HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.C 10/18/2010~ ... _.. ..-_ .~JJ
l
t,
~..~._.._..__.__ f;
~l~~~vtda~ ItP.vw #4. C
.~11 ~~ r~~ ~ y =1.x'1 pry ~~r ~ ~~a ~I 7`~ t~~F ~ f ~33i~ ~~'~ J=9 ~' ('Zit`~I ~-
~.. E; L,6 ~~ l~~.i ~~~ d G` ~ s>~w ~:r. -.~ 6 ~. E~ tl ~ ~~ :. _ ~ ~ ~ ~.~i e._., ......;r5~ _r .> i "~al ~ ~ ~ F~ ~i _ ~: ~ ~7 ~ .~ ~~ ~ ,i _ ~., ~ F; ~~ ~ C,. ~~ J
'l
~a
~4GEIV®A TITLE:
Sonoma City/County Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) Update
RE'C®d~IIVLEIV®ED ACTION:
Seek concu.rrenee from the city on SWAG's priorities. and objectives for
developing a regional long-term solid waste option.
BACKGROIJN®:
Creation of SWAG
On December 8,.2009, the County .Board of Supervisors approved the formation
of a regional advisory group for the expressed purpose of developing a long-term
Solid Vllaste strategy. On Qecember 17, 200,9,: the Board Chair sent letters to
each of the City Mayors inviting their parficipation' and asking each Council to
:appoint a representative and an alternate member.
As a precursor to the first, advisory group meeting a special study session was
convened by the Mayors' and Council Members' Association of Sonoma County
on January 22,.20"10. This study session provided an opportunity to discuss solid
waste history, future chal e,nges and possibilities as well as the framework for
developing a regional strategy.
~~~>:..Q~6e
~;o~~aio
C~~~f~ ~~~~€rg;
~~h~~r~ ~~3'd:
~,~~~t~ r~s~~s
'~~no;~;
~.
on~a~~
Sonoma County/City Solid V4%aste Advisory Graula
C; O County of Sonoma Dep~trfinent of Transportation and .Public ~Vo~-ks
2~OU County Center Drive, Suite I310U
Santa Rosa. C;alii=~~rn~_a 9403
Pho~~c: {7{)7) 765-2231 :Fax: {7{)7) 565-2620
http:i%'supervisors.sc~nolna-county.orb'boards_~tnd_cominssions,aspx
The first meeting of the SWAG was held on February 22, 2010. The meetings
are chaired by Board Supervisor Shirlee Zane and are Co-Chaired by
Councilmember Gary Wysocky, Santa Rosa, and Steve Barbose, Sonoma.
The voting members and alternatives include:
County of Sonoma - Supervisor Shirlee Zane
County of Sonoma -Supervisor Efren Carrillo
City of Sonoma -Mayor Steve Barbose ,Alt. Laurie Gallian
City of Healdsburg -Councilmember Jim Wood., Alt. Tom Chambers
City of Santa Rosa - Councilrnernber Gary Wysocky, Alt; Marsha Vas Dupre
City of Cotati -Councilmember Susan Harvey, Alt: Mark Landman
City of Rohnerf Park - Councilmember Pam Stafford, Alt. Gina Belforte
City of Cloverdale -Councilmember Joe Palla
Town of Windsor -Councilmember Deborah .Fudge.,. Alt. Robin Goble
City of Sebastopol 'Mayor Sarah Glade Gurney, Alt,. Kathleen Shafer
City of Petaluma -Councilmember Tiffany Renee., Alt Pam Torfiatt
The Rules of Governance. (Attachment A) were adopted by the SWAG on March
15, 2010 and included both voting protocols as well as Guiding Principles. It is
important to note that the SWAG is a Brown Act noticed. advisory committee.
Each jurisdiction continues to maintain their authority and responsibility in making
future solid waste decisions.
Plaa~ning Phase
Since March, 2010, the S1NAG has been engaged in the planning phase of the
regional strategy development process. This phase ,has consisted of preparation
of schedules/timelines (Attachment. C), education ..and awareness of
issues/options and the prioritization of the Guiding Principles with definition of
measurable objectives.
iscussion on September 20, 2010 the. SU1/AG developed the
Through 'facilitated d
conceptual priorities ands measurable objectives for those priorities (Attachment
B). The discussion began with an examination of the Guiding Principles
including the identification of key words that define each of seven principles.
Each of the SWAG members was then asked to independently prioritize each of
the principles by scoring the highest priority with seven points and down to the
Lowest priority with one point. In totaling the scores: as hown on the attachment,
the SWAG members' highest priority principles included Waste Diversion,
Economic Efficiencies and Local Control,. The next activity involved each of the
SWAG members independently identifying a weighted priority in percentages to
each of the seven Guiding Principles. In totaling ail the percentage scores as
shown, the SWAG members' not only rated Waste Diversion as the highest
priority brut also assigned a much higher weighting than the other principles.
Dividing these totals by the 10 raters provides the ~a~erage relative weights also
shown on the attached. The last exercise was a ;group effort in developing
desired objectives for the three priority:G'uiding Principles -Waste Diversion,
Efficiencies and Local' Control. These objectives are identif'ed for
Economic ~ ~ ~ i
each of the two groups as shown on the attached. Each group developed very
similar objectives and can be summarized. as follows:
A. Waste Diversion Objectives
® 80% Diversion by 2015; this can be accomplished by removing organics
from waste stream as weld as thru increased education programs.
® 90% Diversion by 2020; additionally conduct analysis to identify how to get
to 1.00% Diversion.
® 100% Diversion as Long-term Goal (25-50years}; may include mining of
existing recyclable material currently b'uried~at Central Landfill.
B. Economic Efficiencies
® .Develop Upstream Regional Fete System by.2012; fee collection for total
waste services at the ``curb"'rather than, current disposal-based tip fee.
Regional Fee to allow for maximizing diversion and minimizing costs.
® Re-,open/Re-permit, Central Landfill; provides revenues for regional
liabilities.
® New Regional Compost Facility; key for" increased diversion of organics.
® Central landfill mining; may provide additional revenues to address
Liabilities.
C. Local Control
® Create a Regional Governance m'odel;; joint city and county deaision-
mak~ing body comprised of erected officials.
® Develop Franchise Agreements that reflect the local (Regional) priorities.
® .Identify and articulate the regional benefits of jurisdictional flow
'~~ ~`.~ commitment.
;,
,,
y 9 ,i
~~
u
The next ste,p,in the ,planning ;phase is to check=in, with each ~of the jurisdictions to
make sure that the jurisdictions concur with ~fhe S1NAG''s conceptual di"section.
y p ~ eir SWAG representative., the SWAG
Once each cit. has rovided #eedback to th
representatives wiJ1 be.asked to vote on the conceptual direction.
'se of jursdi~ctioral, staff, possibly elected officials
P
A Research Committee ced tol d
and public will be convendevelop°waste diversion'options consistent with
~ ~ ' ory Committee (TAC)
the S~WAG's measurable ~,ob'eetives~. ~A Te~chrncal Adv.is
comprised of City and Count~y~~staff will also be convened to develop potential
governance options, an .upstream fee collection :modei: and an equitable
allocation formula for residual landfill liabilities.
The planning phase will be eo,ncluded by the conceptual selection of a waste
diversion option or a short` list.°of opti'o'ns by"the SUVAG' with another check-in with
the individual jurisdictions.
As~al~ysis Phase
With the conceptual selection of'the waste diversion option(s), the next phase will
involve a third party detailed ,#easibility analysis. The TAC will serve as the initial
review body for the analysi's of waste diversion options,.
The TAC' wi11 have also completed analysis of governance options as well as a
construct in moving revenue.,coll'ectons upst"ream. Upon the completion of
analysis, the TAC will be recommending _to the. SWAG a. waste diversion
strategy, a governance model a'nd a methodology with sch°edule for; moving
revenue collection upstream. The SUVAG will 'beasked to select the long-term
solid waste strategy. with another check-in with each of the individual jurisdictions
to make sure they concur with" the "SWAG directiori.
''I~rnplerne~~#a~tionPhase ~ ~' ,i
volve establishin t governance
Thee implementation ;phase will m g he selected
;..
m el, establishing~~the~ selected waste diversion p,ro,grarns~facilities and
od
establishing the, selected upstream revenue col ection option.
The implementationAphasc will also .require final approval from the individual
jurisdictions. As part of,the approval, jurisdictions;woulwd be approving a residual
y .allocation as well as a long-term commitment of waste flow to the
landfillliabilit
governing agency yet to be determined.
Attachments
'S1NAG Rules of Governance: ..............Attachmerit A
,~
Results from Facilitated Discussion......Attaehment B
visions„ Making Timeline ......:...........Attachment C
De
~,-
q r;
f
I
~„
-_
Ii,, ~E..
,, ,, ~n . ~
Attachment 'A
,,
,~~~ ~~
r
~ r3"h, _^,~_ a !° ~ a'E~ ~~f F3 ha ~ Fil ; `"Ua '~ ~~'', ~ i z P.r ".~' ~~ ~ !~~ ~, ~~ ' ° R~ ~-c ~ ~? !fs' ~ ~~ ~'~~ '~~
a ~~ ~ ~ z- -l1 .~l 1E:° [: tFj<l ~~9 ~cG~ I~ I t:;~ ~:~..~/ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~~ is ~ t 1 Uv~.e ~z1 ~r~ ;~ ~m-~ .~4a c-d~ a .a ea, fail Ifl1 J ~rl ~ "a f~ t~ i~ it
~~r/T I ' e
^° ' 4 //~~
ARTICLE I
NAIVIE
as the Sonoma ount
This. Task Grou shall be, ' own,
p mmrtt ~ " tarty Solid Waste Advisory Group" and is a
li the res ectiv
California "Brown Act" co'~ ee'forined y ~`slative acts of the County of
dsbur'g, "Petaluma, Rolinert Park, Santa
Sonoma, the incorporated cities of Cloverdale; CotatipHeale leg
Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and Town of ,Windsor.
I, ,
'' ARTICLE IL
PURP®~SE;;;AND GUIDING PRINCI'P,ALS
The purpose of the Sonoma County/City Solid Waste Advisory ,Group is to make recommendations
on solid waste~system planning and"operat'ions such as, appropriate regi°onal solid waste projects,
priorities,. schedules! and; funding sources to be considered by the Member Jurisdictions. Thee Task
Grou shall develo ::its recomme ~ ' ' ,and transparent process which encourages
P P' '
p p hall t keholdersn ncludirig: the local task. force; the Sonoma
in ut, coo eration -and coordmationaw to
County Waste Management Agency and the. public.
Section 1. Purpose
Section 2. Guiding Principles
The Guadocal Controls LOeal'decno on County/City Solid Waste ;Advisory Group are:
a ~_ ~ P
making bodies retain their authority to set rates,. commit heir
waste, ~ o meet their re
'' na Ser-aces to multi j risdicfiona partnered apps ~ ~ spectve goads.
b'. Regio oach that allows varying levels of
cpmmnnrtY pa es cation in a solid waste management system,. It creates opportunities to
o timize ,sere `gionallyincluding consistency Hof services and orates, economies of scale,
' g community goals.
effective use of site,, o me~°acihties an of er
c. '' Waste Diversion: T and et and exceed' le al.,~mand'~
' ' ~'tes°~by recovery of resources from the
a
wastestream and reducing; dependency on landfiling
r ~ g P ~ Y,
d reconomm.Ehe needifor.Besl ons blthe achievemerit~of res ective communt goals while
gn ~ g p "~ e fiscal management: and fiscal restraints.
e. Reliability: A commitment to`~provide high-.quality,' consistent'arid dependable
g g ices.
lon -term waste mana ement ~serv
1
5
r ~ ~~ ,
L,
Attachment A
Flexibility: =An integrated system that is flexible to accommodate both advances in
technolo ies ands various Ulevels'of ursdictonal anticipation in system components.
g~ ~ J p
Climate. Change: A .commitment to ..meet goals: established in the. Sonoma County
Community .Climate Action Plan dated October.2008 for< he Solid Waste Sector.
a>~T><cL~>E I,~I
1VIEIVI~ERS>FIIP
Section 1. Membership
y y ste ~ ~ ~ ` p 11' be composed of eleven voting
a. 'The Sonoma Count /Cit S'olid~ Wa Advisory°Grou slia~~~
members which shall consist. of one :elected city ,council official from each of the :incorporated
cities of Cloverdale, Cotati;'Heal~dsburg', Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol,
Sonoma, and Town of Windsor and two board of supervisors from. the County of Sonoma
(hereinafter "Member Jurisdictions")~ ,
b. Each City Member Jurisdiction shall :appoint an elected offical'to serve on the Sonoma
'County/City Solid Waste-Aduisory';Group; along wrth.~a designated alternate, who shall also be an
elected official. The designated ~altei~iate shallattend Sonoma~County/City Solid Waste Ad"visory
appointed Memb
Gropup meetiygs m th ppvent d Memmber to inform thelcr is unable to attend. It shall be the
res onsibilit of the a ointe;' ~ ~ ~r designated alternate when they are unable
to attend a meeting of the Sonoma County/City Solid Waste Advisory Group. The name of the
alternate shall be on file with ;thee Sonoma County/City Solid: Waste Advisory Group
c. One of the Two County Members.: shall erve as the Chair of the Sonoma County/City Solid
Waste. Advisory Group. The'other County Member shall' be the. alternate Chair when the Chair is
absent.
Section 2. 'I'.ermination
i
1Vlembership :in the Sonoma County/City Solid Waste AdvisoryGroup 'shall cease upon formal action
by the legislative bodyofthe respective Member Jurisdiction terminating.that Jurisdiction's
membership onrthc Sonoma County/City Solid Waste Advisory Group.
ART'ICI.E IV
~ G®VERNANCE
_ m , -.
Section 1:•~Q,uoru
A simple majority of the: Member Jurisdictions shall constitute a quorum at any duly noticed meeting.
Section 2:: Voting
2
dl's',.
~,, . I~ i a ~ ~~ot r ,. ~ ilu ~~, ~~ ~i,, ~ iu ~ i phi. r. ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~~r ^,
~ ~ ~~ .., is ~ i
i i. ~ ~,
,~ ~.~~ A~ttach~rn'ent ~A ~" , ~ ~~,~~
w ~ ~ ~ i
~ L:~
i
~ ~ ~ ll ii i ~ ,6~i~ ~~~
"
The:lVlember Jurisdictions unde ~ ti ~, ~ I ~ ~
' rstand that the .Sonoma County,/City Solid Waste Advisory Group is
only an ;advsory`.committee~and cannot bind any one;~urisdction:f such. jurisdiction does not agree
with the recommendation of the Advisory Group... Policy recommendations of the. Sonoma
..
County/City Solid Waste Advisory Group shall be determined liy~consensus agreement whenever,
possible. Where' consensus is not reached, two or more recommendations hall be identified by the
Advisory .Group. If consensus canngt be reached on what recommendations and/or alternatives to be,.
diction hen the Chair shall call for a final
forwarded to the Member Duns s for their consideration, t
vote and the policy recommendation' that receives•a majority of the°jurisd`ictions with. a majority of
the.population shall be forwarded to the 1Vlember Jurisdictions for their consideration. An abstention
shall not' be deemed to be either "yes" or "no" rote. When:any 1VTember abstains or is disqualified
h nt during, consideration of that
because of a conflict of interest;, that Members all be deemed abse
matter for purposes of determining whether ~a quorum is present. A Member who abstains for any
other reason shall be considered present for purposes of a quorum.
Section 3. Chair/Vice Chairs
The Sonoma Count /Cit Solid Waste Advisory Group shall have a Chair and two Co-Vice Chairs.
One of the two County Members ishall hey'°seleeted as. the Chair, with the other'.County Member
`is:absent. Two of the 9.cit~y Members. shall be-selected
serving as the alternate Chair when the Chair
~.,
absence the,,alternate Chair, shall preside at all~~meetings
as the Co-Vice Chairs. The Chair or m heir
of the Sonoma County/City Solid Waste Advisory Group and he/she shall exercise .and perform such
other duties as maybe assigned to him%lier from time to time by the Sonoma County/City Solid
and the .alternate Chair shall be
Waste Advisory Group. In addition the Chair,the'Co-Vice•Chairs
responsible for the administration of a1L:meetngs; including, but not lmited'to, maintaining order,
a enda~. izi
Waste,Advisortl Groud andmemb speakerspboth as to' Members of the., Sonoma County/City Solid
y ~ p ~ ers_ of~the' ~~ublic.~Otlier than"the selection of the Chair; Co-Vice
=Chairs,,; acid alternate Chair there shall be no officers or directors of fhe •S'onoma County/City Solid
Waste Advisory~Group.
ARTICLE V
MEETINGS:
Section 1. Notice
The Sonoma Y ount /Cit Solid Wastey duisory Group shall hold meetings at dimes.>and places to be
Y Y,
d'etennmed"b 'the Sonoma~~Count_ /Ci't Solid, Waste Advisory Group. All meetings of the;Sonoma
County/City Solid Waste Advisory Group shall be called, noticed 'and conducted in accordance with
the applicableprovisions of the Ralph~.M. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.).
Section ~2.'' Agenda
The ~Sonoma~~Count XCit" ~ Solid Waste Advisor Grou Chair Co-Ui
shall besresporisible or the agenda and~shall ensure that all items of"ice Chairs and alternate Chair
- "nterest ~to the Member
Jurisdctions'shall be;~included in the agenda,
3
~.,
~ ~ ~o- ~~ ~ ~ .. .. ~~G~hi' ~ ~ ~~,~ ~ ~ Le ~ ~ ~ .. ~~i ,ill, ' ~ ~ ,~. ~ ~,~~ ~ ~.
A
Attachment
i
i ul i I ~ 'I.
q,
,,,
' ~
.,
,,
.
~,
Section 3. Rules of ®rder
p ~ :provi'd'ed by; Rules',ofGo ce, Robert s
~ xce' e ,
±I ~ the arliarnentrr l authorit. of the Sonoma Co lid Waste Adviso `Rules `;of Order'shall be
i ~ - Y - ,Y ._ - - _ ~ : ~unty/City So' ~ ry' Group.
p
Section 4.1Vgeetin 1Vlinutes
g .. i
u~ ,, ,
Action ibex reparedu for'ea, h' meeting of the Sonoma County/City Solid Waste
~levelmi~nutes. shall. p ,` c
' .Advisory Group and provided at :the following, meeting:
. i I.' ,iii i
~~~ T.IGLE VI;~,~~
' M'1VIITTEES
C®
The Sonoma. County/City Sohd Waste Adviso_ ry Group may create and dissolve such advisory
~,, committees as it deems advisable'"m,carr n ..out its°r sibilrt
~~ ~ ~ ' ` Yi g p "` rna Count ~/C"it Sohd Wa such'
committees shal'.1 serve at the will and pleasure of th'e SonoN~ ~ ies All members o; to Advisory
Grou Committees ma ~ Y Y
p. y~be ad,hoc or standing committees.
' ..
~ ~
~.
;,
'~ .ARTICLE„V~II. '
A1VI~ENDIV$ENTS TO RULES
~~ b a ma ont ~~~
These Rules vemance `rna ~ amend Y ~ ~ ~ Y :of they fu1P Membership. No such
.: Y. ~ ~ ,
amendment shall beadopted unless the, nded menf' was"first introduced acid considered at a prior
meeting, of the Sonoma Count /Grt, Solid W d~iso Grou The; amend
,I _ Y Y rite Ap Y P a Couried Rules of
" Governance shall take effect immediately upon ad'o' - hon b'"' ~the~ Sonorn t /City Solid Waste
Advisory Group."
~, ,
,~ ~~ ~ ,
~, .:: ~~~
;; ~ ,
~'
,~,
a,
' 4
,~
iir i , ~ Itl~ „ p ,
~'~
' „' ~, ,
I
u~ ~ ~ ~,. ti r ~~
~. ,
m I i
i ~ a. i i
r ki ~ ' ~ ,~
pr
~.~
Ili ~~~ iii ~ ° ~ 'i ~ --~'~
-'-=~~
_
3 I
~.
,,.
~ ac men
~ u.
~ I ,. ~ ~~'
~~ 'u µ ,
' 'ill', '.
~ i
.„
,
,, ~ i ,
r~o~ataes „
d ®os. ~~~ ~.Obje~t~ues
Faci9~ta~~,. cussa®rra ®ro P ~~d
20°September 20.10
,I ';:
A ~
Exomnotion- of,,Guidmg.Princples'~
'KEY 1NOR~®s
Local Control ,. ~ ,
Decision ~
~. ~ ~~
~'l Rates, ~~
Final authority Control
~~ Commitment ~' Loccal contro
Policy & services ~"' Owne'rship'',
ices
,Regional Ser
on
Cooperate - ~ " ~ Par`t'ner~sH" ~~ "
~ ~ , p ~ ~~
Fairness ~ Common. goal.
~~ Opfimizafion ~` Community ~~"',
approach
~~
'
^`
'~ ~VlYaste D~iversion~ ,
,
~ .i ,
~ ' ~" "~ ~~
.
~ , I~~~ mental solutions?
~rdcticaenviron
Best technology ~ Reduce. '
~~ Environments ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~~~
B'eyond~ co.mplcance
EXOminotion of Guding~~Princples
,' ' ~ KEY V~10~12D5~
Economic' Efficiencies
Affordbblity ~ Responsible
~` Fiscal management ~ Fingncial stability
Money ~ 100% participation
-~~
Relidbility
~~ Dependable ~ Swccess
Consistent, ~' ~~High quality
Essentgl government function
,In front'of~th'e~~~curve
,~ ..
of ~ ~. ~ ~ ~i,
'Flexib'ility
'~~ Chan.'geQb~,le ' ~~ Innovation
~~ Integ"ra'ted e-gr-t ~ °Non~cotia-~nittal~'
Clitnnte Protection
~~ Futures. ~ Achievement
Benchmark. ~ Commitment
Reduce GHG emissions.
~; ... ~~
~ Q''i, ' ~h I~ i* .'~~~~~.~h
i~
h''
~.
.~ , ,
Guiding .Principles
PRIORITIES
Score ~~~
Priority
A Local 58
Control ,
B Regional 39 0
Services
C Waste 61
Diversion
D Economic 60 ~ 2~
Efficiencies .
'E Relialbil,ty 49 0,
F Flexibility 25 0
G COimate 44 0
Protection
~i'
~a,
i, G ~
i
SOI~OMA COUNTY/CITY St?LID WASTE„ADVI50RY GROUP
F~cilitat'ea~ ~iscussioe~ N®fes
20 September 2011
Guiding Princip/es
W EIC HT
Weight Rank
A LocaB 150
Control
B Regional) 50
Services
C ,~
1Nns$e
275
Diversion
~b Ec®17opnic 225
Efficiencies
E Relinbil'ity 95
F ,Flexibility 40 7^
G Clirnnte 165 3^
Protection
~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ .u i ml ~. ~h
~~
,,~
S;OI~OMA COUNTY/CITY SOLID WASTE:AD.VI$ORX.GROUP'
Facility#ee9 ~iscaass6®ee Pl®tes
20 SepteGriber'2011
Guiding Principles
~~
R~ELAVE WEIGH
SVI/AG Weight Staff Weight
A Locnl . 15% ~ ,2'5%
. Contro
B Regiol7nl 5% 8%
Ser-vices
C Waste 28% 20%
Diversion
D .Economic 23% ~ 18%
Efficiencie s
E 12elonbiBity 10% 1$%
F Flexbi0ity 4% 3'%
G Clpnate 17% 10%
Protection
TOTAL ~ 102%** 102%**
This chart created by consultnnf based` on data from
discussion
*.* Exceeds 100% due to r-ounding
' .~ ~~. ~~, ~ ~ o ~~~ ~i~ ^ err or
.~` ,
SONOMA COIIIVTY/CLT1' SOLID WASTE AD1lISORY GROUP
• Faciietatee- Discussi®n ~N®tes
20 September 2011
Desired Objectives/Ends,
VI%~1STE DIVERSION
Group 1
Objective 1
80% Diversion by 2015
90% Diversion by 202:,0
100% Diversion by 202.5
Objective 2
By 202.0 conduct an analysis to
identify what it would take to get to
100% (residual markets)
Desired Objectives/Ends
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCIES.
Group 1
Objective 1
$y 2012 identify a regional fee.system'
that maximizes diversion and..
minimizes"costs
~ Increase education
~. Organi'cs` ~ •
Objective 2` .
By 2012'cre4te a model regional fee
system. fhat meets our identified
diversion goals ,itiith revenues from
entire waste system. including
recyclable cornmodities'~
Desired Objectives/Ends
WASTE DIVERSION
Group 2
Short Term - 2015
~ Remove organics from wastestream
(plastic bags, C&D)
Increase education (school
• partnerships)
Long Term - 2015-2020
90% .Diversion
Long Term - 50 Years
Negative. diversion
Mining existing landfills
Desired Objectives/Ends
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCIES
Group 2
Move away from "tip fee" model of
funding
~ Mo,ve to "curb fee" model
Charge for total service
Grey, green, blue cans pay a fee,
for each
-~ Reopen/Permit Landfill
Revenue stream for
closure/:post closure costs
~ New compost facility
~ Mi'ni`ng .landfill to reduce Liability
~~,
w ~ x ,i.
" rt '.,
~ ~ ~~ ,~
SOIVOMA COUNTY/CITY SO11D WASTE ADVISORY GROUP
~acaBatatec9~~ascusso®o~ I~®t~s
20 September 2011
Desired'. Ob jectives/Ends
LOCAL CONTROL
Group 1
Create a governance model where'
there is joint decision making and
authority between cities and county.
~ "Trash Commission"
~ Elected officials wifh staff support
~~ Revisit J'PA waste manc-gement
authority and composition (as a
model)
besired Objectives/Ends
LOCAL CONTROL
Group, 2
~ Local franchise agreements to
reflect locail .priorities/"goals"
Franch'i'se fee revenues
~ Coord;aate regional efforts for
economy of scale
Regional benefits of "flow control"
`('commitments) must be clear
13
d ~ N ~ ', ' ~ i i ~ .:u I~ ~ , . it
.,u~ r
~.
,~,
,,, ~ Attachnnent .C
~~~ ~ , ®:
,~ '
,.,
March', 2010 1' ''P.HAS~E 1= SV1/AGSTRUCTURE, RULES OF
,. ~ ~.
' ~ GOVERNANCE, GUIDING PR_IIVCIPLES
a) SWAG ;Guiding Frncipi:es -already.adopted as part of the
Rules: of Governance
' i.) Local Control (.;e pu,b,lic us. private ownership}
ii~} ,Regional Services
iii.} Waste DiveYsion
ivj ,
Economic Efficiencies
v) ,Reliability
vi) FieXibiity
`uii) Climate Protection _
b); :SWAG Rules. of Governance -adopted, establishing
' I rnern.b~ership, and~voting '
[6-12rnonths] 2) PHASE 2- PLANNING
a!) Timelines -presented
b); 1Wducaton and Awarenessof'`Issues and Options
,~ !,i`1 Financial Overview -Expenses and Funding Structure -
. ~ presented
ii} Facility Tours- [July and August]
' ~. ~ ^ iii) Presentations on Technologies ands Education and
Enforcement Strategies [Tulythrough September]
~~ ~~ c =Facilitated Discussion .w
~~ ~~~ ~ F ith ~~~A[September~aPd/o
? Dewelo Measurable Ob`estiVe ~ g iples to
,~ 1 r
' October S-WAG Meeting]-
i} Assign Priority i:e. which Principles are th'e most
important which are the least?
ii} Eliminafie Options the SWAB' is not interested'in if there
..are any.
. '~ 'iii'} Define Measurable Objectivesfiorthe Principles i.e....
(1) What level of diversion defines success?
(2) What level of GHG reduction'.defines success?
~.°.
~,;i ' ' .
. I~
,.
,,.
..,
.,.,,,
"ly I ~ .I I q
V ij I"
II ~. i h~ r o ~~ 1. I '~
d i" it.i
i i'
F
i ,:~, 1 III ~:,~ I If I u,
(3) ~ Wiiat'is thedefinition of economically efficient?
What is the .range of fiscal constraint?
{4) What level of risk in technology is acceptable?
d) ~-ul! Co~;n:.il,{~,oar~ rer~~srts to present C~~~;~~uti~~es u~.ci g~:
,~,,
,~ ~
fe~d~acl: (~?c,o'~er or i~9o-~emb2i-j
' f);Determine a list of ac^eptable Options that feasilaly address
fJbjecti:ves ,
~~ ~ i')~ Establish a Research Committee {RC) of public, industry,.
business, environmental, county and city managersjstaf€
ii) Report.results of RC analysis of feasible options bacl<to
SWAG
g) Determine Short-List of Ciptiorrs to Analyze
J) StNAG discussion to reach consensus on a short list of
C;?tions
h) dull Council/~Qarci Reports to°~get feec;aack tarp th~short
list ,~f C~pticans [S~~ing 201:]
3) PHASE 3 -.ANALYSIS - DETAILED TECHNLCAL
[6-9'Months]
FEASIBILITY
a~) Detailed third-party analysis°of°tlle-.short Iist of Feasible
' ~ (~ptlOnS
' ~' i) : .Cost-benefit
iii) Life cycle cost .
iii) Se'nsitiuity analysis -participation; generation, economy
,. etc.
,~ ,
i~~) Reliability/Pro;uen technology
b) Reuie,w and Critique of preliminary analysis".by a Technical:
' ~ Advisor Committee SAC consistin of Cit and County
managers, counsel,. and staff
e) ~ F,inalie Analysis
d`1 Cansider howliabiijties-might be addressed under each
:option (on-going discussions between Coant~y and Cities.-
Managers and.Attvrneys;groups);
~~,
Ii
~lil'. ..
~lii, d~
~;
4`) PHASE 4 -SWAG SELECTION OF RfGIOIV~AL SOLUTfON
[2-3 months] a) presentation of Analysis to SWAG
b) Stn/i4G Discussion (Facilitated) to develop consensus on a
~„ recommended regional;solution
..
e} `, F~II a~uncil/~taard Reports to present recommen.re~
solution and get feedback
5) PHASE 5~-DEVELOP FRAMEWORK FOR
[6-9 months] 'IMPL-EMENTATION OF REGIONAL SOLUTION
a) TAC to develop recornnendations on:
i} A Governance Model -vvh'b implements? County, new
or existing JPA; private sector owner ar operator?
~ ii)" Resolution to `Remainng'tiabilities
ii•}, A Sustainable Funding Mechanism
iv}' Participation Frarnework,(flow commitment?}
v} Implementation ProcessJSteps
b) I?resent Preliminary TAC Recommendations to SUUAG for
Input:
cj g=ull CQUncil/hoard ~e~orts toget Feedback on
Irnplesnentat~an ~rame~n~crk ~~
[dependent 6') PHASE 6 -IMPLEMENT
upon
solufion]'
~4
,II
1.
.I'
,i
`~ II A ~~~
I ' I