Island County, WA Final Report

Final Report

Solid Waste Operational Assessment and

Benchmarking Study

Presented to:Is land County, Washington

Island CountyP.O. Box 500

Coupeville, Washington 98239(360) 679-7338

Presented by:

SCS ENGINEERS4041 Park Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100

Tampa, Florida(813) 621-0080

April 24, 2008File No. 09207003.00

http://www.islandcounty.net/

Offices Nationwidewww.scsengineers.com

F INAL REPORT

So l id Waste Opera t iona l Assessmentand

Benchmark ing Study

Presented To:

Island CountyP.O. Box 500

Coupeville, Washington 98239(360) 679-7338

Presented by:

SCS ENGINEERS4041 Park Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100

Tampa, Florida (813) 621-0080

April 24, 2008

File No. 09207003.00

I s l a n d C o u n t y

Tab le o f Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary....................................................................................ES-1Operational Recommendations...........................................................ES-1Financial Recommendations...............................................................ES-1New Facilities......................................................................................ES-2Curbside Recycling Program...............................................................ES-2

1 Introduction..............................................................................................1Objective of the Study..............................................................................1Background of the System Assessment...................................................1

Geography........................................................................................1Population................................................................................................2

Economy...........................................................................................2Geology............................................................................................3Land Use...........................................................................................3Transportation..................................................................................3

2 Current Solid Waste System.....................................................................4Solid Waste Generation............................................................................4Solid Waste Programs..............................................................................6Solid Waste Collection Programs..............................................................8Solid Waste Recycling Facilities...............................................................9County Solid Waste Transfer Facilities...................................................12

Bayview Drop Box Station..............................................................12Camano Transfer Station................................................................12Island County Solid Waste Complex...............................................13Oak Harbor Transfer Station...........................................................16Freeland Recycle Facility................................................................17Historic Solid Waste Management Studies.....................................18

Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Management Strategies................................................................................................18Incineration Feasibility Study..................................................19Solid Waste/Septage Composting Assessment.......................19Oak Harbor Transfer Station Study.........................................20Oak Harbor Materials Recovery Study....................................21

3 Operational assessment.........................................................................22Facility operational Statistics.................................................................22Equipment and Vehicle Inventory..........................................................22

i

I s l a n d C o u n t yContents (Cont inued)

Section Page

Cash Purchases.......................................................................26Guaranteed Buy-Back Programs.............................................27Sinking Fund...........................................................................27Debt Financing........................................................................28Leasing....................................................................................28

Facility Operations.................................................................................29Upgrade Coupeville Transfer Station..............................................29Expand Yard and Wood Waste Recycling at Coupeville Station.....30Improve Operations of Disposal Contract With Rabanco................31Develop New Camano Island Transfer Station................................33Environmental Cleanup of Freeland Site.........................................33Proposal by Oak Harbor to Develop Joint City/County Oak Harbor Transfer Station..............................................................................36Expand or Consolidate Bayview Drop Box Station With Island Recycling........................................................................................38

Expand Curbside Recycling Opportunities.............................................38Financial Issues......................................................................................39

Adjustment of the Minimum Service Fee........................................40Set Tipping Fees for to Encourage Additional Recycling.................40Operating Reserves........................................................................41

4 Benchmarking Study..............................................................................43Benchmarking Overview........................................................................43Island County Benchmarking Program...................................................43

5 Findings and Recommendations............................................................496 References.............................................................................................53

i i


L i s t o f F igu resNo. Page

Figure 1. Map of Island County, Washington...................................................1Figure 2. Moderate-Risk Wastes Being Processed at Island County Solid

Waste Complex................................................................................5Figure 3. Bayview Transfer Station, Island County, WA.................................12Figure 4. Camano Island Transfer Station, Island County, WA.......................13Figure 5. Island County Solid Waste Complex, Island County........................14Figure 6. Photograph Showing Exterior of Transfer Station, Island County...15Figure 7. Typical Stand-Alone Open Top MSW Facility for Commercial or

Individual Resident Use. Six Such Slots Located at the Coupeville Facility, Four at the Camano Transfer Station................................15

Figure 8. Auto/Household Battery Collection Area, Part of the Moderate Risk Waste Facility at the Island County Solid Waste Complex........................16

Figure 9. Paint Exchange Area, Island County Solid Waste Complex............16Figure 10. Oak Harbor Transfer Station, Island County, WA....................17Figure 11. Freeland Recycle Facility........................................................18Figure 12. Historic Solid Waste Tonnages Delivered to Transfer and Drop

Box Stations, Island County............................................................24Figure 13. Capital Equipment Cost Curves...............................................26Figure 14. Materials on Tipping Floor Can Be Recycled...........................29Figure 15. Wood Waste Collection Area, Island County Transfer Station.30Figure 16. Bioswale Requiring Ongoing Maintenance..............................31Figure 17. Special Equipment Used to Further Process Accumulated Yard

Waste.............................................................................................31Figure 18. Cantilevered Container Tarping System.................................33Figure 19. Current Camano Island Improvements...................................35Figure 20. Change in Monthly Cost by Reducing Number or Frequency of

Trash Cans......................................................................................39Figure 21. Private Landfills in Washington/Oregon and Various Transport

Methods..........................................................................................42Figure 22. 2008 County Tipping Fees, Washington..................................44Figure 23. Operating Cost of Representative Publicly Operated Transfer

Stations..........................................................................................46

L i s t o f Tab lesNo. Page

Table 1. Population Statistics For Island County, WA.....................................2Table 2. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Island County............................5Table 3. Recent Moderate-Risk Waste Generation in Island County...............6Table 4. Participation in Moderate-Risk Waste Program at County Facilities. 6Table 5. Municipal Solid Waste Generation Projections, Island County..........6

i i i

I s l a n d C o u n t yContents (Cont inued)

Section Page

Table 6. MSW Disposal Projections, Island County.........................................6Table 7. Summary of Previous Solid and Moderate-Risk Management Plan

Recommendations.....................................................................................7Table 8. Waste Collection Providers, Island County.......................................8Table 9. Garbage Collection Fees for 2006(a) (Dollars/Month for Weekly

Collection).................................................................................................8Table 10.Drop Off and Buy Back Centers, Island County..............................10Table 11.Summary of Materials Accepted at Drop-Off and Buy-Back Centers,

Island County...........................................................................................11Table 12.MSW Quantities Received at Transfer and Drop Box Stations, Island

County.....................................................................................................23Table 13.Actual Operating Costs, Coupeville Transfer Station, 2005-2007...25Table 14.Coupeville Transfer Station Customer Survey, July-August 2007.. .37Table 15.Benchmarking Survey Data............................................................47

Appendices

Appendix A Equipment Inventory Appendix B Washington Disposal Rate History for Communities Exporting

Solid Waste

i v


EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe County operates an integrated solid waste management system consisting of two transfer stations (Coupeville and Camano), and three drop box stations (Bayview, Freeland, and Oak Harbor), where residents can dispose of solid wastes, recyclables, and moderate-risk wastes. All of these facilities have experienced high volume within recent years due to increasing population growth in the County. . The goal of this study was to provide data and information that would ensure that Island County (the County), Washington is providing efficient management of solid waste programs, services, and infrastructure. SCS Engineers (SCS) was engaged by the County to explore possible opportunities for improvements, cost savings, and revenue enhancements.

OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONSOur review of the Department’s facilities indicates that they are well managed and equipment maintained in accordance with established solid waste industry maintenance practices. Current staffing levels to most functions appear optimal with respect to other similarly sized solid waste agencies.

Data collected during our benchmarking survey of other similar transfer stations suggests that the Coupeville Transfer Station’s operating costs (not counting the cost of transportation and disposal) compares favorably with well-run, publicly operated facilities. Increasing deliveries of waste to the station and processing of the waste from the tipping floor and then into the compactor and the trailers is a daily challenge for staff because of the existing capacity of the Station. By expanding the tipping floor by two or more additional bays, the County would see immediate economic benefits. The added space will provide needed additional operating area, reduce congestion, increase storage capacity in the event of service interruption, and also permit additional space for staff to remove potential recyclables form the incoming waste stream.

The County currently offers reduced tipping fees for customers delivering segregated loads of recyclable materials such as wood wastes. The County’s current contractor for yard and wood waste recycling has experimented with innovative methods to improve separation and screening of yard waste materials as well as identifying markets for boiler fuels. Again, every additional ton recycled from the incoming waste stream results in disposal costs savings. It is recommended that the County work with its recycling contractors to develop markets for these segregated materials and adjust its tipping fees to attract these supplies.

E S - 1


F INANCIAL RECOMMENDATIONSThe County currently funds its replacement of equipment and vehicles out of its cash reserves. Many solid waste agencies are using a sinking or revolving fund to spread the costs of funding new vehicles or equipment over a longer period of time. In comparison to the current cash method of financing, a sinking fund would help even out the annual volatility of the agency’s replacement funding needs and to predict the Department’s annual funding needs over a long planning horizon.

The County also currently maintains a $1.3 million restricted reserve for use in emergency post-closure environmental issues at closed landfill facilities. In addition, the County has about $2.5 million in operating reserves that covers equipment repair and new capital facilities. Based on the County’s current budget of roughly $6 million per year, we are of the opinion that the County should consider establishing a goal of $1.5 million for operating reserves apart from funding these future capital facilities.

NEW FAC IL IT IESA review of the current operations at the existing Camano Transfer Station suggests the improvements currently under way as part of the Camano Hill Road rebuild will improve many of site's existing problems. Planned upgrades, in addition to the already installed second scale, should significantly improve recycling operations, interior circulation, lighting, and site access. Queuing on the roadway should not be an issue with the revised access points and relocation of the East Camano Drive Intersection. Ultimately, with future growth on the Island, the County will need to investigate the siting and construction of a new transfer station.

Data at this time do not support the construction of a shared transfer station with the City of Oak Harbor at this time. While there are significant numbers of residents in the City who are driving directly to the Coupeville Transfer Station, the drive distance is not unreasonable given current industry benchmarks. In this case, most of the vehicles delivering refuse to the Station are passenger or light trucks. It is our opinion, therefore, that more detailed estimates of the Oak Harbor wasteshed be conducted to provide a more detailed evaluation. Clearly, however, the City and the County should conduct further evaluation of the existing Oak Harbor Drop Box Station to determine if operating improvements can be made to the Station to expand refuse disposal services for City residents. These improvements may be more economical than construction and operation of a new transfer station.

A review of current tonnage and customer delivery records of the Bayview Drop Box Station indicated an increasing demand for services at the

E S - 2


southern portion of Whidbey Island. There has been some suggestion that those economies could be realized by consolidation of the two operations at the Freeland Facility. Although it is unusual for two facilities to provide similar services in close proximity to one another, it is our opinion that consolidation of these two operations may not result in significant costs savings to the County because some customers may have to drive an additional six miles further for drop off services. In the interim, the county should continue to replace smaller boxes with larger capacity containers similar to recent upgrades in the recycle area. Consequently, further study is needed to determine current and future customer use for a significantly expanded station at Bayview.

CURBS IDE RECYCL ING PROGRAMA large percentage of the County's residents in the unincorporated areas do not currently subscribe to a waste collection program. Further, there is not a viable curbside collection service for recyclables. Much of these materials and wastes are delivered to County facilities resulting in heavy traffic and requiring the County to keep the Coupeville Transfer Station open seven days a week to provide the necessary service levels.

Our review of the proposal offered by Waste Connections via Island Disposal indicates that it offers significant opportunities to increase recycling rates in the unincorporated areas of the County, while at the same time enabling homeowners to reduce their overall monthly collection costs. Although not scientific, the survey conducted by the County suggests a significant number of respondents were in favor of this change. The proposal required a "level of service" ordinance that would require all customers on curbside trash pickup to participate in a mandatory program. Those who believe they would not benefit from such a program may prefer to self-haul. Alternatively, an RFP approach may allow the County additional control over the program. A curbside recycling program would undoubtedly result in overall cost savings to the County because the greater volume of recovered recyclables would not have to transported and disposed at a remote landfill

SCS is of the opinion that an Island Disposal (Waste Connections) and a WasteManagement (Camano Island) proposal be thoroughly examined both in the context ofhomeowner and County cost savings and increases in levels of service.

E S - 3


1 INTRODUCTIONOBJECT IVE OF THE STUDYThe goal of this work assignment was to provide data and information that would ensure that Island County (the County), Washington is providing efficient management of solid waste programs, services, and infrastructure. During the course of the study, SCS Engineers (SCS) explored possible opportunities for improvements, cost savings, and revenue enhancements. The following report details our firm’s findings and recommendations.

BACKGROUND OF THE SYSTEM ASSESSMENTGeography

Island County, Washington is located to the north of Seattle and encompasses two large populated islands, Whidbey and Camano. Whidbey Island is roughly 40 miles long and from one to 10 miles in width. Camano Island is about 15 miles long and from one to eight miles wide. In total, the two main islands have about 200 miles of marine shoreline in Puget Sound.

The County has three incorporated cities and towns: Coupeville, Langley and Oak Harbor. The County is bounded on the east by Snohomish County, to the west by Jefferson County, to the north and northwest by Skagit County and San Juan County, respectively.

F igure 1 . Map o f I s l and County , Wash ington

1


POPULAT IONThe population of Island County has nearly doubled in the last 20 years from 44,048 in 1980 to 71,558 in 2000 (Table 1). The most recent population projections (2007) developed by the State of Washington sales tax revenue allocations indicates that the County’s current population is estimated to be 78,400 with 52,795 persons living in the unincorporated area. Table 1 also presents available population data for cities (and their Urban Growth Areas) and areas in the County. The levels of population increases from 2000 to 2007 equates to a nearly 10 percent population increase. The Island County Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) projects a population growth rate of approximately 1.9% per year for the period 2000 to 2020. These data reveal that that the population in South Whidbey and Camano Island are anticipated to grow at a somewhat higher rate over this planning horizon.

Tab le 1 . Popu la t ion Sta t i s t i cs Fo r I s l and County , WA

City 1980 1990 2000Coupeville 1,006 1,377 1,723Langley 654 845 959Oak Harbor 12,271 17,176 19,795Unincorporated 30,117 40,797 49,081Total 44,048 60,195 71,558 AreaNorth Whidbey 34,592 34,737Central Whidbey 8,205 9,467South Whidbey 10,069 14,007Camano Island 7,329 13,347Total 60,195 71,558Sources: Washington State Office of Financial Management and Island County Planning and Community Development

Economy

Oak Harbor is home to the County’s largest employer, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. The Station generates employment for 10,000 civilian and military residents resulting in an estimated $350 million payroll. The Station has been under review by the Pentagon’s BRAC Commission in the recent past, but has recently been tapped as a base for future growth of approximately 1,000 enlisted personnel by the Pentagon. Naval families add 13,000 dependants and 10,000+ military retirees to the County’s highly educated workforce. Employment projections made by the State’s Employment Security Department suggest that County employment is expected to remain fairly stable or increase slightly in most areas of the economy with the exception of agriculture and wholesale trades.

2


Geo logy

Island County is located between the Cascade Range to the east and the Olympic Mountains on the west. The County’s topography, soils, and water resources have been affected by the area’s glacial past. There are few large surface water systems on the islands thereby requiring that ground water provides the primary source of potable water supplies for most County’s residents, except for the City of Oak Harbor and the Naval Air Station, which both bring in water by pipeline. Importantly, Whidbey and Camano Islands have been designated as sole source aquifers, pursuant to the Federal Drinking Water Act (Public Law 93-523). This designation in 1982 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandates that no new or expanded solid waste landfills can be sited in Island County.

Land Use

Land use policy in the County, is aimed at maintaining the rural character of unincorporated Island County. Currently, the urban growth areas associated with the County’s three cities (Coupeville, Langley, and Oak Harbor) comprise only four percent of the County’s total land use. The rural land use designation comprises nearly 80,000 acres, with rural agriculture and rural forest designations amount to a total of more than 22,000 acres.

The County implements the mandates outlined by the Plan through the County’s zoning ordinance. Overlay designations such as wetlands, scenic corridors, water resources, critical drainage areas, and historic resources are uses to protect sensitive land use features. Recent efforts by County, State, and private groups to preserve farmland have focused on an agricultural easement programs allow a farm owner to permanently protect the land from non-farm development without giving up ownership. This is usually accomplished through an agreement between the landowner and the local, state, or federal government with terms that are binding on present and future landowners. The landowner retains most rights to the land and can sell it or pass it on to heirs. However, the donated land cannot legally be used for anything other than agriculture.

Transpor ta t ion

Access to both Whidbey and Camano Islands impacts the patterns of solid waste management in Island County. Since there is no direct transportation access between Whidbey and Camano Islands solid waste must be transported directly through adjacent counties. There is currently no barge or rail transportation to either island. Access to Whidbey Island is from State highway 20 over Deception Pass from Skagit County, by ferry from Mukilteo in Snohomish County to Clinton on south Whidbey Island, and by ferry from Port Townsend. State Highway 20 and 525 are the major north-south roadways on Whidbey Island. Access to Camano Island is provided by State Highway 525 from Stanwood in Snohomish County.

3


2 CURRENT SOLID WASTE SYSTEMThe following sections discuss the current solid waste system in Island County providing details on solid waste generation, collection, recycling, and disposal, as well as solid waste facilities used by the public and private haulers and recyclers.

SOL ID WASTE GENERATIONAs described in the County’s Solid and Moderate-Risk Management Plan (the Solid Waste Plan), solid waste is categorized into three classifications: municipal solid waste, other special waste, and moderate-risk waste. Municipal solid waste (MSW) represents the largest volume of solid waste generated in the County and includes garbage and recyclable materials that residences, businesses, and institutions set out for collection of self-haul to a waste receiving station or center.

The special waste category is defined as solid waste that is typically managed separately from MSW. This includes septage, construction and demolition debris (C&D), land clearing waste, auto bodies, biomedical waste, appliances (white goods), tires, and inert materials. A portion of these materials are delivered to County solid waste facilities and accurate records appear to be maintained by the County. However, specific quantities for C&D, auto bodies, biomedical waste, and inert materials are not tracked sine they are incorporated into MSW tonnage without differentiation. The County has specific figures on septage in particular, as well as appliances and tires because they are entered as a specific commodity code.

Lastly, moderate-risk wastes are hazardous wastes generated by households and businesses in small quantities. These include such materials as: paints, solvents, pesticides, cleaners, anti freeze, and motor oils. The County accepts these moderate-risk wastes at its facilities (Figure 2). As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the number of individuals disposing of moderate-risk waste at County facilities has decreased from 2001 to 2005, while the quantity of waste disposed has increased.

Table 2 details the best available information and data from the Solid Waste Plan on solid waste generation over the period from 1990 to 2005. The averages for the period of 2000 through 2005 are 0.9 pounds per person per day for recycling, 3.3 pounds for waste disposal, and 4.2 pounds for total waste generated. The Solid Waste Plan utilizes these per capita recycling and disposal averages to develop projections of future solid waste generation for Island County (Table 5). MSW generation also exhibits seasonal peaks during the year (highest in the summer months and at a minimum in the winter months) and this affects overall solid waste facility design capacity. Projected MSW disposal rates for an annual average day, the peak week and the peak day are listed in Table 6.

4


F igure 2 . Modera te -R i sk Wastes Be ing P rocessed At I s l and County So l id Waste Complex

Tab le 2 . Mun ic ipa l So l i d Waste Genera t ion , I s l and County

Year

Population

WasteRecycledTons/Year

WasteRecycling

Ratelbs/

Person/Day

Waste Disposed

Tons/Year

Waste Disposal

Ratelbs/

Person/Day

Waste Generate

dTons/Year

Waste Generation

Ratelbs/

Person/Day1990

55,400 (1) (1) 24,200 2.4 24,200 (1)

1991

57,900 (1) (1) 26,000 2.5 26,000 (1)

1992

60,000 (1) (1) 24,500 2.2 24,500 (1)

1993

61,700 (1) (1) 24,700 2.2 24,700 (1)

1994

63,100 (1) (1) 26,700 2.3 26,700 (1)

1995

64,100 (1) (1) 26,800 2.3 26,800 (1)

1996

65,500 7,900 0.7 28,000 2.3 35,900 3.0

1997

66,800 9,200 0.8 29,700 2.4 38,900 3.2

1998

67,700 10,400 0.8 31,700 2.6 42,000 3.4

1999

69,629 3,885 0.3 34,574 2.7 38,500 3.0

2000

71,558 3,811 0.3 36,938 2.8 40,700 3.1

200 72,446 19,602 1.5 39,458 3.0 59,100 4.5

5


1 (2)2002

73,335 (1) (1) 42,151 3.2 (1) (1)

2003

74,223 4,346 0.3 47,006 3.5 51,400 3.8

2004

75,112 21,917 (2)

1.6 48,012 3.5 69,900 5.1

2005

76,000 9,215 0.7 51,464 3.7 60,700 4.4

Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007

Notes:(1) Information not available(2) Additional recycling tonnages in 2001 and 2004 are from large, one-time shipments

6


Tab le 3 . Recent Modera te -R i sk Waste Genera t ion

in I s l and County

Year Population Number of Customers

Amount of Waste Handled

(Pounds)2001 71,558 3,371 345,6862002 72,670 3,523 204,5232003 73,780 3,140 366,5512004 74,890 3,023 441,0992005 76,000 2,663 493,027


Tab le 4 . Par t i c ipa t ion in Modera te -R i sk Waste P rogram a t County Fac i l i t i es

Area Number of Individuals Disposing at County Facilities2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Oak Harbor 254 174 262 423 370Central 1,610 1,794 1,249 948 996Bayview 515 467 585 724 670Camano 925 999 975 854 558Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007

Tab le 5 . Mun ic ipa l So l i d Waste Genera t ion P ro jec t i ons , I s l and County

Current 2015 2025Population 76,000 87,400 101,100Waste Recycled (tons)

25 29 34

Waste Disposed (tons)

141 162 188

Waste Generated (tons)

166 191 221


Tab le 6 . MSW D isposa l Pro jec t ions , I s l and County

Statistics (tons) 2005 2015 2025Annual Daily Average

141 162 188

Peak Week 1,157 1,330 1,540Peak Day 241 277 320Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007

7


SOL ID WASTE PROGRAMSPursuant to Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), development and maintaining a local solid waste management plan is required. Typically, this is a joint city and county responsibility in most jurisdictions whereby city solid waste management plans are integrated into a countywide plan. In 1991, the Cities of Oak Harbor and Langley and the Town of Coupeville entered into long-term (21 year) interlocal agreements with Island County regarding solid waste management. Specifically, the County is required to prepare a comprehensive countywide Solid Waste Plan, which was last amended in April 2007. The Solid Waste Plan addresses the regulatory requirements established in the RCW.

Administratively, the Island County Public Works Department (the Department) has the lead responsibility for amending the Solid Waste Plan. The Island County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), which includes representatives of the two cities, town, County, public interest groups, waste management firms, and locally elected public officials, is responsible for reviewing the Solid Waste Plan, conducting the required public hearings, and providing input concerning ongoing solid waste management programs and policies. The most recently adopted Solid Waste Plan (April 2007) replaces the previously adopted Solid Waste Plan, which was submitted to the State of Washington. Table 7 details the status (completed, ongoing, or both) of the management or program recommendations.

Tab le 7 . Summary o f P rev ious So l id and Modera te -R i sk Management P lan Recommendat ions

Program Ongoing CompletedWaste Reduction Economic Incentives * Resource guide for Reusable Household Products

*

Youth Classroom Education Program * Education Outreach Program *Recycling Expansion of Recycling Area at Bayview *Collection Promotion of Curbside Collection Services *Transfer Increase Emergency Storage Capacity at Coupeville

*

Increase Unloading and Storage Capacity at Bayview

*

Increase Unloading and Storage Capacity at Camano

*

Increase Access and Receiving Capacity at Coupeville

*

Treatment and Disposal

8


Designate Four Biosolids Disposal Sites * Purchase Additional Buffer Areas for Coupeville Landfill

*

Develop Four New Monitoring Wells *Other Special Waste Establish Contingent Strategy for Demolition Waste

*

Establish Contingent Staging Location for Disaster Debris

*

Establish Management Recommendations for Disaster Debris

*

9


Table 7. (Continued)Program Ongoing CompletedModerate-Risk Waste Public Education for Household Hazardous Waste

*

Education and Technical Assistance for Small Quantity Generators

*

Administration Increase Minimum Level of Service at Receiving Facilities

*

Revise Target Balance for Working Capital * Remodel Administration Offices *Regulation Prevention Campaign for Illegal Dumping and Littering

*

New Uniform Enforcement Procedure *


SOL ID WASTE COLLECT ION PROGRAMSCurrently, there are three solid waste collection haulers in Island County. The City of Oak Harbor provides solid waste collection service for residents and businesses within its jurisdiction (Table 8). Island Disposal, Inc. is authorized by the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) to collect solid waste generated on Whidbey Island. Finally, Waste Management of Skagit County holds a certificate from the UTC to collect solid waste on Camano Island. Table 9 lists the current rates charged for collection and disposal services by these providers.

Tab le 8 . Waste Co l l ec t ion Prov ide rs , I s l and County

Collection Service Provider

Estimated Population in Service Area

Number of Customers

Tonnage Collected

City of Oak Harbor

21,720 3,994 8,500

Island Disposal, Inc.

38,770 9,930 16,900

Waste Management

15,510 3,363 744

Tab le 9 . Garbage Co l l ec t ion Fees fo r 2006 ( a )

(Do l l a rs /Month fo r Week ly Co l l ec t ion )

1 0


City of Oak Harbor

Island Disposal,

Inc.

Waste Manageme

ntResidential

Weekly CollectionMinican 13.46 11.43 11.40One Can 18.42 14.31 13.20Two Cans 30.89 20.29 19.80Three Cans 41.08 28.97 26.40Extra Can 4.50 3.09 3.35

Table 9. (Continued)Biweekly Collection(b)

One Can 11.43 9.70

Monthly CollectionOne Can 6.20 4.70

Nonresidential1 cubic yard 95.09 80.91 74.431.5 cubic yards 114.49 93.632 cubic yards 162.23 149.26 113.403 cubic yards 228.01 151.804 cubic yards 290.96 191.206 cubic yards 388.48 260.93

(a) These fees are expected to increase in 2007 and beyond.(b) Biweekly means every-other-week.

The Whidbey Island NAS operates its own solid waste collection program. A private company, under contract to the Department of the Navy, is responsible for collection, transfer, and disposal of these wastes. For comprehensive planning purposes these wastes are considered separate from the waste management program used by the rest of the County.

In addition to these waste collection providers, many residents and businesses self-haul their wastes to the County’s transfer station facilities, which will described in the paragraphs below.

SOL ID WASTE RECYCL ING FACIL IT IESAs shown in Table 10, there are eight drop-off collection stations for recyclable materials in Island County. Seven of these stations are located on Whidbey Island; one is located on Camano Island. These stations accept a variety of recyclable materials (Table 11).

In addition to these multi-material collection points, there are several additional stations that accept only single materials. For example, there are two drop-off stations for glass in Oak

1 1


Harbor. The City of Langley operates a drop-off yard waste collection station at its wastewater treatment plant. Maillard Landing Nursery accepts sheetrock, yard debris, and wood waste. Metals are received at the Freeland facility and at Christians Auto Recycling. Lastly, wood waste is accepted at the Island county Solid Waste Complex, which is then shipped to Everett, Washington for fuel in a co-generation facility.

In addition to these multi and single materials recycling facilities, the City of Oak Harbor provides weekly curbside collection of recyclables for all single-family through fourplex dwelling units located within the City. The City also provides recycling service to businesses on a voluntary basis.

The City of Oak Harbor residential yard waste is collected weekly curbside in the City of Oak Harbor (95 gallon cart or 30-gallon paper bags) from March 1 through November 30, and monthly from December 1 to February 28. This service is provided for an additional fee. The materials are then collected and transported by the City to Skagit Soils. Finally, solid waste collected by Waste Connections through Island Disposal is currently transported to a MRF, which is located near the County’s Solid Waste Complex in Coupeville, for processing to recover recycles.

Tab le 10 . Drop Off and Buy Back Centers , I s l and County

Facility Address HoursBayview Drop Box Station

14566 SR 525 9:30 – 5:00 Mon, Wed, Sat, Sun

Camano Island Drop Box Station

75 E. Camano Road 9:30 – 5:00 Every Day

Christians Auto Recycling

615 Christian Road 8:00 – 5:00 Mon-Fri

Island Recycling 20014 SR 525 9:00 – 5:00 Tues-SunIsland County Solid Waste Complex

20018 SR 20 9:30 – 5:00 Every Day

Mallard Landing Nursery 3060 N. Oak Harbor Road

8:30 – 5:00 Mon-Sat

Oak Harbor Drop Box Station

3151 Oak Harbor Road

9:30 – 5:00 Tues, Sat, Sunday

Oak Harbor Recycle Center

2050 NE 16th Avenue 10:00 – 5:00 Mon-Fr, 10:00 -4:00 Sat

1 2


Tab le 11 . Summary o f Mater i a l s Accepted a t Drop -Off and Buy -Back Cente rs , I s l and County

Drop Box Stations

Coupeville

Oak Harbo

rBayvi

ewCama

no

Oak Harbor Recycli

ng

Christians Auto

Recycling

Island Recycli

ng

PaperNewspaper Corrugated Cardboard

Office Paper Magazines Telephone Books Catalogs Mixed Waste Paper

PlasticBottles Tubs

GlassClear Green Brown

Ferrous MetalsTin Cans Appliances, no cfc’s

Fee Fee Fee

Appliances, w/ cfc’s

Fee Fee

Auto Bodies FeeWire Ferrous Fee Fee FeeOther Ferrous Fee Fee Fee

Non-Ferrous Metals

Aluminum Cans Aluminum Foil Aluminum Scrap Stainless Steel Copper Brass Lead Wire, Insulated

Other

1 3


Yard and Garden FeeTires Fee Fee Fee

Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007COUNTY SOL ID WASTE TRANSFER FAC IL IT IESIsland County operates two solid waste transfer and two drop box stations, which are permitted to act as disposal sites for MSW. The Freeland Recycle Park is County-owned and operates under a private contractor (Island Recycling) as the processing center for all of Whidbey’s drop box stations. It accepts the normal range of recyclables plus steel/ferrous metals, auto bodies, and incidental MSW. No MRW is accepted. A fee is charged for the MSW. The contract expires June 2008; and RFP will be issued in March-April 2008. The sections which follow provide a brief description of their operations.

Bayv iew Drop Box Sta t ion

The Bayview Drop-Box Station contains attendant-staffed gate house, four compacting drop boxes (two 20-yard boxes and two 30-yard boxes), six recycling boxes, 10 forklift hoppers, a moderate risk waste collection facility for collection/transfer of household chemicals, paints, batteries, used oil, antifreeze, and vehicle batteries, approximately 24,000 square feet of paved storage and parking space, fencing, landscaping, and employee break facilities/office. The facility operates from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday. Figure 3 is an aerial photograph illustrating the location of these facilities at the station.

F igure 3 . Bayv iew T rans fer S ta t i on , I s l and County , WA

In 2008, a forklift with two 2.5 cy self-tipping boxes were introduced to streamline material sorting and step climbing. This system enables staff to more easily remove contaminants and eliminates the need for the public to climb stairs to deposit materials into 20 yard open top containers (See Figure 3).

1 4


Camano T rans fe r S ta t ion

The Camano Transfer Station is open seven days a week from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. As shown in Figure 4, the station consists of a moderate risk waste collection facility for collection/transfer of household chemicals, paints, batteries, used oil, antifreeze, and vehicle batteries, a scale house, two weigh scales, approximately 56,000 square feet of paved surfaces, 13 unloading positions fencing, landscaping, and employee break facilities. Solid wastes are unloaded into four 105-yard transfer trailers for transport and disposal off the island. A backhoe is used by staff to compact waste materials after it has been placed into the containers.

Figure 4 is an aerial photograph illustrating the location of these facilities at the station. The County has recently added new scales to the site as well as an employee break room with a bathroom, shower, and eye wash station.

F igure 4 . Camano I s land T rans fer S ta t ion , I s l and County , WA

Is land County So l id Waste Complex

The Island County Solid Waste Complex (the Complex) is located approximately two miles southeast of the Town of Coupeville. The complex is located at the former site of the Coupeville Landfill, now closed (Figure 5). The Station is open seven days a week from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. The current complex includes a scalehouse, two 70-feet weight scales, 1,200 feet of on-site access roads, an approximately 4,500 square foot tipping floor enclosed in a metal building (Figure 6), a mechanical compactor with transfer trailer loading capabilities, a trailer storage area , and employee facilities. As designed, the complex has 20 unloading

1 5


positions where self-haul waste generators may deposit solid waste materials into up to five 105-yard open-top trailers away from the transfer station building (Figure 7).

The County has moderate-risk collection areas at the Complex including auto and household batteries (Figure 8), household chemicals, and paints. To minimize costs, the county has implemented an extensive waste identification and processing program before these wastes are then transported offsite by a licenses collector for proper disposal. There is also an extensive paint exchange program (Figure 9).

The recycle park at the Oak Harbor complex includes paved collection area with 20 cy open top boxes, an OCC/plastics baler and storage facility, a thrift store, a small second hand sales yard and office. It is staffed by the private contractor processing recyclables form County transfer stations.

Other structures/facilities at Coupeville include paved yard/garden waste pad, wood waste collection/storage area, a paved metal recycling storage area, and an equipment repair/storage building containing mechanical/welding shops conference room and library. A septage treatment facility, two County records storage buildings and an animal care facility (aka dog/cat pound) are also located at the Complex. Closed landfill water/gas monitoring systems, a gas extraction system with flare and stormwater drainage systems are also located at the Complex.

F igure 5 . I s land County So l id Waste Complex , I s l and County

1 6


F igure 6 . Photograph Showing Exter io r o f T rans fer S ta t ion , I s l and County

F igure 7 . Typ i ca l s tand -a lone open top MSW fac i l i t y fo r commerc ia l o r i nd iv idua l res ident use . S ix such s lo ts l oca ted a t the Coupev i l l e fac i l i t y ,

fou r a t the Camano T rans fe r S ta t ion

1 7


F igure 8 . Auto /Househo ld bat tery co l l e c t i on a rea , par t o f the Modera te R i sk Waste fac i l i t y a t the

I s land County So l id Waste Complex

F igure 9 . Pa in t Exchange Area , I s l and County So l id Was te Complex

Oak Harbor T rans fe r S ta t ion

The Oak Harbor Drop Box Station consists of approximately 6,000 square feet of paved surfaces, four compacting 30-yard drop boxes, six 20-yard recycling boxes, fencing landscaping, and employee facilities. The Station is open from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. The Station does not have a moderate risk facility like the Bay view and Camano

1 8


Stations. Figure 10 is an oblique aerial photograph of the site illustrating the placement of the various drop and recycling boxes.

F igure 10 . Oak Harbor T rans fe r S ta t ion , I s l and County , WA

Free land Recyc l e Fac i l i t y

Under private contract, the Freeland Recycle Park (Figure 11) is the central processing facility for the County’s recyclables collected at its Whidbey transfer stations. Facilities include recycle materials collection, steel/non-ferrous collection/processing yard, recycling processing operation (large baler) thrift store, over 20,000 sq. ft. of paved operations areas, drainage systems (CB’s O/W separators, and stormwater stilling basins) and a materials re-sale yard (steel, machinery, tires, and other recycled objects). Due to impacts from an auto dismantling operations at Freeland Facility, the site entered a voluntary cleanup program (VCP) through the Department of Ecology in 2004. The auto dismantling operation developed over time due to closing of south end private sector services in the 1990’s and a perceived need to offer some form of service to the south end.

The County committed nearly $100,000 since 2004 to identify, mitigate and clean up impacts. The phase III cleanup was completed in 2007 by HWA Geosciences, Inc. During the first quarter of 2008, the operator and the County received further input from the Department of Ecology that impacts from the operation are persisting and require additional attention. Final action at the site is unresolved at this time, although it is clear that a change in operations to eliminate further environmental impacts will be required.

1 9


F igure 11 . F ree land Recyc l e Fac i l i t y

H is to r i c So l id Waste Management S tud ies

Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Management Strategies

As part of the County’s Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (April 2007), alternative solid waste management strategies were evaluated for MSW, inert and demolition waste, wood waste, infectious, sewage sludge, and septage waste streams generated in Island County. Four evaluation criteria were used by the authors to compare these alternative management strategies. These included:

Capital and operating costs Flexibility Consistency with regulatory requirements Level of uncertainty associated with each management alternative

The recommended MSW management strategy for the Island County at that time included a source reduction program, a waste recycling program including yard waste composting, and a regional waste disposal program.

This recommended County source reduction program had the following elements:

Promoting the reuse of consumer goods through public education Providing reduced disposal fees for organizations pursuing waste reuse activities Providing facilities to promote the sale of used consumer products Encouraging on-site composting of yard and garden waste

2 0


Providing waste reduction audits for commercial waste generators Diverting inert, demolition and wood waste from the municipal waste stream

With regards to recycling, the recommended recycling program included continuing the existing drop-off and buy-back activities at county facilities, developing a facility to process yard and garden waste (to be sited at the Coupeville Landfill), and developing and implementing a municipal waste recycling program in NAS Whidbey Island, and Oak Harbor, as required by the state’s “urban program requirements”.

The recommended MSW disposal strategy was to use a regional landfill facility to dispose of Island County’s non-recyclable waste, which would routed through a new transfer station to be located at the closed landfill site in Coupeville. Further, MSW from Camano Island was recommended to be routed through the north Snohomish County Transfer Station for disposal with Snohomish County at a regional disposal facility selected by Snohomish County.

Incineration Feasibility Study

A consultant study was conducted in late 1983 to evaluate the feasibility of developing a refuse-fired steam plant in Island County to supplement all of part of the Whidbey Island NAS’s steam load. At the time of the study, the NAS operated a boiler plant, which powered a steam turbine to produce electrical power. While the study indicated that a waste-to-energy facility was economically viable, this recommendation was predicated on the need for all solid waste generated in Island County and nearby Skagit County would be available for the project. Unfortunately, Skagit County was not particularly receptive to providing solid waste to the project since they were planning their own solid waste incinerator. Without this waste flow from Skagit County, the waste flow from Island County was deemed insufficient for the waste-to-energy project to move forward.

Solid Waste/Septage Composting Assessment

A two-year pilot study in 1989-1991 was conducted by the University of Washington to evaluate the feasibility of MSW and septage composting in Island County. MSW was transported to a research site in Kent, Washington, which was operated by the University of Washington, then mixed with septage and a small fraction of sawdust. An aerated static pile was formed from the compost, and then monitored for temperature and moisture. Following the composting period, the compost was analyzed for nutrients, metals and pathogens. Plan germination and growth studies were carried out by the research team for two growing seasons.

On the basis of the laboratory and field results, the research team was able to conclude that compost from Island County waste was low in trace metals and nutrients; it was not a good source of plant nutrients. However, the team concluded that the compost was a good physical medium for plant growth, provided that nutrients were supplied in sufficient quantities by fertilization.

It is important to note that composting technology was in its infancy at the time of this study. A decision was made at that time to set aside consideration until operations were established in other jurisdictions to assess successful track records. Concern with this early investigations, and

2 1


subsequently, include unproven operations/technologies, labor intensive nature, susceptibility to contamination, odor problems, and lack of control over input materials Also of concern with solid waste composting was emphasis on higher recycling recovery efforts resulting in an increasing diversion of the compostable fraction (fibers, esp. paper, OCC, etc.) from the waste stream leaving a decreasing and possibly more toxic feedstock not compatible with a usable compost end product.

Oak Harbor Transfer Station Study

The City of Oak Harbor requested that the County consider the possibility of a shared transfer station several times in the past. Possible savings on transportation, handling, and other operational benefits were suggested. To that end, SCS was engaged in 1998 by the City of Oak Harbor to evaluate the cost of building and operating a proposed solid waste transfer station and waste export system for the City of Oak Harbor.

A limited residential population not on curbside trash pickup in unincorporated north Whidbey with solid waste and recycling drop-off services. Most residents in unincorporated areas south of Oak Harbor seem to find it more convenient to use the scaled Coupeville facility with its larger capacity and more accurate weighing capabilities.

The proposed new transfer station would service Oak Harbor’s needs and was assumed to be located adjacent to the intersection of Goldie Road and Gun Club Road west of the closed landfill site in the City. Utilizing projections of waste generation, SCS sized the proposed facility to accommodate peak daily flows of 55 tons per day and 25 tons per day as a daily throughout. This capacity equates to 300% of Oak Harbor’s current waste stream, which should allow for 20 years of population growth (2 percent per year).

To develop preliminary costs of construction and operation, the consultants assumed that the station would incorporate a pre-engineered metal building supported on a reinforced concrete foundation. The facility would use a scale system to weigh incoming waste trucks. Estimated annual costs at the time of the study were as follows:

$143,000 for capital needed to finance construction of the station

$264,000 for operation and maintenance of the proposed station

$46 per ton for waste disposal

If the City decided to proceed on this project, it was also assumed that the City would be required to undertake all of the other solid waste services currently provided by the Island County. That is, development and implementation of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, mandated under Chapter 70-95 of RCW and implementation of the moderate-risk collection program. These were estimated by SCS at the time of the study as $14,000 annually to implement the moderate-risk collection program, $116,000 for operation and maintenance of the program; and $77,000 for administration and enforcement of the program. In addition, SCS assumed an additional cost of $45,000 to complete the initial Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan, which must be updated every three years.

2 2


Oak Harbor Materials Recovery Study

The City of Oak Harbor engaged the services of URS in 2007 to evaluate the economics of a City-owned Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The consultant developed a conceptual MRF layout, which included a pre-engineered metal building (100 feet by 80 feet), a concrete tipping floor, a covered storage area for paper/cardboard, and outdoor storage areas for metals and plastics. A review of the historic recycling records suggested the following plant sizing:

Historical peak of 14.5 tons of recyclables; average of 5 tons per day Recent average of 100 tons of recyclables which was projected to grow 12 hours of labor per day (1.5 FTE) 2-3 sorters with one bucket loader/driver 0.1 FTE for an administrator and 0.15 FTE for a supervisor

Making these design assumptions, URS estimated a capital cost of $1.1 million with a monthly operating cost of roughly $15,000. Potential revenues were estimated at $133,000 per year. Dependent on the average monthly recycling sale prices, which are somewhat variable, URS suggested that there is a potential for the City to recover some additional revenues as opposed to paying Island disposal to sort and sell its recyclables. However, they were of the opinion that a stand-alone recyclables reload or a MRF may not be an economically viable option. URS indicated that the City should carefully consider the degree of risk and extent of financial commitment for this project.

2 3


3 OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENTThe following sections below address current and future operations with respect to the County’s transfer, and drop box station system.

FAC IL ITY OPERATIONAL STAT IST ICSThe County’s two transfer stations accept solid wastes from municipal and commercial collectors and self-haul generators, whereas the drop box stations accept only MSW from self-haul generators. All of the transfer and drop box stations accept recyclables for free and scrap metal and tires for a fee. In addition, the two transfer stations accept refrigerated appliances for a fee. The transfer station also accepts construction and demolition wastes. Only the transfer station at Coupeville accepts clean wood, yard waste, and inert wastes (e.g., incidental asphalt, concrete, etc.).

Table 12 summarizes the quantity of MSW accepted, number of customers, operating hours, storage capacity, and materials accepted at these four stations. Figure 11 graphically illustrates the increasing levels of solid waste delivered to the transfer and drop box stations by haulers in Island County over the past decade.

Operating data for the Coupeville Transfer Station were subsequently reviewed with County staff to develop estimates of actual processing costs for waste processing at the station and to enable benchmarking of the operation. Table 13 is an annual summary for the past three operating years. As shown, the annual operating costs, expressed on a per ton basis, are $26.36, $25.42, and $29.58 in 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively. These are the County’s costs to process received waste at the Station, but do not include the additional costs of transportation and disposal.

EQUIPMENT AND VEH ICLE INVENTORYAppendix A is a summary of the current equipment and vehicle inventory for the solid waste system. SCS is of the opinion that the County’s current level of maintenance follows typical solid waste industry practices. A well-designed oil analysis program is in place where samples are pulled from equipment and subsequently sent to independent testing labs for analysis. Maintenance logs are kept detailing when prescribed manufacturer service procedures were completed. The Department’s standard practice is to replace major equipment at a 4,000 hour cycle. All of these practices appear reasonable based on accepted solid waste industry standards.

2 4


Tab le 12 . MSW Quant i t i es Rece ived a t T rans fe r and Drop Box Sta t ions , I s l and County

Statistics Transfer Stations Drop Box StationsCoupev

illeCamano Bayvie

wOak

HarborFreeland

Waste Deliveries (2006)

42,596 10,246 1,366 389 2001

Numbers of Arriving Vehicles (2006)

81,048 46,710 21,131 6,756 17,0002

Storage Capacity (Daily Tons)

160 90 32 30 33

Operating Hours

Daily9:30

a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Daily9:30 a.m. to 5:00

p.m.

Sat, Sun, Mon, Wed9:30

a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sat, Sun, Tues

9:30 a.m. to 5:00

p.m.

Daily except

Monday 9-5

Self Haul Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes1

Franchise or Commercial Haul

Yes Yes No No No

Recyclables Accepted

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Unloading Positions

20 13 4 4 14

Annual Growth Rate (%)

6.9 9.6 17.9 18.8 5.0

Source: Island County, 2008

Notes:

1Freeland is the central processing facility for Island County Run Recycle Parks, and provides extensive recycle opportunities but will accept only incidental solid waste. 99% of traffic is for recycling or shopping. For thrift store items, building materials, steel items, chain and other recyclable items.

2 5


2Most customers are self-haul recyclers.

3Daily storage capacity for MSW is 2 x10 cu. yd. steel boxes. Only incidental MSW accepted.

4One MSW unloading station. A wide variety of recycling unloading positions - 16 or more for a variety of different materials including glass, mixed paper, plastics, OCC, newsprint, building materials, tools, chain, thrift store Items, steel, machinery etc.

2 6


F igure 12 . H is to r i c So l id Waste Tonnages De l i vered to T rans fe r and Drop Box Sta t ions , I s l and County

2 7


Tab le 13 . Ac tua l Opera t ing Costs , Coupev i l l e T rans fer S ta t ion , 2005 -2007

Budget Item Year2005 2006 2007

Bad Debt 2,720 0 0Subtotal Bad Debt 2,720 0 0

Salaries and Wages 563,926 567,892 608,210Overtime 34,370 36,476 37,016Benefits 207,671 241,389 287,646

Subtotal 805,968 845,757 932,872Office/Operating Supplies

53,216 47,545 43,325

Fuel Consumed 23,884 25,698 29,045Small Tools/Equipment

6,372 13,394 11,918

Communications 12,267 14,129 11,294Operating/Leases 3,683 1,619 4,019Public Utility Services

13,154 16,812 18,361

Repairs/Maintenance

45,989 22,050 37,256

Miscellaneous 1,173 3,790 852Subtotal Maintenance and Operations

159,740 145,036 156,070

External Taxes/Assessments

78,963 79,741 97,857

Subtotal Other Government

78,963 79,741 97,857

Buildings and Structures

0 0 0

Other Improvements

0 0 0

Machinery and Equipment

0 0 0

Subtotal Capital 0 0 0Interfund Prof Services (Health)

38,571 53,099 59,626

Interfund Insurance Services

36,064 7,533 38,259

Interfund Oper. Rent 0 0 0Interfund Supplies 966 1,217 0

Subtotal Interfund 75,600 61,849 97,885

2 8


TOTAL $1,122991 $1,132,383 $1,284,684Tons Processed 42,596 44,540 43,427$ Operational Costs/Ton

$26.36 $25.42 $29.58

Source: Island County, 2008

Currently, the Department funds the costs of these replacements from its annual budget. With the ever increasing costs of vehicles and equipment for solid waste management, many communities similar in size to Island County are evaluating their budgets and how they approachoverall vehicle and equipment replacement programs. Historically, local governments have reduced fleet sizes and deferred replacements during economic downturns or times of budget shortfalls to provide a balance against the need to increase user fees or rates to meet operating expenses. While one can argue that the decision to reduce fleet replacement spending is a valuable corrective action, it could result in increasing fleet expenses for these agencies if they tip the balance of fleet replacement spending too far.

All vehicles and equipment used in public works eventually wear out and become more expensive to maintain and operate. That is, unplanned maintenance and repairs due to component failures tend to rise with increasing age of the vehicles or equipment. These unpredictable incidents result in such events as increasing shop time, delays in securing major parts for repair, as well as delays in getting the vehicle or equipment back into operation.

As illustrated in Figure 5, capital costs tend to decline over time, while operating and maintenance costs increase. The combination of these two basic curve functions results in a “U-Shaped” cost curve, oftentimes called “total costs”. The economic theory of vehicle and equipment replacement predicts that vehicles and equipment should ideally be replaced during the flat portion of the curve, that is, at the time annual operating costs begin to outweigh capital costs. As the graph vividly illustrates, deferring replacement purchases in order to accommodate short-term budget shortfalls can result in future increased replacement costs and oftentimes unmanageable fleet replacement backlogs.

F igure 13 . Cap i ta l Equ ipment Cost Curves

2 9


Source: American Public Works Association, Vehicle Replacement Guide, 2001.

Cash Purchases

Commonly, public sector organizations attempt to purchase solid waste vehicles and equipment using cash generated from their annual operating income. In essence, this is somewhat akin to an individual paying for a personal vehicle in cash from his or her annual salary – a somewhat daunting task for most people. Similarly, many agencies have historically used cash as the primary means of funding their replacement program. Since it involves no interest or debt financing costs, cash purchases are viewed by many finance and solid waste managers as a financially prudent method for funding fleet replacement. Unfortunately, the use of cash to primarily fund vehicle and equipment replacements results in volatile funding requirements with high annual peaks and valleys. For example, in order for many agencies to replace a “big ticket” vehicle or piece of equipment, it might be necessary to freeze a significant portion of other fleet replacements and cut other operational programs (i.e., training, safety, and professional development, etc.) within the agency’s overall budget authority. In our opinion, this almost always results in a deferral of some replacement purchases. Typically, where agencies use cash as the primary means to fund vehicle and equipment purchases, one often finds older fleets, higher maintenance costs, and backlogs in purchases.

Guaranteed Buy-Back Programs

These buyback programs are an alternative to an outright cash purchase of fleet equipment. That is, the agency has the right to sell, lease, trade or otherwise dispose of the vehicle. However, in the bid for equipment, the bidder guarantees that he will repurchase the machine from the agency at the end of a specified hourly or annual term from the date of delivery. Typically, many agencies use these provisions to keep maintenance costs to a minimum and to enable them to procure new equipment at a frequent rate.

Sinking Fund

In order to fund fleet replacements, many solid waste agencies have used a sinking or revolving fund to spread the costs of funding new vehicles or equipment over a longer period of time. Essentially, this type of financing approach requires that an agency make periodic payments into a fleet replacement fund thereby ensuring that there will adequate funds available for the replacement vehicle or unit when it comes due for replacement. For example, if the initial purchase price for a vehicle is $120,000 and the replacement cycle is determined to be six years, then $20,000 is budgeted every year to pay for the replacement of the vehicle.

In comparison to the cash method, a sinking fund helps even out the annual volatility of the agency’s replacement funding needs. Critical to its success is the ability of the agency to properly account for the inflationary increases in purchase prices for the replacement vehicles or equipment, interest earning on the funds placed in reserve, and salvage values of the vehicles or equipment, if any.

3 0


In essence, a basic advantage to this approach is that it enables the agency to predict its annual funding needs over a long planning horizon. Notwithstanding, a major disadvantage of the sinking fund method of funding, however, is that it oftentimes is prohibitively expensive to establish for most agencies if there already a large backlog of fleet replacement needs. That is, a large amount of cash must be deposited initially to create the working capital necessary to start replacing vehicles or equipment. Further, there is always the temptation on the part of municipal officials to raid such funds during lean budget years undermining a well-designed fleet replacement program in a single year.

Debt Financing

In comparison to cash or sinking fund financing programs, debt financing typically allows solid waste agencies an option to spread out the costs of fleet replacement. Rather than trying to accumulate cash reserves in a sinking fund, an agency can borrow funds from financial institutions, either as lines of credit, fixed-term, bank loans or bonds, repaying the outstanding principal and interest on a periodic basis once the vehicles or equipment are placed in service. Similar to the sinking fund method of financing fleet replacement, debt financing enables the agency to eliminate the peaks and valleys in replacement funding requirements. Also, in some respects the predictable natures of the annual expenditures have tended to make replacement funding less subject to controversial budget decision making.

Historically, many solid waste agencies have shied away from debt financing to fund their fleet replacements. Oftentimes, much of this is due to local or managerial preferences to avoid high interest charges for vehicles and equipment that have a short lifespan. In other cases, state or local laws prohibit the use of debt financing without voter approval.

Leasing

Leasing or lease-purchase options are other commonly used methods by solid waste agencies for financing fleet replacements. Usually, these financing programs are offered directly from the manufacturer or third-party distributor. In comparison to the other financing methods discussed in the paragraphs above, leasing enables the agency to pay a fee (“installment purchases”) for a vehicle or equipment and then essentially ‘walk away” from it after a specified period. New municipal lease programs now being offered on the market allows agencies to have new trucks every two years with full factory warranties on the vehicle chassis and body.

A variant of leasing is a lease-purchase where an agency can own the equipment. Overall, there is no hard and fast rule in lease financing since the terms may differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. In most cases, their obligation terminates if the department fails to appropriate funds to make the renewal year's lease payments. Because of this provision, neither the lease nor the lease payments are considered debt. Payments can be structured monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually based on the cash flow of the agency. What makes municipal leasing financially desirable is its treatment of interest under Section 103 of the Federal Internal Revenue Code. The interest earnings under a properly structured and documented lease are exempt from federal income tax under the same tax laws that enable a municipal bond to carry a tax-exempt rate. Because the lessor does not pay federal tax on the interest earned, the tax-exempt lease oftentimes carries a much lower interest rate than other

3 1


kinds of leases and installment loans thus significantly lowering the cost of financing for the borrower. This enables the agency to replace vehicles or equipment more frequently without having to acquire significant cash reserves before purchases the replacements.

In summary, each of the financing methods described above has its own particular advantages and disadvantages, which can be influenced by local municipal circumstances. Clearly, there is no single best approach to financing fleet replacement costs. With the financial challenges facing local governments today in providing cost-effective and timely solid waste management services, evaluation of these various approaches should be made focusing on ways to minimize costs and providing value-added services to the public.

FAC IL ITY OPERATIONSThe following sections discussed several potential operational improvements to the County’s system based on our review of current operations and a review of current and historic statistics.

Upgrade Coupev i l l e T rans fe r S ta t ion

We reviewed the Coupeville Transfer Station operations during the course of the study. It appears that a considerable amount of solid waste delivered to the station is potentially recyclable if additional tipping floor space was made available. Currently, due to the limited existing size of the tipping floor and the scheduling of the Rabanco transfer trailers, we are of the opinion that County staff does not have adequate time to recover these recyclable materials (Figure 14). The lack of a viable residential curbside program in the unincorporated County also probably contributes to excessive volumes of recyclables in the waste stream deposited at Coupeville and other transfer stations.

In 2008, the County has placed several well-labeled 2.5 cubic yard self-tipping boxes adjacent to the transfer station and open-tops. These are serviced by the private recycler with the objective of providing easily accessible diversion at the point of waste disposal. County staff is currently working with SCS on the conceptual layout of a Station expansion, which will include a one or two-bay expansion of the station with a push wall running the length of the existing north wall. This expansion would enable the County to undertake some separation of potentially recyclable materials and thereby reduce the County tonnage that would otherwise have to be transferred out-of-state. In the interim, the County staff has worked diligently to put more waste delivered to the station through the compactor, enabling staff to increase the weights of the open-top

3 2


F igure 14 . Mater ia l s on T ipp ing F loor Can Be Recyc led

trailers. For example, station staff has been able in December 2007 to increase weights in the trailers to an average of slightly over 25 tons.

Expand Yard and Wood Waste Recyc l ing a t Coupev i l l e S ta t ion

The Coupeville Transfer Station receives a significant amount of woody waste materials (Figure 15). Presently, these are processed under private contract for transport and delivery to industrial users as boiler fuel for electrical production.

Solid Waste Division's goals have historically been to concentrate program efforts on recycling, environmentally sound solid/moderate risk handling/disposal, and waste diversion. The division did not want to start entrepreneurial efforts in areas that we believe more properly belong in the private sector. To that end, the Division worked with the County Planning and Health departments and State Dept. of Ecology to develop guidelines for composting enterprises in the private sector (ICC 8.08.B.160). These guidelines/regulations were approved in 2004. To date two operations in the private sector have been approved to provide this service to Whidbey and Camano Island with two others seeking approval. The County will maintain a yard waste collection service at Coupeville, but expects an increasing amount of this material to go to the private sector while expecting wood waste handled by the County program to expand. Outside of processing costs, operational costs associated with these separately managed product streams include paved surfacing and maintenance of a bioswale (Figure 16) for the yard/garden waste, and further screening of materials left over from grinding operations for both streams.

Figure 17 shows the use of a revolving screen at the Coupeville station, which is installed at the end of a Volvo track hoe, to further improve separation and screening of yard waste materials onsite. These materials had been accumulating at the Coupeville site for several years. With the use of this and other innovative methods, the County is attempting to further refine residuals

3 3


from wood and yard waste streams for further beneficial uses, with just the final residue disposed as solid waste.

F igure 15 . Wood Waste Co l l ec t ion Area , I s l and County T rans fe r S ta t ion

F igure 16 . B ioswa le Requ i r ing Ongo ing Ma intenance

3 4


F igure 17 . Spec ia l Equ ipment Used to Fur ther P rocess Accumula ted Yard Waste

Improve Opera t ions o f D i sposa l Cont rac t W i th Rabanco

In January 2007, Island County signed a six-year contract (2007-2012) with Rabanco Ltd (Contractor) to accept loaded transfer trailers (closed containers) at the County’s transfer stations and transport and dispose of the acceptable waste at the company’s disposal site. The technical specifications for operation of the waste transfer operations, which were included with the master contract, define the requirements of both the Contractor and the County.

Briefly, pursuant to the contract, the County is required to deliver 95 percent of all of the County’s acceptable waste to the Contractor delivered to its transfer stations. However, the County reserves the right to recycle and divert as much waste delivered to its transfer station as can be accomplished.

The contract also establishes a minimum weight of 22 tons delivered by the County to the Contractor for each closed container. The maximum weight of 30 tons for each closed or open-top container is specified in the contract The Contractor is required to have chassis equipment that can accept these wastes in either a closed or open-top container, so long as the container complies with the maximum 30 ton weight limit. The contract requires the Contractor to utilize the closes intermodal (train) facility by ensuring a minimum of four containers a day be directed to that facility. The County would like to see a greater percentage of Coupeville containers directed to the Burlington intermodal facility in the future.

During the course of our initial field visit for this project, the County expressed some concerns with the Contractor’s ability to supply adequate numbers of containers, chassis, and tractors to enable the County to remove the incoming waste from the Coupeville Transfer Station in a expeditious manner. Insufficient daily chassis turnaround or deliveries arriving after 4:00 pm or

3 5


not at all cause backups. Late or non delivery of containers result in longer staff hours and/or waste on the floor in the morning. Excessive waste on the floor in the morning interferes with early commercial unloading, blocks access to the compactor, increases littering, and generally interrupts a smooth operation given limited space. The County’s goal is zero waste on the floor both as an operational and health issue; the latter due to increase exposure to rodent/bird vectors.

Figure 18 illustrates the recent installation of a cantilevered tarping system by Rabanco at the Island County, which enables re-tarping the open-top containers without having to climb up the sides of the containers (14 feet in the air) and adjust the large tarp.

Mattresses are generally a hard to handle waste that don’t compact well. Staff should continue to experiment with placement of these items on top of loads coming off the compactor given the approximately two feet of freeboard under the tarp. And relative light weight of these bulky items. The tarping system structure may serve as a platform for loading mattresses from a loader bucket.

F igure 18 . Cant i l evered Conta ine r Tarp ing Sys tem

Deve lop New Camano I s land T rans fe r S ta t ion

A review of the current operations at the existing Camano Transfer Station strongly suggests that further improvements will be necessary in the near future to increase unloading and waste storage capacities. Current site conditions require off-site queuing of trucks. Off site queuing has been significantly reduced with installation of the second scale in 2006, enlarged entrance, and revised interior circulation. Circulation patterns also need to be improved to assure adequate

3 6


roadway safety of customers and waste transporters in light of recent access road modifications by the Washington Department of Transportation.

To achieve this objective, Figure 19 illustrates a further engineered upgrade made possible by the traffic revision on the adjacent roadway. This project will be completed in 2008. The current high-speed intersection and roadway adjacent to and accessing the facility will become a cul-de-sac. The relocated intersection will be westerly of the station permitting a stand-alone single stream containerized recycling system that will eliminate much of the conflicting traffic movements within the facility, and essentially eliminating queuing on a through road. New recycle stalls will eliminate customers climbing stairs to place recycle material sin 40 cy containers. The containers themselves will be serviced from what is now a through-roadway opening up the site for wider access roads and improved interior circulation.

Env i ronmenta l C leanup o f F ree land S i te

The Freeland Recycling Center is operated by Island Recycling on a site owned by Island County. The site was formerly used as sand and gravel pit becoming the Freeland Landfill in 1950 and was a burn dump until 1969. Burning ceased after that date. The landfill accepted household, municipal, and septic wastes between approximately 1950 and 1984. In 1978, the landfill no longer accepted household wastes, but continued to receive yard waste, demolition debris, automobiles, and appliances. The landfill was closed to waste disposal in 1984 and the site has been operated as a private recycling center (Island Recycling) since that date, with no additional waste disposed of at the site. A soil cap was placed over the landfill area in 1985.

Soil and groundwater investigations in 2005 on the site conducted by Earthworks Environmental, Inc. (EEI) have indicated some contamination due to the auto hulking and dismantling operations. As a consequence, the County engaged a consultant to prepare a more extensive environmental site assessment. Results from this study required the County to initiate an environmental cleanup of the site at considerable expense.

Due to the environmental exposure of auto hulking and dismantling operations on County property, we are of the opinion that the County should not allow similar operations in the future. We are unaware of similar auto hulking and dismantling as part of County recycling programs elsewhere. This type of operation is more typical of privately owned and operated facilities.

3 7


F igure 19 . Cur rent Camano I s land Improvements

3 8


Preferably, it is our recommendation that a new station be designed to enable that refuse be loaded directed irrespective of weather conditions into transfer trailers and then to the intermodal facility operated by various waste haulers in the Cities of Everett and Seattle. Further study is needed to evaluate site requirements and to accurately estimate design, construction, and operating costs for this new station. Current estimated costs for a new station range from approximately $1.9 million to $2.1 million.

Proposa l by Oak Harbor to Deve lop Jo in t C i ty /County Oak Harbor T rans fe r S ta t ion

At the outset of the benchmarking study SCS met with representatives of the City and County to discuss the feasibility of a new solid waste transfer station for the Oak Harbor area. Currently, the County operates the Oak Harbor Drop-Box Station, which is located just immediately west of the City of Oak Harbor. When we discussed the potential need for an expanded transfer station in Oak Harbor, City officials expressed a strong opinion that there was a significant demand for the expended or a new transfer station because many City residents routinely drive to the Coupeville Transfer. The available data (Table 13) do not appear to support construction of a shred facility at this time. Due to the volume of daily transactions at the Coupeville Transfer Station, scale attendants are currently unable to record MSW data indicating geographic origin.

As population increase on north Whidbey, a co-operated transfer station might be a viable approach in the future.

Consequently, for the purposes of this study, we worked with County staff to devise a quick survey to enable Scalehouse Attendants at the Coupeville Station to gather some useful statistics in July and August 2007 on where the customers using the Station generally reside and their initial starting point before arriving at the Station. Although this was not a scientific survey, the data in Table 13 enable some initial observations to be made for solid waste planning purposes:

Roughly 25 percent of the customers using the Coupeville Transfer Station during the two-month survey either reside in the City of Oak Harbor or immediately north of the City

Nearly 50 percent of the customers reside in the southern portion of the Island (zones 5, 6, and 7)

There are approximately the same numbers of customers in the area around the Coupeville Transfer Station (Zones 3 and 4) as those who reside in the City of Oak Harbor and north of the City of Oak Harbor

The fewest number of customers reside in the City of Langley

3 9


Tab le 14 . Coupev i l l e T rans fer S ta t i on Customer Survey , J u ly -August 2007

Zone General Area Number of Customers1 North of Oak Harbor 9342 City of Oak Harbor 8583 Between Oak Harbor

and Coupeville1,129

4 Town of Coupeville 6675 Between Coupeville and

Greenbank1,603

6 South Whidbey 1,5897 City of Langley 162

Source: Island County, August, 2007

Future population growth will undoubtedly be an important factor in the City and County’s decision to site a new transfer station in Oak Harbor since the data noted above only measures a snapshot on current waste generation and transfer station usage. Population projections for both the entire island and the City of Oak Harbor suggest that much of the population growth currently is anticipated in the unincorporated areas of the County. Projections provided by the City’s Planning Department reveal an annual population growth of approximately 1.4 and 1.5 percent annually through 2025. Subsequent discussions with City Planning officials indicated that these projections are somewhat lower than previous population estimates.

As previously stated, it is difficult to make a clear recommendation regarding development of a new transfer station in the City of Oak Harbor. While there are significant numbers of residents in the City who are driving directly to the Coupeville Transfer Station, the drive distance is not unreasonable given current industry benchmarks. Typically, a transfer station is usually considered economically feasible if the direct haul distance for large solid waste collection vehicles is more than 18 to 20 miles. In this case, most of the vehicles delivering refuse to the Station are passenger or light trucks. It is our opinion, therefore, that more detailed estimates of the Oak Harbor Wasteshed be conducted to provide a more detailed evaluation. Clearly, however, the City and the County should conduct in the future further evaluation of the existing Oak Harbor Drop Box Station to determine if operating improvements can be made to the Station to expand refuse disposal services for City residents. These improvements may be more economical than construction and operation of a new transfer station.

The Oak Harbor Transfer station is not intended to serve the residents of the City of Oak Harbor who have their own city-run curbside waste pickup and recycling program. Larger loads should be hauled to Coupeville. At a time when the county’s unincorporated residential/commercial population and/or other economic factor group to a point where a shared facility is viable the County should be supportive of this transfer station since it will provide for both the County and the City.

4 0


Expand o r Conso l i da te Bayv iew Drop Box S ta t ion Wi th I s land Recyc l ing

A review of current tonnage and customer deliveries at the Bayview Drop Box Station (Table 12), indicates an increasing demand for recycling services at the southern portion of Whidbey Island. This would require replacing the existing metal containers with ones with larger capacity. Such an effort is underway as of the start of 2008 been estimated by the County to cost approximately $75,000. However, there has been some suggestion that these costs could be eliminated by consolidating the Bayview Station with that of the Island Recycling, which is located in Freeland off SR 525. Island Recycling is currently the primary recycling center for Whidbey Island. The County-owned Freeland facility houses Island Recycling’s main recycling facility. This contract will be rebid by the County in 2008. It is our opinion that consolidation of these two operations may not result in significant costs savings to the County because some customers may have to drive an additional six miles further for drop off services. Consequently, further study is needed to determine current and future customer use for an expanded station at Bayview.

EXPAND CURBS IDE RECYCL ING OPPORTUNIT IESRecyclable materials are currently delivered by residents in the County at the transfer stations and drop-box locations. Waste Connections, the parent company of Island Disposal proposed a curbside recycling program,. The proposed curbside program is for Island Disposal. Island Disposal to provide a fee-based, bi-weekly, collection of “mixed recyclables”, which would include cardboard, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and “mixed waste papers". Not included ” are glass, food contaminated cardboard or paper and hazardous waste containers, among other contaminants. Island Disposal specifically excluded glass from the mixed recyclables because they believed that glass could not be adequately sorted at its MRF.

Island Disposals’ proposal is to give residential customers a 60, or 96-gallon roll-out container, or, in special cases, a sticker that could be placed on a standard 32-gallon container. The separate container for recyclables will allow customers to decrease the number or frequency of trash cans set out and potentially reduces their trash service bills as follows:

+ New curbside recycling services - $6.40

- Rebate (70% of recyclables value) of $0.84 (based on July 2007 market values)

- Savings from weekly to bi-weekly service (1 can) - $3.47$2.09 more per month for curbside recycling

Figure 20 illustrates the possible service fee increases or reductions, based on this proposal.

4 1


Change in Monthly Cost by Reducing Number or Frequency of Trash Cans

-4.32

-11.29

-1.31

2.09

-3.46

2.38

5.56 5.56

-14-12-10

-8-6-4-202468

1

Change in Service Level

Cha

nge

in M

onth

ly C

ost,

$

3 cans/wk to 2 cans/wk3 cans/wk to 1can/wk2 cans/wk to 1can/wk1 can/wk to 1 can/2wks1 can/wk to 1can/mo.1 can/wk to 1 Mini-can/wkNo change in serviceSelf-haul recyclables

F igure 20 . Change in Month ly Cost by Reduc ingNumber o r F requency o f T rash Cans

In July 2007, the County conducted a non-scientific survey of its customers. Of the approximately 10,000 surveys distributed (mailed to Island disposal customers as part of billing notice, self-haulers at County solid facilities, attendees of Island County Fair, downloads from County website).

Briefly, the survey indicated the following results:

58% of the respondents live in the incorporated area

49% of the respondents were in favor of the proposed recycling program; 43% were opposed; and 8% were undecided.

43% of the respondents surveyed at County facilities indicated that they would sign up for curbside collection services should curbside recycling services be added.

Only 24% of the respondents indicated that they could decrease their trash collection service should they be equipped with recyclables collection.

F INANCIAL ISSUESThe County completed a rate study in 2007. Such studies are done every three years to determine revenue requirements. The revenue requirements of the study concluded that projected sources of funds did not meet the projected operating expenses of the County’s solid

4 2


waste system. For example, the County had experienced a nearly 60 percent increase in the cost of solid waste disposal, primarily the result of the new solid waste disposal agreement with Rabanco. Further, the County had also experienced equipment and maintenance expenses, as well as staffing expenses increasing by over 16 percent each, because of the increase in solid waste tonnages delivered to the County’s transfer stations. As a result of the rate study, the County increased solid waste rates in March 15, 2007 for self haulers, and for franchise haulers on May 25, 2007.

Ad jus tment o f the Min imum Serv i ce Fee

With the completion of the most recent solid waste rate study in 2007, the County increased the minimum fee to $ 10.00 for a single can or bundle of waste materials (not exceeding 40 pounds) delivered to County’s transfer stations. A second can or bundle is now charged an additional $3.00.

A review of available solid waste disposal fees from neighboring communities suggests that the $10.00 rate is still somewhat below that charged by other communities in Western Washington. More importantly, in our opinion, this relatively low minimum fee sends a signal to residents encouraging them not to subscribe to curbside collection service. Thus, with fewer customers in the unincorporated areas, the private hauler in Island County is unable to provide cost-effective service because many potential customers are being provided disposal services at below market rates. Ultimately, the sheer number of self-haulers requiring services is severely taxing the County’s staffing resources at the transfer stations. It is our opinion, therefore, that the County should undertake a comprehensive study to evaluate the minimum service fees with respect to its impact on collection system subscriptions, transfer station staffing and operational costs.

Set T ipp ing Fees fo r to Encourage Add i t iona l Recyc l i ng

The County currently offers reduced tipping fees at the transfer stations for segregated yard and garden waste, and segregated wood waste (clean painted or unpainted lumber, plywood, particle board, etc.). Based on our observations, it appears that these rates have significantly increased the segregated tonnages of these materials disposed of at the Coupeville Transfer Station, which are then recycled by the County’s contractor. Ultimately, these materials do not make into the waste stream that must be currently transported by Rabanco, pursuant to its long-haul disposal contract with the County.

SCS is of the opinion that the County should explore development of similar fee structures for other segregated commodities where these materials can be effectively recycled. This is particularly important since Island County has become increasingly dependent on its solid waste disposal needs from the large, more distant “mega-landfills” being operated in Eastern Washington and Oregon (Figure 21). The increases in the cost of fossil fuels are anticipated to result in increased transportation costs in future years. Therefore, by increasing its recycling rate of such potentially recycled commodities, we are of the opinion that the County could see significant savings in its overall disposal costs.

4 3


Operat ing Reserves

In enterprise accounting, the term “fund balance’ is very often misunderstood. In essence, it is an accounting construct that is the difference between the governmental fund’s current assets – cash, inventories, investments and other unrestricted assets to finance current operations – and its current operating expenditures. A positive fund balance of current assets over current operating expenses is an indication of the resources that are available to finance ongoing operations. For most local governments, any fund balance that is not appropriated for specific expenditures usually serves as a general operating reserve for the governmental entity. Determining an adequate level of unrestricted fund balance is one of the more difficult questions for policymakers and decision makers for public utilities.

There is a paucity of research and literature about the most appropriate level of reserve funds for local governments providing solid waste management services. A recent survey conducted by SCS suggests that those governments who have established a reserve policy have adopted a standard of setting aside three months of operating costs for their cash contingency reserves for nonrecurring or unforeseen needs that arise during the fiscal year, including:

Expenses associated with unforeseen weather

Natural disasters

Unexpected liability created by State of Federal law

New public safety

Requirements that have been identified after the budget process has occurred

Cover revenue shortfalls due to reduce waste flow (e.g., downturn in the economy resulting in less waste flow)

Startup expenditures for new programs undertaken at mid-year

Opportunities to achieve costs savings

It is our understanding that the County currently maintains a $1.3 million restricted reserve for use in emergency post-closure environmental issues at closed landfill facilities. In addition, the County has about $2.5 million in operating reserves that covers equipment repair and new capital facilities. Based on the County’s current budget of roughly $6 million per year, we are of the opinion that the County should consider establishing a goal of $1.5 million for operating reserves apart from funding these future capital facilities.

4 4


F igure 21 . Pr iva te Landfi l l s i n Wash ington /Oregon and Var ious T ranspor t Methods

4 5


4 6


4 BENCHMARKING STUDYBENCHMARKING OVERVIEWBenchmarking has been used by solid waste management agencies or organizations to identify for best management practices, policies, innovative operational procedures, and innovative programs for an organization to enhance performance. Typically, the objective of this benchmarking process is to adapt these practices, policies, procedures, and ideas to further the performance of their own organization or agency. Over the years, benchmarking has become engrained into the culture as part of an ongoing philosophy of continuous improvement.

As most recently pointed out in a groundbreaking study on solid waste collection practices (SWANA, 2007), benchmarking has been most often used in two key areas in solid waste management:

Objectively measuring the quality and levels of the services they provide Identifying and implementing best practices that will enable them to reduce costs and

improve services

While the solid waste industry has long recognized the need for quantifiable benchmarking data on solid waste practices, there have been few, if any, long-term, comparative studies conducted. In order to address this needs, in 2001, the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) worked with a group of solid waste collection managers to initiate the SWANA North America Benchmarking Project for Residential Solid Waste Collection Services. In June 2007, this group published its first output of this report. Initial plans by SWANA’s Collection and Transfer Technical Division have been finalized to undertake a preliminary data collection effort during 2008 and 2009.

I SLAND COUNTY BENCHMARKING PROGRAMWith SWANA’s transfer station benchmarking program not yet finalized, SCS initiated the benchmarking effort for Island County by reviewing available data and information in SCS’s office files and collecting similar benchmarking data, which has been published by other national or regional professional organizations. We also developed a request for available benchmarking data and information and posted this request on electronic bulletin boards, which are sponsored by the American Public Works Association (APWA), the National League of Cities (NACO), and SWANA. As a result of emails, faxes, and information received over the telephone, we developed a series of operational benchmarks to enable comparisons to be made across the many jurisdictions. These included data and information in the following key areas: ownership, staffing, days/hours of operation, customers per day, size of facility, distance to landfill, and costs (operating, tipping fees). An attempt was made to locate benchmark communities, similar to Island County, who operate smaller capacity transfer stations and utilize remote landfills.

At the outset, we surveyed 18 counties throughout the State of Washington, which utilize remote, long-haul disposal of their solid wastes. The objective was to assess the historic and current ranges in overall system tipping fees for waste disposal as compared to Island County. As

4 7


shown in Appendix B, and graphically summarized in Figure 22, landfill disposal costs have increased dramatically over the past decade as counties throughout Washington closed their own publicly-owned landfills, and depended on remote, privately run landfills for their community’s disposal needs. Increases in these costs have been fueled by rapid escalation in transportation costs in recent years. Currently, more than half of these counties have tipping fees trending towards $100 a ton. Those counties closer to the State’s rail and major port facilities have the lowest tipping fees. In comparison, San Juan County has the highest tipping fee, which is projected to increase to $278.00 per ton in April 2008.

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

Kitsap

Mason

Adams

Thurst

on

Linco

lnClar

kLe

wis

Skagit

Grays

Harb

or

Snoho

mish

Columbia

Whit

man

Spoka

ne

Wha

tcomPac

ificIsl

and

Jeffe

rson

San Ju

an

County

Tipp

ing

Fee

($)

F igure 22 . 2008 County T ipp ing Fees , Wash ington

Source: SCS Engineers, January 2008

A brief review of these data and interviews of County solid waste officials suggests that not all of these communities account for their costs in the same manner. That is, they may not all practice full cost accounting in development of their budgets and overall rate structures. As such, it is difficult to use these data and information to fully account for any inherent subsidies, budget overruns, or supposed cost efficiencies. The data do illustrate, however, that Island County’s tipping fees are higher than a few of the counties in Western Washington, but they generally appear to be in line with many of their neighbors that operate transfer stations, and utilize remote, long-haul landfills for their disposal needs.

As noted in the paragraphs above, we surveyed communities in the Western United States, which operate transfer stations systems in helping to reveal any useful operational comparisons with the stations operated by Island County. Table 15 summarizes the survey information received for this study in terms of design features, operational characteristics of the stations, staffing, programs to increase recycling and reduce materials for long-haul disposal, and costs. While it

4 8


was difficult to find perfect benchmark partners exhibiting the same or similar characteristics to Island County, a number of important observations can be made:

Differential tipping fees appears to be employed by many station operators to encourage waste generators to self segregate waste materials enabling additional recycling

The stations generally appear to be open six to seven days per week to provide customer services

Most public agencies indicated that recruitment of station staff was a continuing problem. They were faced with supplementing full time employees with part-time staff to provide the same level of service

The remote location of the ultimate disposal landfill and the ever increasing cost of transportation was forcing station operators to be more innovative in reducing their waste stream through local recycling of wood, construction and demolition debris, and yard waste

In order to make the most meaningful operating cost evaluation of the County’s Coupeville Transfer Station, we surveyed an additional number of solid waste authorities such as the Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority (West Palm Beach, Florida) and the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) of Virginia (Norfolk, Virginia), which operate extensive transfer station systems, and also compile detailed financial benchmarking data. As shown in Figure 23, the Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority have collected detailed operating cost information on their transfer stations since 1992, which include stations that process average waste flows that vary from 250 to 2,000 tons per day. The operating costs shown in the graph are their aggregate costs (not including transport and disposal for all stations over this time period. Recent discussions with Authority managers indicate that total operating costs per ton for their smaller stations are currently trending towards $18.00 to $20.001.

Based on these data, it appears that Island County’s recent operating costs at the Coupeville Transfer Station compare favorably with the Palm Beach costs. Not surprisingly, Island County’s operating costs are somewhat higher given its remote location on an island, the availability of competing equipment suppliers, and relatively increased cost of running a transfer station with compaction equipment. Notwithstanding, the Coupeville Transfer Station appears to offers competitive operating costs in light of the extensive Palm Beach benchmarking data.

1 Personal communication with Mr. Mark Eyeington, Deputy Director, Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County

4 9


$11.59

$13.11 $12.95 $13.24 $13.04$12.46

$12.04$12.70 $12.39

$13.88$13.32

$13.97

$15.87

$13.90

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

$18.00

92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06

fiscal year

$ pe

r ton

cost per ton

F igure 23 . Opera t ing Cos t o f Representa t i ve Pub l i c l y Opera ted Trans fer S ta t ions

Source: Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority, 2008

5 0


Tab le 15 . Benchmark ing Survey Data

STATION STATISTICS

TRANSFER STATION LOCATION

Copper-mine, Page,

AZHood River,

OR Carey, ID San Juan Co., WA

Ohio Gulch, ID

Ketchikan, AK

Richland,WA

City of Lewiston, ID

Kittitas Co., WA

Metro South, Oregon City,

ORFactoria,

Bellevue, WA

Public or Private owned/operated Private (Allied) Private (Waste

Connections)Publicly owned and operated

Publicly owned and operated







Publicly owned and operated—planned for

demolition and replacement with a bigger

facility

Staffing (FTE) 2.5 3 1.5 4 8 12 (10 FT/4 PT) 2 4 7 6.5 5-6

Days/Hours of Operation Mon-Sat 8am-8:30pm

Mon-Sat 9am-5pm

Tues-Sat 9am-6pm

Wed-Sun 10am-4pm

Mon-Sat 8am-530pm

Mon-Sat 8am-4pm

7 days/wk 8am-4pm

7 days/wk 8am-4:30pm

Mon-Sat 8am-4pm

Public 7 days/wk 8am-

4pmComm. 3an-

7pm 7 days/wk

Mon-Fri 6:15am-11:30pmSat-Sun

8:30am-5pm

Distance to Landfill (One-Way Miles) 165 mi 33 mi 115 mi 400 miles (by

train) 109 mi 650 miles 600 ft 9 mi 145 mi 150 mi 20 mi

Number of Scales 1 0 0 1 32 vehicle

1 floor1 0 2 4 2

Scale House 300 ft2 0 N/A 150 ft2 150 ft2/ 25 ft2 300 ft2 3000 ft2 0 300 ft2 3 houses Avg 500 ft2 ea 470 ft2

Customers Per Day 150 50 8-9 200-300 160 150-200 125 145 350-450 Self-haul 900 Comm. 275

Self-haul 300 Comm. 65

Tons per Day(permitted and actual)

50-55 300Actual <15

Permitted-no amt.

Actual-25 Permitted- 15-

40

Actual-125 Permitted- no

amt.46

Actual 200 Permitted-2.5 mil tons for

the life of the site

70Actual-125

Permitted- no amt.

Actual 268,000 tons Permitted- No

amt

Self-haul 90 Comm. 380

Bans on MaterialsHazardous waste, asbestos, paint,

waste oil, antifreeze, tires

Lead Acid Batteries, Haz Waste, Paint,

Antifreeze

Lead Acid Batteries, Tires, Haz Waste, Bulk

LiquidsSolvents

Lead Acid Batteries, Tires, Haz Waste, Bulk

Liquids

Radioactive, Asbestos, Explosives

Subtitle D materials

Asbestos, used oil, batteries, paint,

antifreeze

Haz waste, bulk liquids, asbestos,

explosives

Haz waste, bulk liquids, asbestos,

soil, dirt

Appliances, haz. Waste, liquids, C&D (open bed

trucks), electronics, mercury-

containing products

Recycling Incentives Free Recyclables are free

Differential fee structure Free recycling Differential fee

structureNo charge for recyclables No Scrap metal

freeYes (did not

specify)

Penalty of $35.55/ton for

<15% recovery.

Free

5 1


STATION STATISTICS


Copper-mine, Page,

AZHood River,


Ohio Gulch, ID

Ketchikan, AK

Richland,WA


Kittitas Co., WA


ORFactoria,

Bellevue, WA

Equipment (type and numbers)

Transfer trailers, 580

Case backhoe

1 T 28 G Loader, 310 SE Backhoe,

Three transfer trucks, five

transfer trailer compactors

Loader, Crawler D5,

Wood Grinder

2 backhoes, 2 fifth wheel

tractors

Motor Rator, D8 Crawler, 3

loaders, forklift, tractor,

dump truck

D6 Dozer, 2 excavators, tub grinder,

compost turner,

shredder, compactor

Open top 40yd containers

Backhoe, loader

Front end loader N/A

Goat (some kind of

tractor?), packer (2), compactor

Baler(s) No NoYes-scrap metal only brought in

once a yearNo Yes-for

recycling Yes No Yes for cardboard No No No

Floor Sorting Capability (confirm) No No No No Yes-limited Yes, aluminum No No Yes Yes No

Tunnel/Bay Load-out No No Yes No Yes 3 bays Yes Yes No Pit Operation NoTransfer Building/MSW Area 2,500 ft2 3,850 ft2 1,400 ft2 1,800 ft2 4,500 ft2- two

bldgs 14,400 ft2 3600 ft2 14,000 ft2 9,000 ft2 31,000 ft2 57,000 ft2

Recycling Drop-off Area 500 ft2 300 ft2 50 ft2 1,800 ft2 5400 ft2 3,000 ft2 2-30yd containers 600 ft2 22,000 ft2 25,000 ft2 16,000 ft2

Storage for Recovered Materials No No Yes Yes Yes 1,800 ft2 Yes Yes Yes Yes- limited No

Office and Visitor Center Office did not know sf

Office (did not know sf) 750 ft2 No 1,755 ft2 1,600 ft2 200 ft2 800 ft2 120 ft2 1500 ft2 Office 4,800 ft2

HHW Facility No Yes (did not know sf) 100 ft2

No-except for one yearly

event50 ft2 1,000 ft2 2,400 ft2 2,000 ft2 1,600 ft2 5000 ft2 1,600 ft2

Special Features and Challenges

Restaurant grease bio

treatment and custom

erosion control

Operating facility

Designed to sustain severe

winter conditions

Restrictive height

ordinance and added TS to

existing incinerator

Designed to sustain severe

winter conditions

16 TPD incinerator

Large customer vehicle quantity

Design-build Heavy snow load design

Existing TS; Added 2

compactors

Operating Costs ($/Ton) Confidential $40/ton $37/ton Did not know $31/ton Did not know $17/ton $15-20/ton Did not know

1st 17,000 tons/mo

=$159230.54, every ton after pay $8.90/ton

Recovered material

$35.55/ton

Did not know

Tip Fees (Material types) $93.18/ton $38.95/ton MSW loose-$8/cy, MSW Compacted

$18/cy, C&D $8/cy, Inert $7/cy,

$278.00/ton MSW-$55/ton, C&D $55/ton, Inert $20/ton, Wood $10/ton,

$.06/lb, $120/ton Emailed price list No charge for residential curbside

$74.67/ton $71.14 + transaction fee

($3 for automotive self haul or $8.50

$102.05/ton$15 minimum/car

$3.50/ton

5 2


STATION STATISTICS


Copper-mine, Page,

AZHood River,


Ohio Gulch, ID

Ketchikan, AK

Richland,WA


Kittitas Co., WA


ORFactoria,

Bellevue, WA

Wood $1/cy Scrap metal no charge

Commercial Waste: Up to one cubic yard free

each month $20.00/cy after Ist 12 cy in fiscal year

for scale house.) moderate risk surcharge

Reference Not Available Wes Gavett Terry Schultz Not Available Terry Schultz Bob Silversten Kip Eagles Dan Johnson Patti Johnson Jim Watkins Lisa WilliamsPhone 928.645.3885 541 386-2272 208.432.9082 360. 370.0532 208.432.9082 907.228.5615 509.942.7471 208.746-3671 509.962.7070 503.797.1599 206.296.8488

Requested Copy Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]

5 3


5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSBased on the data and information collected during the course of this study, SCS makes major findings and recommendations in the following areas:

1. Operational Assessments of Facilities–Our review of the Department’s facilities indicates that they are well managed and equipment maintained in accordance with established solid waste industry maintenance practices. Current staffing levels to most functions appear optimal with respect to other similarly-sized solid waste agencies. Data collected during our benchmarking survey of other similar transfer stations suggests that the Coupeville Transfer Station’s operating costs (not counting the cost of transportation and disposal) compares favorably with well-run, publicly operated facilities.

2. Expand the Coupeville Transfer Station – Over the past decade, waste tonnages and customer traffic at the Coupeville Station have steadily increased. Our review of current operations indicated that the facility was well managed and maintained. Staffing was appropriate for the size of the station with highly motivated and customer-friendly, employees. With the closure of the adjacent County landfill, solid waste was hauled for the first 14 years by WMI to their privately-owned landfill in Oregon, and, starting in 2007 for the next five years hauled by Rabanco to their privately-owned landfill in Eastern Washington. Increasing deliveries of waste to the station and processing of the waste from the tipping floor and then into the compactor and the trailers is a daily challenge for staff because of the existing capacity of the Station. By expanding the tipping floor by two or more additional bays, the County would see immediate economic benefits. This added space could effectively be used by staff to cull out potential recyclables from the incoming waste stream, thereby decreasing the County’s disposal fees to Rabanco, and resulting in additional recycling revenues. We urge the County to move expeditiously on this project.

3. Improve Operations of Disposal Contract With Rabanco–In January 2007, the County entered into a five-year contract with Rabanco Ltd. To accept loaded transfer trailers at the County’s transfer stations and transport these wastes to a privately-owned landfill. During the course of our initial field visit for this project, the County expressed some concerns with the Contractor’s ability to supply adequate numbers of containers, chassis, and tractors to enable the County to remove the incoming waste from the Coupeville Transfer Station in a expeditious manner. Trucks are arriving late requiring County staff to remain later in the day to assure that all waste is cleaned off the transfer station floor, as required by the County’s operating permit. We urge the County to enter into negotiations with Rabanco to resolve this issue.

4. Adjust Tipping Fees at the Coupeville Station to Encourage Segregated Loads– The County currently offers reduced tipping fees for customers delivering segregated loads of recyclable materials such as wood wastes. The County’s current contractor for yard and wood waste recycling has experimented with innovative methods to improve separation and screening of yard waste materials as well as identifying markets for boiler fuels. Again, every additional ton recycled from the incoming waste stream results in disposal costs savings. We recommend that the County work with its recycling contractors to

5 4


develop markets for these segregated materials and adjust its tipping fees to attract these supplies.

5. Establish Equipment Replacement Reserve –The County currently funds its replacement of equipment and vehicles out of its cash reserves. Many solid waste agencies are using a sinking or revolving fund to spread the costs of funding new vehicles or equipment over a longer period of time. Basically, this type of financing approach requires that an agency make periodic payments into a fleet replacement fund thereby ensuring that there will be adequate funds available for the replacement vehicle or unit when it comes due for replacement. In comparison to the current cash method of financing, a sinking fund would help even out the annual volatility of the agency’s replacement funding needs and to predict the Department’s annual funding needs over a long planning horizon.

6. Establish Policy for Operating Fund Reserves – It is our understanding that the County currently maintains a $1.3 million restricted reserve for use in emergency post-closure environmental issues at closed landfill facilities. In addition, the County has about $2.5 million in operating reserves that covers equipment repair and new capital facilities. Based on the County’s current budget of roughly $6 million per year, we are of the opinion that the County should consider establishing a goal of $1.5 million for operating reserves apart from funding these future capital facilities.

7. Develop a New Camano Island Transfer Station – A review of the current operations at the existing Camano Transfer Station suggests the improvements currently under way as part of the Camano Hill Road rebuild will improve many of site's existing problems. Planned upgrades, in addition to the already installed second scale, should significantly improve recycling operations, interior circulation, lighting, and site access. Queuing on the roadway should not be an issue with the revised access points and relocation of the East Camano Drive Intersection. Ultimately, with future growth on the Island, the County will need to investigate the siting and construction of a new transfer station. We recommend that the County to take the necessary steps to begin planning now for this eventuality.

8. Further Investigation of Oak Harbor Transfer Station – As noted earlier in this report, data at this time doe not support the construction of a shared transfer station with the City of Oak Harbor at this time. While there are significant numbers of residents in the City who are driving directly to the Coupeville Transfer Station, the drive distance is not unreasonable given current industry benchmarks. Typically, a transfer station is usually considered economically feasible if the direct haul distance for large solid waste collection vehicles is more than 18 to 20 miles. In this case, most of the vehicles delivering refuse to the Station are passenger or light trucks. It is our opinion, therefore, that more detailed estimates of the Oak Harbor Wasteshed be conducted to provide a more detailed evaluation. Clearly, however, the City and the County should conduct further evaluation of the existing Oak Harbor Drop Box Station to determine if operating improvements can be made to the Station to expand refuse disposal services for City residents. These improvements may be more economical than construction and operation of a new transfer station.

5 5


9. Expand or Consolidate Bayview Drop Box Station – A review of current tonnage and customer delivery records of the Bayview Drop Box Station indicated an increasing demand for services at the southern portion of Whidbey Island. There has been some suggestion that economies could be realized by consolidation of the two operations at the Freeland Facility. Although it is unusual for two facilities to provide similar services in close proximity to one another, it is our opinion that consolidation of these two operations may not result in significant costs savings to the County because some customers may have to drive an additional six miles further for drop off services. In the interim, the county should continue to replace smaller boxes with larger capacity containers similar to recent upgrades in the recycle area. Consequently, further study is needed to determine current and future customer use for a significantly expanded station at Bayview.

10. Implement a Curbside Collection and Recycling Program - A large percentage of the County's residents in the unincorporated areas do not currently subscribe to a waste collection program. Further, there is no curbside collection service for recyclables. Much of these materials and wastes are delivered to County facilities resulting in heavy traffic and requiring the County to keep the Coupeville Transfer Station open seven days a week to provide the necessary service levels.

Our review of the proposal offered by Waste Connections via Island Disposal indicates that it offers significant opportunities to increase recycling rates in the unincorporated areas of the County, while at the same time enabling homeowners to reduce their overall monthly collection costs. Although not scientific, the survey conducted by the County suggests a significant number of respondents were in favor of this change. The proposal required a "level of service" ordinance that would require all customers on curbside trash pickup to participate in a mandatory program. Those who believe they would not benefit from such a program may prefer to self haul. Alternatively, an RFP approach may allow the County additional control over the program. A curbside recycling program would undoubtedly result in overall cost savings to the County because the greater volume of recovered recyclables would not have to transported and disposed at a remote landfill. SCS is of the opinion that an Island Disposal (Waste Connections) and a Waste Management (Camano Island) proposal be thoroughly examined both in the context of homeowner and County cost savings and increases in levels of service. As noted, the County could issue an RFP for curbside recycle services and evaluate those proposals.

11. Adjust Minimum Service Fees At Transfer Station – With the completion of the most recent solid waste rate study in 2007, the County increased the minimum fee to $ 10.00 for a single can or bundle of waste materials (not exceeding 40 pounds) delivered to County’s transfer stations. A second can or bundle is now charged an additional $3.00.

A review of available solid waste disposal fees from neighboring communities suggests that the $10.00 rate is still somewhat below that charged by other communities in Western Washington. More importantly, in our opinion, this relatively low minimum fee sends a signal to residents encouraging them not to subscribe to curbside collection service. Thus, with fewer customers in the unincorporated areas, the private hauler in Island County is unable to provide cost-effective service because many potential customers are being provided disposal services at below market rates. Ultimately, the

5 6


sheer number of self-haulers requiring services is severely taxing the County’s staffing resources at the transfer stations. It is our opinion, therefore, that the County should undertake a comprehensive study to evaluate the minimum service fees with respect to its impact on collection system subscriptions, transfer station staffing and operational costs.

12. Staffing and Hours At Transfer Stations and Drop Boxes – The Department provides an extensive level of service to County residents at its transfer station and drop boxes. As noted in the paragraphs above, we have recommended improvements in the capacity of this system through enlargement of tipping bays, addition of larger capacity storage boxes, and modification of the traffic flow into and out of these stations. Preliminary surveys conducted by the County have suggested that some residents are traveling longer distances to dispose recyclables and solid wastes. Continued development trends on Whidbey and Camano Islands, and possible changes in waste collection and curbside collection suggest to us that the County should undertake a study to evaluate whether staffing and operating hours needs to be adjusted in order to provide the desired levels of service to the public.

13. Further Benchmarking of Facility Operations and Costs – Benchmarking is an important tool used by the private sector to help compare operating costs and look for ways to improve services. Until recently, benchmarking was not widely practiced by the public sector, particularly in solid waste management. National and regional initiatives by SWANA to gather benchmarking information and data on waste collection are only recent events. We urge the County to approach SWANA and the Department of Ecology to undertake an initiative to begin benchmarking transfer station operations in the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest. It is our opinion that these data and I formation would prove useful to the County to improve its operations.

5 7


6 REFERENCESEngineers-Architects, P.C. and Widjac Corporation, Feasibility Study for the Conversion of

Combustible Refuse to Useful Energy, Kirkland, Washington, 1983.

Green Solutions, Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, South Prairie, Washington, April 2007.

HWA Geosciences, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment and Cleanup Report – Island County Facility, August 2007.

Paul S. Running and Associates, Island County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, Volume I, Seattle, Washington, February, 1991.

SCS Engineers, City of Oak Harbor Transfer Station Study, Bellevue, Washington, 2005

Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc., Solid Waste and Septage Rate Study for the Island County Solid Waste Program: 2007-2009, Superior, CO., March, 2007.

Solid Waste Association of North America, The Benchmarking of Residential solid Waste Collection Services, SWANA Applied Research foundation Collection Group Sponsors and Project Sponsors, June 2007.

University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Evaluation of Island County Municipal Refuse Compost as a soil Amendment, December 1991.

URS, Presentation on the Materials Recovery Facility Study, Presented to the City of Oak Harbor, June 21, 2007.

5 8


APPENDIX


Append ix A

Equ ipment Invento ry


Vehic les

Veh # License Description Serial # Make Loc/Site Purchased from Date Amount

709 M 00883C Truck - utility 1987 1GBHR34K1HJ147640 Chevrolet CP/Doug 709 CAPITOL CHEV 04/10/87 $11,764.40

715 M 12148C Truck - DUMP GMC, 1977 TMC 927 V590431 GMC CP/Doug Shop SNOHOMISH CNTY 10/08/90 $16,500.00

729 M 27736C Truck - P/U 1993 Sonoma 1GTCS192P8523902 GMC CA Camano George Gee Pontiac 04/19/93 $10,388.04

732 M 29555C Automobile - 1994 Chevy Corsica 161LD5548R4217684 Chevrolet CP/Adele Adele 03/29/94 $11,535.66

734 M 33423C Truck Freightliner -1990 SN2FUPDSYB4LV390986 Freightliner CP/Doug Septage King County, WA 02/06/95 $41,488.10

736 M 33428C Truck - 1995 Ford Ranger VIN 1FTCR14AXSPA44514 Ford CP/Jerry MRW Frontier Ford 04/10/95 $11,897.80

737 M 12154C Truck - 1995 1 ton flatbed F-350 VIN 1FDKF37H8SEA40655 Ford BVMetal recycling Frontier Ford 04/10/95 $12,673.05

740 M 33474C Truck-1996 Chev. S10 1GCCS19X6T8168616 Chev S-10 pickup OFFICE Dave BonvouloirGilchrist Chevrolet 02/26/96 $15,689.87

746 M 49991C Truck-Chev. 1\2T 1999 1GCEK14V7XE194406 Chevrolet CP/Brian Brian WeaverBUD CLARY CHEVROLET 04/09/99 $19,044.79

757 M 64173C Truck - F600 Ford 1991 1FDMK64P8MVA25626 Ford HHW MRW Northend Truck Equipment 11/25/02 $7,898.00

764 M 42600C Truck - T10PU GMC 1997 1GTDT14X7V8521005 GMC Septage Steve Is Co GSA 5/17/05 $2,000

775 M 33482C Ford Escort VIN# FASP15J3TW170355 Ford Adele Cpvl GSA- Interfund 3/7/2007 1,200.00$


Equ ipment

Veh # License Description Serial # Make Loc/Site Purchased from Date Amount

701 M C41116 Loader, wheel - CAT 81J6607 CAT 950 CP/ Transfer Station NC MACHINERY 05/01/75 $51,597.00

723 M C02911 Generator w/trailer 714- 1991 9830091X MWMDES10 CP/Doug Shop Castaway 11/01/91 $0.00735 M 33426C Trailer - Sludge 1984 1H4B04129EJ012302Freuhoff CP/Doug Septage Metro Fixed Assets 03/06/95 $10,861.65744 M TRX3000 ATV 1997 Honda 478TE1506VA804214TRX300FWV CP/Brian Shop Maryott's Honda 04/03/97 $5,302.20

749 M 57635C TRAILER-FORD/PUMP 1989 1J9ED2267KS052194STRONG BOY CP/Doug Septage CITY OF SALEM 9/15/00 $2,501.00

752 M 60610C Trailer - 1981 Thompson 5000gal Vacuum2041 Thompson Tank CP/Doug Septage JMP Industrial Services7/13/01 $32,000.00

754 M Oil Vacuum Pump Masport M-1 Pump CP/Brian Transfer Station ERICKSON TANK & PUMP11/27/01 $2,003.06

756 M 2002 Forklift, Toyota 42278 78/118v #M53680KK CP/Jerry Recycle Northern Tool & Equip10/14/02 $10,499.98

761 M Yard Goat VIN #50726 Ottawa, 1977 CA CA D & J Equipment Sales01/13/04 $3,836.00

765 M Sweeper CP/Brian Ben-Ko-Matic 03/28/05 3808.00

770 M Yard Goat VIN #74845 OTTAWA CA CA D & J EQUIPMENT 04/17/06 $32,384.50

771 M BACKHOE LOADER T0410GX960773JOHN DEERE 410G CA CA PAPE MACHINERY10/16/06 $67,452.48

772 M BACKHOE LOADER T0410GX960753JOHN DEERE 410G CP CP PAPE MACHINERY10/23/06 $55,032.48773 M 2006 Deere 544J Loader - CP JOHN DEERE 444J CP CP PAPE MACHINERY3/27/2007 95150.86


Append ix B

Wash ington D isposa l Rate H is tory fo r Communi t ies Expor t ing So l id Waste


TonsDisposed

2006

TonsDisposed

2002

DisposalRate07-08 Additional Fees and Rates

DisposalRate

10/6/2008

DisposalRate

4/3/2008

DisposalRate

6/2/2008

DisposalRate

2/1/2008

DisposalRate

12/1/1997

DisposalRate

6/1/1995

DisposalRate

8/1/1994

DisposalRate

1/1/1993

DisposalRate

2/1/1992 Disposal $/Ton Disposal Method/Location

Snohomish 507,122 440,007 89 Tax 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 79 89 Export-Roosevelt, WA

Kitsap

84950(self-haul)

125,021 (curbside) 248,051 62.02 62.02 57.63 61.71 56.7 54 12.4 62.02 Export – Arlington, OR

Clark 277,529 232,769 76.77$10.00

Transaction Fee 80 69.77 69.03 77.55 74.5 71.45 71.45 71.45 74.45 80 Export – Boardman, OR

Thurston 199,692 162,731 76 70.8 66.3 66.3 71.69 62.1 62.1 50.9 63.6 53.24 70.8 Export – Roosevelt, WA

Whatcom 152,668 99,719 70-100 100 70 70 103.65 100 90.94 95 70-100 Export – Roosevelt/ Arlington

Skagit 104,070 89,891 83 $2.99 tax 85.99 82.5 85.99 85.99 103.15 80 80 80 80 83 Export – Roosevelt, WA

Grays Harbor Emailing… 45,600 83 79 75 75 71.43 73 68.5 56 56 83 Export – Roosevelt, WA

Lewis 66,133.67 50,350 82 $2.95 refuse tax 82 82 82 84.95 82 95 95 55 55 82 Export – Roosevelt, WA

Island SCS has… 42,150 104.25 (110.00 self-haul) $7.28 fee and 3.6% tax 89 85 88 88 105 95 95 95 C-$104.25; Pub.$110 Export – Roosevelt, WA (’07-’12)

Mason 36,384 27,000 76.2 Tax 63 63 63 63 63 63 53.5 42.75 63 Export – Roosevelt, WA

Jefferson 20,608 16,828 110 Tax 110 110 110 110 110 115 115 76.48 54 110 Export – Roosevelt, WA

Pacific 14497.56 90.54 105 83.8 94 95.85 82.3 70 100 56 105 Export – Arlington, OR

San Juan 12,071 11,651260

(increasing 4/ 08-278.00) 238 192.67 194.56 185.55 162 162 66 60 238 Export – Arlington, OR

Adams 15,78168

(April 08) 65 Roosevelt

Whitman 29,826 95 95 Export-Arlington, OR

Spokane 354,704 98 98 In County WTE & Export to Roosevelt

Lincoln 1,908.10 69.5 69.50 (74.00-2007) In County Landfill & Export to Roosevelt

Columbia Emailing… 94 86(06) 90(07) Walla Walla

Source: Island County and SCS Telephone Survey, January 2008

Island County, WA Final Report

Documents

solid waste programs

island recycling

solid waste generation

map of island county

camano transfer station

current solid waste

bayview transfer station

coupeville station