is a good fit for the waste
management needs and goals of the participating northern Oakland
County communities. A more detailed summary of the technology
component of this study is provided in the Technology Section, and
the entire process is documented in Appendix D.
Community Input/Feedback
Stakeholder Communication
Throughout the course of the study, the project communities were
actively involved in communications with their residents and Boards.
Executive briefings suitable for broad dissemination were produced
as a way of reporting to a larger group of stakeholders about each
meeting. RRS provided several information pieces about the project
including a summary of system models, benefits of recycling, and
several project updates. This information was shared at township
halls and on websites. Presentations were made to each Township
Board by RRS about the status of the project during the months of
April and May. These materials are included in the project meetings
materials Appendix C.
Community Surveys
To further solicit the community resident input; each
participating community hosted a customized online survey about the
study and solid waste issues. The survey questions targeted resident
preferences to solid waste and recycling services, and sought
information on current service levels, pricing and satisfaction.
Overall, 1359 residents between the seven communities responded to
the survey by the end of May 2009. A summary memo and compilation of
these surveys is provided in Appendix F.
Preliminary Recommendations
Table 1. Total Waste Generation (Estimated)
| |
|
|
Generation |
| Townships |
Pop. |
Single Family Households |
Total Tons |
Waste Generation |
Recyclables |
Yard Waste |
| Baseline |
233,911 |
69,663 |
94,918 |
94,918 |
- |
- |
|
| Dual Stream Recycling |
233,911 |
69,663 |
94,918 |
65,149 |
9,336 |
20,433 |
|
| Single Stream (SS) |
233,911 |
69,663 |
94,918 |
58,811 |
15,674 |
20,433 |
|
| SS with Recyclebank |
233,911 |
69,663 |
94,918 |
46,620 |
27,865 |
20,433 |
|
| SS with Recyclebank and
Organics Collection |
233,911 |
69,663 |
94,918 |
36,171 |
27,865 |
30,882 |
|
| Conversion Technology |
233,911 |
69,663 |
94,918 |
53,108 |
21,377 |
20,433 |
Waste Generation & Cost Projections
Utilizing information provided by the communities, industry and
regulatory information, and adjusted in consideration of other local generation rates and RRS knowledge
and experience of the region, the likely number of households and volume of materials required to be
managed by the communities was used as a basis for discussion and modeling of potential programs, as
shown below. In a similar fashion, utilizing recent local contracts awards, posted and surveyed
rates, and established municipal rates in the region, cost projections were developed for various service
levels, as shown below.
Table 2. Cost Projections (Based on Single Stream Model)
| |
|
Households |
Cost Per Month |
Cost Per Quarter |
Cost Per Year |
| Townships |
Pop. |
Single Family |
Hsehld |
Comm |
Hsehld |
Comm |
Hsehld |
Comm |
| Brandon |
13,897 |
3,881 |
$12.17 |
$47,244 |
$36,52 |
$141,732 |
$146.07 |
$566,928 |
|
| Groveland |
6,350 |
1,672 |
$12.32 |
$20,594 |
$36.96 |
$61,783 |
$147.84 |
$247,133 |
|
| Independence |
34,307 |
9,906 |
$13.06 |
$129,376 |
$39.18 |
$388,129 |
$156.73 |
$1,552,517 |
|
| Springfield |
14,182 |
4,195 |
$12.49 |
$52,407 |
$37.48 |
$157,220 |
$149.90 |
$628,881 |
|
| Waterford |
69,667 |
22,204 |
$13.07 |
$290,149 |
$39.20 |
$870,446 |
$156.81 |
$3,481,785 |
|
| W. Bloomfield |
65,089 |
18,769 |
$13.04 |
$244,741 |
$39.12 |
$734,224 |
$156.47 |
$2,936,895 |
|
| White Lake |
30,419 |
9,036 |
$12.54 |
$113,319 |
$37.62 |
$339,956 |
$150.49 |
$1,359,823 |
|
| TOTAL |
233,911 |
69,663 |
$12.67 |
$897,830 |
$38.01 |
$2,693,490 |
$152.05 |
$10,773,962 |
This chart demonstrates the economic viability of the CCIRF
communities to command a market response to any service solicitation, based on their relatively
large combined size, and a clear financial benefit to the rate payer if an organized community wide contract
is established. Considered in conjunction with the viable strategies and options for
organizations presented during the project, it became clear that there are many opportunities for these seven
communities in northern Oakland County in regards to solid waste and recycling management.
A set of considerations was offered for community feedback, and
an entire meeting devoted to discussing the viability of the following recommendations.
Preliminary Recommendations
- These communities should pursue a formal cooperative approach
that will allow them to leverage their buying power to induce improved collection and
processing services and reduce costs for their resident taxpayers.
- Municipally organized and contracted services should be
developed to gain a range of new services, reduce taxpayer cost and to support development of
alternatives to landfilling.
- The determination of ultimate viability of conversion
technologies can only be and should be answered with marketplace testing through a bona fide procurement
process.
- These communities should continue uninterrupted in pursuing the
benefits of cooperation with the creation of a cooperative structure and the development of a
transition plan that accommodates identified keystones to system development.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Community Needs
The three main questions the participating communities wanted to
answer as a result of this study have answers that are both definitive and yet still will require a
decision and commitment on the part of the communities to continue with this project to provide a detailed
answer.
- Are there efficiencies in these communities working together?
Experience in Oakland County, in Michigan and across the country has shown that communities that
cooperate to develop services benefit from economies of scale, market position, and shared
administration and educational costs that result in lower rates and a high degree of service, along with
the ability to adapt to changing practices and requirements. These communities have indicated a willingness
to develop a specific organizational form that will allow them to capture those efficiencies.
Additionally, these communities along with others adjacent have a history of cooperation through the NO HAZ
program, and all will continue to benefit as long as membership is shared and willingly accepted
with a focus on service waste service delivery.
- What systems can increase recycling and waste diversion in
these communities? Community wide collection systems combined with locally available processing
options and the contractual ability to provide incentives, ensure service standards and to negotiate
revenue sharing are proven top performers in landfill diversion. The ability to leverage the
contracted waste stream to encourage investment in processing and collection technology can also be
crucial, at times. The ability to access emerging single stream recycling, incentives, and advanced
composting technologies will improve diversion and are comparatively simple for residents to
participate in.
- Are conversion technologies feasible? The answer here is a
definitive maybe. Just as clear as some of these emerging technologies reliability and functionality is
improving, landfill rates are extremely low and space is plentiful. The rigor that can be imposed and the
confidence that can be drawn from the RFI process indicates that at a potentially premium price point, or
on a limited waste stream (ie‐yard
waste only) it is possible that some of these conversion technologies
are feasible, or could become feasible with our evolving energy and commodity marketplace. In any event,
regulatory, siting, and financing and due diligence considerations place the conversion
technologies on a longer development cycle than the clear advantages accessible through cooperation in the
immediate term.
Cost and Revenues
Building on the original tonnage and service projections, RRS
prepared a new system cost projection that used costs provided by the RFI submissions, along with some
scenarios for recyclables and organic materials revenues. A project memo including the different
scenarios is attached as Appendix A. The significant consideration below is how extremely variable the
feasibility of the more aggressive conversion approaches are compared to the relatively low cost and
predictability from a proven recycling/composting program. As recycling revenues increase, the
relative cost of conversion technologies and recycling incentives improve dramatically. The
low cost solution in the best market is one that combines a recycling incentive program with advanced
anaerobic composting. The potential for power generation revenues to increase this variability is
possible, but unknown.
Table 3. System Costs at $35 per Ton Tip Fee (Conversion
Technology) with Revenue Estimates
| |
Revenue - Low |
Revenue - Medium |
Revenue - High |
| Twps |
Rev Total |
Rev / Hsehld |
Net Cost / Hsehld |
Rev Total |
Rev / Hsehld |
Net Cost / Hsehld |
Rev Total |
Rev / Hsehld |
Net Cost / Hsehld |
| Baseline |
$ - |
$ - |
$200.00 |
$ - |
$ - |
$200.00 |
$ - |
$ - |
$200.00 |
|
| Dual Stream Recycling |
$586,869 |
$8.42 |
$146.05 |
$1,036,666 |
$14.88 |
$139.59 |
$1,730,465 |
$24.84 |
$129.63 |
|
| Single Stream (SS) |
$777,199 |
$11.16 |
$140.89 |
$1,428,307 |
$20.50 |
$131.54 |
$2,489,056 |
$35.73 |
$116.32 |
|
| SS w/ Recyclebank |
$1,143,302 |
$16.41 |
$142.47 |
$2,181,635 |
$31.32 |
$127.56 |
$3,948,218 |
$56.68 |
$102.20 |
|
| SS w/ Recyclebank & Organics Collection |
$1,300,044 |
$18.66 |
$142.13 |
$2,416,748 |
$34.69 |
$126.10 |
$4,261,701 |
$61.18 |
$99.62 |
|
| Conversion Technology |
$2,016,903 |
$28.95 |
$161.88 |
$3,141,465 |
$45.10 |
$145.74 |
$5,342,527 |
$76.69 |
$114.14 |
Conversion Technology Tip Fee=$35.00 per Ton
Conversion Technology Collection Cost = $10.75 per Month
Recommendations
The CCIRF communities should begin work to finalize the details
of a solid waste authority with:
- the authorization to seek services on behalf of its founding
communities. The formation and operation of an authority in the near term will also greatly
benefit the ability to request and receive legitimate pricing in any procurement process.
- Included in this development should be outreach to adjacent
communities which have expressed an interest.
The CCIRF communities should begin work on the specifics of a
community wide hauling contract and procurement specifications.
- Specifications will detail important items such as service
levels desired within each community, the creation of service zones for specific services, procurement
preferences or requirements of the communities, any use of automated collection or incentives,
and service procurement order and calendar.
- Develop an implementation schedule based on existing agreements
and procurement requirements.
- A transitional service would be developed with an eye toward
moving to a conversion technology, when and if feasible.
The CCIRF communities should request proposals from conversion
technologists.
- As part of the proposed procurement process, evaluate for
viability and desirability to conduct due diligence activities.
- Narrowing the field to not more than two.
- Begin specific negotiations around location and siting
timeframe, price point and materials guarantees, and financing in a controlled and actionable
environment.
A more detailed set of implementation steps is included in
Appendix G. A transitional service agreement(s) that provides an option for a shorter (ie 3 years)
term would be developed, initially. This will allow for community acquaintance with the program, an
opportunity for program contract adjustments, and the potential of moving to a conversion
technology if deemed desirable. A general time frame for implementation follows:
June/July‐ present
findings to member Boards
July/August prepare Authority Articles and By Laws and present to
Boards
July‐September prepare
procurement specifications and calendar
August/September conduct outreach and briefings to potential
members
October/December conduct procurement and evaluation
December prepare transition plan for service implementations
September‐Spring ’10
conduct municipal activities to authorize membership, service
contracting
October‐Spring ’10
conduct conversion technology due diligence/negotiations as required
Spring ’10 begin community wide services
Spring ’13 begin new community wide service agreement
Independence Township Signature
|
|
