ADDENDUM CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2013 CITY OF DALLAS 1500 MARILLA COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 9:00 A. M. ADDITIONS: Briefing Trinity East Gas Lease
6ES
CONSENT ADDENDUM Economic Development 1.
Authorize a master agreement with DFM Developer, Ltd. to outline recommended public financial incentives and developer obligations related to the development of an approximately 12 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Harwood Street and Marilla Street known as Dallas Farmers Market - Financing: No cost consideration to the City
2.
Authorize a public hearing to be held on March 27, 2013 to receive comments on amendments to the Project and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six (the Farmers Market TIF District) to: (1) increase the geographic area of the Farmers Market TIF District to include properties located south and east of the existing boundary; (2) extend the term of the Farmers Market TIF District from September 30, 2013 to December 31, 2028; (3) increase the total Farmers Market TIF budget from $11,645,918 NPV ($22,733,724 total dollars) to $19,238,514 NPV ($33,955,605 total dollars), including the adjustment of various budget categories/line items; (4) decrease the percentage of tax increment contributed by the City of Dallas during the extended term of the TIF District and establish other taxing jurisdictions participation percentages; and (5) allow direct land sale to implement the plan and, at the close of the public hearing, consideration of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 23521, previously approved on May 27, 1998, and Ordinance No. 24001, previously approved on August 25, 1999, to reflect these amendments Financing: No cost consideration to the City
Sanitation Services 3.
Authorize acceptance of the City’s Local Solid Waste Management Plan, with amended timelines - Financing: No cost consideration to the City
ADDENDUM CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2013 ADDITIONS: (Continued) CONSENT ADDENDUM (Continued) Sustainable Development and Construction 4.
Authorize a two-year lease agreement with Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center for approximately 2,500 square feet of office space and five parking spaces located at 5351 Samuel Boulevard for the Police Department’s Youth and Family Crimes Division for the period March 1, 2013 through February 28, 2015 - Total not to exceed $98,499 Financing: Current Funds (subject to annual appropriations)
5.
An ordinance granting a Planned Development District for mixed uses on property zoned Planned Development Subdistrict No. 73 in Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, and a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District - Z123-129 Financing: No cost consideration to the City
6.
An ordinance granting a new subdistrict, a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant, and a resolution accepting the termination of existing deed restrictions on property zoned a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District on the northwest side of State Street, between Routh Street and Fairmount Street - Z123-130 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City
7.
An ordinance abandoning a portion of Neely Street to Dallas County Schools, the abutting owner, containing approximately 17,005 square feet of land located near its intersection with Zang Boulevard - Revenue: $170,000 plus the $20 ordinance publication fee
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION City Secretary’s Office 8.
An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 20231, as amended, to adopt new, renumbered and revised city election precincts - Financing: No cost consideration to the City
9.
An ordinance ordering a general election to be held in the City of Dallas on Saturday, May 11, 2013, for the purpose of electing 14 members of the City Council to represent Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 for the term beginning June 24, 2013 - Financing: No cost consideration to the City
2
ADDENDUM CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2013 ADDITIONS: (Continued) ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION (Continued) Park & Recreation 10.
An ordinance ordering a special election to be held in the City of Dallas on Saturday, May 11, 2013, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters propositions on the question of conveying, by sale or exchange, of: (1) up to approximately 25 acres of land, being part of Joey Georgusis Park; and (2) up to approximately 257 acres of land, being all of Elgin B. Robertson Park - Financing: No cost consideration to the City
DESIGNATED PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS Housing/Community Services 11.
Authorize (1) a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for Flora Street Lofts, located at 2121 Flora Street, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 47-unit multifamily residential development for mixed income families; and (2) a loan in an amount of $1,100,000 to La Reunion TX for the development at 2121 Flora Street - Not to exceed $1,100,000 - Financing: 2010-11 HOME Investment Partnership Program Grant Funds ($915,235) and 2012-13 HOME Investment Partnership Program Grant Funds ($184,765) Recommendation of Staff: Approval
12.
Authorize (1) a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for the proposed project to be located at 4623 South Lancaster Road, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 150-unit multifamily residential development for low income families; and (2) a loan in an amount of $1,350,000 to Sapphire Road Development Patriots Crossing South, LLC for the development at 4623 South Lancaster Road - Financing: 2011-12 HOME Investment Partnership Program Grant Funds ($984,442) and 2012-13 HOME Investment Partnership Program Grant Funds ($365,558) Recommendation of Staff: Approval
3
ADDENDUM CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2013 ADDITIONS: (Continued) ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION (Continued) DESIGNATED PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS (Continued) Housing/Community Services (Continued) 13.
Authorize (1) a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for Serenity Place Apartments, located at 3124 South Denley Drive, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 45-unit multifamily residential supportive housing development for low income families; (2) a loan in the amount of $1,997,913 to City Wide Community Development Corporation for the development at 3124 South Denley Drive; and (3) a land-lease agreement for City of Dallas owned property related to this project development - Not to exceed $1,997,913 - Financing: 2006 Bond Funds ($997,913); 2011-12 Community Development Block Grant Reprogramming Funds ($500,000) and 2012-13 Community Development Block Grant Funds ($500,000) Recommendation of Staff: Approval
14.
Authorize a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for Summit Place, located at the SWC of Merit Drive & Interstate Highway 635, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 100-unit multifamily residential development for mixed income families - Financing: No cost consideration to the City Recommendation of Staff: Approval
15.
Authorize (1) a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for Wynnewood Family Housing, located at 2048 South Zang Boulevard, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 160-unit multifamily residential development for low income families; and (2) an amendment to the terms of a housing redevelopment loan provided for The Parks at Wynnewood located at 1910 Argentia Drive to forgive $425,000 of the current balance of the loan conditioned on the award of 2013 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit - Financing: No cost consideration to the City Recommendation of Staff: Approval
4
ADDENDUM CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2013 CORRECTION: Sustainable Development and Construction 56.
Authorize the quitclaim of 97 98 99 properties acquired by the taxing authorities from the Sheriff's Sale to the highest bidders (list attached) - Revenue: $514,487 $518,586 $525,736
5
ADDENDUM DATE February 27, 2013 ITEM IND # OK DEF DISTRICT TYPE
1
2 3
2, 14
2, 14 All
C
DEPT.
ECO
DOLLARS
NC
NC NC
LOCAL
NA
NA NA
MWBE
DESCRIPTION
NA
Authorize a master agreement with DFM Developer, Ltd., to outline recommended public financial incentives and developer obligations related to the development of an approximately 12 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Harwood Street and Marilla Street known as Dallas Farmers Market
NA NA
Authorize a public hearing to be held on March 27, 2013, to receive comments on amendments to the Project and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six (the Farmers Market TIF District) to: increase the geographic area of the Farmers Market TIF District to include properties located south and east of the existing boundary; extend the term of the Farmers Market TIF District from September 30, 2013 to December 31, 2028; increase the total Farmers Market TIF budget from $11,645,918 NPV ($22,733,724 total dollars) to $19,238,514 NPV ($33,955,605 total dollars), including the adjustment of various budget categories/line items; decrease the percentage of tax increment contributed by the City of Dallas during the extended term of the TIF District and establish other taxing jurisdictions participation percentages; and allow direct land sale to implement the plan and, at the close of the public hearing, consideration of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 23521, previously approved on May 27, 1998, and Ordinance No. 24001, previously approved on August 25, 1999, to reflect these amendments Authorize acceptance of the City’s Local Solid Waste Management Plan, with amended timelines
C C
ECO SAN
$98,498.40
NA
NA
4
4
C
DEV, POL
5
14
C
DEV
NC
NA
NA
6
14
C
DEV
NC
NA
NA
7
1
C
DEV
REV $170,000
NA
NA
8
All
I
SEC
NC
NA
NA
9
All
I
SEC
NC
NA
NA
10
3, 9
I
PKR
NC
NA
NA
11
14
I
HOU
GT
NA
NA
Authorize a two-year lease agreement with Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center for approximately 2,500 square feet of office space and five parking spaces located at 5351 Samuel Boulevard for the Police Department’s Youth and Family Crimes Division for the period March 1, 2013 through February 28, 2015 An ordinance granting a Planned Development District for mixed uses on property zoned Planned Development Subdistrict No. 73 in Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, and a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the StateThomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District (Z123-129) An ordinance granting a new subdistrict, a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant, and a resolution accepting the termination of existing deed restrictions on property zoned a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District on the northwest side of State Street, between Routh Street and Fairmount Street (Z123-130) An ordinance abandoning a portion of Neely Street to Dallas County Schools, the abutting owner, containing approximately 17,005 square feet of land, located near its intersection with Zang Boulevard An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 20231, as amended, to adopt new, renumbered and revised city election precincts An ordinance ordering a general election to be held in the City of Dallas on Saturday, May 11, 2013, for the purpose of electing 14 members of the City Council to represent Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 for the term beginning June 24, 2013 An ordinance ordering a special election to be held in the City of Dallas on Saturday, May 11, 2013, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters propositions on the question of conveying, by sale or exchange, of: up to approximately 25 acres of land, being part of Joey Georgusis Park; and up to approximately 257 acres of land, being all of Elgin B. Robertson Park Authorize a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for Flora Street Lofts, located at 2121 Flora Street, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 47-unit multifamily residential development for mixed income families; and a loan in an amount of $1,100,000 to La Reunion TX for the development at 2121 Flora Street Page 1
ADDENDUM DATE February 27, 2013 ITEM IND # OK DEF DISTRICT TYPE
12
5
I
DEPT.
HOU
DOLLARS
GT
LOCAL
NA
MWBE
DESCRIPTION
NA
Authorize a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for the proposed project to be located at 4623 South Lancaster Road, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 150-unit multifamily residential development for low income families; and a loan in an amount of $1,350,000 to Sapphire Road Development Patriots Crossing South, LLC for the development at 4623 South Lancaster Road
13
4
I
HOU
$997,913.00
NA
NA
14
11
I
HOU
NC
NA
NA
Authorize a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for Serenity Place Apartments, located at 3124 South Denley Drive, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 45-unit multifamily residential supportive housing development for low income families; a loan in the amount of $1,997,913 to City Wide Community Development Corporation for the development at 3124 South Denley Drive; and a land-lease agreement for City of Dallas owned property related to this project development Authorize a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for Summit Place, located at the SWC of Merit Drive & Interstate Highway 635, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 100-unit multifamily residential development for mixed income families
NA
Authorize a resolution in support of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affair’s (TDHCA) 9% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocation for Wynnewood Family Housing, located at 2048 South Zang Boulevard, for the acquisition and new construction of the proposed 160-unit multifamily residential development for low income families; and an amendment to the terms of a housing redevelopment loan provided for The Parks at Wynnewood located at 1910 Argentia Drive to forgive $425,000 of the current balance of the loan conditioned on the award of 2013 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit
15
3
I
TOTAL
HOU
NC
NA
$1,096,411.40
Page 2
KEY FOCUS AREA:
Economic Vibrancy
AGENDA DATE:
February 27, 2013
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
2, 14
DEPARTMENT:
Office of Economic Development
CMO:
Ryan S. Evans, 670-3314
MAPSCO:
ADDENDUM ITEM # 1
45 Q and R ________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT Authorize a master agreement with DFM Developer, Ltd., to outline recommended public financial incentives and developer obligations related to the development of an approximately 12 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Harwood Street and Marilla Street known as Dallas Farmers Market – Financing: No cost consideration to the City BACKGROUND In response to operating deficits for the Dallas Farmers Market, the City issued two requests for proposal (RFPs) seeking new solutions for operation of the market. The initial RFP, issued in the fall of 2010, mandated continuing operations in a similar fashion as the market is operated currently. The only proposal submitted produced no additional revenues for the City and required a similar level of annual financial assistance to cover projected operational losses. This proposal was rejected. A second RFP was developed as part of a collaborative process. City staff assembled a committee comprised of vendors, property owners and other individuals interested in the long term success of the Dallas Farmers Market. This RFP issued in spring of 2012. It looked for a proposal that (1) minimized the annual public operating subsidy for the market, (2) maintained and improved farmers market operations, (3) promoted the Dallas Farmers Market as a destination for downtown residents and visitors and (4) maximized additional City revenue through new taxes generated. Two proposals were submitted in response to this RFP. The recommended proposal was submitted by Dallas Farmers Market, Group. The lead developer is Brian Bergersen (Spectrum Properties). The City previously worked successfully with Mr. Bergersen on the development of the Third Rail Lofts project in downtown (a mixed-use project including the conversion of two vacant historic buildings for residential use; ground floor retail development; public and private parking and new residential construction on top of the garage structure).
BACKGROUND (Continued) The Dallas Farmers Market Group team includes experts in the fields of Farmers Market management, retail/restaurant development, community gardens, futsal, urban design/placemaking and branding. Among the others involved in this team are: Dallas Farmers Market Trust (Janet Cobb, Blair Black, Lucian LaBarba, Ruthie Pack) – Farmers Market Operations and Events/Programming; Barton Ramage, Kent Rathbun – Farm Coordinators; Tatum Evans – Operations; UCR (Mickey Ashmore & Jack Gosnell) – Retail Leasing; Richards Group – Advertising/Branding; Good Fulton and Farrell/Paul Chapel – Design; Manuel, Federico & Esteban Mariel – City Futsal; Dan Rizzie – Art Coordination; Ann Yonkers – Farmers Market consulting (experience in Washington DC); and Angus Wynne III – Events/Entertainment. Under the redevelopment proposal the developer proposes to: Shed 1 – Create a pedestrian-focused, market place for farmers. The development will renovate the existing shed (approximately 32,000 square feet) to accommodate 60 vendor stalls for local farmers and farm merchants. Sanitary facilities for the vendors will be modernized and the space will be re-oriented for pedestrian use only. The re-oriented space more than doubles the amount of farmer space in this shed, improves public sale areas, and eliminates the drive-through lane of vehicular traffic and associated parking area. Shed 2 – Renovate the enclosed space in Shed 2 for sales by specialty food vendors and a variety of Dallas based restaurants. The existing shed contains approximately 28,000 square feet with the renovation possibly increasing leasable space by around 25%. Plans include construction of a ‘beer garden’ area located north of the existing building. Sheds 3-4 - While Shed 1 & 2 are being renovated, Shed 3 and Shed 4 will house ongoing farmers market vendors. Upon completion of the renovation of Shed 1 & 2, these structures will be demolished to make room for a mixed use development containing over 17,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space, 240+ apartments and structured parking facility that serves all public parking needs in the Farmer Market and provides separated parking to serve the residential units. The parking facility will contain over 600 spaces, out of which over 350 spaces will be made available public parking. An additional 300 at grade parking spaces will also be made available for public parking. Auxiliary Building (Farmers Market Administration Building) – Use this building for a Culinary Learning Center, administrative office space, and a Production Studio. Kiosk (located on Pearl Street) – Plans call for demolition of this structure and utilization of Pearl Street for vehicular and pedestrian access to the site.
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 2
BACKGROUND (Continued) Remote Parking Area – This area (approximately 74,038 square feet) is intended to be used for outdoor activities: Futsal fields and a community garden. 2101 and 2111 Taylor Street – These buildings have been purchased by an entity controlled/owned by Brian Bergersen from a private owner and are included in the final redevelopment plan (approximately 42,000 square feet). The developer intends to demolish the western-most building. The remaining structures will be redeveloped for use as restaurant/retail space, an open band shell, and a roof top deck. The redevelopment plan is expected to leverage potentially over $100,000,000 in investment in the area and improve on the attractiveness of the Farmers Market as a destination. The Master Agreement outlines recommended City financial incentives for the project and required investment and ongoing operational restrictions for the developer. Incentives include: use of 2006 General Obligation (GO) Bond Funds for public improvements within the Farmers Market (minimum $5.5 million); potential TIF funding in an amount not to exceed $15 million - any specific obligation of TIF funds will require separate Council action; and use of sale proceeds from surplus property to decease outstanding GO debt related to the Dallas Farmers Market and if, there are surplus funds, to fund public improvements in the Farmers Market. The redevelopment project will also be eligible for participation in the City of Dallas Regional Center program (EB-5) and pending an additional award of funds, Public Private Partnership Grants, and New Market Tax Credits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) On May 27, 1998, City Council authorized the establishment of Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six, the Farmers Market TIF District by Ordinance No. 23521. On August 25, 1999, City Council authorized the Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for the Farmers Market TIF District, as amended, by Ordinance No. 24001. On February 20, 2013, City Council was briefed on the Master Agreement. FISCAL INFORMATION No cost consideration to the City
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 3
COUNCIL CHAMBER
February 27, 2013 WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of its role in local economic development initiatives and programs; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage the development of a 12 acre tract of land located southeast of the corner of Harwood Street and Marilla Street in downtown Dallas, known as the Dallas Farmers Market; and WHEREAS, the Dallas Farmers Market has sustained operating losses for the last several years and the City desires to allow market operations to be managed privately without ongoing financial support from the City; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2013, City Council was briefed on this project; and WHEREAS, the City of Dallas issued an RFP to find a developer to manage market operations and maximize City revenues from the site and selected the proposal submitted by the Dallas Farmers Market; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment of the Dallas Farmers Market, under the proposal submitted, will maintain and improve farmers market operations, create new annual property tax and sales tax revenue and create a downtown destination attractive to visitors, downtown residents and the greater community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: Section 1. That the City Manager, upon approval as to form by the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute a master agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with DFM Developer, Ltd., outlining the future steps and conditions relating to the redevelopment of the 12-acre Dallas Farmers Market. Section 2. That the facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this Resolution are hereby found and declared to be true and correct. Section 3. That nothing in the resolution shall be construed to require the City to approve payment from any source of City funds and that any specific request to create a special financing district or for individual funding requests shall require separate City Council actions. Section 4. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is accordingly so resolved.
EXHIBIT A MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE DALLAS FARMERS MARKET THIS MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE DALLAS FARMERS MARKET (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the City of Dallas, a Texas municipal corporation, located in Dallas County, Texas (“City”), and DFM Developer, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, with its principal place of business located at 1414 Elm Street, Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75202 (“Developer”). RECITALS WHEREAS, City owns and operates a municipal produce market, the Dallas Farmers Market (“Market”) and adjoining land and improvements (collectively, the “Market Property”), in downtown Dallas; and WHEREAS, in 2012, City requested proposals from qualified private developers to redevelop and re-brand the Market so as to reduce the ongoing level of City financial support for the Market, encourage private investment in the Market and the surrounding area, and support the goals of City’s Downtown 360 Plan; and WHEREAS, City has selected Developer’s proposed redevelopment plan for (i) the Market and (ii) certain adjacent Developer-owned property (“Developer Property”), all of which is more fully described in Section 3 (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project will require City’s sale or lease of the Market Property to Developer, as described in Section 4, and various City financial incentives be provided to Developer to make the Project feasible, as described in Section 5; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to provide a framework for the Project and the anticipated board and City Council approvals, agreements, and general terms of such agreements that will be necessary to realize the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2013, by Resolution No. 13-________, the City Council authorized this Agreement; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations herein, City and Developer agree as follows: SECTION 1. AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION This Agreement shall be administered by City’s Director of the Office of Economic Development (“Director”) or his or her designee.
1
SECTION 2. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The Project site is approximately 12 acres, which includes the Market Property and the Developer Property, and which is located within the area bounded by Marilla Street to the north, northbound Cesar Chavez Boulevard to the east, I-30 to the south, and Harwood Street to the west, in downtown Dallas. The existing Project site is depicted in the attached Exhibit A. The Market Property portion of the site is approximately 8.5 acres, comprised of rights-of-way and five tracts for redevelopment. City intends to sell four of the redevelopment tracts and lease the remaining one tract to Developer pursuant to agreements to be entered into with Developer. The general terms of the sale agreements and the lease are described in more detail in Section 4.B and 4.C, respectively. SECTION 3. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN; DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS A. Project Development Plan Generally and Project Design. Developer agrees to cause the properties to be redeveloped in accordance with the general development or redevelopment requirements set forth set forth in this Section 3. A depiction of the Project site after redevelopment is shown in the attached Exhibit B. More detailed Project development requirements will be set forth in agreements between Developer and City for specific financial incentives for the Project. The potential City and non-City funding sources available to Developer to complete the Project are described in more detail in Section 5. The Project must conform to the standard design-review process required for projects that receive City tax increment financing (“TIF”) subsidies; therefore, Developer will be required to seek ongoing review and approval of the conceptual plans and site plans for all components of the Project from the City Design Studio and/or the City Peer Review Panel prior to commencing construction of any Project component. A key Project design consideration for Developer should be to create a pedestrian friendly environment and encourage activity on streets. B. Developer’s Required Investment in the Project. As consideration for the financial incentives City intends to provide to Developer for the Project, Developer, Dallas Farmers Market Trust LLC, a _________ limited liability company (“DFMT”) and affiliates of Developer shall “invest” a minimum of $40 million into the Project before Developer is eligible for reimbursement under any TIF agreements. “Invest”, and variations of invest, means the sum of the costs of land and building acquisition, site preparation, public and private improvements, and hard and soft construction costs paid, payable, or actually incurred with respect to the Project and shall include all such amounts incurred or paid with respect to the Project before the date of this Agreement. City shall conduct audits in order to ensure that the minimum investment requirement has been met by Developer, DFMT, and/or affiliates of Developer. Specific audit requirements will be contained in the TIF agreements. C. 2101 and 2111 Taylor Street Redevelopment. An affiliate of Developer (“2111 Taylor Street, Ltd.”) purchased the property located at 2101 and 2111 Taylor Street (and the three buildings thereon), which is to be included in the Project. The western-most building is to be demolished by 2111 Taylor Street, Ltd. The remaining structure is to be redeveloped for use as (1) restaurant and/or retail space and/or (2) a new boutique hotel, in either case with 2
an open band shell, and a roof-top deck. A building permit for the redevelopment of 2101 and 2111 Taylor Street shall be applied for, and construction shall commence, no later than April 1, 2014. D. Shed 1 Renovation. City intends to enter into a lease agreement (“Shed 1 Lease”) with Developer. Developer intends to assign the Shed 1 Lease (and the rights and obligations thereunder) to DFMT, as provided in Section 25.A below. The Shed 1 Lease shall provide that the existing structure shall be renovated and operated as a marketplace for “local farmers” and “farm merchants and vendors”. “Local farmer” means a person who makes or intends to make a substantial portion of his or her income from farming. A local farmer must have ownership or leasehold rights to the land being farmed during the entire growing season, from April 19th through October 14th, or must have use rights pursuant to a governmentsponsored or non-profit program whose purpose is to aid farmers in full-time farming endeavors. A local farmer must also possess all required permits and/or licenses. “Farm merchants and vendors” means those, other than local farmers, who grow, produce or resell farm products or who prepare, make or fabricate homemade or locally produced foods, beer, wine, clothing, art, sculpture, jewelry, knick knacks and similar products. The completed renovation of Shed 1 shall include (1) a minimum of 60 stalls/booths for local farmers and farm merchants and vendors to sell produce and other farm related products, (2) improved sanitary facilities for local farmers and farm merchants and vendors, (3) improved public sales areas, and (4) re-oriented space for pedestrian use. A building permit for Shed 1 renovations shall be applied for, and construction shall commence, no later than October 1, 2013. E. Shed 2 Renovation. City intends to enter into an agreement (“Shed 2 Sale Agreement”) to sell the Shed 2 tract and building to Developer. Developer intends to assign the Shed 2 Sale Agreement (and the rights and obligations thereunder) to DFMT, as provided in Section 25.A below. The existing Shed 2 building shall be renovated (1) to permit use by restaurants, specialty food vendors, and other retail vendors, and (2) to include a beer garden on the north side of the existing building. A building permit for Shed 2 renovations shall be applied for, and construction shall commence, no later than April 1, 2014. F. Retail/Parking/Residential Development. City intends to enter into an agreement (“Shed 3/4 Sale Agreement”) to sell the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts and structures to Developer. Developer intends to assign the Shed 3/4 Sale Agreement (and the rights and obligations thereunder) to an affiliate of Developer (“Shed 3/4 Owner”), as provided in Section 25.B below. Shed 3/4 Owner shall demolish the existing Shed 3 and Shed 4 structures and parking and shall construct a new building containing (1) ground level retail space, (2) a parking structure with approximately 622 total parking spaces to support the Project, and (3) a minimum of 200,000 square feet of residential space (with approximately 245 residential units) located above the parking structure. The buildings and structures constructed by the Shed 3/4 Owner must have predominantly brick façades. Construction of this retail/parking/residential development will require that Shed 3/4 Owner relocate the large stormwater pipe that currently bisects the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts to a public right-of-way. A building permit for the
3
new retail/parking/residential structure to be constructed on the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts shall be applied for, and construction shall commence, no later than July 1, 2014. G. Community Garden and Athletic/Futsal Fields. City intends to enter into an agreement (“Garden/Fields Sale Agreement”) to sell the tract of property located east of southbound Cesar Chavez Boulevard to Developer. The tract is currently used for remote parking for the Market. Developer intends to assign the Garden/Fields Sale Agreement (and the rights and obligations thereunder) to an affiliate of Developer (“Garden/Fields Owner”), as provided in Section 25.B below. Garden/Fields Owner shall redevelop the tracts for use for outdoor activities, specifically a community garden and athletic/futsal fields; coverings will be provided for some of the fields to allow for play in inclement weather. The necessary permit(s) to develop the community garden and athletic/futsal fields shall be applied for, and construction shall commence, no later than April 1, 2014. H. Auxiliary/Administration Building Renovation. City intends to enter into an agreement (“Auxiliary Building Sale Agreement”) to sell the current Market administration building to Developer. Developer intends to assign the Auxiliary Building Sale Agreement (and the rights and obligations thereunder) to DFMT, as provided in Section 25.A below. DFMT shall renovate the existing building for use as a culinary learning center, production studio, administration office, retail leasing/retail vendors and potential Dallas Police Department assistance or staging center. A building permit for the auxiliary/administration building renovation shall be applied for, and construction shall commence, no later than October 1, 2014. I. Public Infrastructure Improvements and Related Demolition. Developer agrees to complete the following public infrastructure improvements as part of the Project: (1) Kiosk Demolition. Developer shall demolish the kiosk located on Pearl Street (a) to allow for pedestrian and vehicular access to the Project site and (b) to permit construction of the streetscape improvements described in Section 3.I(3) below. A demolition permit for the kiosk shall be applied for no later than September 1, 2013. (2) Public Parking. Developer shall construct a minimum of 176 parking spaces on Level 1 (at grade) in the parking structure, which is to be built as part of the retail/parking/residential development on the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts, and which spaces shall be dedicated solely to serve the Market’s renovated Shed 1 (“Public Market Parking”). The Public Market Parking shall be separated from the other required public and private parking in the retail/parking/residential development and shall at all times be available for public use. City intends to purchase the portion of the parking structure dedicated to the Public Market Parking from Developer or the Shed 3/4 Owner pursuant to a purchase agreement (“Public Market Parking Purchase Agreement”), the general terms of which are set forth in Section 4.D. A building permit(s) for the Public Market Parking shall be applied for no later than July 1, 2014.
4
(3) Streetscape Improvements. Developer shall construct or install streetscape and pedestrian improvements, including demolition work and burial of utilities, along Pearl Street, Farmers Way, and Taylor Street. Developer shall begin construction of streetscape improvements by July 1, 2014. J. Project Completion Dates. The dates by which Developer, DFMT, or affiliates of Developer are required to complete the various Project components will be specified in the TIF development agreements entered into with Developer. Such completion dates will be agreed by Developer, DFMT, or affiliates of Developer, as applicable, based on information available at the time and may be extended by the Director upon approval of the Farmers Market TIF District board of directors, or the City Council, as applicable based on further site analysis, preparation of engineering and construction plans and approval of construction bids. SECTION 4. SALE AND LEASE OF MARKET PROPERTY A. Sales and Lease Contingency Related to Defeasance of Outstanding Bonds. In order to sell and to lease the Market Property for the development of the Project and operation of the Market in the manner described in this Agreement, City must be able to defease bond funds that have already been expended on the Market. The amount necessary to defease the bonds is slightly more than $2.3 million. City intends to use the proceeds of the sale of the Market Property for defeasance. It is currently estimated (i) that there will be approximately $3,230,000 in sales proceeds available to defease the City bonds and (ii) that approximately $1,600,000 is needed (a) to remove and relocate the stormwater pipe currently located on Shed 3 and Shed 4, (b) to demolish the sheds and to remove all improvements, including the concrete walls, foundations and footings and the paved areas on Shed 3 and Shed 4 and (c) to clear the Shed 3 and Shed 4 site for development. City agrees to be solely responsible to perform the work and to pay for the items in clauses (a), (b) and (c) above and to use (x) the approximately $930,000 remaining from the sales proceeds after defeasing the bonds and (y) approximately $670,000 from a public/private partnership grant (“PPP Grant”, as described in Section 5.D.) to do so. If the sales proceeds of the Market Property are insufficient to defease the bonds, and, along with the funds from the PPP Grant, are insufficient to perform the work in clauses (a), (b) and (c), the proposed financial incentives and legal instruments contemplated in this Agreement may require restructuring, with input from City’s in-house and outside financial advisors, bond counsel, and the City Attorney’s Office; provided, however, no such restructuring occurring after the Market Property has been conveyed to Developer shall (1) increase Developer’s required investment in the Project, (2) decrease the amount of City financial incentives committed to the Project pursuant to City Council approval and executed agreements between City and Developer for such incentives, or (3) increase Developer’s liability under this Agreement. If there are sales proceeds remaining after defeasance of the bonds, such proceeds may be used for public improvements relating to the development of the Project. B. Directed Sale to Developer. By action separate from the approval of this Agreement, the City Council will be asked to approve a directed sale of the Market Property, 5
except for Shed 1 and the rights-of-way through and adjacent to the Market Property, to Developer, pursuant to Section 272.001(b)(6) of the Texas Local Government Code, which provides for an exception to the requirement to seek public bids for the sale of City-owned property, if: (i) the sale is made to allow for the development of land pursuant to a TIF Reinvestment Zone Project and Financing Plan and (ii) the sale price is no less than the fair market value of the property as established by an appraisal. (1) Sale Approvals, Contingencies, and Timeline. On January 28, 2013, the Farmers Market TIF District Board of Directors approved an amendment to the Farmers Market TIF District Project and Financing Plan (“Project Plan”) to (a) expand the geographic boundaries of the TIF district to include the Market Property, (b) extend the term of the TIF district to December 31, 2028, (c) redefine the goals of the TIF district to include the Project, and (d) increase the budget amount and scope. Prior to the consideration of the directed sale of the Market Property to Developer, the City Council will be asked to call a public hearing to consider the amendment to the Project Plan on February 27, 2013, and to hold the public hearing and approve the amendment on March 27, 2013. A directed sale of the Market Property to Developer cannot go forward without the City Council’s approval of the amendment to the Project Plan. If the City Council approves the amendment, the City Council will then be asked to consider approval of the sale of Market Property on March 27, 2013. If the City Council approves the sale, it is intended that the sale of the Market Property will be closed on or about July1, 2013. (2) Form of Sale Agreement. If the sale of the Market Property is approved by the City Council, City and Developer will enter into a sale agreement (“Sale Agreement”) for each tract (other than Shed 1), in form and substance satisfactory to City and Developer, as provided below. Each Sale Agreement will include, among other things, the following: (a) the sales price for the tract, in the amount set forth in Section 4.B.(4); (b)
the description of the property being transferred;
(c)
the permitted title exceptions;
(d) a description of the obligations relating to the tract which are being assumed by Developer at closing and the obligations relating to the tract for which City shall continue to be responsible; (e) at closing;
an agreement to assign any and all leases and service agreements
(f) an allocation of closing expenses, including, but not limited to, survey, title commitment and policy and other expenses required to clear title; 6
(g) standard representations and warranties regarding authority to convey, absence of violations of applicable ordinances, statutes and regulations and absence of pending or threatened litigation, including condemnation actions; (h)
a list of required closing documents; and
(i) an agreement to deliver to Developer all title commitments, surveys, environmental reports and other relevant documents and agreements which are in the possession or control of City. (3) Form of Deeds, Rights of Reverter, Personal Completion Guarantees, and Operating Covenants. If the sale of the Market Property is approved by the City Council, each tract will be conveyed by separate deed, without warranty as to title. Because (i) City-approved sale of the Market Property to Developer will be made pursuant to Chapter 272.001(b)(6) of the Texas Local Government Code, requiring the development of property so sold to be redeveloped in accordance with the Project Plan, and (ii) City plans to expend Proposition 9, Farmers Market, 2006 general obligation bond funds to support the Project, all deeds will include operating covenants (“Operating Covenants”) and limited reversionary rights in favor of City, as provided below. (a) Shed 2 Operating Covenants, Reverter, and Personal Completion Guarantee. City’s deed for the Shed 2 tract and the improvements thereon will include Operating Covenants under which Shed 2 will be maintained and operated for restaurants, specialty food vendors, and other retail vendors. The Shed 2 Operating Covenants will be included in the conveyance deed, along with a right of reverter in favor of City which may be enforced if DFMT fails to comply with the Shed 2 Operating Covenants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of reverter as to the Shed 2 tract shall be immediately released by City upon the earlier of (i) a building permit being issued for the Shed 2 improvements or (ii) the recording of a first deed of trust against the Shed 2 tract which secures a loan by an institutional lender, and the delivery of a personal guarantee of completion of the Shed 2 component of the Project, in a form acceptable to City, which shall be from Blair Black (or other person acceptable to City) if the Shed 2 tract is conveyed to DFMT (or other entity which is an affiliate or assignee of DFMT) or from Brian Bergersen if it is not conveyed to DFMT (or an affiliate or assignee of DFMT). The personal guarantee shall terminate upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Shed 2. (b) Shed 3/4 Property Operating Covenants, Reverter, and Personal Completion Guarantee. City’s deed for the Shed 3/4 property will include Operating Covenants under which the Shed 3/4 Property is to be maintained and operated as a retail/parking/residential development that complements the Market as is contemplated under Section 3.F of this Agreement and as will be further defined in future TIF development agreements. The Shed 3/4 Property 7
Operating Covenants will be included in the conveyance deed, along with a right of reverter in favor of City, which may be enforced if Developer fails to comply with the Shed 3/4 Property Operating Covenants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of reverter shall be immediately released by City upon the earlier of (i) a building permit being issued for the Public Market Parking, or (ii) the recording of a first deed of trust against the Shed 3/4 tract which secures a loan by an institutional lender, and the delivery of a personal guarantee of completion of the Shed 3/4 Property component of the Project from Brian Bergersen, in a form acceptable to City. The personal guarantee shall terminate upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Shed 3/4 Property. (c) Community Gardens and Athletic/Futsal Fields Property Operating Covenants, Reverter, and Personal Completion Guarantee. City’s deed for the Community Gardens and Athletic/Futsal Fields Property will include Operating Covenants under which such property is to be maintained and operated as a community garden and athletic/futsal fields open to the public. The Community Gardens and Athletic/Futsal Fields Property Operating Covenants will be included in the conveyance deed, along with a right of reverter in favor of City, which may be enforced if Developer fails to comply with the Community Gardens and Athletic/Futsal Fields Property Operating Covenants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of reverter shall be immediately released by City upon the earlier of (i) a permit being issued for to develop the community garden and athletic/futsal fields, or (ii) the recording of a first deed of trust against the Community Gardens and Athletic/Futsal Fields Property which secures a loan by an institutional lender, and the delivery of a personal guarantee of completion of the Community Gardens and Athletic/Futsal Fields Property component of the Project from Brian Bergersen, in a form acceptable to City. The personal guarantee shall terminate upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Community Gardens and Athletic/Futsal Fields Property. (d) Auxiliary/Administration Building Property Operating Covenants, Reverter, and Personal Completion Guarantee. City’s deed for the Auxiliary/Administration Building Property will include Operating Covenants under which such property is to be maintained and operated as a culinary learning center, production studio, administration office, retail leasing/retail vendors and potential Dallas Police Department assistance or staging center. The Auxiliary/Administration Building Property Operating Covenants will be included in the conveyance deed, along with a right of reverter in favor of City, which may be enforced if Developer fails to comply with the Auxiliary/Administration Building Property Operating Covenants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the right of reverter shall be immediately released by City upon the earlier of (i) a building permit being issued for the Auxiliary/Administration Building Property renovation, or (ii) the recording of a first deed of trust against the Auxiliary/Administration Building Property which 8
secures a loan by an institutional lender, and the delivery of a personal guarantee of completion of the Auxiliary/Administration Building Property component of the Project, in a form acceptable to City, which shall be from Blair Black (or other person acceptable to City) if the Auxiliary/Administration Building Property is conveyed to DFMT or other entity which is an affiliate or assignee of DFMT or from Brian Bergersen if it is not conveyed to DFMT (or an affiliate or assignee of DFMT). The personal guarantee shall terminate upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Auxiliary/Administration Building Property. (4) Sales Prices. As required under Chapter 272.001(b)(6) of the Texas Local Government Code, the sales prices of the Market Property shall be the fair market value for the property as established by an appraisal. Therefore, based on appraisals, the sales prices for the various tracts of the Market Property are as follows: (a) Shed 2 Tract. building) is $280,000.
The sales price for the Shed 2 tract (land and
(b) Shed 3 and Shed 4 Tracts. The sales price for the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts (land and structures) is $1,675,000. In addition, City shall retain the obligation to perform the work described in Section 4.A. and shall have the obligation to purchase the Public Market Parking described in Section 4.D. (c) is $75,000.
Remote Parking Area. The sales price for the remote parking area
(d) Auxiliary Building and Related Property. The sales price for the auxiliary building and related property is $1,200,000. C. Shed 1 Lease. By action separate from the approval of this Agreement, the City Council will be asked to approve the Shed 1 Lease with Developer, which will provide for the renovation and operation of Shed 1 as a marketplace for local farmers and farm merchants and vendors. Developer intends to assign the lessee’s interest in the Shed 1 Lease to DFMT, as provided in Section 25.A below. The City Council will consider the approval of the Shed 1 Lease on March 27, 2013; and, if approved, it is anticipated that the Shed 1 Lease would be executed in May or June 2013. If approved by the City Council, the Shed 1 Lease will be in a form satisfactory to City and Developer, and will include the following general terms: (1) The primary term of the Shed 1 Lease will be for thirty (30) years and the Lease will allow for two (2), five (5)-year renewal options. (2) The rental rate paid to City under the Shed 1 Lease will be $30,000 per year, plus 4% of annual gross revenues generated from the local farmers and farm merchants and vendors in Shed 1, over a break point to be determined by Developer and City. The rental rate shall not change during the term. The Shed 1 Lease shall be on
9
a full net basis, with the lessee responsible for all real estate taxes, insurance, repairs and maintenance. (3) The Shed 1 Lease shall require the lessee to operate Shed 1 as a marketplace for local farmers and farm merchants and vendors to engage in the activities set forth in Section 3.D., at least three (3) days per week all year round, subject to availability of crops and force majeure. During the other four (4) days per week, Shed 1 may be used by other vendors and for other activities and events. City will have a right to terminate the Shed 1 Lease thirty (30) days after notice to the lessee, if for any reason the lessee fails to comply with the operating requirements of this paragraph or the Shed 1 Lease, unless such failure is due to force majeure or other events beyond the reasonable control of the lessee in which the lessee shall have up to one hundred eighty (180) days to comply, or to provide alternatives acceptable to City. (4) The Shed 1 Lease shall grant the Shed 1 Owner a right of first offer to purchase Shed 1 and its improvements in the event that City elects to seek offers for the purchase of Shed 1. D. City Purchase of Public Market Parking. At the time of execution of the Shed 3/4 Sale Agreement, City and Developer will enter into the Public Market Parking Purchase Agreement, under which City will agree to purchase the Public Market Parking for a purchase price which is to be determined by appraisal being prepared for City by Bryan Humphreys. The Public Market Purchase Agreement shall be in a form satisfactory to City and Developer, and will include the following terms and conditions: (1)
purchase price;
(2)
legal description;
(3)
description of the improvements;
(4)
permitted title exceptions;
(5)
allocation of closing expenses between City and Developer;
(6)
provisions regarding management of the Public Market Parking; and
(7)
obligations being transferred to City at closing.
E. Supplemental Agreements. The Sale Agreements, the Shed 1 Lease, the TIF development agreements and the Public Market Parking Purchase Agreement are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Supplemental Agreements.�
10
SECTION 5. CITY FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR PROJECT A. Financial Incentives Generally. Developer’s proposal for the Project indicates that approximately $26.4 million in public financial incentives will be needed to realize the Project. City financial incentives shall be primarily directed toward the construction of public improvements and other items eligible for reimbursement under Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code and City and Farmers Market TIF District policies. B. 2006 General Obligation Bond Funds. The City Council will be asked to consider use of 2006 general obligation bond funds to fund public infrastructure improvements associated with the Project, including, but not limited to, the purchase of the Public Market Parking and streetscape and pedestrian improvements in the public rights-of-way, including demolition work and burial of utilities, along Pearl Street, Farmers Way, and Taylor Street; however, such funds cannot be used to fund relocation of the stormwater pipe that bisects the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts (which work is to be performed and paid for by City as provided in Section 4.A.). The minimum amount of 2006 general obligation bond funding that will be available for the Project is $5.5 million. Commitment and expenditure of bond funds is subject to the review of City’s in-house and outside financial advisors, bond counsel, and the City Attorney’s Office. For those portions of the Project funded with City’s general obligation bonds, Developer will be required to follow the procurement process set forth in Section 6 below. C. TIF Funds. The amendment to the Project Plan approved by the Farmers Market TIF District Board of Directors on January 28, 2013, authorized an increase to the amount and scope of the Farmers Market TIF budget and extension of the term of the TIF district to December 31, 2028. The City Council will be asked to call a public hearing to consider the amendment to the Project Plan on February 27, 2013 and to hold the public hearing and approve the amendment on March 27, 2013. If the amendment is approved by the City Council, TIF funds would be a potential source of funding for the Project. The amount of TIF funds dedicated to the Project will be based on the anticipated taxable value to be created by the Project upon completion and the size of Developer’s funding gap as determined by City’s Office of Economic Development staff. The anticipated amount of TIF funding that will be available for the Project is approximately $15.0 million. Dedication of TIF funds to the Project is subject to Farmers Market TIF District Board of Directors approval, City Council approval separate from the approval of this Agreement, and execution of a TIF development agreement between Developer and City. TIF funds will only be available on a reimbursable basis and only if TIF increment is collected and available in the Farmers Market TIF District TIF fund, after payment of administrative expenses for the Farmers Market TIF District and the TIF subsidy due the developer of the Farmers Market Square project. City agrees that, after the TIF subsidy due the developer of the Farmers Market Square Project has been paid, all TIF funds (other than those required to pay administrative expenses) that become available from (1) the Project and (2) those properties located within the boundaries of the Farmers Market TIF District as of the date of this Agreement, as shown on the attached Exhibit C, shall be paid to Developer until Developer has received the full amount that it is due under the TIF development agreements between Developer and City and that no other person shall be entitled to receive any of the TIF 11
funds available from such sources unless and until Developer has received the full amount that it is due under the TIF development agreements between Developer and City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer understands that (1) it will not be entitled to receive any of the TIF funds which may become available from any future development in the Farmers Market TIF District, other than from (a) the Project and (b) those properties located within the boundaries of the Farmers Market TIF District as of the date of this Agreement, and (2) any future developments in the Farmers Market TIF District will be eligible to receive only the TIF increment generated by such future developments. City will only consider expanding the boundaries of the Farmers Market TIF District beyond the expansion contemplated as of the date of this Agreement, such expansion shown on the attached Exhibit C, (to be considered by the City Council at its March 27, 2013 meeting) if the expansion is related to a specific redevelopment project(s) that requires TIF financial assistance to be viable, in which case the developer(s) of said project(s) would be only be entitled to the increment generated by their development until such time as Developer has received the full amount that it is due under the TIF development agreements between Developer and City. D. Public/Private Partnership Grant Funds. If the sales proceeds for the Market Property received by City exceed the amount of funds needed to defease the bond funds that have already been expended on the Market, City may opt to use such excess proceeds to fund components of the Project through a PPP Grant, as provided in Section 4.A. A PPP Grant could fund public improvements at the Market for which another City funding source has not been identified, including public parking that is separate from the Public Market Parking described in Section 3.I.(2). The amount of PPP Grant shall not exceed the balance of the sales proceeds from the sale of the Market Property after the defeasance of the outstanding bonds. Dedication of a PPP Grant to the Project requires (i) proposed expenditures meet City’s PPP Grant Program Guidelines and Criteria, (ii) City Council approval separate from the approval of this Agreement, and (iii) execution of a PPP Grant agreement between Developer and City. PPP Grants are only available on a reimbursable basis. E. New Markets Tax Credits (“NMTCs”). Developer’s proposal for the Project identified NMTCs as a potential source of funding for the Project. The Dallas Development Fund (“DDF”), a City-created non-profit entity, and its subsidiaries are City’s vehicles to support economic development in City through the use of NMTCs. All of DDF’s current allocation of NMTCs has been committed; however, DDF has applied to the United States Department of the Treasury for another allocation of NMTCs and expects to learn if it has received a new allocation in spring 2013. If DDF receives a new allocation of NMTCs, Developer may apply to DDF for NMTCs for the Project. Approval of an award of NMTCs is subject to DDF board approval and the approval of the City Council separate from the approval of this Agreement. F. City of Dallas Regional Center (“CDRC”). Developer’s proposal for the Project anticipates financial benefits from the use of the CDRC EB-5 Program to reduce the cost of debt and/or equity related to Project financing.
12
G. End of Subsidies to Market. Upon (1) the close of the sale of the last of the Market Property which is to be sold, or (2) the execution of the Shed 1 Lease, whichever occurs later, City shall cease subsidization of Market. H. Failure to Provide Financial Incentives. Prior to the first conveyance of any of the Market Property to Developer, if Developer reasonably believes that financial incentives of approximately $26.4 million will not be available for the Project, then upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to City, Developer may terminate this Agreement, in which case all rights and obligations of the parties shall terminate. SECTION 6. REQUIRED PROCUREMENT PROCESS FOR BOND-FUNDED IMPROVEMENTS A. Public Procurement Required. For those Project improvements to be funded with City general obligation bond funds, Developer must comply with Texas municipal public procurement procedures. Texas municipal procurement law requires that no particular contractor be favored or given an undue advantage over other contractors at the commencement of the procurement process. Accordingly, Developer agrees that, while performing any design or engineering work for bond-funded improvements, no construction contractors who may wish to bid on the improvements are involved with the design, scheduling, or preliminary estimating of the Project, in any way. Developer further agrees and understands that any construction contractor who participates in the design, scheduling, or preliminary estimating of the Project, in any way, will not be eligible to submit a bid or proposal on the portion of improvements to be funded with City bond funds. B. Plans and Specifications. Developer may choose to fund design and engineering of the bond-financed public improvements, including the removal and relocation of the stormwater pipe and the other work described in Section 4.A., and, if Developer so chooses, Developer shall provide City with construction plans and specifications for the separate components of the Project to be constructed using City bond funds so that City may prepare and procure public bids for said improvements. To the extent Developer is to provide such construction plans and specifications for City bond-funded Project improvements, said plans and specification shall be in a form acceptable to City and delivered as soon as possible after execution of this Agreement. Developer will cause its architectural or engineering firm to make its design development decisions consistent with a scope for bond-funded Project improvements agreed to by City and Developer. Subject to the approval of the Farmers Market TIF District Board of Directors and the City Council, TIF funds will be used to reimburse Developer for the design and engineering costs described in this paragraph. C. Requests for Competitive Sealed Proposals. During the procurement process, competitive sealed proposals will be solicited by City for the Project’s bond-financed improvements. The offeror who offers the best value to City, based upon published selection criteria and a ranking evaluation will be selected. Developer shall assist City in establishing the detail, weight, or order of importance of evaluation factors that will be considered in the best value procurement of the improvements. Proposals will not be advertised until Developer has reviewed and approved the proposed specifications with City’s Public Works Department and 13
Department of Business Development and Procurement Services for adequacy of content and form for the procurement of such improvements. Developer shall also assist City in evaluating and offering comments regarding proposals received; however, City’s Public Works Department will make the final best value evaluation and recommendation for purposes of the award of the construction contract by the City Council. D. Developer as City’s Construction Manager. For the components of the Project to be publicly bid and bond-funded, City shall award the construction contract to the best value bidder and assign same to Developer, as City’s construction manager, for all purposes including inspection, supervision, testing, quality control, approval of shop drawings, utility coordination, obtaining utility clearances from all utility companies, staging and coordinating all utility-related work with the construction contractor, general coordination, and completion of all construction work. City shall be solely responsible for the general contractor fees. City shall look to Developer in its capacity as construction manager to confirm that the improvements are completed in a timely manner, and in accordance with the contract documents, including all final plans and specifications approved by City. Developer shall review and certify as correct, following the project engineer’s review and approval, all monthly and final payment requests and forward same to City for review and subsequent processing through City’s Public Works Department, with such supporting documentation as City may reasonably require. All payments for work performed under the construction contract shall be made by City to the construction contractor from the funds appropriated for that purpose. City shall not make any payment under a monthly or final estimate, unless Developer has certified, by affidavit sworn to by its authorized agent, that the estimate of work completed for the period in question is true and correct to the best of his information and belief, that the work has been verified in accordance with the contract documents, and that all contract preconditions to payment have been met. City reserves the right to perform inspections, measurements, or verifications of the estimates or work quantities as are necessary. Final payment to the construction contractor shall not be made until all preconditions to final payment set forth in the construction contract have been performed, and all improvements have been finally completed as verified by Developer, the project engineer, and City in accordance with the approved contract documents, including the plans and specifications, and acceptance by City. SECTION 7. OTHER PROJECT REQUIREMENTS A. Market Events. After the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Shed 1 renovation, DFMT will be required to schedule one major event every calendar quarter and at least four smaller events per month to generate traffic to the Market. Developer shall provide to Director a quarterly report on the events, including attendance, or assign such responsibility to DFMT pursuant to Section 25.A. below. B. Branding. Developer will be required to implement an integrated branding program for the Market. The branding program must include strategic messaging, visual identity, logo development, brand standards, templates, signage, public relations, digital marketing, and advertising strategies. Developer shall make a presentation of the marketing 14
plan to Director by December 31, 2013. Developer may assign its obligations under this Section 7.B. to DFMT pursuant to Section 25.A. below. C. Zoning and Replatting. Developer shall secure any necessary changes in zoning and platting to complete the Project by following the required City processes to obtain approvals to make such changes, including, receiving zoning board(s) approvals and City Council approval, if necessary. Developer shall ensure that zoning for the Project site that meets City TIF district design standards. There are currently seven (7) subdistricts in PD 357. Developer shall be requesting creation of an eighth (8th) subdistrict for the Project, which will include all of the modifications necessary for the redevelopment and operation of the Market and the Project, including signage. Prior to the first conveyance of any of the Market Property to Developer, if Developer reasonably believes that it will not obtain the required zoning for the Project as required in this Section 7.C., then, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to City, Developer may terminate this Agreement, in which case all rights and obligations of the parties shall terminate. D. Permissions. Developer shall obtain all necessary permits, applications, easements, licenses, and other approvals necessary to complete the Project, from the relevant federal, state and local entities. Prior to the first conveyance of any of the Market Property to Developer, if Developer reasonably believes that it will not obtain all permits, applications, easements, licenses and other approvals required for the Project, then upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to City, Developer may terminate this Agreement, in which case all rights and obligations of the parties shall terminate. E. Third Party Government Approvals. City shall cooperate with Developer in obtaining approvals from third party agencies having jurisdiction over the construction or installation of improvements in the Project. F. No Other Obligations. Except as required hereunder or under applicable ordinances and regulations of City, Developer shall not be required to install or construct, or to contribute financially to the installation or construction of, any public improvements. G. Performance Security. Developer shall not be required to deposit any security in connection with the installation of public improvements required under this Agreement unless required by the codes or ordinances of City. H. Declaration. Developer shall prepare and record against the Project site a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (“Project CCRs”). The Project CCRs shall define the rights and obligations of the owners, lessees, and users of the various tracts in the Project. The form and substance of the Project CCRs shall be mutually satisfactory to City and Developer. I. Construction Phasing Plan. Prior to commencing construction on the Project, Developer shall develop, and submit to Director for approval, a phasing plan for all construction
15
activities to ensure that the Market continues its operation throughout development of the Project. Director’s approval will not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or conditioned. J. Private Bidding Process for Non-Bond Funded Portions of Project and BID Plan Requirements. Non-bond funded portions of the Project may be privately bid by Developer. Developer shall award the contract for the construction of the Project to the lowest responsible bidder as determined by Developer through a process established and administered by Developer, which must include a good faith effort to comply with the minority/women business enterprises (“M/WBE”) process and goals established by City in its Business Inclusion and Development Plan (“BID Plan”). Before bid solicitation, City’s Department of Business Development and Procurement Services and Developer will solicit involvement by M/WBEs. Developer’s goals shall be 25% participation by M/WBE firms for all publically reimbursable construction work related to the Project and 10% participation by M/WBE firms for remainder of the Project construction, not including land acquisition or soft costs. K. Maintenance of Non-Standard Public Improvements. Prior to the completion of the installation of the first “non-standard public improvements” to be constructed as part of the Project, Developer shall execute an operating and maintenance agreement for such improvements, and if necessary, obtain a license from City for the purpose of maintaining any improvements in the public right-of-way. For purposes of this Agreement, “non-standard public improvements” means improvements which exceed City’s standard design requirements as determined by City’s Department of Public Works and as agreed by Developer but does not include any paved roadways or below grade improvements, such as water, stormwater, sanitary sewer or other utility systems. The obligations under the operating and maintenance agreement may be assigned to DFMT or to a property owners’ association with the written consent of the Director, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned. L. Mixed Income Housing. In order to secure Dallas County financial participation in the Farmers Market TIF District, a minimum of 20% of the residential units in the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts shall be set aside to meet the affordability requirements of the Project Plan and City’s TIF Districts’ Mixed Income Housing Guidelines, attached as Exhibit D, for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date the final certificate of occupancy (“CO”) for the residential portion of the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts is received (“Affordability Period”). After the date the CO for the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts is obtained and throughout the Affordability Period, Developer shall monitor and report to City on a semi-annual basis on the status of its compliance with the requirements of this Section 7.L. If the total number of affordable units in the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts drops below ten percent (10%) during the Affordability Period, Developer will be given a ninety (90) day period to cure such deficiency, after which any obligation of City to pay the Developer TIF increment pursuant to a TIF development agreement will terminate. If the Shed 3 and Shed 4 residential property is sold to another entity prior to the end of the Affordability Period, the affordability requirement shall be conveyed with such residential property by a deed restriction, for the benefit of City. The requirements of this paragraph will be included in any TIF development agreement between Developer and City.
16
Developer may assign its obligations under this Section 7.L. to the Shed 3/4 Owner pursuant to Section 25.B. below. M. Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing. Developer agrees to market the residential portion of the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts pursuant to City’s Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan, attached as Exhibit E. Developer shall report on a monthly or semi-annual basis as required by City’s Office of Fair Housing for a period of fifteen (15) years. Should City request amendments from time to time to the marketing plan to improve its effectiveness, Developer shall cooperate in good faith to accommodate reasonable modifications to the plan. In case the residential property is sold to another entity prior to the end of the reporting period, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing requirement shall be conveyed with the property by a deed restriction for the benefit of City. The requirements of this Section 7.M. will be included in any TIF development agreement between Developer and City. Developer may assign its obligations under this Section 7.M. to the Shed 3/4 Owner pursuant to Section 25.B. below. N. Quarterly Project Status Reports. At the end of each calendar quarter, starting September 30, 2013, and until such time as the final CO for the Project or the final certificate of acceptance for public infrastructure improvements has been received, whichever occurs later, Developer shall submit to Director a status report for ongoing work on the Project, including the status of both the public and the private improvements to the Property in the form shown in the attached Exhibit F. O. Market Security Plan. Developer shall submit a security plan for the Market to Director for review and approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned by September 1, 2013. SECTION 8. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. City Code Amendments. City staff will work to modify or terminate Chapter 29 of the City Code, and (2) modify other relevant portions of the City Code or create new Code procedures in order to support the development of the Project and the operation of the Market as outlined in this Agreement. It is anticipated that the proposed amendments will encompass the transition of control of Market operations from City to Developer and requirements for special events, festivals, and street closures. Any proposed amendments to the City Code will require City Council approval separate from its approval of this Agreement. Prior to the first conveyance of any of the Market Property to Developer, if Developer reasonably believes that such approvals will not be available for the Project, then upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to City, Developer may terminate this Agreement, in which case the rights and obligations of the parties shall terminate. B. Planning for Existing Tenant Relocations. Developer agrees to meet with City Office of Economic Development staff to review operational needs of vendors currently operating at the Market. For vendors that Developer does not intend to retain as tenants, Developer will prepare a plan to assist such vendors in finding alternate locations for their businesses; provided, however, Developer shall not be required incur any cost or any liability in 17
the event a vendor cannot find an alternate location. For vendors Developer does plan to retain as tenants, Developer shall make a good faith effort to find temporary accommodations for their businesses during construction; provided, however, Developer shall not be required to incur any cost or any liability in the event a vendor cannot find temporary accommodations. Assistance provided by Developer to vendors to find alternate or temporary accommodations may be a reimbursable expense under a TIF agreement. C. Community Engagement. Developer agrees to meet with the Farmers Market Friends organization to investigate the possibility of how that volunteer group might work with the new operating conditions of the Market. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer is not obligated in any way to institute any changes requested or suggested by such organization, and shall not incur any cost or any liability as a result of meeting or failure to meet such group or failure to institute any changes requested or suggested. SECTION 9. ADDITIONAL APPROVALS REQUIRED Throughout this Agreement, when possible, the necessary additional approvals, separate from the approval of this Agreement, of the City Council, City boards, or other entities for commitments of funding, property transactions, or City Code amendments have been noted. Developer understands that such separate approvals cannot be guaranteed and such bodies cannot be bound to make additional, future approvals by the terms of this Agreement. SECTION 10. PROJECT DEADLINES AND EXTENSIONS Developer agrees and understands that adherence to Project deadlines detailed in this Agreement is a vital term of this Agreement, and time is of the essence. The Director shall have the authority (a) to allow minor modifications to the Project, including, but not limited to, changes in the mix of uses within the Project, and (b) to extend deadlines contained in this Agreement for up to one (1) year, in each case without increasing Developer’s liability under this Agreement or the Supplemental Agreements or imposing any new or additional conditions for Developer to satisfy. SECTION 11. TERM AND TERMINATION Unless earlier terminated in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on the date of full execution and end upon the complete performance of all obligations of the parties to this Agreement. Prior to the first conveyance of any Market Property to Developer, Developer or City may terminate this Agreement for any reason whatsoever by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party. SECTION 12. EVENTS OF DEFAULT A. In the event Developer defaults in its performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement, City shall give Developer written notice of such default. Any such default shall 18
not be deemed to be an Event of Default hereunder unless Developer fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days after said written notice (unless, due to force majeure, it cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, in which case Developer shall have the amount of time to cure the default as provided in Section 13 below, which time period shall not exceed one hundred eighty days). Notice shall be provided in accordance with the Notice provision hereof. B. After the Shed 1 tract, the Shed 2 tract and the Auxiliary Building and related property have been leased and/or conveyed to Developer (or to DFMT), then, as a result of any Event of Default relating to those properties, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, but only with respect to City’s obligations and the property owner’s rights with respect to Shed 1, Shed 2 and/or the Auxiliary Building and related property. No Event of Default relating to those properties shall be deemed to be an Event of Default with respect to the remaining tracts in the Project nor shall it give City the right to terminate this Agreement with respect to the rights of Developer or the obligations of City with respect to the remaining tracts of the Project. C. After the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts and the Gardens/Fields tracts have been conveyed to Developer, then as a result of any Event of Default relating to those properties, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, but only with respect to City’s obligations and Developer’s rights with respect to the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts and the Gardens/Fields tract. No Event of Default relating to those properties shall be deemed to be an Event of Default with respect to the remaining tracts in the Project nor shall it give City the right to terminate this Agreement with respect to the rights of Developer (or DFMT) or the obligations of City with respect to the remaining tracts of the Project. SECTION 13. FORCE MAJEURE It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties to this Agreement that Developer (a) shall proceed with due diligence to perform its obligations hereunder, (b) shall commence each phase of the Project by the dates specified in this Agreement and (c) shall proceed with due diligence to complete each phase; provided however, that Developer shall have such additional time to commence and to complete each phase of the Project as may be required in the event of force majeure (as defined herein), if Developer is diligently and faithfully pursuing commencement and completion of each such phase of the Project. For this purpose, “force majeure” shall mean any contingency or cause beyond the reasonable control of Developer, including, without limitation, acts of God or the public enemy, war, riot, civil commotion, insurrection, state, federal or municipal government, or de facto governmental action (unless caused by acts or omissions of Developer), fires, explosions, floods, and strikes. In an event of force majeure, Developer shall be excused from doing or performing the same during such period of delay so that the commencement and completion dates applicable to such performance, or to the construction requirement, shall be extended for a period of time equal to the period Developer was delayed. Developer agrees to inform City, in writing, within a reasonable time of the existence of such force majeure.
19
SECTION 14. NOTICES Any notice, payment, statement, or demand required or permitted to be given under this Agreement, by either party to the other, may be effected by personal delivery in writing or deposited in the U.S. mail by certified letter, return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses appearing below, but each party may change its address by written notice in accordance with this Section. Mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of three days after mailing. If intended for City, to: Director City of Dallas Office of Economic Development Dallas City Hall 1500 Marilla Street, Room 5CS Dallas, Texas 75201
If intended for Developer, to: 1414 Elm Street, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75202 Attn: Brian Bergersen
SECTION 15. NOTICE OF CONTRACT CLAIM This Agreement is subject to the provisions of Section 2-86 of the Dallas City Code, as amended, relating to requirements for filing a notice of breach of contract claim against City. Section 2-86 of the Dallas City Code, as amended, is expressly incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if written word for word in this Agreement. Developer shall fully comply with the requirements of this ordinance as a precondition of any claim relating to this Agreement, in addition to all other requirements in this Agreement related to claims and notice of claims. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY Developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless against any and all claims, lawsuits, judgments, costs, and expenses for personal injury (including death), property damage, or other harm for which recovery of damages is sought, suffered by any person or persons, that may arise out of or be occasioned by Developer’s breach of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, or by any negligent or strictly liable act or omission of Developer, its officers, agents, associates, employees, affiliates, contractors, or subcontractors, in the performance of this Agreement; except that the indemnity provided for in this paragraph shall not apply to any liability resulting from the sole negligence or fault of City, its officers, agents, employees, or separate contractors, and in the event of joint and concurrent negligence/breach of both Developer and City, responsibility and indemnity, if any, shall be apportioned in accordance with the law of the State of Texas, without waiving any governmental immunity available to City under Texas law and without waiving any defenses of the parties under Texas law. The provisions of this paragraph are solely for the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and are not intended to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, to any other person or entity.
20
SECTION 17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF CITY EMPLOYEES The following section of the Charter of City of Dallas shall be one of the conditions, and a part of, the consideration of this Contract, to wit: “CHAPTER XXII. Sec. 11. FINANCIAL INTEREST OF EMPLOYEE OR OFFICER PROHIBITED -(a) No officer or employee shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract with City or be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale to City of any land, materials, supplies or services, except on behalf of City as an officer or employee. Any violation of this section shall constitute malfeasance in office, and any officer or employee guilty thereof shall thereby forfeit the officer’s or employee’s office or position with City. Any violation of this section, with knowledge, express or implied, of the person or corporation contracting with City shall render the contract involved voidable by City Manager or The City Council. (b) The alleged violations of this section shall be matters to be determined either by the Trial Board in the case of employees who have the right to appeal to the Trial Board, and by The City Council in the case of other employees. (c) The prohibitions of this section shall not apply to the participation by City employees in federally-funded housing programs, to the extent permitted by applicable federal or state law.” SECTION 18. GIFT TO PUBLIC SERVANT A. City may terminate this Agreement immediately if Developer has offered, agreed to confer, or conferred any benefit upon a City employee or official that such City employee or official is prohibited by law from accepting. City has been advised by the prosecuting authorities that Section 36.10(b) and (c) exceptions to Section 36.08 and 36.09, respectively, of the Texas Penal Code are not available to public servants who have no legal reporting requirements. B. For purposes of this section, “benefit” means anything reasonably regarded as pecuniary gain or pecuniary advantage, including benefit to any other person in whose welfare the beneficiary has a direct or substantial interest, but does not include a contribution or expenditure made and reported in accordance with the law. C. Notwithstanding any other legal remedies, City may require Developer to remove any employee of Developer from the development who has violated the restrictions of this section or any similar state or federal law and City may obtain reimbursement for any expenditures made to Developer as a result of the improper offer, agreement to confer, or conferring of a benefit to a City employee or official.
21
SECTION 19. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement is made subject to the provisions of the Charter and ordinances of City, as amended, and all applicable state and federal laws. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws and court decisions of the State of Texas, without regard to conflicts of law or choice of law principles of Texas or of any other state. SECTION 20. VENUE The obligations of the parties to this Agreement shall be performable in Dallas County, Texas. And, if legal action is necessary in connection with or to enforce rights under this Agreement, exclusive venue shall lie in Dallas County, Texas. SECTION 21. LEGAL CONSTRUCTION In the case that any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be considered as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Agreement. SECTION 22. CAPTIONS The captions to the various clauses of this Agreement are for informational purposes only and shall not alter the substance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. SECTION 23. WAIVERS Any waiver of default by either party of any term, covenant, and/or condition of this Agreement shall not be construed or operate as a waiver of any subsequent default of any other terms, covenants, and/or condition of this Agreement. SECTION 24. COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. If this Agreement is executed in counterparts, then it shall become fully executed only as of the execution of the last such counterpart called for by the terms of this Agreement to be executed. SECTION 25. ASSIGNMENT Except as provided herein, this Agreement shall not be assigned by Developer, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval from Director, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer may assign:
22
A. to DFMT (or its affiliate), the agreement to lease the Shed 1 tract, and the agreements to purchase the Shed 2 tract, and the auxiliary building and related property. Through such assignments, DFMT shall assume all obligations under this Agreement and the Supplemental Agreements with respect to the redevelopment, lease, operation, and maintenance of each property assigned to it, and upon such assumption, Developer shall be released by City from all such obligations with respect to the assigned properties (but not its other obligations under this Agreement or the Supplemental Agreements with respect to the remaining properties); and B. to affiliates of Developer, the agreements to purchase (i) the Shed 3 and Shed 4 tracts, and (ii) the remote parking area. Through such assignments, each such affiliate of Developer shall assume all obligations under this Agreement and the Supplemental Agreements with respect to the redevelopment, operation, and maintenance of the property assigned to it, and upon such assumption, Developer shall be released by City from all such obligations with respect to the assigned properties (but not its other obligations under this Agreement or the Supplemental Agreements with respect to the remaining properties). SECTION 26. SIGNATORY AUTHORIZATION City and Developer warrant that each has the authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party it represents. SECTION 27. AMENDMENTS; ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement (with all referenced exhibits, attachments, and provisions incorporated by reference) embodies the entire agreement of the parties, superseding all oral or written, previous and contemporary agreements between the parties relating to matters set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by written agreement of the parties, to be attached to and made a part of this Agreement. [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
23
EXECUTED AND EFFECTIVE as of the ________ day of ____________________, 2013, by City, signing by and through its City Manager, duly authorized to execute same by Resolution No. 13________, approved by the City Council on February 27, 2013, and by Developer, acting through its duly authorized officials. CITY OF DALLAS: MARY K. SUHM, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: THOMAS P. PERKINS, JR., City Attorney
By: _________________________ Ryan S. Evans Assistant City Manager
By: _________________________ Sarah F. Hasib Assistant City Attorney
RECOMMENDED BY DIRECTOR: _____________________________ Frank Karl Zavitkovsky Office of Economic Development DFM DEVELOPER, LTD a Texas limited partnership By:
DFM GP, LLC, a Texas limited liability company By: _________________________ Brian Bergersen President
24
ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS Resolution No. 13-________, approved by the Dallas City Council on February 27, 2013 Exhibit A
Depiction of Existing Project Site
Exhibit B
Depiction of Project Site after Redevelopment
Exhibit C
Map of Farmers Market TIF District Original Boundary and Expanded Boundary
Exhibit D
City’s TIF Districts’ Mixed Income Housing Guidelines
Exhibit E
City’s Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan
Exhibit F
Project Quarterly Status Report Form
25
Exhibit A Project Site IC
I 45
ELM
PRY
IF PAC
Disclaimer: This product is for informational purposes and
OR
MA I N may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal,
E
E CLOV
OO D W
MX
O U IS
M TI LA
S RI PA
ER
ER S M AR
Y
T
M KE
T CI
E RK MA
OR
D
R FA
IZ
YL TA
O GO
ET
D CA
D
ST L
RK
O
A
MA
LEY TET
LL HI OX
RW O
COL
NY
EK
S
BA
R EU
ER
AL
NG YOU HA
IL
DUS
RM FA
N O KS C JA
L N KSO JAC
VIRG
RC E
W CRO
P EAR
Âą
ME COM
R
TON CAN
RY HEN
I 45
M AL
OL I V
engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries.
T AR L
PA R
K
PE
N TO
C AN
K PAR
ILLA MA R
IZ
Project Site
SE UI
ST
L
W DA
IF GR
F
City of Dallas Office of Economic Development http://www.Dallas-EcoDev.org Created 1/2013
K
T
0.04
Z
0.08
ON
O
PA R
AN
ER VA Y
G
Farmers Market TIF Boundary IN R L THORNTON
0
N
LN
FIN
CH AV E
0.16 Miles ICK H L EL
GR I F
R
B UE BL
Legend
SA
BE AU M
C O
R
CE
SO
CO LIN
SI C AN
A
PA U
LO
U
IS
AD C
ST
LO
Y OR
r
1-"
~
....
_
'!"" .
(-=:;:
t"
- -. .i-
~r ...I loI
~ ; . 'L~' : ;~~~ "t
. ,
~
Exhibit B Farmers Market Area Redevelopment Plan
Exhibit C Farmers Market TIF District IC
I 45
ELM
PRY
IF PAC
Disclaimer: This product is for informational purposes and
OR
MA I N may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal,
E
E CLOV
OO D W
MX
O GO D
LEY TET
ER
Y
AR KE
T CI
S RI PA
M
K
S
LO C
T
ER
AY NO R
E RK MA
M
R RB
IZ
M TI LA
R FA
TE
D CA
D
O U IS
Original Farmers Market TIF
PE
O
COL
BA
ST L
NY
LL HI OX
RW O
OR TAYL
DUS
AL
NG YOU HA
IL
N O KS C JA
L N KSO JAC
VIRG
RC E
W CRO
P EAR
Âą
ME COM
R
TON CAN
RY HEN
I 45
M AL
OL I V
engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries.
T
N TO
YL TA
C AN
K PAR
ILLA MA R
K
LO
L
W DA
IF GR
F
City of Dallas Office of Economic Development http://www.Dallas-EcoDev.org Created 1/2013
PA R
AN
ER VA Y
K
G
0.04
Z
T
0
CH AV E
0.08
ON
Farmers Market TIF Boundary IN R L THORNTON
O
FIN
RL
0.16 Miles ICK H L EL
GR I F
R
N
LN
PE A
B UE BL
Legend
SA
BE AU M
C O
R
CE
SO
SE UI
CO LIN
SI C AN
A
PA U
PA R
Extended Zone
S
L AR
C AD
IZ
ST
UI LO
PE
ST
OR
Y OR
Exhibit D City of Dallas Tax Increment Finance Districts Mixed Income Housing Guidelines TIF Program Purpose The purpose of the City of Dallas’ TIF program is to promote development in underutilized and vacant areas through the use of public investment to attract private investment. The goals for the districts include improving the infrastructure within the districts and adding market rate apartments, single family homes, retail and commercial space, and office and professional space. Promoting housing for individuals and families at a variety of income levels is one of many policy considerations for the districts. General definitions Mixed income housing requires a minimum of 20% of all units to meet affordable housing standards. Affordable housing units are those which are affordable to a household earning 80% or less of the median family income for the Dallas Area. The 20% affordability requirement applies to both rental units and to units that are for sale. Requirements for for-sale units will be handled on a case-by-case basis. These guidelines primarily pertain to rental housing. Affordability period and rent rates Rental units must be affordable for a period of at least fifteen years, beginning from the date the project is complete per the development agreement. Income levels and maximum rent will vary each year and are based on HUD’s calculations for Area Median Income (AMI), utility expenses, and Market Rent for the Dallas Area. Maximum rents are set each year at 30% of 80% of AMI, including a utility allowance. Information pertaining to the maximum affordable rent and income levels that are currently in effect can be obtained from the Office of Economic Development. Affordable units A minimum of 20% of all occupied units shall be rented to qualifying households. The developer may choose to offer any available unit to qualifying households. The TIF program does not require that specific units or unit types be set aside for qualifying households. The 20% total requirement thus may be satisfied by any combination of units and need not apply to units of all sizes. 1
Affordable units shall be comparable in size and finish quality to market rate units and shall be dispersed throughout the development. Affordable units shall not be segregated into a particular section of the development and shall be a minimum of 500 square feet. Qualifying households A qualifying household is defined as a household making 80% or less of the Area Median Income. Developers may include wages, salaries, tips, commissions, social security income, etc. to certify a household’s income. The method used to determine income should be the same for qualifying and market rate households. Lease terms Households that qualify at the beginning of a lease will be assumed to qualify for the entirety of the term of that lease. Recertification is therefore only necessary during lease renewal. At the end of the lease, the new lease rates will be set based on the household’s current income at the time of renewal. Once a household qualifies as an affordable household, subsequent increases in the household income will not disqualify the household until the household’s income exceeds 140% of the allowed maximum qualifying income. If the household no longer qualifies for an affordable unit, the lease may be renewed at market rate and another unit made available for a qualifying household in order to maintain the 20% affordability requirement. Fees and leasing requirements In general, all leasing requirements and all fees, utility charges, assessments, fines, etc. charged by the apartment community must be applied uniformly to qualifying households and market rate households, with the exception that the developer may choose to waive or reduce fees for qualifying households and the developer may choose to set specific lease lengths for affordable units. Reporting Requirements Adequate reporting by developer, owner, or property manager shall be required to ensure that the City can appropriately monitor compliance with the policy. Projects receiving affordable housing funding under federal or state programs may choose to submit copies of compliance reports specific to the federal or state program in lieu of the TIF program report. Specific reporting requirements will be updated as necessary. Compliance The developer assumes all liability for compliance with these requirements and with all applicable laws. By participating in the City’s TIF program, the developer agrees to report all information
2
accurately and on time. At the City’s request, the developer agrees to produce necessary documentation for determining full compliance with this program. The affordability period shall be extended by six months for any number of units by which the affordable housing provided during a semi-annual period falls short of the number of units required to meet the affordable housing requirements. Noncompliance may result in termination of the development agreement, a reduction in TIF reimbursement, or other action as determined by the Office o f Economic Development. Request for waiver or minor modification of these requirements shall be submitted to the Office of Economic Development and will be negotiated on a project by project basis with the City and the County. The City may consider retainage of a percentage of TIF funding to ensure that in the event that the property is sold prior to the end of the 15 year compliance period, all successors and assigns will be required to provide affordable housing for the remainder of the affordability period. Alternative Methods A developer may propose alternative methods of meeting the requirements which provide affordable housing in a comparable location within or adjacent to the TIF district. Examples include a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project that provides a significant amount of affordable housing in a single time period, a land trust that provides for for-sale affordable units, a partnership with a non-profit provider of affordable housing, or provision of special needs housing. All proposed alternative methods will be considered on a case by case basis and must be approved by both the City and Dallas County. AFHMP An affirmative fair housing marketing plan is required for all housing projects supported with TIF funding. This requirement is detailed in each project’s development agreement. Each project will be evaluated individually to ensure that it furthers affirmative fair housing goals. Effective Date This policy is effective in each district as of the date it is approved by that district’s TIF board. The policy applies to developments with first occupancy on October 1, 2011 or later. Policy Modifications As needed, the City may make modifications or corrections to this policy to increase its effectiveness. Where these guidelines conflict with a district’s Final Plan, the Final Plan shall rule, as determined by the Director of the Office of Economic Development.
3
Exhibit E
CITY OF DALLAS AFFIRMATIVE FAIR HOUSING MARKETING PLAN COMPLETE FORM AND SUBMIT TO: FAIR HOUSING OFFICE CITY HALL • 1500 MARILLA ST., RM 1BN • DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 Ph. (214) 670-3247 • Fax (214) 670-0665 1. INTRODUCTION The Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Program requires that each City Assisted Housing Provider carry out an affirmative program to attract prospective buyers or tenants of all minority and non-minority groups to the housing that the applicant is providing. These groups include Whites (Non-Hispanic) and members of minority groups: African-American, Hispanics and others in the Dallas, Texas area who may be subject to housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial status. 2. APPLICATION AND PROJECT IDENTIFICATION A. APPLICANTS:
B.
PROJECT OR APPLICATION NUMBER
NAME:
NUMBER OF UNITS AVAILABLE:
ADDRESS (include city, state and zip code):
NUMBER OF UNITS LEASED OR SOLD: PRICE OR RENTAL RANGE OF UNITS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FROM $
C. PROJECT NAME:
D. FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ONLY: ELDERLY NON-ELDERLY
PROJECT ADDRESS:
TO: $
E.
APPROXIMATE STARTING DATE: ADVERTISING: OCCUPANCY:
F.
NAME OF MANAGING AGENT:
ADDRESS (include city, state and zip code):
CENSUS TRACT:
3. TYPE OF AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PLAN Project Plan
Annual Plan (For single family scattered site units)
NOTE: a separate Annual Plan must be developed for each type of census tract in which the house is to be built.
Minority Area
White (non-minority area)
Mixed Area (with
% minority residents)
4. DIRECTION OF MARKETING ACTIVITY Indicate below which group(s) in the housing market area are least likely to apply for the housing because of its location and other factors without special outreach efforts. White African-American Hispanic Other 5. MARKETING PROGRAM A. COMMERCIAL MEDIA Check the media to be used to advertise the availability of the housing. Newspaper(s)/Publication(s) Radio TV Billboard(s) NAME OF NEWSPAPER RADIO OR TV STATION (1)
RACIAL/ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION OF READERS/AUDIENCE (2)
Other (Specify) SIZE/DURATION OF ADVERTISING (3)
B. BROCHURES, SIGNS AND HUD’S FAIR HOUSING POSTER (1) Will brochures, leaflets or handouts be used to advertise? Yes No If yes, attach a copy or submit when available. (2) For project site sign; indicate sign size x ; Logotype size x . Attach a photograph or project sign or submit when available. (3) HUD’s Fair Housing Poster must be conspicuously displayed wherever sales/rentals and showings take place. Fair Housing Posters will be displayed in the Sales/Rental Office(s); Real Estate Office(s); Model Units; Other Rev. by Fair Housing Office 6/29/2004
C. COMMUNITY CONTACTS To further inform the group(s) least likely to apply about the availability of the housing, the applicant agrees to establish and maintain contact with the groups/organization listed below that are located in the housing market area or SMSA. If more space is need attach an additional sheet. Notify FHO of any changes in this list. Attach a copy of correspondence to be mailed to these group/organizations. (Provide all requested information) NAME OF GROUP/ RACIAL/ETHNIC APPROXIMATE DATE OF PERSON CONTACTED OR ORGANINZATION IDENTIFICATION CONTACT PROPOSED TO BE CONTACTED CONTACT (1) (2) (3) (4)
ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER
METHOD OF CONTACTS
(5)
(6)
INDICATE THE SPECIFIC FUNCTION GROUP/ORGANIZATION WILL UNDERTAKE IN IMPLEMENTING THE MARKETING PROGRAM (7)
6. FUTURE MARKETING ACTIVITIES (Rental Units Only) Check the block(s) that best describe future marketing activities to fill vacancies as they occur after the project has been initially occupied. Newspapers/Publications Radio TV Brochures/Leaflets/Handouts Site Signs Others (Specify) D. OCCUPANCY GOALS GOALS African-American Hispanic White Other
Race/Ethnic Origin:
% % % %
Race/Ethnic Origin:
CURRENT STATUS African-American Hispanic White Other
% % % %
7. EXPERIENCE AND STAFF INSTRUCTIONS (Attach description on separate sheet) A. Indicate any experience in marketing housing to the group(s) identified as least likely to apply Yes No B. Indicate training to be provided to staff on federal, state and local fair housing laws and regulations, as well as this AFHM Plan. Attach a copy of the instructions to staff regarding fair housing. 8. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:
9. By signing this form, the applicant agrees, after appropriate consultation with FHO, to change any part of the plan covering a multifamily protest to assure continued compliance with the City of Dallas Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Program. FOR FHO’S USE ONLY APPROVAL BY:
SIGNATURE OF PERSON SUBMITTING PLAN
DISAPPROVAL BY:
SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE:
NAME (Type or print):
NAME (Type or print):
NAME (Type or print):
TITLE:
TITLE:
TITLE:
COMPANY:
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
Rev. by Fair Housing Office 6/29/2004
Exhibit F Quarterly Project Status Report Prepared by DFM GP, LLC Project Name: Report Period: From: Project Start Date: Required Completion Date: Current Completion Date: Number of units completed:
To:
Briefly describe Project progress during this period:
Which documents did you submit to the City of Dallas Business Development & Procurement Services? When? Which documents did you submit to the City of Dallas Fair Housing Department? When? Describe any issues of concern with the City of Dallas (Office of Economic Development/Business Development & Procurement Services/ Fair Housing Department/Public Work and Transportation etc.)?
Attach 4-8 current construction progress pictures from four sides of the Project. By: DFM GP, LLC
Brian Bergersen
KEY FOCUS AREA:
Economic Vibrancy
AGENDA DATE:
February 27, 2013
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
2, 14
DEPARTMENT:
Office of Economic Development
CMO:
Ryan S. Evans, 670-3314
MAPSCO:
ADDENDUM ITEM # 2
45 L M Q and R ________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT Authorize a public hearing to be held on March 27, 2013 to receive comments on amendments to the Project and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six (the Farmers Market TIF District) to: (1) increase the geographic area of the Farmers Market TIF District to include properties located south and east of the existing boundary; (2) extend the term of the Farmers Market TIF District from September 30, 2013 to December 31, 2028; (3) increase the total Farmers Market TIF budget from $11,645,918 NPV ($22,733,724 total dollars) to $19,238,514 NPV ($33,955,605 total dollars), including the adjustment of various budget categories/line items; (4) decrease the percentage of tax increment contributed by the City of Dallas during the extended term of the TIF District and establish other taxing jurisdictions participation percentages; and (5) allow direct land sale to implement the plan and, at the close of the public hearing, consideration of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 23521, previously approved on May 27, 1998, and Ordinance No. 24001, previously approved on August 25, 1999, to reflect these amendments Financing: No cost consideration to the City BACKGROUND A public hearing is required any time the boundaries or budget of an existing TIF District is expanded. In 2009, state law was amended to allow the extension of a reinvestment zone’s termination date. As a result of the change in state law, the City amended its TIF Policy to establish standard criteria for extending a TIF district’s term. This action authorizes a public hearing to be held on March 27, 2013, to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to Farmers Market TIF District (the District) and its Project and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plans: A.
Increase the geographic area of the Farmers Market TIF District to include properties located south and east of the existing boundary;
BACKGROUND (Continued) B.
Extend the term of the Farmers Market TIF District from September 30, 2013 to December 31, 2028;
C.
Increase the total Farmers Market TIF budget from $11,645,918 NPV ($22,733,724 total dollars) to $19,238,514 NPV ($33,955,605 total dollars);
D.
Increase the TIF Administration budget line item from $570,000 NPV ($1,112,684 total dollars) to $765,000 NPV ($1,700,000 total dollars);
E.
Decrease Deep Ellum Connector budget line item from $788,555 NPV ($1,539,320 total dollars) to $197,138 NPV ($672,970 total dollars);
F.
Decrease Phase IB budget line item from $1,345,734 NPV ($2,626,976 total dollars) to $336,434 NPV ($742,031 total dollars);
G.
Decrease Phase II budget line item from $4,129,284 NPV ($8,060,679 total dollars) to $1,666,033 NPV ($3,252,225 total dollars);
H.
Decrease Harlan Building budget line item from $646,900 NPV ($1,268,655 total dollars) to $162,475 NPV ($701,142 total dollars);
I.
Include a new TIF budget line item the Farmers Market Area Improvements in the amount of $11,948,989 NPV ($18,761,827 total dollars);
J.
Decrease the percentage of tax increment contributed by the City of Dallas during the extended term of the TIF District from 100% to 90% and establish other taxing jurisdictions participation percentages; and
K.
Allow direct land sale to implement the plan
The Farmers Market TIF District was created in 1998 to promote the development of an infill neighborhood near the Dallas Farmers Market. When the District was created, the majority of property within the District was controlled by Camden Property Trust (“Camden�). Camden developed 904 apartments and 17 townhomes. Later, other developers developed an additional 72 town homes (to date) with another 108 currently under construction. The Dallas Farmers Market area was not part of the District as it was non-taxable. In the thirteen years since the inception of the District, the property values have grown by over 303 percent. Changing trends in grocery stores and neighborhood farmer markets have changed the role of the Dallas Farmers Market. City management of the existing facility, coupled with these changing market conditions, led to large operating losses between 2005 and 2012. The City decided to investigate private management of the Dallas Farmers Market and the potential sale of surplus property.
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 2
BACKGROUND (Continued) In 2012, the City of Dallas initiated an effort to promote the redevelopment of the Dallas Farmers Market, including the potential sale of much of the land to a qualified private developer. The City circulated an RFP and reviewed the two proposals submitted. The selected redevelopment proposal calls for the lease of the existing Shed 1 for the permanent farmers market and sale of the remaining property, excluding public rights-of-way. Public financial incentives are needed to facilitate this needed repurposing of the Dallas Farmers Market. One of the necessary financial incentives to redevelop the Farmers Market is TIF funds, which requires various amendments to the Farmers Market TIF District Project and Financing Plan. The purpose of this Amended Plan is to: (1) increase the boundaries of the Farmers Market TIF District to include the property currently known as the Dallas Farmers Market; (2) extend the term of the Farmers Market for an additional 15 years beyond its current expiration date from September 30, 3013 to December 31, 2028; (3) increase the budget of the Farmers Market TIF District to provide development incentives related to the redevelopment of the Dallas Farmers Market property; (4) to encourage the redevelopment and rebranding of the Dallas Farmers Market; (5) improve public infrastructure within the Dallas Farmers Market; and (6) allow for a directed sale of a portion of the Dallas Farmers Market to a developer whose redevelopment plan for the site matches the City’s goals for the site. The total current dollar budget is proposed to increase by $11,221,881 (from $22,733,724 to $33,955,605) and reducing other line items to create a new line item called the Farmers Market Area Improvements to: redevelop Shed 1 to retain and reconfigure for the farmers market operations; redevelop Shed 2 for restaurant and specialty food vendors; redevelop Shed 3 and Shed 4 for mixed-use development and parking for residential and restaurant uses; reconfigure the operations of the auxiliary building; redevelop area across southbound Cesar Chavez Boulevard for outdoor activities like futsal fields and community garden; improvements to Peal Street and Taylor Street for outdoor public festivals/activities. The anticipated effect of these redevelopment activities in the Farmers Market area are projected to stimulate redevelopment in the remaining vacant lands in the Farmers Market TIF District. It is projected that an additional 1,700 housing units and 100,000 square feet of commercial, restaurant and farmers market space will be developed within the TIF district.
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 3
BACKGROUND (Continued) Financially, the proposed amendments will cause the tax base of the City to increase by approximately $2,270,778 in new private investment as a result of development projects within the Farmers Market TIF District by 2028. More importantly, when the Farmers Market TIF expires, the amount of funds flowing to the General fund will be approximately $28.2 million starting in 2029 as compared to $5.7 million in 2012 if the term is not extended. On March 27, 2013, following the public hearing, the requested amendments will be considered by City Council. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) On May 27, 1998, City Council authorized the establishment of Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six, the Farmers Market TIF District by Ordinance No. 23521. On August 25, 1999, City Council authorized the Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for the Farmers Market TIF District, as amended, by Ordinance No. 24001. On January 28, 2013, the Farmers Market TIF District Board of Directors recommended approval of the amendments to the Farmers Market TIF District Project and Financing Plan. On February 20, 2013, City Council was briefed on the Farmers Market TIF Project Plan Amendment and Master Agreement. FISCAL INFORMATION No cost consideration to the City MAP Attached.
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 4
Farmers Market TIF District Extended Boundary EL M
V ER CLO
I 45
IL VIRG
US
N
E
W
KA
TI LA
OR
OD GO
T
M ER
R FA AR
Y
S RI PA
M KE
T CI
ET
S ER
AY K L OC N OR
RK MA
M
BR
Z
LL HI OX
DI
R TE
L AR CA
YL TA
PE
LEY TET
KE AR
G
E UR
M
NY
ZONE
PE
YO
BA
S ER
OO D
M
AL
UN G YO N U
TON
WD CRO
O
E
R FA
JA
S CK
CA N
RY
5 EL M
I 45
C MER CO M
HEN
MAIN
I4
D
ST
U LO
AR L
O O
OR
IS
PE
C AD
PE
AR L
K
EXTENDED ZONE
CO
RS
IC AN
A
PA R
YL TA
5
AR W
IZ
H
I4
CA N
TO
N
T
ILLA MA R
U PA
CO L IN
ST
Disclaimer: This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries.
L
G
City of Dallas Office of Economic Development http://www.Dallas-EcoDev.org Created 1/2013
PA 0 R K
0.04
0.08
G AN O
N R L THORNTON
FI Market TIF Extended Zone Farmers RIF
CH AV E
Z
NT
Farmers Market TIF Boundary - Zone
ER VA Y
R
0.16 Miles BE AU MO
FIN GRIF
SA
Âą
LL BE UE BL
Legend
LN
CE
CK HI
Y OR
COUNCIL CHAMBER
February 27, 2013 WHEREAS, the City recognizes the importance of its role in local economic development initiatives and programs; and WHEREAS, the City has established Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six, (“Farmers Market TIF District” or “District”) and established a Board of Directors for the District to promote development or redevelopment in the Farmers Market area pursuant to Ordinance No. 23521, authorized by the City Council on May 27, 1998, as authorized by the Tax Increment Financing Act, Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code (“Act”), as amended; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 1999, City Council authorized the Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for the Farmers Market TIF District by Ordinance No. 24001, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that if an amendment reduces or increases the geographic area of the zone, increases the amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, increases or decreases the percentage of a tax increment to be contributed by a taxing unit, increases the total estimated project costs, or designates additional property in the zone to be acquired by the municipality, the approval must be by ordinance after the City holds a public hearing on such amendments and provide interested persons the opportunity to speak and present evidence for or against such amendments; and WHEREAS, the City desires, by the calling and holding of such public hearing, to provide a reasonable opportunity for any owner of property located within the Farmers Market TIF District, any other taxing districts, and any other interested persons to speak for or against the amendments; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2013, the Farmers Market TIF District Board of Directors recommended approval of amendments to the Project and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for the Farmers Market TIF District to: (1) increase the geographic area of the Farmers Market TIF District to include properties located south and east of the existing boundary; (2) extend the term of the Farmers Market TIF District from September 30, 2013 to December 31, 2028; (3) increase the total Farmers Market TIF budget from $11,645,918 NPV ($22,733,724 total dollars) to $19,238,514 NPV ($33,955,605 total dollars), including the adjustment of various budget categories/line items; (4) decrease the percentage of tax increment contributed by the City of Dallas during the extended term of the TIF District and establish other taxing jurisdictions participation percentages; and (5) allow direct land sale to implement the plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS:
COUNCIL CHAMBER
February 27, 2013 Section 1. That a public hearing shall be held at 1:00 p.m. on March 27, 2013, in the City Council Chambers, Dallas City Hall, 6th Floor, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas, at which time any interested person may appear and speak for or against any of the following proposed amendments to the Project and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six (the Farmers Market TIF District): A.
Increase the geographic area of the Farmers Market TIF District to include properties located south and east of the existing boundary;
B.
Extend the term of the Farmers Market TIF District from September 30, 2013 to December 31, 2028;
C.
Increase the total Farmers Market TIF budget from $11,645,918 NPV ($22,733,724 total dollars) to $19,238,514 NPV ($33,955,605 total dollars);
D.
Increase the TIF Administration budget line item from $570,000 NPV ($1,112,684 total dollars) to $765,000 NPV ($1,700,000 total dollars);
E.
Decrease Deep Ellum Connector budget line item from $788,555 NPV ($1,539,320 total dollars) to $197,138 NPV ($672,970 total dollars);
F.
Decrease Phase IB budget line item from $1,345,734 NPV ($2,626,976 total dollars) to $336,434 NPV ($742,031 total dollars);
G.
Decrease Phase II budget line item from $4,129,284 NPV ($8,060,679 total dollars) to $1,666,033 NPV ($3,252,225 total dollars);
H.
Decrease Harlan Building budget line item from $646,900 NPV ($1,268,655 total dollars) to $162,475 NPV ($701,142 total dollars);
I.
Include a new TIF budget line item the Farmers Market Area Improvements in the amount of $11,948,989 NPV ($18,761,827 total dollars);
J.
Decrease the percentage of tax increment contributed by the City of Dallas during the extended term of the TIF District from 100% to 90% and establish other taxing jurisdictions participation percentages; and
K.
Allow direct land sale to implement the plan
COUNCIL CHAMBER
February 27, 2013 Section 2. That notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City of Dallas not later than seven (7) days prior to the date of such hearing, and that written notice of such hearing along with a copy of this resolution shall be delivered in writing to the presiding officer of the governing body of each taxing unit that includes in its boundaries real property that is to be included in the proposed reinvestment zone. Section 3. That after the public hearing is closed; City Council shall consider an ordinance adopting the proposed amendments to the Project and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six (the Farmers Market TIF District), as listed in Section 1 of this resolution, which are further reflected in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Section 4. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is accordingly so resolved.
Farmers Market TIF District Exhibit A EL M
VE CLO HEN
Disclaimer: This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries.
B AL
AN
Farmers Market TIF - Original Boundary
Y
EY
M ER
KE
D
ST
LT
5
RL
IS
I4
PE A
IZ AD C
U LO
L
O O
AR
AR W
OR
PE
H
YL TA
R
ILLA MA R
HO
RN
TO N
CA N
T
TO N
TI LA
AR
Y
S RI PA
M
T CI
S
K L OC N OR
ET
ER
Z
RK MA
OR
RM FA
ILL
DI
Y RA
H OX
RB
L
TE
AR CA
YL TA
PE
L TET
OD GO
G YOUNG UN
PE
YO
IL VIRG
N
W OO D
SO
E
S W DU
CK JA
C MER
TON CRO
COM
CA N
RY
MAIN
R
Farmers Market TIF - Extended Boundary K
CO
R
SI
CA N
A
PA R
ST
0 R L THOR
City of Dallas Office of Economic Development http://www.Dallas-EcoDev.org Created 1/2013
CE
0.03 SA 0.06 R
NTON
CH
AV E
BLU0.12 EBELMiles L
Z
Legend Farmers Market TIF Extended Zone Farmers Market TIF Boundary
LN
Âą L
CO LIN
PA U
Exhibit B
Farmers Market
Tax Increment Financing District
Amended and Restated Project Plan And
Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan August 25, 1999 Amended May 9, 2012
Approved - August 25, 1999 Amended – May 9, 2001 June 25, 2003 March 27, 2013
Acknowledgements The Farmers Market TIF District Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan was originally prepared by Mark Stein. The amended and restated plan was prepared by the City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development. The Office of Economic Development wishes to acknowledge the efforts of everyone who contributed to the development of this plan, including the following organizations and individuals: City of Dallas Mary Suhm Ryan Evans Karl Zavitkovsky Karl Stundins Vasavi Pilla Barbara Martinez Sarah Hasib
City Manager First Assistant City Manager Director, Office of Economic Development (OED) Area Redevelopment Manager, OED Economic Development Analyst, OED Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
Current Dallas City Council Mayor Mike Rawlings Mayor Pro Tem Pauline Medrano Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Tennell Atkins Delia Jasso Scott Griggs Dwaine R. Caraway Vonciel Jones Hill Monica R. Alonzo
Carolyn R. Davis Sheffie Kadane Jerry R. Allen Linda Koop Sandy Greyson Ann Margolin Angela Hunt
Farmers Market TIF Board of Directors Zane Aveton Brett Combs Gene Hargrove Rick Loessberg Lily Mak Ross Martin John W. Miller Neal Sleeper Other Stein Planning, LLC – Mark Stein
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 2
Table of Contents Section 1: Amended and Restated Project Plan
5
Background
5
Exhibit A: Zone and Extended Zone Map
6
Exhibit B: Zone and Extended Zone Land Use Map
7
Development Goals and Objectives
8
Section 2: Tax Increment Financing Explained
9
Exhibit C: TIF Financial Impact
10
Section 3: Project Plan Improvements
11
Original Plan Improvements
11
Amended and Restated Improvements
12
Exhibit D - Public Improvement Map
14
Taxable Private Improvements
15
Exhibit E: List of Anticipated Developments
15
Exhibit F – Anticipated Development Location Map
16
Section 4: Amended and Restated Financing Plan
17
Financing Plan
17
Exhibit G: Farmers Market TIF District Project Plan Budget
17
Project Costs
17
Exhibit H: Planned Improvements
19
TIF District Policy Considerations
21
Financial Assumptions
22
Exhibit I: Increment Projections
23
Financial Feasibility
24
Financial Policies
24
Appendix A: Farmers Market TIF District Original Land Uses
26
Appendix B: Farmers Market TIF District Original Existing Conditions
27
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 3
Appendix C: Zone – Current land uses
28
Appendix D: Farmers Market TIF District Zoning Map
29
Appendix E: Grant Program
30
Appendix F: DCAD Real Property Account in the Farmers Market TIF District – Original Boundary
33
Appendix G: Original Zone Planned Improvements
36
Appendix H: Inventory of Accounts in the Extended Zone
40
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 4
Section 1: Amended and Restated Project Plan Background The Dallas City Council (the “Council”) established the Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six, City of Dallas, Texas (the “Zone”) by City Ordinance 23521 on May 27, 1998 with the intent of promoting the development of an infill neighborhood near the Dallas Farmers Market. Since the Dallas Farmers Market was non-taxable, it was not included within the boundaries of the Zone. Initially, most of the property located within the Farmers Market TIF District was controlled by Camden Property Trust (“Camden”). Camden developed 904 apartments and 17 townhomes. Other developers in the Zone are Perry Homes, Intown Homes LLC and Craig Melde. These developers have built an additional 72 town homes (to date) with another 108 currently under construction. The Farmers Market TIF District assisted these projects with funding for public infrastructure improvements needed to promote this redevelopment activity. In 2012, the City of Dallas initiated an effort to promote the redevelopment of the Dallas Farmers Market, including the potential sale of much of the land to a qualified private developer. The City circulated an RFP and reviewed the two proposals submitted. The selected redevelopment proposal calls for the lease of the existing Shed 1 for the permanent farmers market and sale of the remaining property, excluding public rights-of-way. Public financial incentives are needed to facilitate this needed repurposing of the Dallas Farmers Market. The purpose of this Amended Plan is to: 1) increase the boundaries of the Farmers Market TIF District to include the property currently known as the Dallas Farmers Market; 2) extend the term of the Farmers Market for an additional 15 years beyond its current expiration date from September 30, 3013 to December 31, 2028; 3) increase the budget of the Farmers Market TIF District to provide development incentives related to the redevelopment of the Dallas Farmers Market property; 4) to encourage the redevelopment and rebranding of the Dallas Farmers Market; 5) improve public infrastructure within the Dallas Farmers Market; and 6) allow for a directed sale of a portion of the Dallas Farmers Market to a developer whose redevelopment plan for the site matches the City’s goals for the site. Specifically, this document amends the Original Plan to achieve the following: (a) increase the boundaries as shown in Exhibit A called “Extended Zone”; (b) add new line items to include public improvements costs, called “project costs” and thus reimbursable out of the TIF Fund as specified in this Amended Plan; (c) extend the term of the Zone from September 30, 2013 to December 31, 2028; (d) ________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 5
decrease the percentage of tax increment contributed by the City of Dallas during the extended term from 100% to 90% and request County participation at 55% and establish tax increment percentages for Zone and Extended Zone; (e) update and modify development and revenue forecasts for the Zone; and (f) create an Economic Development Grant program for the Farmers Market TIF District, as set forth in Appendix E. Exhibit A provides information on the original and amended boundary of the Farmers Market TIF District and Exhibit B provides land use information.
Exhibit A: Zone and Extended Zone Map
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 6
Exhibit B: Zone and Extended Zone Land Use Map
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 7
Development Goals and Objectives The following development goals will meet the specific needs of the Farmers Market TIF District: •
Goal 1 – Create additional taxable value attributable to new private investment in projects in the Farmers Market TIF District totaling approximately $114,000,000 over the term of the District.
•
Goal 2 – Create urban neighborhood in southeast quadrant of downtown that capitalizes on proximity to the Dallas Farmers Market and supports concepts developed in the Downtown 360 Plan.
•
Goal 3 – Facilitate redevelopment of the current Dallas Farmers Market area to adapt to changing market conditions and anchor the neighborhood.
•
Goal 4 – Improve pedestrian, transit, bicycle and vehicular connections from the Farmers Market TIF District to the Downtown Core, Government District, Deep Ellum Entertainment District and Dallas Heritage Village/Cedars neighborhood.
•
Goal 5 – Generate approximately $16.5 million in total TIF collections through the end of the term of the TIF District in 2028 (final collection in 2029).
•
Goal 6 – Diversify retail and commercial uses in the Farmers Market TIF District.
•
Goal 7 – Encourage the development of housing in the Farmers Market TIF District that is available to households with diverse income levels.
•
Goal 8 – Develop 1,700 housing units within the Farmers Market TIF District; and 100,000 square feet of commercial, restaurant and farmers market space.
•
Goal 9 – Encourage the redevelopment of the current Dallas Farmers Market are including the sale of some City-owned property in the area and some street reconfigured to create a more usable site.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 8
Section 2: Tax Increment Financing Explained Tax increment financing (“TIF”) is a tool Texas local governments use to encourage redevelopment within a defined area. TIF funds can be used to fund a variety of improvements that benefit the public. These TIF financial contributions are intended to attract new investment to the defined area in an effort to increase property value. The primary statute governing tax increment financing is codified in Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code, as amended. A municipality makes an area eligible for tax increment financing by designating a reinvestment zone (e.g., the Zone). Costs of specified improvements/grants within a reinvestment zone may be paid or reimbursed by property tax revenues generated from appreciated real property in the reinvestment zone. The additional tax dollars generated by growth of real property values in a reinvestment zone are called the “tax increment.” The tax increment flows to a tax increment fund (e.g., the TIF Fund) for a specified term of years. For the Zone, tax increments on real property levied through December 31, 2028 will flow to the TIF Fund. Money flowing to the TIF Fund each year will be disbursed according to this Amended Plan and agreements approved by the Board of Directors of the Zone (the “TIF Board”) and adopted by the City. Exhibit C generally shows how tax revenues from real properties in a reinvestment zone flow to taxing units and the tax increment fund. Exhibit C assumes real property values in the reinvestment zone rise after the reinvestment zone’s designation. Under certain TIF programs, cash accumulates in the tax increment fund and is used to purchase public improvements on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. More commonly, as with the Zone, a private developer or a public agency will provide cash to construct public improvements, with the tax increment fund eventually reimbursing the private developer or public agency for its costs plus reasonable interest.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 9
Exhibit C: TIF Financial Impact
$6,000,000
$5,000,000 Year $4,000,000 Tax increment to TIF Fund
$3,000,000
Total tax contributio n by Juris
$2,000,000
Tax increment retained by jurisdiction
$1,000,000
$0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Municipalities may create reinvestment zones for tax increment financing. Once created, school districts, counties, hospital districts and college districts may participate in TIF programs. Each taxing unit may choose to dedicate to the tax increment fund all, a portion or none of the additional tax revenue attributable to increased real property value in the reinvestment zone. Inclusion of a property in a reinvestment zone does not change the property tax rate for such property. Tax rates in a reinvestment zone are the same as tax rates outside the reinvestment zone, within the same set of taxing jurisdictions.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 10
Section 3: Project Plan Improvements Original Plan Improvements The Original Plan improvements for the Farmers Market TIF District were very project oriented. Phase IA, Phase IB and Phase II improvements were related to the Camden development plan. Funding was designated for work on the improvements like: infrastructure, traffic, demolition, streetscape, utility relocation, public art, engineering, construction management, and other related improvements. Deep Ellum Connector improvements provided TIF funding to improve the connectivity between the Farmers Market TIF District and Deep Ellum. Funding under this category was designated for: infrastructure, paving, streetscape, engineering, construction management, lighting, park and open space improvement and other related improvements. The Farmers Market TIF District Plan was amended in June 2003 to include an additional category – Harlan Building Redevelopment. This category was established to provide financial incentives related to the redevelopment of the historic Harlan Building. Specifically for improvements like: environmental remediation, interior/exterior demolition, historic façade restoration, design, engineering and other related improvements. The Original Plan improvements (which public improvements are substantially complete) are shown in Appendix G (Exhibit G-1, Exhibit G-2, Exhibit G3 and Exhibit G-4).
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 11
Amended and Restated Improvements In the thirteen years since the adoption of the Original Plan, significant private investment has occurred in the Zone. Property values have grown by over 303.1 percent. Changing trends in grocery stores and neighborhood farmer markets have changed the role of the Dallas Farmers Market. City management of the existing facility, coupled with these changing market conditions, led to large operating losses between 2005 and 2012. The City decided to investigate private management of the Dallas Farmers Market and the potential sale of surplus property. A new budget category is included in this Amended Plan, Farmers Market Area Improvements. This category includes the following eligible expenditures: -
TIF Grants consistent with Appendix E, Farmers Market TIF District Economic Development Grant Program;
-
Environmental remediation, interior and exterior demolition, historic façade restoration;
-
Infrastructure improvements including utility improvements and relocation, street and streetscape improvements, burial of utility lines;
-
to Offset the cost of providing affordable housing in new residential development; and
-
Public parking and public open space improvements.
The following specific goals are intended to set the framework for the planned amended and restated improvements Exhibit D within the Farmers Market TIF District: •
Upgrade basic infrastructure including streetscape improvements, utilities, storm drainage, and water/wastewater lines to support new development in the Farmers Market TIF District.
•
Provide grant funding for professional services related to identifying and resolving parking constraints.
•
Provide funding for technical studies related to rebranding and marketing of the Dallas Farmers Market.
•
Provide grant funding for adaptive reuse of existing buildings in the current Dallas Farmers Market area.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 12
•
Improve the pedestrian environment through plaza and sidewalk improvements, landscaping, lighting, design standards, and burial of overhead utilities, including improved pedestrian connections throughout the Farmers Market TIF District.
•
Encourage creation of new residential, retail, office, and mixed-use developments to complement the Farmers Market TIF District.
•
Encourage the development of mixed income housing within the Farmers Market TIF District.
•
Provide funding to pay administrative costs, including reasonable charges for the time spent by employees of the municipality and/or employees associated with any non-profit groups established to assist with implementation within the Farmers Market TIF District, will be eligible for reimbursement as project costs, upon approval by the TIF Board and in connection with the implementation of the Amended Plan. Other related administrative expenses including legal fees and consulting fees of the City, management expenses, meeting expenditures, and equipment are included in this category.
•
Use Economic Development Grants to achieve the goals of the Amended Plan. Legislation allows the City to make economic development loans or grants for the public purposes of developing and diversifying the economy of the Farmers Market TIF District. Projects receiving such loans or grants must (1) comply with the Economic Development Grant program on Appendix E; (2) be consistent with the goals and objectives of this Amended Plan; and (3) be subject to specific project agreements requiring City Council approval. Economic Development Grant projects must be one of the following types of development: • • • • • • •
Parking development and consulting services; Mixed-income and workforce housing development; Retail or office development; High density development, especially that which requires a parking garage Improvements that enhance the physical connection between the Dallas Farmers Market and other Greater Downtown Area Venues New entertainment development Adaptive reuse of existing buildings, including studies and plans
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 13
Exhibit D - Public Improvement Map
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 14
Taxable Private Improvements It is anticipated that the private development in the Farmers Market TIF District will occur in phases. In total over the next five to seven years, it is estimated that an additional $114,000,000 in new private development and appreciation will occur within the Farmers Market TIF District boundaries. Most of this development will occur on land currently utilized for the Dallas Farmers Market. See Exhibit E for a list of anticipated development in the Farmers Market TIF District and Exhibit F for the location of projects within the district. This new development is expected to reinforce the Dallas Farmers Market as a downtown Dallas destination. TIF revenue projections anticipate an overall three percent appreciation rate for property over the extended term of the Farmers Market TIF District.
Exhibit E: List of Anticipated Developments
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 15
Exhibit F – Anticipated Development Location Map
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 16
Section 4: Amended and Restated Financing Plan Financing Plan The following is the budget of the Amended Plan:
Exhibit G: Farmers Market TIF District Project Plan Budget Old budget categories
Budget Item Phase IA Deep Ellum Connector Phase IB Phase II** Harlan Building Farmers Market Area Improvements Open space improvements Parking Other Projects Economic Development Grant TIF Administration Total
Total Budget (1999 $)
New budget categories Total Budget (current $)
Total Spent and Committed** New Budget (1999)
New budget (current)
Total Spent and Committed**
Remaining
$4,162,445 $788,555 $1,345,734 $4,129,284 $649,900
$8,125,410 $1,539,320 $2,626,976 $8,060,679 $1,268,655
$8,125,410 $672,970 $742,031 $3,252,225 $701,142
$4,162,445 $197,138 $336,434 $1,666,033 $162,475 $11,948,989
$8,125,410 $672,970 $742,031 $3,252,225 $701,142 $18,761,827
$8,125,410 $672,970 $742,031 $3,252,225 $701,142 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,761,827
$570,000
$1,112,684
$490,695
$765,000
$1,700,000
$490,695
$1,209,305
$11,645,918
$22,733,724
$13,984,473
$19,238,514
$33,955,605
$13,984,473
$19,971,132
Project Costs Any TIF funded improvements in the Zone will require the applicant follow the TIF design review process. Additionally, TIF improvements and projects funded with Economic Development Grants will also follow the Zone’s design review process. The following describes the Farmers Market TIF District’s eligible TIF Project Costs, for which the developer and the City will be reimbursed: Original Plan Improvements – The Original Plan improvements for the Farmers Market TIF District were project oriented. The improvement categories included: Phase IA, Phase IB and Phase II improvements related to the Camden development plan, Deep Ellum Connector improvements and Harlan Building Redevelopment. These categories provided financial incentives related to the redevelopment of the Zone, for the TIF eligible improvements: environmental remediation, interior/exterior demolition, historic façade restoration, design, engineering, infrastructure improvements, traffic, paving, streetscape, engineering, construction management, lighting, park and open space improvements and other related improvements. Administration and Implementation – Administration costs, including reasonable charges for time spent by the municipality’s employees, will be eligible for reimbursement as project costs, in connection with the implementation of the Amended Plan. Other TIF-related administrative expenses are included in this category. ________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 17
It is estimated that approximately $765,000 (in 1999 dollars) will be needed for the administration and implementation of the TIF Plan. Cash available in the TIF Fund for reimbursement will be paid promptly upon receipt of proper documentation of expenses, as set forth in the applicable reimbursement agreement between the developer and the City. Amended and Restated Plan Improvements – A new funding category is included, Farmers Market Area Improvements. Exhibit H show planned improvements for the current Dallas Farmers Market area. The development plan for the Dallas Farmers Market area calls for redevelop shed 1 to retain and reconfigure for the farmers market operations; redevelop shed 2 for restaurant and specialty food vendors; redevelop shed 3 and shed 4 for mixed-use development and parking for residential and restaurant uses; reconfigure the operations of the auxiliary building; redevelop area across southbound Cesar Chavez Boulevard for outdoor activities like futsal fields and community garden; improvements to Peal Street and Taylor Street for outdoor public festivals/activities. These redevelopment activities in the current Dallas Farmers Market area are projected to stimulate the redevelopment in the remaining vacant lands in the Expanded Zone. Farmers Market Area Improvements category includes the following eligible expenditures: -
Open space and Infrastructure improvements including utility improvements and relocation, street and streetscape improvements, burial of utility lines and associated engineering and design expenses;
-
Economic Development Grants consistent with Appendix E, Farmers Market TIF District Economic Development Grant Program;
-
Encourage commercial and residential development; and
-
Public parking and public open space improvements.
Total TIF funding available for these expenditures is $11,948,989 (in 1999 dollars).
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 18
Exhibit H: Planned Improvements
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 19
State law permits the City and Farmers Market TIF Board to consider making direct grants as necessary or convenient to implement this Amended Plan. The TIF Board may provide for a program to make economic development loans or grants from TIF funds in an aggregate amount not to exceed the amount of tax increment produced by the City and paid into the tax increment fund for the Farmers Market TIF District. Projects receiving such loans or grants must be consistent with the goals and objectives of this Amended Plan and would be subject to specific project agreements that require City Council approval. The City will implement sufficient controls to ensure that any grant funding provided will be used to satisfy at least one of the development goals and objectives stated in the Economic Development Grant Program Exhibit E. The financing plan allows for the sale of TIF Bond funds if it promotes the financial interests of the City of Dallas and the Farmers Market TIF District. Interest Rate – Interest payments may be included in TIF financial incentives for individual projects, subject to negotiation. If negotiated to be included in the incentive package, the interest rate on project costs funded by the developer will be a fixed rate established when the reimbursement agreement is approved by the Council, and shall equal the lesser of five percent or the annual percentage rate for Baa-rated TIF bonds in comparable U.S. markets at the time the reimbursement agreement is approved. Interest shall not begin to accrue until a project is completed and all terms of the related TIF Development Agreement are satisfied.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 20
TIF District Policy Considerations Mixed Income Housing Policy Twenty percent of all housing units provided by projects using TIF funds must meet the City and County established criteria for affordable housing. Affordable housing units are those which are affordable to a household earning 80 percent or below of the median family income for the Dallas metropolitan area. A developer may, subject to City and County approval, and subject to the Farmers Market TIF District Mixed Income Housing Policy, propose an alternative means of fulfilling the City’s and County’s affordable housing requirement. If the Policy allows affordable housing outside the Farmers Market TIF District, and those units are placed within the boundaries of another TIF district, the developer must also secure approval for the affordable housing units within the respective district’s boundaries from the respective TIF district's board of directors unless that board formally declines to review the project. Business Inclusion and Development (BID) Plan All TIF-funded projects must follow the City’s adopted Business Inclusion and Development Plan (BID). This policy outlines goals for certified Minority and Women-Owned Business (M/WBE) participation in publicly funded infrastructure projects. The BID Plan goal is 25 percent for construction of public improvements. The goal for private improvements is negotiated in the development agreement. The process for BID compliance and City oversight will be negotiated with City staff and included in the development agreement for each individual project. Creating Permanent Jobs for Area Residents TIF applicants must agree to sponsor job fairs or other programs to attract neighborhood residents to any permanent jobs created in the development. Design Review/Peer Review Process All new projects developed in the district shall be required to follow this review process. Non-TIF-funded projects may choose to follow this process also. Conformance to design standards for non-TIF-funded projects is voluntary but strongly encouraged to maintain the design focus of the implementation of the Farmers Market TIF Plan. TIF District Design Guidelines for new development and redevelopment in the Farmers Market TIF District have been adopted by the Farmers Market TIF District board. Existing Resident Displacement The Act requires that existing resident displacement be minimized. ________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 21
Financial Assumptions The key factors influencing the financial feasibility study and its conclusions are the financial assumptions that have been adopted. Inflation. The generally accepted inflation for construction costs and the value of improvements is 3 percent per annum. Based on current market rates, net present values of the tax increment were calculated at a discount rate of 5 percent per annum the Zone. Appreciation. Property appreciation is assumed to be 1.5 percent per annum on average. Tax Rate Changes. Although tax rates will likely increase during the development period, the financial plan conservatively assumes that the 2012 tax rate will remain constant for the life of the Farmers Market TIF District, except to incorporate tax rate changes when known. Remittance to the TIF Fund. The Farmers Market TIF District is expected to terminate December 31, 2028. TIF collections will terminate once the TIF budget $19,238,514 has been collected or December 31, 2028, whichever occurs first. Based on current development projections, the TIF budget is expected to be reached in 2028. Annual percentages of collected annual tax increments invested in the TIF fund by the City of Dallas will be 90 percent of total collected incremental revenue. Provided Dallas County agrees to participate during the extended term of the Zone. Exhibit I includes County tax increments. It assumes that 55% of County tax increment will be invested in the TIF fund for a fifteen year period beginning in FY 2013. County participation will be pursuant to a participation agreement by the Dallas County Commissioners Court. Early termination. The Council may terminate the Farmers Market TIF District earlier than 2028 if all obligations of the TIF have been satisfied. The Council may also terminate the Farmers Market TIF District within three years after adoption of this Amended if there are no financial obligations, or within five years after adoption of this Amended if an investment of at least $100,000,000 does not occur.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 22
Exhibit I: Increment Projections
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 23
Financial Feasibility The private development plans, public improvement program, general financing strategy, and financial assumptions were all included in a preliminary assessment prepared by the City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development. The study is intended to be used as part of the economic feasibility study for the District in accordance with the provisions of Section 311.011, Texas Tax Code, and is available upon request. Cumulative private development is expected to increase property value in the Expanded Zone to approximately $114,000,000 during the term of the Farmers Market TIF District. If revenues are received at the predicted rate, increment collections will be reached and final project improvements completed during the TIF term. On a strict “pay-as-you-go” basis, the progress of the public improvements portion of the development program is a direct result of the revenues received and matched by the City’s contributions. Therefore, if revenues exceed these projections, then the public improvements can be completed ahead of schedule. If revenues do not meet expectations, then the pace of public improvements will be slowed or discontinued altogether based upon the recommendation of the TIF Board and approval of Council. Based upon a set of TIF district assumptions and analysis, this Amended Plan is feasible.
Financial Policies General financial policies are governed by the City of Dallas Public/Private Partnership Program, as amended. This program provides a framework for development incentives in a variety of areas. Within this framework, the TIF Board has adopted specific policies for the Farmers Market TIF District: •
Public improvements will be phased at a pace that coincides with private development.
•
Private developers desiring City participation in sharing the costs of infrastructure improvements needed for their projects must obtain TIF Board recommendation and Council approval for and sign a Development Agreement with the City.
•
Reimbursement priorities and the method of apportioning available increment will be set forth in the Development Agreement.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 24
•
Each Development Agreement is mutually exclusive - that is, the nature and extent of support from public funds may change over time as the District becomes more developed.
•
If a developer requests funding for infrastructure improvements at a time when sufficient funds are not available in the TIF Reserve Fund, then improvements may be: deferred until funds are available constructed at the sole expense of the developer constructed at developer expense, with the City reimbursing the developer as funds become available
•
Should project costs be paid that directly benefit the developer of a project, such as grants made to a developer as permitted by Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code, the City will enact and implement controls sufficient to ensure that any grant funds provided will be used to fulfill the public purposes of developing and diversifying the economy of the Farmers Market TIF District, eliminating unemployment or underemployment in the Farmers Market TIF District, and developing or expanding transportation, business, and commercial activity in the Farmers Market TIF District.
The TIF Board may from time-to-time recommend amendments to these financial policies which will affect the operations of the Farmers Market TIF District.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 25
Appendix A: Farmers Market TIF District Original Land Uses
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 26
Appendix B: Farmers Market TIF District Original Existing Conditions
Parking lots and dilapidated buildings
Sidewalks and infrastructure improvements
Vacant land
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 27
Appendix C: Zone – Current land uses
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 28
Appendix D: Farmers Market TIF District Zoning Map
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 29
Appendix E: Grant Program City of Dallas Farmers Market Tax Increment Financing District Economic Development Grant Program The City of Dallas wishes to establish the Farmers Market TIF District Economic Development Grant Program pursuant to Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code, to implement the Amended and Restated Project Plan and Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan for the Farmers Market Tax Increment Financing District (“District�). Program Purpose The purpose of the Farmers Market TIF District Economic Development Grant Program is to promote development and increased economic activity within the Zone: (1) development and diversification of the economy; (2) elimination of unemployment and underemployment; and (3) development and expansion of commerce. The City will achieve these objectives by making grants from the tax increment fund of the District in an aggregate amount not to exceed a negotiated amount of interest on the funds expended for these completed improvements. No County monies can be used to pay for economic development grants; however, County monies can be used as a direct pledge for eligible TIF project costs. Specific actions allowed under this program include providing grants to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Offset costs related to the planning, development and management of parking systems within the Farmers Market TIF District; Offset costs related to rebranding and marketing efforts related to the Dallas Farmers Market; Offset financial costs of financing large scale public improvements (by a private entity) in the form of a grant in lieu of interest; Offset the cost of providing affordable housing as per the mixed income housing guidelines within the Farmers Market TIF District; Encourage increased retail occupancy and improved Farmers Market operations and a more diverse mix of retailers within the Zone; Encourage high density, mixed use redevelopment and retail; and Adaptive reuse of existing buildings.
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 30
Use of Funds The Council makes the final determination of all grant award amounts and awardees. Nothing contained herein shall obligate the City or the Council to provide grant awards as this Economic Development Grant Program does not constitute an entitlement. Payment of Funds No grant funds will be distributed until all conditions of the grant agreement have been fulfilled. Should funds not be used for approved expenses, the City shall be reimbursed the grant funds not properly allocated. Default on grant agreements will be subject to recapture of City funds. Eligible Types of Businesses • • • • •
Property Owners and Developers within the Farmers Market TIF District. Retail, service or farmers market related businesses. There must be a public benefit to the neighborhood such as the provision of goods and services not currently available, new jobs, or blight elimination. For profit, sales tax paying businesses. The applicant may own the real estate in which a business is located. Alternatively, an applicant must have a fully executed lease for a term of at least five years. Performing arts venue or museum
Eligible Types of Development Projects • • • •
Dense, mixed use development/redevelopment projects. Mixed Income Housing projects. Other public improvements that do not fall into the line item of the Farmers Market TIF District budget. Sporting venues and community gardens.
Ineligible Types of Businesses • Non-profit agencies and entities • Schools • Day care centers • Currency exchanges including check cashing agencies • Some non-bank financial retail outlets • Liquor stores • Convenience stores • Gun shops • Pawn shops ________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 31
The City may decide on a case-by-case basis to exclude other business activities that do not benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the community or that do not meet the objectives of this Economic Development Grant Program. Eligibility Criteria The applicant's eligibility for funding will be determined based on factors that may include, but are not limited to, the financial viability of the applicant's business; the track record of the applicant's business at other locations; the ability to of the applicant's business to benefit from national or regional marketing resources; the applicant's existing or proposed investment; the lease term applicable to the applicant's leased space, which shall be a minimum period of five years; the square footage of a retail space; and the number and type of jobs created.
Economic Development Grant Program Area Map
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 32
Appendix F: DCAD Real Property Account in the Farmers Market TIF District – Original Boundary
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 33
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 34
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 35
Appendix G: Original Zone Planned Improvements
Original Plan improvements Exhibit G-1
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 36
Original Plan improvements Exhibit G-2
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 37
Original Plan improvements Exhibit G-3
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 38
Original Plan improvements Exhibit G-4
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 39
Appendix H: Inventory of Accounts in the Extended Zone
________________________________________________________________ Exhibit B: Amended and Restated Project Plan and Financing Plan TIF Reinvestment Zone Number Six February 2013
Page 40
KEY FOCUS AREA:
ADDENDUM ITEM # 3 A Cleaner, Healthier City Environment Make Government More Efficient, Effective and Economical
AGENDA DATE:
February 27, 2013
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
All
DEPARTMENT:
Sanitation Services
CMO:
Forest E. Turner, 670-3390
MAPSCO:
N/A ________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT Authorize acceptance of the City’s Local Solid Waste Management Plan, with amended timelines – Financing: No cost consideration to the City BACKGROUND As a city of over 1.2 million people, Dallas generates 2.2 million tons of solid waste each year – from our residents, businesses, industries, and government facilities. The majority of that waste is and has historically been buried in landfills. Evolving changes in the waste industry, however, are proving that 85% of our wastes have value – and need not be buried. In 2003, the Mayor’s Task Force on Recycling identified a series of initiatives intended to expand Dallas’ modest recycling efforts. The OneDAY Dallas program for once-weekly recycling and once-weekly garbage collection, for example, was one important outcome of the Task Force effort. Other Task Force suggestions included composting on a commercial scale and Material Recovery Facilities (MRF), aimed at maximizing waste diversion from the landfill. It is becoming increasingly important that Dallas have a road map for its solid waste future. Planning now will not only keep us from running out of landfill space, but will maximize the re-usable benefits from the waste stream. Since the creation of the Mayor’s Task Force, staff has examined a variety of means to best re-use our waste stream – rather than bury it in the landfill. In FY09-10, staff began preliminary preparations to outline a draft local solid waste plan (Plan), using guidance set by state regulations (30TAC330.631-649), the Texas Strategic Solid Waste Plan, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ (NCTCOG) Regional Solid Waste Plan. In May 2010, Council authorized the City Manager to seek grant funding under the NCTCOG’s “Request for Project Applications for the Regional Solid Waste Local Project Funding Program”, as funded by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The NCTCOG awarded Dallas $80,000, to match Dallas' funding of $80,000, to develop a local Plan.
BACKGROUND(continued) On August 22, 2012, City Council approved the City’s plan but directed staff to review the timelines and make necessary adjustments according to stakeholder input. In the first week of January 2013, six stakeholder meetings were held to receive input on the timelines in the City’s Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP). Four of the meetings were targeted to specific groups that had expressed interest in the development of the plan. Two other meetings were community meetings open to the general public. On January 26, 2013, an all-day community meeting was held to review the input from the previous meetings and identify areas of consensus and list points of differences in th the plan. As a result of the January 26 meeting, the timelines were adjusted. On February 13, 2013, city staff held another stakeholder meeting with specific groups to review and finalize the timelines in the plan. The timelines have been adjusted according to the input staff received. Both TCEQ and NCTCOG have approved the final draft Plan, and will reserve acceptance of the Plan until adopted formally by the City. Briefly, the guiding principals of the plan are: To strive for increasing sustainability and to spur economic growth through utilization of best waste management practices. As a measure of progress, the Plan establishes the following objectives and timeframes: 40% diversion by 2020 60% diversion by 2030; and, Zero Waste by 2040 This agenda item seeks Council’s approval to adopt the Plan with amended timelines. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS On February 25, 2013, the Transportation and Environment Committee is scheduled to be briefed on the LSWMP updated timelines based on the input received from the stakeholder meetings. On December 10, 2012, the Transportation and Environment Committee was briefed on the City’s Plan to gather additional public input on the Local Solid Waste Management Plan Timelines. On August 22, 2012, by Resolution No. 12-2104, City Council approved the City’s plan but withheld approval of the plan timelines until additional public input had been received.
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 2
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS(continued) On August 14, 2012, the Transportation and Environment Committee was briefed on the City’s Plan. On February 23, 2011, by Resolution No. 11-0592, City Council awarded a contract to HDR Engineering, Inc. to develop the Local Solid Waste Management Plan with Sanitation Services. On May 26, 2010, by Resolution No. 10-1310, City Council authorized the City to request grant funding through the North Central Texas Council of Governments to develop the Plan. FISCAL INFORMATION No cost consideration to the City
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 3
COUNCIL CHAMBER
February 27, 2013 WHEREAS, Dallas generates over 2 million tons of solid waste annually; and WHEREAS, the vast majority of solid waste has the potential for re-use and recycling to benefit the community; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the advantages of a planning process to manage its municipal solid waste and re-usable materials for an extended period; and WHEREAS, the Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) is a guideline for a long-term systematic approach to meet the goals of economic growth, environmental stewardship and fiscal responsibility; and WHEREAS, the Plan allows for Council to set policy to assess, to plan and to implement best practices for re-using wastes generated within the City; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to adopt the Local Solid Waste Management Plan with amended timelines to guide future planning and implementation of solid waste projects; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: Section 1. That the Local Solid Waste Management Plan with amended timelines is hereby adopted as a guide for future planning and implementation efforts. Section 2. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is accordingly so resolved.
February 2013
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VOLUME I: LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN adopted under provisions of Texas Health & Safety Code Ann. Chapter 363 (Vernon)
Name of Local Government:
City of Dallas Sanitation Services 3112 Canton Street, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75226
The contents of local solid waste management plans are specified in and shall conform to the requirements of the Texas Health & Safety Code ยง363.064; the plans provide the general structure to implement a local program. This plan is adopted subject to the rules and orders of the Commission and laws of the State of Texas and it replaces any previously approved plan. Nothing in this plan exempts the City of Dallas from compliance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. This plan is valid until canceled, amended, or revoked by the Commission. Pursuant to Title 30 Texas Administrative Code ยง330.647(a), this plan is adopted by reference into Chapter 330, Subchapter O. ADOPTED in accordance with Title 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 330.
ADOPTION DATE: _________________________ For the Commission
City of Dallas, Texas
Local Solid Waste Management Plan Volume I
Continuation Sheet 3 of 3
VOLUME I: LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
SECTION I – NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT A.
This Local Plan pertains to the City of Dallas, Texas (hereafter called City).
SECTION II – LOCAL PLAN A. Local Goals (1) Goal #1: Transition to a more sustainable material management system regarding waste and recyclable materials generated within the City. Objective #1A: 40% diversion by 2020 Objective #1B: 60% diversion by 2030 Objective #1C: Maximize diversion by 2040 B. Waste Minimization, Waste Reuse, Recycling & Education (1) The City operates a number of diversion programs to reduce the volume of materials requiring landfill disposal including:
Collection of residential recyclable items Big Blue Recycling Drop-off sites Brush collection Electronics recycling Landfill diversion targeting metals, concrete, asphalt, sawdust, clean soil and brush
(2) The City will achieve a greater degree of waste minimization and waste recycling and reuse in three steps.
Increasing the diversion associated with voluntary programs by: o Providing separate collection of organics o Bulk item reuse o Social marketing campaigns o Providing Technical assistance o Development of ordinances or incentive programs
Implementing mandatory requirements for source separation.
Processing the remaining solid waste to recover reusable materials prior to landfilling.
(3) Household hazardous waste from the City of Dallas is managed by the Dallas Area Household Hazardous Waste Network under a cooperative agreement with a number of municipalities.
City of Dallas, Texas
Local Solid Waste Management Plan Volume I
Continuation Sheet 3 of 3
(4) The City has established the following Recycling or diversion rate goals:
40% by 2020 60% by 2030 Maximize diversion by 2040
(5) The City has adopted the “Don’t Bag It” program for lawn clippings and creates mulch from brush and other yard wastes. The creation of a compost operation, to possibly include food scraps, is recommended. (6) The City received the 2011 Green City Award from Waste & Recycling News for having the most effective recycling education program for a large city in the U.S. These educational efforts will be continued. C. Municipal Solid Waste Facilities – The City of Dallas will: (1) Continually assess the need for new waste disposal capacity; (2) Assess methods to optimize the available disposal capacity; (3) Cooperate with neighboring municipalities that need disposal capacity; (4) Maintain transfer station capacity to consolidate waste and recyclable loads to reduce the effects of traffic and air quality impacts. (5) Develop other infrastructure, as needed, to implement this Local plan.
City of Dallas, Texas
Local Solid Waste Management Plan Volume I
City of Dallas
Resolutions
Resolutions BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: Section 1. That the City Manager is authorized to approve the Local Solid Waste Management Plan prepared under an agreement with the North Central Texas Council of Governments for the planning period 2011 – 2060. This plan describes the City’s current Solid Waste Management System and outlines activities that can be taken to decrease the amount of discards that must be managed through sanitary landfilling and to transition to a more comprehensive approach to the management of the City’s resources. Section 2. That the City Controller is authorized to disburse funds as authorized under project BDZ1103. Section 3. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas and it is accordingly so resolved.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
i
This page is intentionally left blank.
City of Dallas
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Resolutions........................................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... I Why this Plan? ................................................................................................................................................................. I Where is the City now? .................................................................................................................................................. I What are the City’s goals? .............................................................................................................................................. I What is Zero Waste? .................................................................................................................................................... II Who participated in the development of this Plan? ................................................................................................ II What does the Plan do? ............................................................................................................................................. III What do we generate? ................................................................................................................................................ III What is waste? ..............................................................................................................................................................IV Diversion Projections................................................................................................................................................... V Phasing Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... V Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential ......................................................................................................................VI What else does the Plan cover? ............................................................................................................................... VII
I.1 Section I Plan Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 I.1.A Authority ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 I.1.B Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 I.1.C Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Vision .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Mission ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Department Values ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Department Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Determination of Plan Vision and Goals ................................................................................................................................. 2
I.2 Planning Process .......................................................................................................................................... 3 I.2.A Planning Units ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 I.2.B Planning Period .................................................................................................................................................... 3 I.2.C Process Description ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Advisory Committee ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Public Participation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Coordination with Regional Planning Efforts ......................................................................................................................... 4 Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Phasing Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Plan Adoption and Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
iii
City of Dallas
Table of Contents
Plan Updates .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Metrics for Tracking Achievement of Goals............................................................................................................................ 6 Timeframes for Updating the Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Section II Area Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 8 II.1 Area Description ........................................................................................................................................ 8 II.1.A Physical Infrastructure and Natural Characteristics ..................................................................................... 8 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Highway Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
II.1.B Demographic Characteristics.......................................................................................................................... 12 II.1.C Economic Characteristics................................................................................................................................ 13
II.2 Current Solid Waste Management System............................................................................................14 II.2.A Types of Solid Waste ....................................................................................................................................... 14 II.2.B Solid Waste Generation ................................................................................................................................... 15 Waste Quantities ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Waste Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
II.2.C Solid Waste Management Entities ................................................................................................................. 19 II.2.D Solid Waste Management Activities and Programs .................................................................................... 24 II.2.E Capacity of Existing Solid Waste Management Facilities .......................................................................... 25 Landfill Capacity .......................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Transfer Station Capacity........................................................................................................................................................... 26
II.2.F Planned New Facilities or Facility Expansions ............................................................................................ 26 II.2.G Planned Solid Waste Management Activities and Programs .................................................................... 26 II.2.H Inventory of Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ............................................................................... 27
II.3 System Evaluation and Needs Assessment ..........................................................................................29 II.3.A Existing Solid Waste System Priorities ......................................................................................................... 29 II.3.B Anticipated Impact of Regulations ................................................................................................................ 29 Role of the Federal Government in Regulating Solid Waste .............................................................................................. 30 State Legislative Trends.............................................................................................................................................................. 31
II.3.C Waste Characterization Projections ............................................................................................................... 31 II.3.D Solid Waste System Facility Assessment ...................................................................................................... 33 Landfill Capacity Projections .................................................................................................................................................... 33 Transfer Station Capacity Projections ..................................................................................................................................... 34 Compost Facility Development ................................................................................................................................................ 35 Recyclables Processing Development ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Resource Recovery Parks........................................................................................................................................................... 37
City of Dallas
Table of Contents
Mixed Material Processing Facility........................................................................................................................................... 37
II.3.E Solid Waste Management Activity and Program Assessment................................................................... 38 Consistency with State Hierarchy ............................................................................................................................................. 38 Consistency with Regional Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 39
II.3.F Needs Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 40 Diversion Program Needs ......................................................................................................................................................... 40 Transfer Station Needs .............................................................................................................................................................. 42 Landfill Capacity Needs ............................................................................................................................................................. 42
II.4 Analysis of Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................43 II.4.A Alternative Technologies ................................................................................................................................ 43 Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste ................................................................................................................... 43 Recommended Technology for Municipal Solid Waste ....................................................................................................... 45 Technology Options for Source-Separated Organics ........................................................................................................... 45 Recommended Technology for Source-Separated Organics .............................................................................................. 47
II.4.B Analysis of Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 47 Diversion Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 48 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential ..................................................................................................................................... 48
II.4.C Analysis of Implementation Options ............................................................................................................ 49 Phasing Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 49
Section III Area Recommendations ..............................................................................................................50 III.1 Goals, Objectives and Priorities ...........................................................................................................50 III.2 Action Plan ..............................................................................................................................................51 III.2.A Actions ............................................................................................................................................................. 51 Long-Term Implementation Tasks .......................................................................................................................................... 56
III.2.B Timetable.......................................................................................................................................................... 56 III.2.C Monitoring and Enforcement ....................................................................................................................... 57 Metrics for Tracking Achievement of Goals.......................................................................................................................... 58 Timeframes for Updating the Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A: Technical Memoranda Task 1: Solid Waste System Overview Task 2: Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Task 3: Transfer Operations Task 4a: Diversion Program Options Task 4b: Organics Diversion Options
City of Dallas Task 5a: Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste Task 5b: Technology Options for Source Separated Organics Appendix B: NCTCOG Closed Landfill Inventory Appendix C: Model Ordinances and Contracts Appendix D: Acronyms and Definitions
Table of Contents
City of Dallas
Executive Summary
Executive Summary Why this Plan? In spring 2011, the City of Dallas (City) began a planning process to identify the policies, programs, and infrastructure that will be needed to manage the discarded materials (municipal solid waste and recyclable materials) generated in the City over the next 50 years. The Local Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) is the beginning of a long-term systematic effort to:
Strive for sustainability by considering the entire life-cycle of products, processes, and systems; Demonstrate that the goals of economic growth, environmental stewardship and fiscal responsibility are inextricably linked; Reduce the volume and toxicity of discarded materials and maximize diversion from disposal; and, Spur economic growth by recovering valuable raw materials and clean energy from discarded materials.
Where is the City now? The City operates a number of diversion programs to reduce the volume of discarded materials requiring landfill disposal. These include:
Residential Recycling Collection – weekly collection provided to single-family residences using wheeled carts; Big Blue Recycling Drop-Off Sites – targeting multifamily residences and available to all generators; Brush Collection – monthly collection available to all residents; Electronics Recycling – drop-off program available to all residents; Pilot Recycling Programs – targeting multifamily residences and hotels; and, Landfill Diversion Programs – targeting metals, concrete, asphalt, sawdust, clean soil and brush.
What are the City’s goals? The City is now poised to transition its system from one focused on collection and disposal to one based on resource management. The City’s goal is to strive for a more sustainable materials management system. To measure its progress toward this goal, the City has established the following objectives and timeframes. The policies, programs and infrastructure described in this Plan will help the City to reach its waste reduction rates of: 40 percent diversion by 2020; 60 percent diversion by 2030; and, Zero Waste by 2040. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
I
City of Dallas
Executive Summary
Once the City has reached its landfill diversion goals, it will continue to maintain its collection system, diversion programs and processing facilities through the 50-year planning period. In planning and implementing its new policies, programs and infrastructure, the City will monitor its successes and seek out new opportunities for innovation and advancement in policy and technology development.
What is Zero Waste? Zero Waste is a philosophy and design framework that promotes not only reuse, recycling, and conservation programs, but also, and more importantly, emphasizes sustainability by considering the entire life-cycle of products, processes, and systems. This comprehensive systems-approach promotes waste prevention by:
Having products and packaging designed for the environment;
Reducing the materials used in products and packaging;
Using less toxic, more benign materials in production and manufacturing;
Providing longer product lives by developing more lasting products; and,
Having products that are repairable and easily disassembled at the end of their useful life.
“Zero Waste” does not mean 100% recycling. We may always have some residual materials that need to be landfilled. Communities striving for Zero Waste (such as Austin, Los Angeles and San Jose) have set goals of 80 to 90 percent diversion from landfills. The initiatives identified in this Plan are estimated to increase the citywide diversion rate to approximately 84 percent over the 50-year planning period. Product redesign and manufacturer responsibility will help communities reduce the amount of residual materials that can’t be reused, recycled or composted. The City will strive for Zero Waste and take an active role in supporting statewide and national initiatives, such as those developed by the Texas Product Stewardship Council, to create a more sustainable materials management system.
Who participated in the development of this Plan? The Plan was prepared by the City of Dallas Sanitation Services Department with input from:
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) – formed to assist the City in the development of the Plan. Members of SWAC include representatives from public agencies, private sector service providers, and community groups;
Community members – self-identified as stakeholders in the planning process, who participated in the City’s public workshops held on July 14th, 2011 and January 26, 2013;
HDR Engineering;
CP&Y, Inc.; and,
Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
II
City of Dallas
Executive Summary
What does the Plan do? This Plan describes the policies and programs that could be implemented to achieve the City’s goal of Zero Waste by 2040, with the interim steps of 40 percent diversion by 2020 and 60 percent by 2030. To understand the effectiveness of the policies, programs and technologies identified by the stakeholders, the City estimated the diversion potential of the following key initiatives. 1. Encourage commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers— targeting multifamily and commercial generators. 2. Consider requirements for mandatory separation of recyclables and compostables from trash—targeting all generator sectors. 3. Develop a construction and demolition debris (C&D) ordinance and provide C&D technical assistance -- targeting roll-off and self-haul generators. 4. Advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level and work with local retailers to increase take-back programs—targeting all generator sectors. 5. Provide separate collection for organics—targeting all generators. 6. Provide bulk item reuse and recycling—targeting all generators. 7. Undertake a social marketing 1 campaign—targeting all generator sectors. 8. Provide commercial technical assistance—targeting multifamily and commercial generators. 9. Develop a Resource Recovery Park at the landfill—targeting self-haul generators. 10. Develop a mixed materials processing facility to separate recyclables and compostables from trash—targeting all material streams.
What do we generate? “Generation” is the sum of tons diverted (recyclable materials) plus tons disposed (municipal solid waste), and is used to determine the diversion rate.
Generation = Disposal + Diversion In 2010, it is estimated that over 2.2 million tons of materials were generated within the City that were either diverted or disposed. Over 2.0 million tons were disposed in landfills and 192,000 tons were diverted from disposal through the City’s current recycling programs (134,000 tons from Dallas’ single-family single-stream recycling and the brush and bulky item collection programs). The 134,000 tons diverted from the single-family collection program represents almost 30% of the waste generated by single-family residents.
Social marketing campaigns involve the systematic application of marketing alongside other techniques and tools to achieve specific social behavioral goals. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through communitybased social marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531-537. 1
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
III
City of Dallas
Executive Summary
What is waste? “Waste” consists of discarded materials most of which can be reused, recycled or composted. To assist in the development of this Plan, a diversion model was created to evaluate the effects of the key initiatives on disposal and diversion throughout the City. The projected generation, diversion and disposal data for 2011 were used for the baseline tons and include estimates by generator type (single-family, multifamily, and commercial). The 2011 projections were extrapolated from the 2010 estimates based on anticipated population growth. This allows for a review of diversion increases based on new initiatives while maintaining the City’s existing level of diversion. The Plan uses the following estimated waste characterization percentages published by North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) in 2002 using data from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Strategic Plan 2001-2005. 2 The “other” material category was divided into additional types (textiles, reusables, ceramics, soils and chemicals). The “paper” material category was further divided into “recyclable paper” and “compostable paper.” 3 Figure ES.1 Estimated Composition of Discarded Materials Ceramics, 2% Reusables, 2%
Soils, 1%
Chemicals, Glass, 5% 1%
Textiles, 5% Wood, 6%
Plastic, 8%
Recyclable Paper, 18%
Food, 9% Metal, 5% Yard Trimmings, 20%
Compostable Paper, 18%
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) was the predecessor agency to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) which is the lead environmental agency within the State of Texas. 2
In accordance with Texas Health and Safety Code (TH&SC) 363.064(a)(1), all local solid waste management plans must address sludge. In fiscal year 2010, only 5,451 tons of sludges were disposed at the landfill from the City’s wastewater treatment plants. This minor quantity represents less than 1% of the waste delivered to the landfill during that time. Since the City has ample disposal capacity for these wastes, they are not considered in this Plan. 3
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
IV
City of Dallas
Executive Summary
Source: TNRCC Strategic Plan 2001-2005 with adjustments made by dividing the “other” category into textiles, reusables, ceramics, soils and chemicals and dividing the “paper” category into recyclable paper and compostable paper.
Diversion Projections To estimate the diversion potential of the key initiatives identified in this Plan, the project team developed a diversion model. Based on the assumptions and calculations included in the diversion model (discussed in Appendix A, Task 4A), implementing the key initiatives will increase the citywide diversion rate to 84 percent. Table ES.1 Diversion Estimates by Generator Diversion (tons) Disposal (tons) Total Generation
Diversion rate
Single-family 575,000 92,000
Multifamily 539,000 123,000
Commercial 1,307,000 257,000
Total 2,421,000 472,000
667,000 86%
662,000 81%
1,564,000 84%
2,893,000 84%
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding. Single-family diversion estimates include the current single-family diversion rate of approximately 30%.
The diversion rates are presented as a snapshot in time assuming full implementation of all programs. In reality, policies and programs will be developed over time through additional research, testing, and pilot programs before the programs are fully implemented. Several policies will require new ordinances and regulations which will require City Council action and time to implement. Based on this analysis, the City can increase its diversion rate to at least 84 percent, a very high rate of diversion, by implementing the policies and programs described in this Plan.
Phasing Recommendations The Plan includes a phased approach where increased outreach and technical assistance would be provided prior to mandatory requirements. The diversion results are based on the following three scenarios that build upon each other:
Increase voluntary programs — City to provide separate collection for organics (for purpose of composting), bulk item reuse and recycling, social marketing campaign, commercial technical assistance, encourage commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers, develop a construction and demolition debris (C&D) ordinance or incentive program and provide C&D technical assistance, develop Resource Recovery Facility(ies) within the City, and work with local retailers to increase take-back programs for hard-to-recycle items and advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level; Implement mandatory requirements — develop mandatory source-separation practices and reporting; and, Process residual waste — process all solid waste to recover reusable materials prior to landfilling. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
V
City of Dallas
Executive Summary Table ES.2 Diversion Estimates by Scenario1 Baseline (existing programs)2 2011
Diversion (tons) Disposal (tons) Total Generation
Diversion rate 1
Increasing voluntary programs 2020
Adding mandatory requirements 2030
Add residual waste processing3 2040
160,000 2,172,000
1,011,000 1,493,000
1,856,000 841,000
2,421,000 472,000
2,333,000
2,390,000
2,504,000
2,872,000
7%
40%
69%
84%
Assumptions by program and material type are included in Appendix A. Baseline diversion estimates include the current single-family diversion tons only. Baseline disposal tons for 2011 are based on the estimated generation within the City less the projected single-family diversion estimate. Some of the disposal ton estimate may not be currently disposed. 3 “Residual waste processing” means separating recyclable and compostable materials from solid waste at a mixed waste material recovery facility prior to landfilling. 2
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential The key initiatives described in the Plan can significantly reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the estimated diversion rates at full implementations of programs, the following table presents the greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential of the scenarios using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)“WAste Reduction Model” (WARM) factors to estimate greenhouse gas emissions reduction based on material types and amounts diverted. Table ES.3 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Estimates by Generator MTCO2E1 Equivalent number of cars removed from the road
Single-family (523,000)
Multifamily (749,000)
Commercial (1,783,000)
Total (3,056,000)
96,000
137,000
327,000
560,000
1
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
The U.S. EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. WARM calculates and totals greenhouse gas emissions of baseline and alternative waste management practices—source reduction, recycling, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE), metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E), and energy units (million British Thermal Unit (BTU)) across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
VI
City of Dallas
Executive Summary
What else does the Plan cover? The Plan is organized as follows: Section I Plan Overview – Provides the planning context for the Plan, the purpose and objectives and describes the planning process undertaken by the City. Section II Area Analysis Chapter II.1 Area Description – Describes the City’s physical infrastructure and its natural, demographic, and economic characteristics. Chapter II.2 Current Solid Waste Management System – Describes the existing waste prevention, recycling, and composting programs and the facilities that are used to manage materials generated in the city. Chapter II.3 System Evaluation and Needs Assessment – Evaluates both the current and planned solid waste management system activities, programs, and facilities. Chapter II.4 Analysis of Alternatives – Provides the results of the analysis of the diversion potential and greenhouse gas reduction potential of the policies, programs and technologies. Section III Area Recommendations Chapter III.1 Goals, Objectives and Priorities – Describes how the policies, programs and technologies work to achieve the goals and objectives of the City. Chapter III.2 Action Plan – Includes the tasks necessary to undertake the Local Solid Waste Management Plan, including the action steps, and an implementation schedule. Appendix A: Technical Memoranda Task 1: Solid Waste System Overview Task 2: Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Task 3: Transfer Operations Task 4a: Diversion Program Options Task 4b: Organics Diversion Options Task 5a: Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste Task 5b: Technology Options for Source Separated Organics Appendix B: NCTCOG Closed Landfill Inventory Appendix C: Model Ordinances and Contracts Appendix D: Acronyms and Definitions
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
VII
City of Dallas
Executive Summary This page is intentionally left blank.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
VIII
City of Dallas
Section I Plan Overview
I.1 Section I Plan Overview This section provides the planning context for the Local Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan), the purpose and objectives, and describes the planning process undertaken by the City of Dallas (City). The City provides for the collection, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste and recyclable materials generated by the City’s residents and businesses (single-family and multifamily residential and commercial. In order to more effectively provide these services in the future, the City has initiated a planning process to determine the future of the City’s solid waste management for the next 50 years.
I.1.A Authority The Comprehensive Municipal Solid Waste Management, Resource Recovery, and Conservation Act (Act), codified as Chapter (§)363, Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), provided for each of the 24 regional planning councils (COGs) to develop Regional Solid Waste Management Plans (RSWMPs) for their respective regions. The Act further provides that local governments develop local solid waste management plans (Plans) that conform to the adopted RSWMP covering the area in the local government's jurisdiction. Local governmental entities are encouraged to develop solid waste management plans, as provided for in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC) Chapter 330 (MSW Rules), 30 TAC §330.631 through §330.649 (Subchapter O). Subchapter O contains the minimum plan content requirements and procedures that must be followed to develop adoptable local solid waste management plans. The City of Dallas has received solid waste grant money from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) through the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) for the development of this Local Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan); (Grant Project # 11-04-G02). The City has combined the grant funds with their own funds to fully develop this Plan. This Plan is consistent with the SEE Less Trash Regional Solid Waste Management Plan adopted by the NCTCOG executive board on June 27, 2002.
I.1.B Purpose The purpose of the Plan is to identify current and future needs, evaluate program and technical options for meeting these needs, and to define a course of action for future waste generated in the City. The City has developed this Plan in order to outline, over the next 50 years, the transition of the City waste stream from “trash” to “valued resources.” The Plan provides a framework for expansion of the City environmental infrastructure, policies, and programs for the long term benefit of the community while garnering benefit from the re-use of resources.
I.1.C Objectives The Sanitation Department has the primary responsibility for implementing this Plan. The Department‘s vision, mission statement, values and objectives are provided below.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
1
City of Dallas
Section I Plan Overview
Vision To be the national leader in the transformation from a traditional integrated municipal solid waste management system to sustainable resource recovery. Mission To benefit our community and environment while garnering benefit from our waste resources by providing excellent customer services that promote waste reduction, resource recovery, and support to the City of Dallas sustainability efforts. Department Values
We deliver quality services through sustainable and innovative best practices. We are fiscally, socially, and environmentally responsible to our citizens. We are ethical and transparent within all our actions. We foster a safe and healthy work environment through employee/staff development, appreciation, recognition, and respect.
Department Objectives
To meet community needs by providing excellent customer service and proactive education and outreach. To be fiscally responsible to our citizens. To provide optimal resource recovery while reducing the City‘s carbon footprint. To educate, empower and hold staff accountable to provide affordable quality services.
Determination of Plan Vision and Goals City staff developed the following vision statement for the Plan which was reviewed by the stakeholders at the public workshop. The City of Dallas will:
Strive for sustainability by considering the entire life‐cycle of products, processes, and systems; Demonstrate that the goals of economic growth, environmental stewardship and fiscal responsibility are inextricably linked; Reduce the volume of discarded materials and maximize diversion from disposal; and, Spur economic growth by recovering valuable raw materials and clean energy from discarded materials.
To realize this vision, the following goals were established for the Plan.
40 percent diversion by 2020; 60 percent diversion by 2030; and, Zero Waste by 2040. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
2
City of Dallas
Section I Plan Overview
Zero Waste is a philosophy and design framework that promotes not only reuse, recycling, and conservation programs, but also, and more importantly, emphasizes sustainability by considering the entire life-cycle of products, processes, and systems. It is important to understand that every community will have some residual amount of materials that must be disposed despite efforts at diversion.
I.2 Planning Process The following sections provide a description of the planning process and justification for the underlying assumptions inherent in the Plan.
I.2.A Planning Units The Plan is focused on the City of Dallas within the context of the regional and sub-regional plans. The geographic unit consists of the physical City limits. The Plan does not include analysis of neighboring municipalities or the City extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). However; pursuant to 30 TAC §330.635(b)(3), this local Plan shall not prohibit, in fact or by effect, importation or exportation of waste from one political jurisdiction to another. As a home-rule city, the City is authorized under the Texas Constitution to regulate the disposal of waste in its locality. The Texas Legislature has also explicitly authorized municipalities to regulate waste management: cities are permitted to “adopt rules for regulating solid waste collection, handling, transportation, storage, processing, and disposal,” Tex. Health & Safety Code §363.111(a), and to operate a “solid waste management system,” id. §363.117. This Plan does not limit the City’s power in those regards, and also should not be construed to prohibit, in fact or by effect, any importation or exportation of waste from one political jurisdiction to another.
I.2.B Planning Period The planning time period is 50 years, through 2060. This period allows for the discussion of longterm goals while still providing short term action items and strategies. Development methodology of this 50-Year Solid Waste Management Plan is similar to a typical 10 to 20-year plan. However, the focus and the output are slightly different. A 20-year plan can show desired future conditions (forms and functions) and include a strategy for achieving plan implementation. In order to comply with the applicable TCEQ regulations, short-term implementation strategies are presented for the first years of the plan; however, it is important to develop a plan that is flexible and that will not preclude different options and potential incorporation of new technologies that may develop over time. This 50-year plan encompasses the four planning periods, including: current; short-range (1-5 years); intermediate (6-10 years); and long-range (11-20 years). However, this Plan also includes much broader ideas that focus on longer-term issues and goals, and the strategies to address the issues and achieve the goals in the 20-50 year time period.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
3
City of Dallas
Section I Plan Overview
I.2.C Process Description Advisory Committee Pursuant to the Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC §330.639), an advisory committee was formed to provide input, review, and comment during development of the Plan. The advisory committee is comprised of members who represent a broad range of interests, including public officials, private operators, citizen groups, and interested individuals. Public Participation The planning process engaged the stakeholder community (including residential and commercial generators, community groups, non-profit and private sector service providers, and City and state representatives) in the solid waste planning process. Representatives from various stakeholder groups were included in the membership of SWAC to provide input, review and comment during development of the Plan. Two community/SWAC meetings were held during the planning process:
May 26, 2011: SWAC workshop to kick off the solid waste planning process – to inform potential stakeholders about the planning process and to gather input on new initiatives to be considered for implementation. This meeting included a presentation of the City’s current solid waste system, waste generation projections, and landfill capacity scenarios; and,
July 14, 2011: Community/SWAC workshop presenting the draft plan - to present the findings from the technical memoranda addressing transfer operations, diversion options, organics processing, and technology options. This meeting provided an opportunity for stakeholders to review draft elements of the Local Solid Waste Management Plan and to provide input on the City’s goals and objectives for the Plan.
January 2013: Stakeholder Meetings and Public Seminar – to ensure that the public outreach process was as inclusive as possible, the City conducted a series of stakeholder meetings in early January and hosted a citywide public seminar on January 26, 2013. The purpose of the meetings was to obtain input on the timelines for implementing the Local Solid Waste Management Plan.
Coordination with Regional Planning Efforts The Local Solid Waste Management Plan is designed to supplement and update the findings in the following regional planning efforts:
SEE Less Trash Regional Solid Waste Management Plan adopted by the NCTCOG executive board of the NCTCOG on June 27, 2002; and, Metroplex Area Sub-Regional Solid Waste Study circa 2003 by Reed, Stowe & Yanke, a division of R. W. Beck.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
4
City of Dallas
Section I Plan Overview
These plans addressed the City’s solid waste system in the context of regional and subregional planning. This Plan specifically addresses the City’s local needs over the planning period. Data Sources The City reviewed the following data sources in developing the analysis for the Plan:
Evaluation of Waste Transfer Station Operations‐2005 - evaluated operations of the three City of Dallas transfer stations; Analysis of Brush & Bulky Collection Operations-2010 - recommended cost effective alternative to the existing brush and bulky collection system and evaluated whether the City could increase the amount of clean green waste; Regional Recycling Rate Benchmarking Study‐2007 - provided recycling rates for Dallas and surrounding cities in the Metroplex; Chapter 18‐Municipal Solid Waste‐City Ordinances - Defined acceptable containers, regulations for the collection and disposal of solid waste in the City, charges for collection and disposal, collection and disposal of illegally dumped solid wastes, and penalties for violations; City of Dallas FY 2010 MSW Annual Reports to TCEQ for McCommas Bluff Landfill and City Transfer Stations – provided annual tonnage at each facility and remaining site life at the landfill; City of Dallas Sanitation Department Monthly Reports for diversion, transfer and disposal operations – provided tonnage amounts for various programs and City facilities; City of Dallas Website‐Sanitation Services - provided data on frequently asked questions about solid waste operations; and, Metroplex Area Sub-Regional Solid Waste Study-2003 – provided date on waste generation estimates and regional landfill capacity.
Phasing Recommendations The Plan includes a phased approach where increased outreach and technical assistance would be provided prior to mandatory requirements. The Analysis of Alternatives included in Section II presents the diversion results based on the following three scenarios that build upon each other:
Increase voluntary programs—provide separate collection for organics for composting, bulk item reuse and recycling, social marketing campaign, commercial technical assistance, encourage commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers, develop a construction and demolition debris (C&D) ordinance and provide C&D technical assistance, develop Resource Recovery Facility(ies) within the City, and work with local retailers to increase take-back programs for hard-to-recycle items and advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level; Implement mandatory requirements—develop mandatory source-separation practices and reporting; and, Process residual waste—process all municipal solid waste to recover reusable materials prior to landfilling. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
5
City of Dallas
Section I Plan Overview Table I.1 Diversion Estimates by Scenario1 Baseline (existing programs)2
Increasing voluntary programs 2020
160,000 2,172,000 7%
1,011,000 1,493,000 40%
2011
Diversion (tons) Disposal (tons) Diversion rate 1
Adding mandatory requirements 2030
Add residual waste processing3
2040
1,856,000 841,000 69%
2,421,000 472,000 84%
Assumptions by program and material type are included in Appendix A. Baseline diversion estimates include the current single-family diversion tons only. Baseline disposal tons for 2011 are based on the estimated generation within the City less the projected single-family diversion estimate. Some of the disposal ton estimate may not be currently disposed. 3 “Residual waste processing” means separating recyclable and compostable materials from solid waste at a mixed waste material recovery facility prior to landfilling. 2
Plan Adoption and Implementation The Plan was developed in spring and summer 2011 and submitted for review to the NCTCOG and to the TCEQ in August 2011. The Action Plan, included in Section III, provides the implementation schedule for the Plan. Plan Updates The Plan is designed to be a living document with annual updates, program assessments every five years, and detailed implementation steps to be undertaken by City staff. Since the Plan was developed and submitted for review in August 2011 the following events regarding solid waste in the City have occurred: The Dallas City Council adopted a Resource Flow Control Ordinance on September 28, 2011 to regulate the flow of solid waste in the City to City-supervised waste facilities to, among other stated purposes, ensure the safe and proper handling of solid waste in the City and provide for environmentally sound, cost efficient solid waste management. Metrics for Tracking Achievement of Goals To track diversion and disposal tons by new initiative, the City will monitor performance from:
City programs – where tons are tracked directly; and, Service provider reports – pursuant to the new ordinance requirements or franchise agreements.
For some policies and programs, the City will have to rely on diversion and disposal estimates. The direct effect of these policies and programs serve to enhance the City and private sector programs, but cannot be quantified separately.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
6
City of Dallas
Section I Plan Overview
Timeframes for Updating the Plan The policies, programs and infrastructure identified in the Plan are slated for implementation in the short-term (2020) or in the medium term (2030). Most of the new infrastructure will be developed within those time horizons as well. The Plan also includes monitoring of new technology for future development (by 2040). The City will track performance by program annually and will conduct a plan update every five years, beginning in 2016. The City will closely monitor the development of state and regional plans and will incorporate regional plans and programs into the City’s Plan during the five-year updates.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
7
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Section II Area Analysis II.1 Area Description This section describes the City’s physical infrastructure and its natural, demographic, and economic characteristics.
II.1.A Physical Infrastructure and Natural Characteristics The City of Dallas (City) is the county seat of Dallas County. Portions of the City extend into neighboring Collin, Denton, Kaufman, and Rockwall counties. According to the United States Census Bureau, the City has a total area of 385 square miles. Dallas makes up one-fifth of the much larger urbanized area known as the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, in which an estimated one-quarter of all Texans live. Dallas and its surrounding areas are mostly flat; with the City at elevations ranging from 450 – 550 feet. The Trinity River including the West Fork and the Elm Fork, is the major waterway through the City. Its path (Elm Fork) through Dallas is parallel to Interstate 35E. The West Fork enters the City from the west and approximately parallels Interstate 30. The West Fork combines with the Elm Fork near downtown Dallas into the main stem of the Trinity and flows south alongside downtown, past south Dallas and the Pleasant Grove area, where the river is parallel to Interstate 45 until it exits the City and heads southeast. Figure II.1 presents a map of the City of Dallas and surrounding municipalities. Figure II.2 shows the location of Dallas within the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) planning region.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
8
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Figure II.1: City of Dallas and Surrounding Municipalities
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
9
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Figure II.2: Dallas Location within NCTCOG Planning Region
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
10
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Land Use Land use in the City was obtained from the NCTCOG database. The most recent information was for year 2005. The major land use in the City is residential (29%), including single-family, multifamily, and mobile homes and group quarters. Commercial, industrial, and institutional uses account for 15% of the area, while Infrastructure and Transportation account for 19%. An additional 20% of the land area is considered vacant or undeveloped with a large portion of this in the southern portion of the City. Table II.1 includes a breakdown of land uses in the City as presented by NCTCOG shape files obtained at the source indicated. Table II.1 Land Use in Dallas
Vacant Single-family Multifamily Mobile Home & Group Quarters Industrial Commercial Institutional Infrastructure Parks & Flood Plain Water Airport Undeveloped Landfill Transportation
Acres 245,630 46,406 60,566 9,218 639 13,825 11,252 10,534 6,209 23,229 19,263 2,110 2,031 2,013 38,325
Percent of Acres 100%
19 25 4 --
6 5 4 3 9 8 1 1 1 16
Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments; 2005 Landuse http://clearinghouse.dfwmaps.com/ Accessed July 29, 2011.
Note: totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Highway Transportation The City is at the confluence of four major interstate highways—Interstates 20, 30, 35E, and 45. The Dallas area freeway system is designed in a hub-and-spoke system. Starting from the center of the City, a small freeway loop surrounds Downtown, followed by the Interstate 635 loop about 10 miles outside Downtown, and ultimately the President George Bush Turnpike. Inside these freeway loops are other boulevard- and parkway-style loops, including Loop 12 and Belt Line Road. Radiating out of Downtown Dallas’ freeway loop are the spokes of the area’s highway system—Interstates 30, 35E, and 45, U.S. Highway 75, U.S. Highway 175, State Spur 366, the Dallas North Tollway, State Highway 114, U.S. Highway 80, and U.S. Highway 67. See Figure II.1.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
11
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
II.1.B Demographic Characteristics NCTCOG estimates indicated 1,316,350 people were living within the City limits in 2010. Population estimates for year 2040 are 1,645,739. Estimates from 2040 to 2060 were extrapolated based on the same growth percentage. The 2010 population data and future year projections are presented in Figure II.3. Rationale for these projections is included in Appendix A, Task 2 Waste Generation Projections. Table II.2 shows the single- and multifamily residential projections. According to data provided by NCTCOG, approximately 47% of Dallas residents live in singlefamily residences and approximately 53% live in multifamily residences. This provides a challenge for increasing recycling rates, as it is somewhat more difficult to provide recycling and composting services to multifamily residences. Figure II.3 Population Projections 2,000,000 1,900,000 1,800,000 1,700,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 1,200,000 2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Population Source: NCTCOG: Demographic Forecast Data
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
12
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis Table II.2 Single-family and Multifamily Projections
Year
Population
Annual Percent Population Increase
2010
1,316,350
2015
1,370,939
2020
Single-family Population (47.1%)
Multifamily Population (52.9%)
620,001
696,349
0.80%
645,712
725,227
1,425,528
0.77%
671,424
754,104
2025
1,480,117
0.74%
697,135
782,982
2030
1,534,706
0.72%
722,847
811,859
2035
1,589,295
0.69%
748,558
840,737
2040
1,645,739
0.69%
775,143
870,596
2045
1,703,306
0.69%
802,257
901,049
2050
1,762,887
0.69%
830,320
932,567
2055
1,824,551
0.69%
859,364
965,188
2060
1,888,373
0.69%
889,424
998,949
Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2010 (www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/housing,asp) Note that total may not sum due to rounding.
II.1.C Economic Characteristics According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas), the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex has one of the largest concentrations of corporate headquarters for publicly traded companies in the United States. The City of Dallas has 12 Fortune 500 companies, and the Dallas-Fort Worth region as a whole has 20. In 2007-08, Comerica Bank and AT&T moved their headquarters to Dallas. Additional companies headquartered in the Metroplex include Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, RadioShack, Neiman Marcus, 7-Eleven, Brinker International, AMS Pictures, id Software, ENSCO Offshore Drilling, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Chuck E. Cheese's, Zales and Fossil. Many of these companies—and others throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex—comprise the Dallas Regional Chamber. In addition to its large number of businesses, Dallas has more shopping centers per capita than any other city in the United States. Dallas is home of two major malls in North Texas, the Dallas Galleria and North Park Center, which is the second largest mall in Texas. Dallas is currently the third most popular destination for business travel in the United States, and the Dallas Convention Center is one of the largest and busiest convention centers in the country.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
13
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
II.2 Current Solid Waste Management System This section describes the current solid waste management system for the City, including the waste types and generation, infrastructure, activities and programs, and estimated capacities. Additional information is provided in the Technical Memoranda included in Appendix A:
Task 1 Solid Waste System Overview; Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios; and, Task 3 Transfer Station Operations.
II.2.A Types of Solid Waste The largest single type of waste disposed in Texas municipal solid waste landfills in 2009 was residential waste, comprising 36 percent of the total waste stream, followed by commercial waste with 30 percent of the waste stream, and lastly, construction and demolition debris with 21 percent. These three waste types make up the vast majority of the waste stream – 87 percent of the municipal solid waste disposed in the state. This data is based on information provided to the TCEQ from active landfills. Figure II.4 provides a breakdown of waste types landfilled in Texas in 2009. Figure II.4 Breakdown of Waste Types Landfilled in Texas, 2009 Brush 2%
Soil 1%
Sludge 3%
All other types 3%
Class 2/3 waste 4%
Construction and demolition debris 21%
Residential 36%
Commercial 30%
Source: TCEQ Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in Review, FY 2009 Data Summary and Analysis
The City does not track the waste type or generator type of the waste received for disposal at the landfill except for what they collect. Residential (single-family and multifamily) and commercial waste generation assumptions outlined in Appendix A, Task 2 Waste Generation and Landfill Capacity Technical Memorandum, indicates the disposal percentage of these two waste types (after accounting for the current single-family diversion estimates) are as shown in Table II.3. The current single-family waste diversion estimates are approximately 30% of that generated. The TCEQ Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
14
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
guidelines for developing local solid waste plans request information regarding the solid waste types listed in Table II.3. However, the City does not track disposal tonnage by generator type except that collected by City crews. The other categories listed in the table represent a small percentage of the total waste disposed from the City and are not significant to these planning efforts. Table II.3 City of Dallas Solid Waste Types Generator Type Residential Commercial Institutional Recreational Military Municipal Sludge Industrial Mining Agricultural Other (medical, used oil, batteries) Other (resource recovery)
Percentage of Total Waste Disposed 42% 58% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Major Source
N/A
Source: Task 2 Waste Generation and Landfill Capacity Technical Memorandum
II.2.B Solid Waste Generation Waste Quantities Per TCEQ recommendation (as described in the NCTCOG Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007), the amount of waste generated on a regional basis can be determined by the following formula: Waste Generation = Waste Disposal + Waste Diversion - Waste Imports + Waste Exports
For purposes of this Plan, it is understood that there is currently a net export of waste out of the City being disposed in other landfills. There is currently little data on how much is being imported or exported into the City. According to city records for 2010, approximately 17,766 tons were imported from the cities of Garland, Richardson, Mesquite, Rockwall, University Park, Hutchins and Lancaster. This represents 1.2% of the material delivered to the landfill during Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 – 2010. To aid the City in planning for the next 50 years of solid waste management, this Plan utilizes waste quantity estimates assuming the City must manage all waste generated within its city limits. This is a conservative estimate but considered prudent for long-range planning. The current single-family diversion rate will also be included in the baseline numbers. Based on projections calculated in Appendix A, approximately 2,172,000 tons will be generated in the City in FY 2010 – 2011 (after single-family diversion estimates based on the current diversion rate) that will need to be disposed or diverted. Based on this estimated amount, the current minor volume of imported waste is negligible Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
15
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
and will be considered zero in this Plan. Additionally, under the conservative assumption that the City would be required to manage all waste generated in the City, there will be no net export of waste. Therefore; Waste Generation = Waste Disposal + Waste Diversion. The following describes the various waste generators within the City. Residential Waste As discussed in the Task 1 Solid Waste System Overview Technical Memorandum, the total residential waste generated during Fiscal Year 2009-2010 by 237,187 residential accounts was 449,363 tons, or approximately 1.89 tons per residence. The U.S. Census Bureau in its American Community Survey for the Years 2005-2009 indicated that the City of Dallas had 2.65 people per household. Based upon this information the residential waste generation rate for Dallas was approximately 1.89 tons/2.65 = 0.71 tons/person/year. This correlates reasonably well with the residential generation rate of 0.86 tons/person/year derived in the “Metroplex Area Sub-Regional Solid Waste Study” in 2003. This sub-regional study also calculated a generation rate of 0.76 tons/person/year for multifamily residents, as they would not generate brush at the same level as single-family residents. For purposes of this Plan, the factors calculated from the 2003 Sub-Regional Plan were used. Commercial Waste It is difficult to define the total amount of commercial waste generated in the City of Dallas, as most of the commercial waste is collected by private waste haulers and is then transported to private landfills. As a part of the “Metroplex Area Sub-Regional Solid Waste Study” in 2003, surveys were conducted to define collection quantities and landfill disposal quantities in a five county area (including Dallas County). From this survey data it was possible to calculate the total waste generated in the five counties with reasonable accuracy. A methodology was developed to calculate the amount of commercial waste by first calculating the single-family residential waste and the multifamily residential waste and then subtracting those quantities from the total waste collected in the five county area. From this calculation and population/employment data available for the region, a commercial waste generation rate was estimated for the region. This generation rate was applied to each city and its respective percentage of the region’s employment and a base year commercial waste generation quantity was calculated for each city in the five county area. In the “Metroplex Study” for the Base Year of 2002 in the City of Dallas, the following waste quantities were calculated for a population of 1,208,300 people: Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Commercial *
955,000 tons* 385,602 tons 1,151,564
Reported in Survey and not calculated
The demographics of the residential population (based on NCTCOG data) is now estimated to be 47.1% of those living in single-family residences and 52.9% of the population living in multifamily residences. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
16
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
For purposes of waste quantity projections, this Plan uses the following factors: Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Commercial (1,151,564 tons in 2002/1,208,30 population)
0.86 tons/person 0.76 tons/person
(47.1% of Population) (52.9% of Population)
0.95 tons/person
(Total Population)
Wastewater Treatment and Water Treatment Sludges Wastewater treatment and water treatment sludges are generated by the City’s plants. Wastewater treatment generates approximately 100 dry tons per day (16% solids) and water treatment generates approximately 120 dry tons per day (15 to 18% solids). Wastewater treatment plant sludges are currently being land applied at the Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is also a 1,400 acre sludge monofill permitted at the Southside facility which is currently not in use. Ample capacity exists within the City’s wastewater program to continue management of this material well into the future. Water treatment plant sludges are periodically removed from the City’s plants and taken to local landfills for potential use as an alternate daily cover material, if approved by the TCEQ. In fiscal year 2010, only 5,451 tons of sludges were disposed at the landfill from these City programs. This minor quantity represents less than 1% of the waste delivered to the landfill during that time. Since the City has ample disposal capacity for these wastes, they are not considered in this Plan. The City also accepts sludge (and other waste) from several area municipalities. In 2010, 17,766 tons were imported from the cities of Garland, Richardson, Mesquite, Rockwall, University Park, Hutchins and Lancaster. This amount also represents around 1% of the waste delivered to the McCommas Bluff Landfill for disposal during that time. This minor amount is considered insignificant to this planning effort. Disposal Quantities The solid waste quantities disposed at McCommas Bluff Landfill, based on available information, indicate that 1,362,422 tons of solid waste materials were disposed at the landfill in Fiscal Year 20092010, after the diversion of some material for beneficial use on site. Landfill airspace utilized during this time was reported at 2,970,242 cubic yards or approximately 1,400 pounds per cubic yard. More detailed tables and discussion of assumptions and calculations can be found in the Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum. Total estimated citywide disposal for Fiscal Year 2009-2010, based on the generation rates used, is provided in Table II.4.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
17
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis Table II.4 Estimated Citywide Disposal
Generator Types Total Residential Single-family Residential Multifamily Residential Commercial Total
Tons 904,000 375,000 529,000 1,251,000 2,155,000
Percentage 42% 17% 25% 58% 100%
Source: Task 2 Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum Note that single-family disposal is net of diversion (30%). Values are based on estimated generation quantities by generator type and not actual.
Waste Characteristics The Plan uses the following estimated waste characterization percentages published by NCTCOG in 2002 using data from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Strategic Plan 20012005. 4 The following Figure II.5 provides a graphical presentation of the data. Figure II.5 Estimated Composition of Discarded Materials Reusables, Ceramics, 2% 2% Textiles, 5% Wood, 6%
Chemicals, Soils, 1% Glass, 5% 1% Plastic, 8%
Recyclable Paper, 18%
Food, 9% Metal, 5% Yard Trimmings, 20%
Compostable Paper, 18%
Source: TNRCC Strategic Plan 2001-2005 with adjustments made by dividing the “other” category into textiles, reusables, ceramics, soils and chemicals and dividing the “paper” category into recyclable paper and compostable paper.
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) was the predecessor agency to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) which is the lead environmental agency within the State of Texas. 4
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
18
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
II.2.C Solid Waste Management Entities The Task 1 Solid Waste System Overview Technical Memorandum described the solid waste management entities operating in the City. This section provides a summary of the solid waste management entities and their general practices. Figure II.6 illustrates the City’s solid waste facility locations.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
19
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis Figure II.6 Dallas Solid Waste Facility Locations
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
20
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Collection by City Forces – Residential Garbage – Collected once per week in a 90 gallon gray cart in the alley (if serviceable alley available) or at the curb. ($20.34 per month in 2010). The City currently has 237,187 active single-family residential sanitation accounts for this collection service. Brush/Bulky – Collected once per month. (Basic collection included in monthly residential fee) Recycling – Collected once per week in a 90 gallon blue cart at same location as garbage cart. This is a voluntary program and the residents must request a blue recycle cart. (Collection included in monthly fee). Collection by City Forces – Commercial The City offers commercial collection services with rates varying upon frequency of service and container size. The majority of the commercial collection is provided by private hauling companies. Transfer Operations – The City operates three transfer stations. All waste from these stations is hauled to the McCommas Bluff Landfill (see Figure II.6 for these facility locations). All three transfer stations are permitted to accept waste 24 hours a day and seven days per week. The current usage is less than this amount. Bachman (Northwest) – (TCEQ MSW Permit No. 1145) 9500 Harry Hines Blvd. Open 6 days per week, 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to City and private commercial haulers, and City of Dallas residents. Fair Oaks (Northeast) – (TCEQ MSW Permit No. 60) 7677 Fair Oaks Avenue. Open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to City collection vehicles. The facility is open to City of Dallas residents on Wednesday and Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Oak Cliff (Southwest) – (TCEQ MSW Permit No. 1453) 4610 S. Westmoreland Road. Open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to City collection vehicles. The facility is open to City of Dallas residents on Wednesday and Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Disposal All waste collected by City crews is disposed at the McCommas Bluff Landfill (TCEQ MSW Permit No. 62) 5100 Youngblood Road. The landfill is permitted to accept waste on a continuous basis (24 hours per day, seven days per week). It is currently open Monday through Friday from 5:00 am to 8:00 pm and from 6:00 am to 4:00 pm on Saturdays. Solid waste collected by private haulers is disposed at McCommas Bluff Landfill or other regional privately operated landfills. Some waste from other cities is disposed at the McCommas Bluff Landfill through contractual arrangements or by individual private haulers. Figure II.7 summarizes the City’ solid waste system.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
21
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Figure II.7 Dallas Solid Waste System Overview Fiscal Year 2009-2010
1.3 million residents 237,187 active single-family residential accounts Weekly collection of residential waste 253,667 tons of residential waste collected
Weekly collection of recyclable materials from single-family residents 40,920 tons recyclable materials diverted from single-family residents
Monthly collection of Brush and Bulky Items 154,776 tons collected 92,695 tons brush diverted from brush and bulky item collection
Multifamily and commercial collection primarily by private haulers
McCommas Bluff Landfill – 1,362,000 tons disposed Enhanced Leachate Recirculation began in 2011, increasing available capacity by 15% Bachman Transfer Station – 12,000 to 15,000 tons per month; capacity 48,000 tons per month Fair Oaks Transfer Station – 4,000 to 6,000 tons per month; capacity 15,000 tons per month Oak Cliff Transfer Station – 4,000 to 6,000 tons per month; capacity 15,000 tons per month
Collection by Others – Commercial Solid waste collection from apartments, institutions, commercial establishments, and mobile home parks is performed primarily by private service providers with solid waste collection franchises granted by the City. Currently, 189 solid waste hauling companies are franchised by the City. Disposal by Others Some of the waste collected by private service providers is disposed at other area landfills. Figure II.8 shows the currently operating landfills in the NCTCOG region.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
22
City of Dallas
DRAFT: October 2011
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan
Figure II.8 Municipal and Private Landfills in the Dallas Region
23
Section II Area Analysis
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Other Solid Waste Entities (Recycling/Organics) The City operates a voluntary curbside recycling collection program (part of the Too Good to Throw Away program) for its single-family residential customers and diverts waste through various other programs. The City’s curbside recycling participation rate is approximately 64 percent and about 30 percent of single-family residential waste is diverted from landfills. The recyclables collected in the curbside collection system are transported to a private processor, Greenstar Recycling, located in Garland, Texas, for processing and marketing. The City receives a revenueshare based on market rates for the individual commodities less costs associated with the processing operation. Solid Waste and Recyclables collection for commercial and multifamily accounts are also provided by approximately 189 private haulers doing business in Dallas under franchise agreements. Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) operating in the City include one operated by Community Waste Disposal (2010 California Crossing) and one operated by Waste Management (5025 Cash Road). There are also several other metal and computer recycling companies operating in Dallas. Compost and mulch producers in Dallas include Living Earth Technologies (1901 California Crossing Road), Soil Building Systems, Inc. (1770 Y Street) and Envirmulch (401 E Wheatland Road). Locations of recycling facilities within the NCTCOG can be found on their website at http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/reduction/facilities/index.asp.
II.2.D Solid Waste Management Activities and Programs The City operates a number of diversion programs to reduce the volume of discarded materials requiring landfill disposal. These include: Too Good to Throw Away – This program provides curbside collection of recyclable materials from residential customers. Yard Waste Diversion – Clean brush or yard trimmings delivered by individuals or City brush/bulky waste collection crews are segregated and diverted from disposal. The brush and yard trimmings are mulched at the Bachman Transfer Station or the McCommas Landfill. Loads of brush co-collected with bulky items are currently not diverted from disposal. Dry Gulch Recycling Center – The City operates a Recycling Center located adjacent to the Bachman Transfer Station where residents can bring materials for recycling. Hard to Recycle Collection Events – The City sponsors semiannual “hard to recycle” collection events where residents can deliver items to designated drop‐off locations. Tire Diversion – Tires delivered separately by individuals or City crews at the Transfer Stations or Landfill are segregated and diverted from disposal. Don't Bag It! – This program encourages residents to mulch grass clippings rather than bag it and send it to landfills.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
24
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Hotel Pilot – The City has initiated a Pilot Program to reduce waste and increase recycling at hotels in the City. Multifamily Pilot – The City has initiated a Pilot Program to reduce waste and increase recycling at apartment complexes in the City. In‐House Office Recycling – The City of Dallas in‐house office paper recycling program diverts recyclable paper from City offices and buildings. Community Drop-off Sites – Drop-off sites are provided in selected City Parks where residents can bring materials for recycling. Electronics Recycling – Materials delivered to a City sponsored electronics recycling event. Metals Recycling – White goods and other metals are separately collected by City crews and delivered to the transfer station or landfill. These materials are stored on‐site and then picked up by Okon Metals for recycling. Other Programs In addition to the diversion activities described above, the City has implemented an Enhanced Leachate Recirculation (ELR) program at the McCommas Bluff Landfill. Clean water, leachate, and gas condensate are added to the landfill cells to increase degradation. This program is expected to speed up the waste degradation process, thus increasing the rate of landfill gas generation and settlement of the waste. The City expects to recapture approximately 10 to 30 percent of the available airspace for additional filling during the life of the landfill due to the accelerated settlement. Additionally, the practice of ELR will increase the rate of landfill gas generation, allowing the City to collect larger quantities in an accelerated timeframe.
II.2.E Capacity of Existing Solid Waste Management Facilities Landfill Capacity The Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A provides an analysis of the City’s McCommas Bluff Landfill capacity. This information is summarized below. The Annual (FY 2010) Report to TCEQ reported a remaining disposal capacity at McCommas Bluff Landfill of approximately 100,000,000 cubic yards as of August 31, 2010. Based upon the Annual Report for the previous year, the remaining capacity of the site was reduced by approximately 1,970,000 cubic yards during Fiscal Year 2010. This space was used for the reported 1,362,266 tons disposed plus any daily and/or intermediate cover used during the two reporting dates. This equates to an in place density of 1,382.8 (approximately 1,400) pounds per cubic yard for the waste and cover material placed in the McCommas Bluff Landfill during Fiscal Year 2010. This density is sometimes referred to as the airspace utilization factor (AUF) and is expressed in tons per cubic yard typical AUFs range from 0.5 to 0.8. The site area currently permitted for filling contains approximately 835 acres. Of that total acreage permitted for filling, approximately 394 acres remain undeveloped. Utilizing an AUF of 0.7, the 100,000,000 cubic yards of airspace remaining would Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
25
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
hold approximately 70,000,000 tons of waste. A review of the waste acceptance rates developed in the Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum (included in Appendix A), the McCommas Bluff Landfill received an average of approximately 1,750,000 tons per year over the past ten years and is expected to reach capacity between the years 2039 and 2053 based on the four scenarios that were analyzed. Increased diversion estimates, as envisioned in the Plan, would extend the landfill life by decades. Transfer Station Capacity The Task 3 Transfer Operations Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A provides an analysis of the three transfer stations used by City crews. This information is summarized below. Bachman (Northwest) – Since 2004 the Bachman Transfer Station has received an average of approximately 12,000 to 15,000 tons of waste per month, of which approximately 10 to 15 percent is delivered by residents and private waste haulers. The remaining 85 to 90 percent is delivered by City collection vehicles. The total Fiscal Year 2010 tonnage transferred through this station was 162,923 tons. This Bachman Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 2,000 tons per day (approximately 48,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself or increased operating hours. Fair Oaks (Northeast) – City vehicles using the Fair Oaks Transfer Station deliver an average of approximately 4,000 to 6,000 tons of waste per month. The total Fiscal Year 2010 tonnage transferred through this station was 52,816 tons. The Fair Oaks Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 700 tons per day (approximately 15,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself or increased operating hours. Oak Cliff (Southwest) – City vehicles using the Oak Cliff Transfer Station deliver an average of approximately 4,000 to 6,000 tons of waste per month. The total FY 2010 tonnage transferred through this Station was 57,914 tons. This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 700 tons per day (approximately 15,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself or increased operating hours. The three transfer stations have the capacity to handle the estimated waste projected to be generated during the planning period. The diversion programs outlined in the Plan may require some multi-use functions to be developed to manage recyclable material as well as material to be disposed.
II.2.F Planned New Facilities or Facility Expansions Although the current facilities are periodically updated and adjusted to meet the operational needs, there are no new solid waste facilities or facility expansions planned in the near future. This Plan identifies future facility needs for the planned diversion programs.
II.2.G Planned Solid Waste Management Activities and Programs There are no new solid waste management activities or programs planned in the near futures. This Plan identifies the future activities and programs needed in the City.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
26
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
II.2.H Inventory of Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfills The following Figure II.9 is from the NCTCOG website and shows locations of the known closed landfills in Dallas County. A listing of the closed landfill inventory for NCTCOG is included in Appendix B. More information on closed landfills can be found on the NCTCOG Closed Landfill Inventory web page located at: http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/cli_main.asp.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
27
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis Figure II-9 Closed Landfills in Dallas County
Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments; http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/map.asp?mode=Closed. Accessed July 28, 2011. See list of sites in Appendix B.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
28
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
II.3 System Evaluation and Needs Assessment This section evaluates both the current and planned solid waste management system activities, programs, and facilities in order to determine current and future needs, problems, and opportunities to be addressed in this Plan. Additional information is provided in the Technical Memoranda included in Appendix A:
Task 1 Solid Waste System Overview; Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios; Task 3 Transfer Station Operations; Task 4a Diversion Program Options; and, Task 4b Organics Diversion Options.
II.3.A Existing Solid Waste System Priorities The Task 1 Solid Waste System Overview Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A describes the City’s existing solid waste practices, policies and priorities. These include:
Providing an effective and efficient solid waste collection system; Maximizing the public benefits of the City’s McCommas Bluff Landfill; and Pursuing state-of-the art programs and facilities for managing waste generated in the City.
These priorities are consistent with the state’s hierarchy of preferred solid waste management methods:
Source reduction and waste minimization; Reuse or recycling of waste; Treatment to destroy or reprocess the waste for the purpose of recovering energy or other beneficial resources in a manner that will not threaten public health, safety, or the environment; and, land disposal.
The policies, programs and facilities identified in this Plan will further align the City’s priorities with those of the state.
II.3.B Anticipated Impact of Regulations Since the 1960s, federal, state, and city governments have developed a regulatory framework to ensure that solid and hazardous wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. Multiple agencies at each governmental level have responsibility for regulating each component of the solid waste management system including collection, processing, and final disposal. Regulation is generally used to set basic standards for waste transportation, handling, and disposal to ensure consistency and to protect public health and the environment. Education and voluntary programs are used to increase recycling, waste reduction, and composting rates; and to promote producer responsibility (through voluntary take back programs). Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
29
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Role of the Federal Government in Regulating Solid Waste The federal government sets basic requirements to ensure consistency among states and regulations to protect public health and the environment. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste management through the Office for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established landfill construction, management, and closure guidelines. This act also regulates hazardous waste management facilities that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress to address abandoned hazardous waste sites in the U.S. CERCLA has subsequently been amended, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The Office of Air and Radiation regulates the solid wasterelated air emissions, enforcing the Clean Air Act of 1976 (CAA) and subsequent amendments. Role of the State Government in Regulating Solid Waste Texas has a long-standing municipal solid waste regulatory program, which was initiated with the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, passed by the legislature in 1969. 5 The Act required the Texas Health Department to adopt regulations pertaining to the design, construction and operation of landfills and other solid waste facilities. Other major pieces of state legislation include:
The 1983 Comprehensive Municipal Solid Waste Management, Resource Recovery and Conservation Act which established the Municipal Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Advisory Council and prescribed procedures and criteria for those regional planning agencies and local governments which wished to develop solid waste management plans; The 1987 House Bill 2051 which established a preferred hierarchy, as a state policy, for the management of hazardous waste, municipal waste and municipal sludge; The 1989 Senate Bill 1519 which established a solid waste disposal fee program to fund the state’s municipal solid waste regulatory program and required the regional Councils of Governments to develop regional solid waste management plans and support the development of local plans through planning grants; The 1991 Omnibus Recycling Act which set statewide goal of 40 percent recycling for municipal solid waste by January 1, 1994; The 1993 Senate Bill 1051 which expanded state programs and changed the 40 percent recycling goal established in 1991 to a 40 percent reduction goal of the total amount of municipal solid waste disposed in the state through source reduction and recycling;
Texas Environmental Almanac, Chapter 8 Municipal Waste http://www.texascenter.org/almanac/Waste/MUNICIPALCH8P1.HTML#SOLID (accessed July 27, 2011). 5
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
30
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
The 1993 House Bill 2537 which addressed the risks associated with methane gas releases from closed landfills by establishing a process for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC, now TCEQ) to review proposals and issue permits to build atop closed municipal solid waste landfills; and, The 2007 Texas Computer Equipment Recycling Law which requires manufacturers to establish and implement a recovery plan for collection, recycling and reuse of computer products.
TCEQ is the environmental agency for the state and is responsible for mitigating impacts to the state’s air, land and water. TCEQ promulgates regulations and enforces state and federal requirements. TCEQ also provides technical assistance to municipalities and education resources on pollution prevention, including air pollution reduction, water pollution reduction, and waste reduction. State Legislative Trends Each year that the legislature is in session, numerous bills are introduced addressing recycling and solid waste management. Key topics of interest to state legislators over the course of recent legislative sessions include:
Producer responsibility for specific hazardous or difficult to recycle materials including, mercury thermostats, computers and televisions; and, Statewide “bottle bill” targeting cans and bottles for recycling.
No major state or federal regulations are anticipated to negatively impact the initiatives identified in this Plan.
II.3.C Waste Characterization Projections The Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A projects waste generation over the planning period as summarized in Table II.5. This table summarizes the scenario where all the waste generated in the City is disposed at the City’s landfill and the current level of diversion from single-family residents is maintained. No commercial or multifamily diversion is included. Diversion and disposal estimates increase in relation to projected increases in population. The generation estimates are divided into waste types for analysis of diversion options.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
31
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Table II.5 Waste Generation and Disposal Projections by Goals (All Dallas Waste Scenario) Generator
2011
2020
2030
2040
Single-family Diversion1
160,000
171,000
185,000
198,000
Single-family Disposal
378,000
406,000
437,000
469,000
Multifamily Disposal
534,000
573,000
617,000
662,000
Commercial Disposal
1,261,000
1,354,000
1,458,000
1,563,000
Total Disposal
2,173,000
2,333,000
2,512,000
2,694,000
Total Generation 2,333,000 2,504,000 2,697,000 2,892,000 Source: Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum 1 Baseline diversion estimates include the current single-family diversion tons only. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
The Task 4a Diversion Program Options Technical Memorandum analyzes the diversion potential of key initiatives, and projects potential diversion and disposal rates over the planning period using the following three scenarios.
Increase voluntary programs— provide separate collection of organics for composting, bulk item reuse and recycling, social marketing campaign, commercial technical assistance, encourage commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers, develop a construction and demolition debris (C&D) ordinance or incentive program and provide C&D technical assistance, develop Resource Recovery Facility(ies) within the City, and work with local retailers to increase take-back programs for hard-to-recycle items and advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level. Implement mandatory requirements—develop mandatory source-separation requirements. Process residual waste— process all solid waste prior to landfilling.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
32
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis Table II.6 Diversion Estimates by Scenario1 Baseline (existing programs)2 2011
Diversion (tons) Disposal (tons) Diversion rate 1
160,000 2,172,000 7%
Increasing voluntary programs 2020
Adding mandatory requirements 2030
1,011,000 1,493,000 40%
1,856,000 841,000 69%
Add residual waste processing3 2040 2,421,000 472,000 84%
Assumptions by program and material type are included in Appendix A. Baseline diversion estimates include the current single-family diversion tons only. Baseline disposal tons for 2011 are based on the estimated generation within the City less the projected single-family diversion estimate. Some of the disposal ton estimate may not be currently disposed. 3 “Residual waste processing” means separating recyclable and compostable materials from solid waste at a mixed waste material recovery facility prior to landfilling. 2
II.3.D Solid Waste System Facility Assessment Landfill Capacity Projections The Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum estimates landfill capacity based on four scenarios.
Scenario 1: Assumes that only current users will continue to dispose of waste at McCommas Bluff Landfill without any new users. Scenario 2: Assumes that ALL waste generated in Dallas will be disposed (after current levels of diversion from the single-family collection programs) at the McCommas Bluff Landfill. Scenario 3: Assumes that ALL waste generated in Dallas will be disposed (after current levels of diversion from the single-family collection programs) at the McCommas Bluff Landfill AND Enhanced Leachate Recirculation will be continued during the life of the landfill. Scenario 4: Assumes that ALL waste generated in Dallas will be disposed at the McCommas Bluff Landfill AND Enhanced Leachate Circulation will be continued during the life of the landfill AND Residential Waste Quantity Diversion will be increased to 50% through additional Diversion Programs.
Table II.7 depicts the results of the landfill capacity analysis, including the year that the McCommas Bluff Landfill is projected to reach capacity under each scenario.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
33
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis Table II.7 Landfill Capacity Analysis Scenario
Scenario 1 Current Users Scenario 2 All Dallas Waste Scenario 3 All Dallas Waste with Enhanced Leachate Recirculation Scenario 4 All Dallas Waste with Enhanced Leachate Recirculation and increased residential Diversion
Year Landfill Will Reach Capacity 2054 2039 2043 2045
Source: Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum
The scenarios analyzed in Appendix A, Task 2 indicated that the City’s landfill will reach capacity prior to the end of the planning period. However, should additional diversion programs as outlined in this plan be implemented, the landfill life would increase dramatically. Transfer Station Capacity Projections The Task 3 Transfer Operations Technical Memorandum provides the City’s transfer station capacity projections. The projections confirm that the City is likely to have sufficient transfer capacity throughout the planning period. Bachman (Northwest) ‐ This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 2,000 tons per day (approximately 48,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself or increased operating hours. This facility design capacity is over three times the current throughput at the facility (12,000 to 15,000 tons per month) and should be able to meet the long term needs of the City under the assumption that the current facility user types remain the same (85-90% City collection vehicles) and waste quantities increase as projected in the Task 2 Technical Memorandum. However, if additional waste quantities (from commercial haulers) are captured and directed to the facility, and if needed, additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, and staff. Fair Oaks (Northeast) ‐ This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 700 tons per day (approximately 15,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself or increased operating hours. This facility design capacity is approximately 2.5 times the current throughput at the facility (4,000 to 6,000 tons per month) and should be able to meet the long term needs of the City under the assumption that the current facility user types remain the same (City Residential Collection Vehicles and Private Citizens only) and waste quantities increase as projected in the Task 2 Technical Memorandum. However, if additional waste quantities (from commercial haulers) are captured and directed to the facility, the facility is not designed to transfer that amount of waste, which would equal the waste stream from ¼ of the City. (Due to the geographic location of the City’s Solid Waste facilities, it is projected that each of the three transfer stations plus the landfill would accept approximately ¼ of the City’s waste.) Some additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, and staff. However
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
34
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
the facility site is restricted in size due to the surrounding area’s location in the 100 year flood plain of White Rock Creek and cannot be expanded to meet the overall needs from ¼ of the City. Oak Cliff (Southwest) ‐ This Transfer Station has a design throughput capacity of 700 tons per day (approximately 15,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself or increased operating hours. This facility design capacity is approximately 2.5 times the current throughput at the facility (4,000 to 6,000 tons per month) and should be able to meet the long term needs of the City under the assumption that the current facility user types remain the same (City Residential Collection Vehicles and Private Citizens only) and waste quantities increase as projected in the Task 2 Technical Memorandum. However, if additional waste quantities (from commercial haulers) are captured and directed to the facility, the facility is not designed to transfer the entire waste stream from ¼ of the City. There is limited space for facility expansion, but the facility could be expanded in size to meet some of the future needs. Some additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, staff, and the relocation of the office and scale system. If the facility would be expected to transfer all of the waste quantities from ¼ of the City, it is anticipated that the facility would be replaced with a new facility rather than expanding the existing facility. There are a number of options available to the City to more effectively manage the solid waste resources (types and quantities of materials) that will be generated in the City. Options would include expansion of existing programs and possible new programs and facilities. The cost estimates presented in the following sections represent a wide variety of potential technologies, feedstocks and operational considerations. The estimates are valid for planning purposes and more up-to-date project specific information should be used when reviewing specific opportunities. Compost Facility Development Consistent with the hierarchy of preferred solid waste management methods and to reach the City planned diversion goals, the City will need to invest in new composting infrastructure. Composting facilities are designed for collecting, grinding, mixing, piling, and supplying sufficient moisture and air to organic materials (including yard trimmings, food scraps, biosolids and other organic materials) to speed natural decay. The finished product of a composting operation is compost, a soil amendment suitable for incorporating into topsoil and for growing plants. Compost is different from mulch, which is a shredded or chipped organic material placed on top of soil as a protective layer. Compost facilities can vary greatly in size. Small compost facilities are typically in the range of 100 - 250 tons per day (26,000 - 65,000 tons per year), and large compost facilities range from 1,000 - 3,000 tons per day (260,000 - 780,000 tons per year), based on 260 operating days per year. Compost technologies include:
Windrow – compostable material is piled in long rows and regularly turned to enhance aerobic activity and control temperature; In-vessel – compostable material is placed in enclosed reactors (metal tanks, concrete bunkers or plastic tubes) where airflow and temperature can be controlled; and, Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
35
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Aerated static pile – compostable material is placed in piles on perforated pipes under removable covers, and fans are used to push or pull air through the pipes to control the composting process.
The Task 4b Organics Diversion Options Technical Memorandum addresses the ability to process source separated organics at the McCommas Bluff Landfill using open windrow technology. The analysis concludes that the site will support a large windrow composting operation and identified the following to increase throughput capacity either to accommodate all of the feedstock currently generated, or to accommodate growth.
Divert some wood or brush from composting directly to mulch.
Improve more of the designated acreage for a larger windrow area.
Intensive windrow management, including consolidating windrows at the earliest opportunity to conserve space.
Compost Facility Costs and Revenues Capital Cost: $5,000 to $25,000 per ton of daily capacity (low end for traditional windrows, high end for covered Aerated Static Pile / in-vessel) Tipping Fee: $17-60/ton Recyclables Processing Development Recyclables processing facilities receive and process source separated recyclables from residential blue bin programs and commercial recycling programs. These facilities use various technologies and methods to sort, bale, and ship material by commodity type to markets. Recyclables processing facilities typically recover traditional recyclable materials, including newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, aluminum cans, bi-metal cans, plastic bottles, mixed plastics and glass containers. Typical contaminants include food scraps, auto parts, yard trimmings, wood, dirt and other inerts, glass shards, and garbage. Contaminant levels for recyclables processing facilities are strongly tied to the performance of the residential curbside recycling programs to eliminate contamination, which depends on education and enforcement. These type of facilities have been in operation in the US and internationally for over 25 years and are considered to be mature, proven technologies. The recyclables collected through the curbside collection system are currently transported to a private processor, Greenstar Recycling, located in Garland Texas, for separation. The City pays a processing fee and shares in the revenues from the separated recyclables under a current agreement depending upon markets for the individual commodities. It is anticipated that there will be sufficient private sector recyclables processing capacity within the region throughout the planning period. However, the City may wish to develop recyclables processing capacity in order to control its own materials and potentially increase its share of the recyclables revenues. Public ownership may also provide more flexibility and allow the City to target additional materials for recycling. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
36
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Recyclables Processing Costs and Revenues Capital Cost: $25,000 per ton of daily capacity Tipping Fee: pays $10-20 per ton (depending on quality of feed stock, market price, and revenue share). There is also other value to the City in the resources recovered. Resource Recovery Parks Resource Recovery Parks are places where materials can be dropped off for donation or buyback and typically co-locates reuse, recycling and composting, processing, manufacturing, and distribution activities. They can be centers for drop-off of hard to recycle items, including mattresses, large blocks of Styrofoam, and textiles. Typically, these facilities are located in industrially zoned areas that are reserved for companies that process secondary materials or make other products from these materials. The Resource Recovery Park concept has been evolving naturally at landfills and transfer stations. Landfills and transfer stations have historically been located near the centers of waste generation. A Resource Recovery Park can make the landfill or transfer station more sustainable by diversifying revenue, conserving capacity, and extending the useful life of those facilities. Resource recovery facilities provide additional recycling opportunities for self-hauled loads. Self-haul customers are typically charged by the load to dispose of waste. Reuse stores or drop-off centers may not charge a fee or in some cases may pay for some materials. The City may wish to expand the options for self-haul generators at the landfill and transfer stations by establishing Resource Recovery Parks to divert materials prior to landfilling. Resource Recovery Parks Costs and Revenues Capital Cost: $50,000 per ton of daily capacity Tipping Fee: $0 per ton (Generally offered free to the public through subsidy by local jurisdiction; costs $50-100 per ton diverted). There is also other value to the City in the resources recovered. Mixed Material Processing Facility A mixed material processing facility, sometimes referred to as a dirty MRF, is a facility that sorts recyclable material from MSW from residential and commercial sources. These facilities can also be adapted to sort or remove different materials to prepare MSW for composting, waste-to-energy, and other alternative technologies. Desired loads include MSW from residential and commercial generators, and undesirable loads include concentrated amounts of C&D materials or concentrated amounts of wet materials, such as restaurant food. Alternative technology facilities can include a mixed material processing facility to prepare the materials for the technology. MSW from residential and commercial collection vehicles is tipped onto a floor. Material is sorted on the floor to remove larger items such as dimensional wood, metal, or large pieces of plastics that might clog or interrupt sort lines. Loaders or grapples then load a conveyor or surge hopper. In most cases, a mechanical device is used to open bags and containers prior to screening and sorting. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
37
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Material can be processed through dual stage screens to separate fiber (cardboard, newspaper, and mixed paper), containers, and small contaminants. Fiber is hand sorted off elevated conveyor platforms into commodities and dropped into bunkers below. Containers are processed through ferrous magnets, eddy-current magnets, and hand sorting. The small contaminant stream (dirt, rocks, broken glass and ceramics, bottle caps) may be further processed by optical/pneumatic sorting. Sorted material is move from bunkers and baled (fiber, plastic, metal) or loaded directly into roll-off trucks (glass). The remaining material is shipped for disposal. Resource Recovery Parks Costs and Revenues Capital Cost: $30,000 - $50,000 per ton of daily capacity Tipping Fee: $40 - $60 per ton (varies depending on quality of feedstock, revenue from recyclables, transportation cost). There is also other value to the City in the resources recovered.
II.3.E Solid Waste Management Activity and Program Assessment The City operates a number of diversion programs to reduce the volume of discarded materials requiring landfill disposal. These include:
Residential Recycling Collection – weekly collection provided to all single-family residences, using wheeled carts; Big Blue Recycling Drop-Off Sites – targeting multifamily residences and available to all generators; Brush Collection – monthly collection available to all residents; Electronics Recycling – drop-off program available to all residents; Pilot Recycling Programs – targeting multifamily residences and hotels; and, Landfill Diversion Programs – targeting metals, concrete, asphalt, sawdust, clean soil and brush.
Consistency with State Hierarchy The Task 1 Solid Waste System Overview Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A provides a description of the City’s current programs and infrastructure. The City’s has a robust recycling and solid waste management infrastructure consistent with:
Federal and State Regulatory Requirements; State Solid Waste Management Hierarchies; 6 and Regional Waste Management Priorities.
Source reduction and waste minimization; Reuse or recycling of waste; Treatment to destroy or reprocess the waste for the purpose of recovering energy or other beneficial resources in a manner that will not threaten public health, safety, or the environment; and land disposal.
6
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
38
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
The City’s recycling goals include the themes of:
“Don’t Waste Today” – Emphasizing waste prevention and recycling; “Too Good to Throw Away” – Maximizing participation in the City’s recycling programs; and, “Don’t Bag It!” – Encouraging residents to mulch and compost yard trimmings instead of placing them in the street for collection.
These strategies focus on the state level hierarchies of source reduction, waste minimization, reuse and recycling. The City’s curbside recycling participation rate is approximately 64 percent and about 30 percent of residential waste is currently diverted from landfills. The City is in the process of implementing an Enhanced Leachate Recirculation program at the McCommas Bluff Landfill by adding additional clean water as well as recirculating leachate and gas condensate. This program is expected to speed up the waste degradation process, thus increasing the rate of landfill gas generation and settlement of the waste. The City expects to recapture approximately 10 to 30% of the airspace available for additional filling due to the accelerated settlement. The City’s landfill gas to energy program is consistent with state level hierarchy of energy recovery from waste. Consistency with Regional Goals The three goals of the NCTCOG regional plan are:
Time to Recycle – purchased materials are reused and recycled wherever possible; Stop Illegal Dumping – illegal dumping is significantly reduced; and Assuring Capacity for Trash – the remaining waste is handled in a safe manner at permitted facilities.
This Plan will assist the region in achieving each of these goals by developing infrastructure needed to reuse and recycle materials. By building on the needs of the City, regional recycling opportunities will be developed. It is definitely Time to Recycle and this Plan outlines steps for the City to take to meet its Zero Waste goals. By Assuring Capacity for Trash and providing adequate access to that capacity, Illegal Dumping can be reduced. Additionally by educating the public on the resource value of our discards, the desire to simply “get rid” of these materials will be diminished. The City has analyzed the effect of varying disposal and diversion quantities on the site life of the McCommas Bluff Landfill in the Task 2 Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A. Under the current disposal rates, the landfill has a remaining useful life of approximately 53 years (year 2054). Using a very aggressive assumption that all waste generated in the City will be disposed at the landfill with no increase in the current levels of diversion, the City has remaining capacity for almost 28 years (year 2039). Should single-family diversion rates increase to 50% and the Enhanced Leachate Recirculation project reclaim the anticipated useful airspace, an additional four to six years of disposal capacity would be Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
39
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
realized. Should the diversion rates be expanded to the multifamily and commercial sectors, the life of the landfill would be lengthened even further. With the implementation of this Plan, the City is poised to transition its system from one focused on collection and disposal to one based on resource management. This Plan will help the City to reach the landfill diversion goals of: 40 percent by 2020; 60 percent by 2030; and, Zero Waste by 2040.
II.3.F Needs Summary This section summarizes the City’s solid waste management needs over the planning period and addresses:
Diversion Program Needs; Transfer Station Needs; and, Landfill Capacity Needs.
Diversion Program Needs To meet the local and regional waste management goals, the City will need to implement new policies, programs and infrastructure. The City will also need to take an active role in supporting diversion activities for all generators, including residential generators (single-family and multifamily), commercial generators (including businesses, institutions, and industrial), and construction and demolition debris generators (including contractors, demolition companies, and self-haulers). Policies will be needed to encourage and, potentially require, residential and commercial generators to reduce waste, recycle and compost. Policies considered for implementation could include those listed in Table II.8
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
40
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis Table II.8 Potential Policies for Implementation
Policies
Residential
Commercial
Rate structure incentives Mandatory recycling and composting
Require all businesses to have recycling service Require all businesses to recycle specific materials Require all businesses to reach a certain diversion level Ban specific materials from disposal (cardboard, C&D) Require commercial haulers to reach specific diversion levels Require commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers Require all commercial kitchens to have either pulpers or under-sink garbage disposers.
Construction and Demolition Debris Require C&D generators to prepare C&D diversion plans Require processing of all C&D loads Require all C&D generators to reach a certain diversion level (75% for construction debris, 90% for inert materials) Ordinance requiring Resource Recovery Parks at all transfer stations and landfills
All Generators Extended Producer Responsibility Packaging legislation Voluntary take-back requirements Product bans Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Ordinance Green events ordinance
Programs will need to be provided by the City to ensure that all residential and commercial generators have access to waste prevention, recycling and composting. Programs can include collection system infrastructure provided directly by the City or technical assistance and outreach programs to assist generators in getting the services that they need. Programs considered for implementation could include those listed in Table II.9. Table II.9 Potential Programs for Implementation
Programs
Residential
Commercial
Add materials to recycling program (textiles, durable plastics, film plastic, scrap metal) Source-separated organics collection (yard trimmings, food scraps) Bulky item and scrap tire reuse and recycling Recycling technical assistance
Social marketing programs for specific generator types or districts (Business Improvement Districts or Building Owner and Manager Association or other) Provide recycling and composting services to all schools Provide recycling and composting services to all multifamily complexes Commercial technical assistance
Construction and All Demolition Generators Debris C&D diversion technical assistance
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
Large scale media campaign (Don’t mess with Texas) CommunityBased Social marketing
41
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
Infrastructure will be needed to manage the new diversion tons generated from the new policies and programs. The City will also need to invest in new infrastructure at the McCommas Bluff Landfill to maximize the public benefit of the facility and ensure sufficient capacity for the region. Facilities considered for implementation could include those listed in Table II.10. Table II.10 Potential Facilities for Implementation Residential Facilities
Enhanced recycling processing Expansion of mulch/composting operations
Commercial Enhanced recycling processing Expansion of mulch/composting operations
Construction and Demolition Debris
All Generators
Resource recovery park at City landfill Construction and demolition debris processing
Resource recovery park at City landfill
Transfer Station Needs The Task 3 Transfer Operations Technical Memorandum concluded that the City is well-served by its transfer stations and the City is expected to have ample transfer capacity over the planning period. The City may wish to increase diversion programs at transfer stations, including:
Resource Recovery Parks for self-haul vehicles for separation of materials prior to disposal; Recyclables processing for transfer stations with the capacity to expand operations; and Transfer capacity for source-separated recyclables and organics.
Landfill Capacity Needs The Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Technical Memorandum concluded that without additional diversion, landfill capacity available to the City will be diminished over the planning period. The City may wish to increase diversion programs to extend the landfill capacity by including:
Resource Recovery Parks for self-haul vehicles for separation of materials prior to disposal; Recyclables processing for materials collected by City crews or delivered by City generators to the landfill; and, Expansion of organics processing to including composting of brush, yard trimmings, food scraps, and other organics.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
42
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
II.4 Analysis of Alternatives This section provides the results of the analysis of the diversion potential and greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential of the policies, programs and technologies. Additional information is provided in the Technical Memoranda included in Appendix A:
Task 4a Diversion Program Options; Task 4b Organics Diversion Options; Task 5a Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste; and, Task 5b Technology Options for Source Separated Organics.
II.4.A Alternative Technologies The Task 5 Technical Memoranda included in Appendix A provides a description of alternative technologies for treating municipal solid waste and source-separated organics. Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste The technologies discussed in the Task 5a Technology Options Technical Memorandum cover a wide spectrum of waste‐processing approaches. The state of development of technologies being considered varies widely. One alternative technology is in commercial operation using municipal solid waste (MSW) as a feedstock in numerous facilities worldwide. Another is in limited commercial operation using supplemented MSW as a feedstock in Japan. A third is in operation using a selected portion of the MSW waste stream at a few commercial installations in Europe. Others have demonstration and/or pilot facilities in operation or development using MSW as a feedstock. Some have prototype facilities under construction. Some have yet to be developed commercially. Each of the technologies poses environmental considerations. Each of the technologies presents a different risk profile. These differences will be tabulated for comparison. The certainty associated with estimating capital and operating costs is limited with the less developed technologies. The economics from both a capital and operating cost vary between the alternative technology options. Table II.11 presents a summary of the various technology options and certain critical criteria. Table II.11 Summary of Technology Options
Technology Anaerobic digestion
State of Development Proven for select Waste Stream
Environmental Considerations Odor is primary concern. Can be addressed.
Risk Limited based on composition of the waste received; needs to be purely organic materials
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
Applicability to the waste stream At this time can only address source separated organic materials
Relative Cost (High, Medium & Low) High
43
City of Dallas Technology
Section II Area Analysis State of Development
Environmental Considerations
Risk
Aerobic Composting
Proven for select Waste Stream
Odor is primary concern. Can be addressed
RDF processing and combustion
Commercially proven
Mass burn combustion
Commercially proven
Gasification
Limited commercial operation in Japan and Europe
Plasma Arc Gasification
Limited commercial operation in Japan
Pyrolysis
Limited commercial development
Hydrolysis
No known commercial facilities are in operation using mixed waste
Emissions primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards Emissions are primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards Emissions are primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards Emissions are primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards Emissions are primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards Not well defined
Catalytic Depolymerization
Laboratory scale using select materials
Not well defined
High risk due to limited experience on MSW
Thermal Depolymerization
Demonstration/Pilot scale using select materials
Not well defined
Medium to high risk due to limited experience on MSW; requires higher energy input than catalytic depolymerization
Applicability to the waste stream
Relative Cost (High, Medium & Low)
Limited based on feedstock and can be sited appropriately to avoid odors to nearby residents Limited if combustion is located with processing. Limited
Needs source separated organic feedstock
Low
Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly
High
Some operability and economic risk
Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly
High
Some operability and economic risk
Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly
High
High risk due to limited experience on MSW
Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly.
High
High risk due to limited experience on MSW
Needs source separation of the cellulosic portion of the waste stream Needs source separation of the plastics & similar materials
Unknown
Needs source separation of the feedstock materials
Unknown
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
High
Unknown
44
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis Applicability to the waste stream
Relative Cost (High, Medium & Low)
State of Development
Environmental Considerations
Autoclaving
Limited development using MSW as feedstock; more proven when using other homogeneous or organic feedstocks
Some minor emissions from autoclaving process; controls can mitigate these concerns
High risk due to limited experience on MSW and at commercial levels needed
Works best on source separated materials; some testing done with MSW
Medium
Mixed Waste MRF
Commercially proven
Minor emissions from mobile equipment
Very limited
Can take entire waste stream
Medium
Technology
Risk
APC – Air Pollution Control; MSW – Municipal Solid Waste; RDF – Refuse Derived Fuel; Materials Recycling Facility - MRF
Recommended Technology for Municipal Solid Waste The technologies that appear to be most suitable at this time for consideration include: aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion, a mixed waste materials recycling facility (MRF) and continuing with landfilling and the current system of landfill gas‐to‐energy recovery. Technology Options for Source-Separated Organics Table II.12 describes several available technologies for diverting organics from landfill disposal by various processes. They produce products for beneficial use, enable energy recovery, or both. The current condition, landfilling with recovery of methane for energy, is the baseline for relative comparison. Table II.12 Organic Waste Management Technology Comparison Matrix Criterion Technology1 Windrow Composting
Environmental - decreased GHG - decreases water demand - decreases fertilizer use/runoff - erosion control -landfill diversion
Economic - low facility cost - moderate equipment cost -low operating cost -landfill diversion -decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill -product revenue
Regulatory - authorization type depends on feedstocks (registration or lower) - monitoring and reporting required
Nuisance Potential - minimal odor with careful operation and feedstock management - dust and noise potential
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
Operations - highly flexible - BMPs essential to maintain product quality, marketability, and nuisance reduction -requires separate collection -contamination can be removed after processing
45
City of Dallas Criterion Technology1 Aerated Static Pile Composting
Environmental
Section II Area Analysis Economic
Regulatory
Nuisance Potential -biofilter typically required for odor control -dust reduced if enclosed or covered
- decreased GHG - decreases water demand - decreases fertilizer use/runoff - erosion control -landfill diversion
- moderate facility cost -often requires building - moderate equipment cost -low operating cost -landfill diversion decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill -product revenue
- authorization type depends on feedstocks (registration or lower) - monitoring and reporting required -OSHA concerns ref. hazardous indoor environment if applicable
In-Vessel Composting
decreased GHG - decreases water demand - decreases fertilizer use/runoff - erosion control -landfill diversion
-high capital cost -electricity cost -high pre-processing cost -moderate operating cost -decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill -product revenue
- authorization type depends on feedstocks - monitoring and reporting required
-reduced nuisance potential
Anaerobic Digestion (Wastewater Digester or Dedicated)
-efficient GHG/energy recovery -low environmental risk associated with processing -decreases available wastewater digester capacity
-if in wastewater sludge digester, under wastewater permit -if in stand-alone digester, under solid waste permit and likely under research and development provisions
-low for enclosed systems
Waste-To-Fuel Conversion (ethanol, syngas, etc.)
-relatively unproven at full scale
-high capital cost for dedicated facility or expanded digester capacity -high capital cost for pre-processing and pipeline -methane revenue -increased financial risk with new technologies -decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill -high capital cost -long-term financing
-permit required under Research and Development provisions
-little operating experience in U.S.
Waste-to-Energy or Biomass-toEnergy Processing
-low environmental risk with proper operation and controls -reject and residue disposal
-high capital cost -high O&M cost -long-term financing -decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill -reject and residue disposal
-permit required
-low with proper operation and controls
(forced air or induced draft, enclosed or covered)
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
Operations -accelerates aerobic decomposition -less flexible than windrow -typically covered piles, Ag-bag, or enclosed structure -biofilter or other odor control typically required -requires separate collection or extensive pre-processing -typically requires windrow or ASP after in-vessel preprocessing -somewhat decreased processing time & decreased footprint -increased preprocessing -less flexible than windrow and ASP -requires separate collection -increased operational risk with new technologies -requires separate collection and extensive preprocessing -end product can be composted - not appropriate for large yard trimmings/ wood and brush -little full-scale operational experience demonstrated -typically requires separate collection or extensive preprocessing, or both -highly specialized operation -typically mixed MSW for mass-burn and RDF -typically single fuel for biomass -highly specialized operation
46
City of Dallas Criterion Technology1 Commercial Kitchen Pulpers Required by Ordinance (specialized machines for producing organic pulp from commercial food waste) Landfill Gas Recovery (CURRENT CONDITION)
Environmental -low impact
Section II Area Analysis Economic -increased cost to generators -specialized hauling or on-site composting/ digestion required
Nuisance Potential -high potential associated with storage and transportation of pulp
Regulatory none
-variable rates of GHG recovery
-preserves methane -permit generation and recovery at landfill -decreases landfill capacity GHG – Green House Gas, BMP – Best Management Practices, ASP – Aerated Static Pile, MSW – Municipal Solid Waste, RDF – Refuse Derived Fuel 1ASSUMPTION: Does not address mixed MSW grease/grit trap processing.
-organics increase potential for odor
Operations -facilitates all processes -requires separate collection -public opposition due to increased cost of installation
-brush and large wood may require special handling, increased compaction effort
O&M – Operations and Maintenance,
Recommended Technology for Source-Separated Organics In the short- to mid-term, windrow composting represents a proven technology of relatively low cost, with high potential for both front-end and back-end revenues. It is highly flexible over time as feedstocks change with changing waste stream characteristics. Windrow composting will preserve landfill life through diversion without significant decrease in methane generation over time, and it will realize other environmental benefits associated with the beneficial use of compost and mulch products.
II.4.B Analysis of Goals and Objectives The Task 4a Diversion Program Options Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A describes the policies and programs that could be implemented to achieve the City’s goal of Zero Waste by 2040, with the interim steps of 40 percent diversion by 2020 and 60 percent by 2030. To understand the effectiveness of the diversion policies and programs, the following key initiatives were evaluated. 1. Encourage commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers— targeting multifamily and commercial generators. 2. Consider requirements for mandatory separation of recyclables and compostables from trash—targeting all generator sectors. 3. Develop a construction and demolition debris (C&D) ordinance and provide C&D technical assistance -- targeting roll-off and self-haul generators. 4. Advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level and work with local retailers to increase take-back programs—targeting all generator sectors. 5. Provide separate collection for organics—targeting all generators. 6. Provide bulk item reuse and recycling—targeting all generators. 7. Undertake a social marketing campaign—targeting all generator sectors. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
47
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
8. Provide commercial technical assistance—targeting multifamily and commercial generators. 9. Develop a Resource Recovery Park at the landfill—targeting self-haul generators. 10. Develop a mixed materials processing facility to separate recyclables and compostables from trash—targeting all generators. Diversion Results Based on the assumptions and calculations included in the diversion model, implementing the key initiatives will increase the citywide diversion rate to 84 percent. Table II.13 Diversion Estimates by Generator Diversion (tons) Disposal (tons) Diversion rate
Single-family 575,000 92,000 86%
Multifamily 539,000 123,000 81%
Commercial 1,307,000 257,000 84%
Total 2,421,000 472,000 84%
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding. Single-family diversion estimates include the current single-family diversion rate of approximately 30%.
The diversion rates are presented as a snapshot in time assuming full implementation of all programs. In reality, policies and programs will be developed over time through additional research, testing, and pilot programs before the programs are fully implemented. Several policies will require new ordinances and regulations which will require City Council action and time to implement. Based on this analysis, the City can increase its diversion rate to at least 84 percent, a very high rate of diversion, by implementing the policies and programs described in this Plan. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential The key initiatives described in the Plan can significantly reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the estimated diversion rates at full implementations of all programs, the following table presents the potential greenhouse gas emissions reduction of the scenarios, using U.S. EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) factors based on material types and diversion quantity estimates. Table II.14 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Estimates by Generator MTCO2E1
Single-family (523,000)
Multifamily (749,000)
Commercial (1,783,000)
Total (3,056,000)
96,000
137,000
327,000
560,000
Equivalent number of cars removed from the road 1
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
The U.S. EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. WARM calculates and totals greenhouse gas emissions of baseline and alternative waste management practices—source reduction, recycling, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE), metric tons of carbon dioxide Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
48
City of Dallas
Section II Area Analysis
equivalent (MTCO2E), and energy units (million BTU) across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste.
II.4.C Analysis of Implementation Options Phasing Recommendations The City and its stakeholders favor a phased approach where increased outreach and technical assistance would be provided prior to mandatory requirements. The diversion results are based on these three scenarios that build upon each other:
Increase voluntary programs— provide separate collection for organics for composting, bulk item reuse and recycling, social marketing campaign, commercial technical assistance, encourage commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers, develop a construction and demolition debris (C&D) ordinance programs or incentive programs and provide C&D technical assistance, develop Resource Recovery Facility(ies) within the City, and work with local retailers to increase take-back programs for hard-to-recycle items and advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level; Implement mandatory requirements—develop mandatory source-separation requirements; and, Process residual waste— process all solid waste prior to landfilling. Table II.15 Diversion Estimates by Scenario1 Baseline (existing programs)2 2011
Diversion (tons) Disposal (tons) Diversion rate 1
160,000 2,172,000 7%
Increasing voluntary programs 2020 1,011,000 1,493,000 40%
Adding mandatory requirements 2030 1,856,000 841,000 69%
Add residual waste processing3 2040 2,421,000 472,000 84%
Assumptions by program and material type are included in Appendix A. Baseline diversion estimates include the current single-family diversion tons only. 3 “Residual waste processing” means separating recyclable and compostable materials from solid waste at a mixed waste material recovery facility prior to landfilling. 2
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
49
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations
Section III Area Recommendations III.1 Goals, Objectives and Priorities This section describes how the policies, programs and technologies work to achieve the goals and objectives of the City. As described in section I.I.3, the City developed the following vision statement during the planning process. The City of Dallas will:
Strive for sustainability by considering the entire life‐cycle of products, processes, and Systems; Demonstrate that the goals of economic growth, environmental stewardship and fiscal responsibility are inextricably linked; Reduce the volume of discarded materials and maximize diversion from disposal; and, Spur economic growth by recovering valuable raw materials and clean energy from discarded materials.
To realize this vision, the following goals were established for the Plan.
40 percent diversion by 2020; 60 percent diversion by 2030; and, Zero Waste by 2040.
The Task 4a Diversion Program Options Technical Memorandum included in Appendix A describes the policies and programs that will be implemented to achieve the City’s goal of Zero Waste, with the interim steps of 40 percent diversion by 2020 and 60 percent by 2030. As described in II.4.B, the City identified the following programs for implementation over the planning period. 1. Encourage commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers— targeting multifamily and commercial generators. 2. Consider requirements for mandatory separation of recyclables and compostables from trash—targeting all generator sectors. 3. Develop a construction and demolition debris (C&D) ordinance and provide C&D technical assistance -- targeting roll-off and self-haul generators. 4. Advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level and work with local retailers to increase take-back programs—targeting all generator sectors. 5. Provide separate collection for organics—targeting all generators. 6. Provide bulk item reuse and recycling—targeting all generators. 7. Undertake a social marketing campaign—targeting all generator sectors. 8. Provide commercial technical assistance—targeting multifamily and commercial generators. 9. Develop a Resource Recovery Park at the landfill—targeting self-haul generators. Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
50
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations
10. Develop a mixed materials processing facility to separate recyclables and compostables from trash—targeting all generators. As described in section II.4.C, the City and its stakeholders favor a phased approach where increased outreach and technical assistance would be provided prior to mandatory requirements. These programs work together to achieve the City’s goals. The diversion results are based on these three scenarios that build upon each other:
Increasing voluntary programs— provide separate collection for organics, bulk item reuse and recycling, social marketing campaign, commercial technical assistance, require commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers, develop a C&D ordinance and provide C&D technical assistance, develop a Resource Recovery Park at the landfill, and work with local retailers to increase take-back programs for hard-to-recycle items and advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level; Implementing mandatory requirements—develop mandatory source-separation requirements; and, Processing residual waste— process all solid waste prior to landfilling. Table III.1 Diversion Estimates by Scenario1 Baseline (existing programs)2 2011
Diversion (tons) Disposal (tons) Diversion rate 1
160,000 2,172,000 7%
Increasing voluntary programs 2020 1,011,000 1,493,000 40%
Adding mandatory requirements 2030 1,856,000 841,000 69%
Add residual waste processing3 2040 2,421,000 472,000 84%
Assumptions by program and material type are included in Appendix A. Baseline diversion estimates include the current single-family diversion tons only. Baseline disposal tons for 2011 are based on the estimated generation within the City less the projected single-family diversion estimate. Some of the disposal ton estimate may not be currently disposed. 3 “Residual waste processing” means separating recyclable and compostable materials from solid waste at a mixed waste material recovery facility prior to landfilling. 2
III.2 Action Plan This section includes the tasks necessary to undertake the Local Solid Waste Management Plan, including the action steps, and an implementation schedule.
III.2.A Actions Table III.2 lists all of the tasks necessary to undertake the Plan. Model ordinances and contracts that may be needed to implement some of these action steps are included in Appendix C.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
51
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations Table III.2 Implementation Tasks 2013 through 2040 Programs
2013-2014
Voluntary Programs 2013-2020 1. Social Marketing
Voluntary Programs 2015-2016 2017-2018
a. Surveys and focus groups b. Reach out to neighborhoods across the City c. Use multiple outreach approaches, including on-line and hard copy surveys d. Marketing plan e. Media buys f. Volunteer training g. Outreach materials h. Provide Support to School, Community, and Faith Organizations, to assist with environmental stewardship, outreach and education efforts i. Work with stakeholder community to develop recognition guidelines j. Hold business recycling recognition awards event k. Work with stakeholder community to develop Green restaurant guidelines l. Green restaurant list published m. Case studies published on website, newspaper, Chamber newspapers, church bulletins, etc. n. Evaluate the effectiveness of Social Marketing Activities o. Update Social Marketing tools
2.
City Facility Zero Waste a. Establish City “Green Team” representing City departments b. Department goal setting (e.g., 75% diversion) c. Increase recycling and organics collection, decrease solid waste collection d. Quarterly report to Green Team on Department progress e. Department technical assistance in diversion and purchasing f. Program monitoring g. Department recycling recognition awards event h. Evaluate the effectiveness of City Facility Zero Waste Activities i. Implement new City Facility Zero Waste tasks, as developed
Task initiation On-going activities
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
52
2019-2020
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations Programs
2013-2014
Voluntary Programs 2013-2020 3. Producer Responsibility
Voluntary Programs 2015-2016 2017-2018
a. Develop Council Resolution to support Product Stewardship b. Consider support to statewide legislation (bottle bill, e.g.) c. Continue to provide staff support to the Texas Product Stewardship Council d. Promote voluntary take-back efforts with local retailers
4.
5.
Commercial Technical Assistance a. Review status of hotel and apartment recycling pilots and evaluate for expansion b. Work with commercial generators and services providers to establish baseline diversion rate c. Facilitate quarterly meetings with commercial service providers to identify specific generators for technical assistance (such as restaurants and large generators) d. Establish timelines and milestones for increasing commercial recycling e. Share information on priority generators f. Concentrate activities on generators without recycling or organics collection g. Evaluate the effectiveness of Commercial Technical Assistance Activities Implement new Commercial Technical Assistance tasks, as developed
Organics Collection
a. Continue to support development of Community Gardens, on-site composting and home composting b. Identify pilot neighborhoods for organics collection, pilot costs, and expansion opportunities c. Target neighborhoods throughout the City d. Consider partnering with local composters for capacity e. Conduct pilot project providing weekly collection of source-separated organics, including yard trimmings and food scraps f. Evaluate results of pilot and consider expansion
6.
Bulk Item Collection a. Conduct pilot project providing on-call collection of bulk items for reuse and recycling b. Evaluate results of pilot and consider expansion
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
53
2019-2020
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations Programs
2013-2014
Voluntary Programs 2013-2020 7. Resource Recovery Park
8.
Voluntary Programs 2015-2016 2017-2018
a. Identify features of Resource Recovery Park, including new composting operation, expanded selfhaul drop-off facility for reuse, recycling, and organics (past fee gate, prior to tipping at landfill face), and new recyclables processing operation b. Develop basis of design c. Based on research and basis of design implement new reuse, recycling and composting activities
Construction & Demolition Debris Ordinance
a. Consider new C&D ordinance b. Consider developing new non-exclusive C&D franchise agreements c. Develop C&D ordinance d. Evaluate the effectiveness of C&D ordinance changes
9.
Commercial Service Provider Requirements a. Review compliance with existing permit system, enforce existing standards for reporting diversion and disposal tonnages, identify opportunities for enhancement of existing non-exclusive franchise ordinance b. Hold stakeholder meetings
Mandatory Programs (initial action steps) 10. Universal Recycling Ordinance a. Conduct stakeholder meetings to identify strategies for “maximal feasible recycle� at all multifamily buildings and commercial establishments b. Identify thresholds and milestones for participation in recycling programs (e.g., 50%, 75%, 80%) c. Evaluate status of voluntary achievement of recycling goals d. Monitor status of recycling program implementation e. Design elements of future universal ordinance f. If participation rates fall below established milestones, consider adoption of universal recycling ordinance (in phases, over time, based on generator size or type)
11.
Disposal Bans a. Conduct research on materials appropriate for disposal bans (e.g., yard trimmings, cardboard, metal, C&D) b. Monitor diversion and disposal levels of targeted materials Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
54
2019-2020
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations Programs
2013-2014
Voluntary Programs 2013-2020
Voluntary Programs 2015-2016 2017-2018
2019-2020
c. Conduct stakeholder meetings to identify material types appropriate for disposal bans d. Ensure that infrastructure is in place for banned materials
Mandatory Programs 2021-2025
Programs Mandatory Programs 2021-2030 10. Universal Recycling Ordinance (cont.)
Plan Update 2026-2030
Plan Update Implementation 2031-2040
a. Continue implementation of universal recycling and composting requirements (if approved and based on timelines developed through stakeholder process) b. Complete implementation of new universal recycling ordinance (if approved and based on timelines developed through stakeholder process) c. Continue stakeholder meetings d. Consider changes to the non-exclusive franchise ordinance
11.
Disposal Bans (cont.) a. Consider implementation of disposal bans, such as yard trimmings and cardboard (based on timelines developed through stakeholder process) b. Conduct research on bans or requirements applicable to the City c. Continue stakeholder meetings d. Report to City Council
Plan Update 2026-2030 12. Mixed Waste Processing a. Conduct research on new residual waste processing technologies (on-going, as appropriate)
13.
Plan Update a. Review regional and state priorities b. Evaluate the Plan elements and identify modifications and updates c. Identify improvements to recycling, organics, bulk item, technical assistance, and social marketing programs
Plan Update Implementation 2031-2040 14. New Recycling and Organics Collection Activities 15. New Social Marketing Activities 16. New Technical Assistance Activities 17. New Materials Processing Activities
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
55
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations
Long-Term Implementation Tasks Most of the materials generated in the City will be diverted through waste reduction, recycling and composting programs and facilities. To reach the City’s goal of Zero Waste by 2040, the City will investigate new technologies for processing residual waste. The Task 5a Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste Technical Memorandum describes the existing and emerging technologies for processing residual waste, including: aerobic composting, mixed waste processing, anaerobic digestion, refuse derived fuel processing and combustion, mass burn combustion, gasification, plasma arc gasification, pyrolysis, hydrolysis, autoclaving, and catalytic depolymerization. The Task 5a Memo concluded that the technologies that appear to be most suitable for further consideration include: aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion, and mixed waste processing. Once the City reaches its goal of 60 percent diversion by 2030, and well before 2040, the City will consider implementation of new technologies that best fit the City’s needs for processing residual waste and maximizing diversion from disposal.
III.2.B Timetable Table III.3 shows when implementation of the policies, programs and facilities described in the plan will be completed during the short-range, intermediate, and long-range planning periods. Table III.3 Timetable Short-Range 2013-2020
Intermediate 2021-2030
Increasing voluntary programs • • • • • • •
Provide separate collection for organics, bulk item reuse and recycling Social marketing campaign Commercial technical assistance Encourage commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers Develop a C&D ordinance and provide C&D technical assistance -Develop a Resource Recovery Park at the landfill Work with local retailers to increase take-back programs for hard-to-recycle items Advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level
Long-Range 2031-2040
Adding mandatory Add residual waste requirements processing • Develop • Process all mandatory residual waste sourceprior to landfilling separation requirements.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
56
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations
III.2.C Monitoring and Enforcement The Plan is designed to be a living document with annual updates, program assessments every five years, and detailed implementation steps to be undertaken by City staff. 7 The Task 2 Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios attempted to quantify the City’s diversion and disposal rates based on tonnage information from City programs and regional diversion and disposal rates. This information was helpful in program planning, but limited because of the data limitations. The City has very good information about the diversion and disposal tons from the programs that it manages through City operations. However, the City has very limited information about diversion and disposal tons from commercial, industrial and self-haul generators. In order to understand the effectiveness of the Plan, the City can undertake future studies to estimate citywide generation and characterization, targeting specific materials streams (such as C&D) and specific generator sectors (such as restaurants, retailers and manufacturers). Establishing a more complete baseline will assist the City in tracking the new tons diverted through the Plan. It will also help the City to identify needed new policies and programs and develop future plan updates. Based on new information developed through the generator-based studies, the City will be able to better estimate diversion and disposal by generator sector.
Note that any and all updates to this plan, once approved by the TCEQ Executive Director and adopted by the TCEQ Commissioners, will require prior review and approval by the TCEQ’s Waste Permits Division.
7
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
57
City of Dallas
Section III Area Recommendations
Single-family residential Multifamily residential City facilities
Commercial /Industrial Construction and demolition Self-haul
Metrics for Tracking Achievement of Goals To track diversion and disposal tons by new initiative, the City will monitor performance from:
City programs – where tons are tracked directly; and, Service provider reports – pursuant to the new ordinance requirements or franchise agreements.
For some policies and programs, the City will have to rely on diversion and disposal estimates. The direct effect of these policies and programs serve to enhance the City and private sector programs, but cannot be quantified separately. Timeframes for Updating the Plan The policies, programs and infrastructure identified in the Plan are slated for implementation in the short-term (2020) or in the medium term (2030). Most of the new infrastructure will be developed within those time horizons as well. The Plan also includes monitoring of new technology for future development (by 2040). The City will track performance by program annually and will conduct a plan update every five years beginning in 2016. The City will closely monitor the development of state and regional plans and will incorporate regional plans and programs into the City’s Plan during the five-year updates.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
58
City of Dallas
Appendices
Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Appendices
Appendix A: Technical Memoranda Task 1: Solid Waste System Overview Task 2: Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Task 3: Transfer Operations Task 4a: Diversion Program Options Task 4b: Organics Diversion Options Task 5a: Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste Task 5b: Technology Options for Source Separated Organics Appendix B: NCTCOG Closed Landfill Inventory Appendix C: Model Ordinances and Contracts Appendix D: Acronyms and Definitions
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas
Appendices This page is intentionally left blank.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas
Appendix A Appendix A: Technical Memoranda Task 1: Solid Waste System Overview Task 2: Waste Generation Projections and Landfill Capacity Scenarios Task 3: Transfer Operations Task 4a: Diversion Program Options Task 4b: Organics Diversion Options Task 5a: Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste Task 5b: Technology Options for Source Separated Organics
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas
Appendix A This page is intentionally left blank.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION SERVICES LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONTRACT NO: BDZ1103 CP&Y PROJECT NO. DALL1103.00
SOLID WASTE SYSTEM OVERVIEW Task 1 March 2012
Prepared for: City of Dallas Sanitation Services Department 1500 Marilla, Room 3FN Dallas, Texas 75201 Prepared by: CP&Y 1820 Regal Row, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75235
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0
Prior Studies and References ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Metroplex Area Regional Solid Waste Study‐2003 ................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Evaluation of Waste Transfer Station Operations‐2005 ......................................................................................... 1
1.3
Analysis of Brush & Bulky Collection Operations 2010 ........................................................................................... 2
1.4
Regional Recycling Rate Benchmarking Study‐2007 ............................................................................................... 2
1.5
Chapter 18‐Municipal Solid Waste‐City Ordinances ............................................................................................... 2
1.6
City of Dallas FY 2010 MSW Annual Reports to TCEQ for McCommas Bluff Landfill .............................................. 2
1.7
City of Dallas Sanitation Department Monthly Reports for diversion, transfer and disposal operations .............. 2
1.8
City of Dallas Website‐Sanitation Services .............................................................................................................. 2
2.0
Current Systems .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1
Collection by City Forces‐Residential ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.2
Collection by City Forces‐Commercial .................................................................................................................... 4
2.3
Collection by Others‐Commercial ........................................................................................................................... 4
2.4
Transfer Operations‐ ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2.5
Disposal ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.6
Diversion ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.7
City Education and Outreach Programs .................................................................................................................. 8
3.0 Regional Context .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.0 Current Policies ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 1‐ Dallas Solid Waste Facility Locations APPENDIX
Chapter 18 City of Dallas Code
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
Page i
HDR Engineering March 2012
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION SERVICES LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTRACT NO: BDZ1103 CP&Y PROJECT NO. DALL1103.00
SOLID WASTE SYSTEM OVERVIEW Task 1 March 2012
1.0
PRIOR STUDIES AND REFERENCES
1.1 Metroplex Area Regional Solid Waste Study‐2003 (provides waste and population projections for the region and capacities and expected site life of existing disposal facilities). Major Recommendations
Start planning and analysis to address disposal capacity issues soon. Examine opportunities for creation of a Regional Landfill. Establish a regional tracking system that can be implemented at the local level to better quantify diversion rates. Increase diversion rates by expanding the scope of cost‐effective diversion programs. Conduct a feasibility analysis to better define the technical requirements, cost, and benefits of bioreactor landfills.
1.2 Evaluation of Waste Transfer Station Operations‐2005 (evaluated operations of the three City of Dallas transfer stations) Key Findings and Recommendations
The cost to operate the transfer fleet is higher than the seven entities included in a benchmark analysis due to delays in loading, delays at the City maintenance facility, and the inefficient use of Steco trailers. Inefficiencies of the transfer fleet unloading at the McCommas Bluff Landfill can be corrected by driver training for unloading quicker, addition of a third inbound lane and unattended scale for City transfer vehicles, integrating scale date from the transfer stations into the landfill system to avoid weighing vehicles twice. At the Bachman (Northwest) Transfer Station discontinue the practice of storing waste above the pit level, improve the ventilation and lighting, implement a “drop and hook” operation to help reduce the waiting time for drivers to have their vehicles loaded, divert more brush away from the facility, and encourage the increased use of the facility to utilize the available unused transfer capacity of the station.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
At the Fair Oaks (Northeast) Transfer Station the efficiencies could be improved by reducing the number of days that private citizens can access the site, utilizing the additional unused capacity of the facility and increase revenues by accepting waste from other commercial waste haulers, and if additional haulers are accepted, implement a “drop and hook” operation. At the Oak Cliff (Southwest) Transfer Station the receiving floor is in poor condition and needs repair. Recommendations similar to those for the Fair Oaks Station were made for the Oak Cliff Station related to private citizen use, utilizing additional capacity and implementing a “drop and hook” operation. If the City chooses to increase the use of the station, the report further recommended the relocation of the office and scale system. Examine alternative operating scenarios in more detail including public‐private partnerships to maximize the utilization of the facilities.
1.3 Analysis of Brush & Bulky Collection Operations 2010 (recommendations for a more cost effective alternative for the current brush and bulky collection system and determination if the City could increase the amount of clean green waste) Recommendations Two scenarios were presented that would achieve the purposes of the Study. It was recommended to utilize Scenario 1 which requires extensive public education and includes monthly collection of yard waste in bundles or compostable bags, twice a year collection of large brush piles, and twice a year collection of bulky items. 1.4 Regional Recycling Rate Benchmarking Study‐2007 (provides recycling rates for Dallas and surrounding cities in the Metroplex) Recommendations Provided recommendations for conducting future surveys, as this was the first type of benchmarking study conducted in the Metroplex. 1.5 Chapter 18‐Municipal Solid Waste‐City Ordinances (Defined acceptable containers, regulations for the collection and disposal of solid waste in the City, charges for collection and disposal, collection and disposal of illegally dumped solid wastes, and penalties for violations) A copy of Chapter 18 is attached as an Appendix. 1.6 City of Dallas FY 2010 MSW Annual Reports to TCEQ for McCommas Bluff Landfill (Annual tonnage and remaining site life) and MSW Annual Reports for each of the City’s Transfer Stations. 1.7 City of Dallas Sanitation Department Monthly Reports for diversion, transfer and disposal operations (waste tonnage for various programs and City facilities). 1.8 City of Dallas Website‐Sanitation Services (provided data for citizens to answer frequently asked questions about solid waste operations).
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
2.0
CURRENT SYSTEMS
2.1 Collection by City Forces‐Residential
Garbage‐Once per week collection in a 95 gallon cart in the alley (if serviceable alley available) or at the curb. ($20.34 per month). The City currently has 237,187 active single family residential sanitation accounts for this collection service. Other residential waste from apartments and other multifamily units is not collected by City residential vehicles and is not included in residential waste quantities noted in various reports. Carry‐out service is available for the City collected residential customers at an additional fee, or at no additional charge to certain handicapped persons meeting uniform requirements established by the Director of Sanitation. Following is a summary of the residential waste collected from these residential customers by the City during FY 2009‐2010 and FY 2010‐2011 through March 2011. Month October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 FY 2009‐2010 Totals October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011
Tons (Residential Waste) 23,157 24,567 23,810 18,014 17,969 22,715 24,613 21,232 19,712 19,258 19,483 19, 137 253,667
Tons (Brush & Bulky Waste from Residents 12,562 12,249 12,040 7,826 12,452 20,865 16,744 14,329 14,085 11,820 8,318 11,486 154,776
20,327 18,639 19,224 19,000 15,025 20,929
11,486 9,222 14,223 7,270 7,563 18,600
Tons (Total Residents) 35,719 36,816 35,850 25,840 30,421 43,580 41,357 35,561 33,797 31,078 27,801 30,623 408,443 31,813 27,861 33,447 26,270 22,588 39,529
Brush/Bulky‐Currently collected once per month. ( Basic collection included in monthly residential fee) Additional collection for brush/bulky waste on call for an additional fee (fee is determined on a case by case basis). Total brush/bulky waste collected in FY 2090‐2010 was 154,776 tons and 68,364 tons have been collected during the first six months (October 2010 through March 2011) of FY 2010‐2011. Recycling‐Once per week in a blue cart at same location as garbage cart. This is a volunteer program and the residents must request a blue recycle cart. (Collection included in monthly fee).
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
2.2 Collection by City Forces‐Commercial Rates vary dependent upon frequency of service and container size. City competes with private hauling companies which provide commercial collection services. (See City Ordinance, Chapter 18 for Commercial Rate Schedule). TABLE OF MONTHLY CHARGES (Rear‐end Loaders) Qty of Solid Waste
Number of Collections Per Week
Gallons
2
3
4
5
6
7
60
$33.74
$61.39
$83.51
$101.58
$124.06
$151.52
100
$44.80
$83.51
$103.79
$131.43
$219.92
$367.97
200
$76.13
$162.78
$210.70
$266.00
$313.94
$370.50
300
$120.38
$219.92
$291.81
$363.71
$439.29
$530.58
2.3 Collection by Others‐Commercial Solid waste collection from an apartment, institution, commercial establishment, or mobile home park may be performed by a person (collection service) who has a solid waste collection franchise granted by the City. Solid waste collected by a private collection service that contains putrescible material must be collected at least twice every seven days. 2.4 Transfer Operations‐ City operates three transfer stations‐ All waste from these stations is hauled to the McCommas Bluff Landfill (see Figure 1 for these facility locations).
Bachman (Northwest)‐(TCEQ MSW Permit No. 1145) Open 6 days per week to City and private commercial haulers, and City of Dallas residents. Since 2004 the Transfer Station has received an average of approximately 7,000‐8,000 vehicles per month. These vehicles deliver an average of approximately 12,000 ‐15,000 tons per month, of which approximately 10‐15% is delivered by private citizens and private waste haulers. The remaining 85‐90% is delivered by City collection vehicles (residential and commercial). The total FY 2010 tonnage transferred through this station was 162,923 tons. This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 2,000 tons per day (approximately 48,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself. Additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, and staff.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
Fair Oaks (Northeast)‐(TCEQ MSW Permit No. 60) Open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday to City collection vehicles ONLY. The facility is open to City of Dallas residents only on Wednesday and Saturday. No private haulers are accepted. Individual deliveries by private citizens are noted in a vehicle count but their loads are not weighed. City vehicles using the facility average approximately 600‐1,000 vehicles per month delivering an average of approximately 4,000‐6,000 tons per month. The total FY 2010 tonnage transferred through this Station was 52,816 tons. The waste quantities delivered by City vehicles is relatively consistent day to day (M, T, Th, F) since the City implemented the once per week collection system. This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 700 tons per day (approximately 15,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself. Additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, and staff. Oak Cliff (Southwest)‐(TCEQ MSW Permit No. 1453) Open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday to City collection vehicles ONLY. The facility is open to City of Dallas residents only on Wednesday and Saturday. No private haulers are accepted. City vehicles using the facility average approximately 600‐1,000 vehicles per month delivering an average of approximately 4,000‐6,000 tons per month. The total FY 2010 tonnage transferred through this Station was 57,914 tons. The waste quantities delivered by City vehicles is relatively consistent day to day (M, T, Th, F) since the City implemented the once per week collection system. This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 700 tons per day (approximately 15,000 tons per month) without physical expansion of the facility itself. Additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, staff, and the relocation of the office and scale system.
2.5 Disposal All waste is disposed at McCommas Bluff Landfill (TCEQ MSW Permit No. 62A) except for waste collected by private haulers. Some of the private hauler waste goes to other area landfills (Privately Owned‐Skyline, ECD, DFW Regional, etc. or Municipally Owned‐Garland, Grand Prairie, Irving, etc.) Some waste from other Cities is disposed at McCommas through contractual arrangements or by individual private haulers. Over the past 10 years the McCommas Bluff Landfill site has received an average of approximately 1,750,000 tons per year, with the maximum year being approximately 1,997,000 tons in FY 2008. During this 10‐year period, approximately 60‐65% of the waste was delivered to McCommas by private waste hauler collection vehicles, and the remaining 35‐40% by City of Dallas collection vehicles. Some of this waste received is diverted as brush for mulching, asphalt and concrete for road construction, and clean soil received is used for daily cover material as a beneficial reuse. Therefore the quantities reported to TCEQ for disposal at McCommas are equal to the tonnage received less these diversions and beneficial use quantities. As an example, during FY 2010 a total of 1,481,603 tons was received at McCommas Bluff but the Annual Report to TCEQ from the City (FY 2010) reported the tonnage disposed as 1,362,266 tons. This difference represents approximately an 8% diversion/ beneficial use of the total materials received. The Annual Report to TCEQ also reported a remaining disposal capacity at McCommas Bluff of 99,810,182 cubic yards as of 8/31/2010. Based upon the Annual Report for the previous year the remaining capacity of the site was reduced by 1,970,242 cubic yards during FY 2010 which was used for the disposal of the 1,362,266 tons reported. This equates to an in place density of 1,382.8 pounds/cubic yard for the waste placed in the McCommas Bluff landfill during FY 2010. The site area currently permitted for filling contains approximately 835 acres. Of that total acreage permitted for filling approximately 394 acres remain undeveloped.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
The City is in the process of implementing an Enhanced Leachate Recirculation (ELR) program by adding additional clean water as well as recirculating leachate and gas condensate. This program is expected to speed up the waste degradation process, thus increasing the rate of landfill gas generation and settlement of the waste. The City expects to recapture approximately 10‐20% of the airspace available for additional filling due to the accelerated settlement. 2.6 Diversion The City operates a volunteer curbside recycling collection program (Too Good to Throw Away) for the residential waste customers (not including apartment residents) as well as diverting waste through various other programs. The City currently has a participation rate of approximately 64.25% in the curbside collection system (152,387 households with a blue recycle cart of the total 237,187 active residential sanitation accounts). The recyclables collected in the curbside collection system are currently transported to a private processor, Greenstar Recycling, located in Garland Texas, for separation. The City pays a processing fee but shares in the revenues from the separated recyclables under a current agreement depending upon markets for the individual commodities. The current contract is based upon the following pricing formulas: Commodity by Grade ONP (#8 News) OCC (old corrugated containers) RMP (residential mixed paper) UBC (used beverage containers) Steel, Tin and Bi‐Metal Cans #1 PET #2 HDPE ‐ Natural #2 HDPE ‐ Pigmented #3‐7 Mixed Plastic Mixed Glass
Pricing Formula Hi SW OBM #8 News ‐ $35/ton processing fee w/ $45/ton Floor Price 75% of Hi SW OBM OCC ‐ $35/ton processing 75% of Hi SW OBM #8 News ‐ $35/tons processing fee 75% of Sales Invoice ‐ $35/ton processing fee 50% of Sales Invoice ‐ $35/ton processing fee 50% of Sales Invoice ‐ $35/ton processing fee 50% of Sales Invoice ‐ $35/ton processing fee 50% of Sales Invoice ‐ $35/ton processing fee 50% of Sales Invoice ‐ $35/ton processing fee No processing fee charged ‐ glass used at the landfill
Following is data for the diversion programs in FY 2009‐2010 and FY 2010‐2011 through March 2011. This includes the wastes that are diverted and/or reused at the McCommas Bluff landfill noted in the previous Section. The diversion programs are defined as follows:
Too Good to Throw Away‐City curbside collection from residential customers. Tires‐Delivered separately by individuals or City crews at the Transfer Stations or Landfill. Yard Waste‐ Clean brush or yard trimmings delivered by individuals or City brush/bulky waste collection crews. If there is any bulky waste in the brush/bulky waste loads delivered by the City crews, the entire load is landfilled and no attempt is made to divert the load. The brush and yard trimmings are mulched at the Bachman Transfer Station and/or at the McCommas Landfill. The mulch is used at the landfill for cover or erosion control or may be used by Dallas citizens. The mulch is not sold but may be picked up by Dallas residents in an unlimited quantity and at no cost. Other Bulky wastes are not diverted from the brush/bulky waste collection system. The City tries to divert these bulky items by conducting semi‐
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
annual “hard to recycle” collection events where citizens can deliver these items to designated “drop‐off” locations. The quantities received at these events are minor compared to the quantities diverted in the other diversion programs. Dry Gulch Recycling Center‐Recyclables delivered by individuals to the Recycling Center located adjacent to the Bachman Transfer Station. Hotel Tonnage‐ This is a Pilot Program that the City has implemented with a few select Hotels in the City. Multi Family Pilot‐ This is a Pilot Program that the City has implemented with a few select apartment complexes in the City. Concrete, asphalt, sawdust, clean soil‐ This represents materials diverted at the McCommas Bluff Landfill as discussed above. In‐House Office Recycling‐ Materials recovered from the City of Dallas in‐house programs. Community Drop off Sites‐Materials delivered by individuals to drop‐off sites for recyclables‐generally in selected City Parks. Electronics‐ Materials delivered to a City sponsored electronics recycling event. Okon Metals‐ White goods and other metals separated and delivered to a transfer station or landfill. These materials are stored on‐site and then picked up by Okon Metals for recycling. Remaining Diversion Programs‐ The remainder of the programs noted below are very minor in nature and do not contribute substantial quantities of diverted wastes.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
Of potential note from this data is the increase between the first quarter of FY 2009 and FY 2010 (approximately 24%) in the “Too Good to Throw Away” curbside collection system after the City fully implemented the Program and collects the materials as a “single stream” without material separation requirements at the household. 2.7 City Education and Outreach Programs The City’s focus is on teaching the community about recycling, composting, electronics recycling and how to reduce impacts through home waste management. The City staff has also met with a representative from every Dallas Independent School District facility to work with them on implementing their Environmental Education Initiative. This Education Initiative is a free educational program provided to every school within the City of Dallas to educate students and faculty about what, how and why to recycle. In addition, the City staff works with neighborhood groups and home owner associations, attends town hall meetings and neighborhood events such as school carnivals and neighborhood safety fairs. Most recently, the City hosted a 1960s‐style recycling rally at Whole Foods in Lakewood. The event was designed to encourage attendance at the Spring Recycling Roundup and promote environmental public awareness. The City was recently awarded the Green Cities Award in the largest city category at the 2011 Residential Recycling Conference because of their strategic outreach to residents using a variety of media outlets, such as Dallas Morning News, popular television and radio shows, automated phone bank calls, flyers at community events, promotional plugs on the City of Dallas’ main website, the GreenDallas.net education website, and the City of Dallas Facebook page.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
3.0 REGIONAL CONTEXT As noted in the Metroplex Area Sub‐Regional Solid Waste Study in 2003, the McCommas Bluff Landfill is one of only a few Landfills in the Region that can provide long term waste disposal capacity within the Region. Since the completion of that Study some of the other landfills in the Region have secured Permit Amendments to extend their site life and would not reach capacity in the time frame projected in the Study. It was assumed at the time that as these other landfills were filled, the waste that normally went to them would be reallocated to the remaining landfills(including McCommas Bluff). This additional waste would in fact shorten the remaining site life of these Regional fill sites. In addition to the development of additional site capacity at other sites, the City of Dallas has implemented several waste diversion programs as noted above and is implementing a bio‐reactor like program (Enhanced Leachate Recirculation) at the McCommas Bluff Landfill. The City has also been entertaining a Program of Flow Control for all wastes generated within the City of Dallas. This Program is being investigated but has not been implemented to date. All of these factors will influence the site capacity of the McCommas Bluff Landfill as a Regional resource. A further discussion of the Regional Landfills and their influence on the site life of McCommas Bluff Landfill will be outlined in the Technical Memorandum for Task 2.
4.0 CURRENT POLICIES Current City policies are presented in Chapter 18 of the City Ordinances which is attached as an Appendix to this Technical Memorandum.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
APPENDIX
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
For a complete copy of CHAPTER 18, MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, ARTICLE I, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL ordinance, please use link provided below. Using quick search type in CHAPTER 18 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES to view ordinance. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/dallas/volumei/preface?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amle gal:dallas_tx
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Solid Waste System Overview
HDR Engineering March 2012
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION SERVICES LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Waste Generation and Landfill Capacity Projections Task 2 August 2011
Prepared for: City of Dallas Sanitation Services Department 1500 Marilla, Room 3FN Dallas, Texas 75201 Prepared by: CP&Y, Inc. 1820 Regal Row, Ste. 200 Dallas, TX 75235
Task 2‐General Assumptions As of 8/31/2010 the City reported a remaining waste capacity at McCommas Bluff Landfill of 99,810,182 cubic yards. This will be the basis for calculating the remaining site life (in years) for each of the Scenarios.
TASK 2 NOTES – This is the basis for the Scenario that Only Current Users will continue to use McCommas without any new Users This Scenario assumes that the waste currently going to McCommas will continue to go without increasing users. Any projected increases will be based on the increasing population of Dallas only. This would be representative of the increases of all current users. In FY 2009‐2010 McCommas Landfill reported the receipt of 1,481,603 tons of waste with a net receipt of 1,362,266 tons of waste for disposal after the diversion programs conducted at McCommas (concrete, asphalt, sawdust, and clean soil). This waste was received from a 2010 Dallas population of 1,316,350 people. It is recognized that some of the waste received at the landfill was from sources other than the City of Dallas. Alternatively, some portion of the waste generated by Dallas residents and businesses is hauled to a landfill located outside of the City. Therefore, we will use a factor of 1,362,266/1,316,350 = 1.035 tons delivered to McCommas per Dallas Resident and project the waste in the future using this factor and Dallas Population Projections. Based upon this Scenario the McCommas Bluff Landfill will reach capacity in the year 2053.
TASK 2 NOTES ‐ This is the basis for the Scenario that ALL waste generated in Dallas will go to McCommas without any from others From the Task 1 information, 253,667 tons of residential waste and 154,776 tons of brush and bulky waste was collected from single family residences by the City of Dallas for a total of 408,443 tons in FY 2009‐2010. In addition, 40,920 tons of recyclables were collected from the "Too Good to Throw Away" program and 92,695 tons of clean brush were collected and diverted from the brush and bulky total during the same FY 2009‐2010. Therefore the total residential waste generated during FY 2009‐2010 by 237,187 residential accounts was 449,363 tons, or approximately 1.89 tons/residence. The diversion of residential waste is approximately 29.73% (40,920 +92,695/449,363) of the residential waste generated. This percentage will be used to show the diversion of residential generated waste in this Scenario and in the Dallas Waste with ELR Implementation. 50% diversion of the residential waste stream will be used in the Scenario related to ELR Implementation and increased Diversion. The U.S. Census Bureau in their American Community Survey for the Years 2005‐2009 indicated that the City of Dallas had 2.65 people/household. Based upon this information the residential waste generation rate for Dallas was approximately 1.89 tons/2.65 = 0.71 tons/person/year. This correlates with the City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Page 1 Waste Generation and Landfill Capacity Projections
HDR Engineering August 2011
residential generation rate of 0.86 tons/person/year that was derived in the "Metroplex Area Sub‐ Regional Solid Waste Study" in 2003. In this study, they also calculated a generation rate of 0.76 tons/person/year for multi‐family residents as they would not generate brush at the same level as single family residents. For the purposes of this study we will use the residential rates of the 2003 study. We are unable to define the total amount of Commercial Waste generated in the City of Dallas, as most of the Commercial Waste collected by Private Waste Haulers in Dallas is transported to other landfills. As a part of the "Metroplex Area Sub‐Regional Solid Waste Study" in 2003, surveys were conducted to define collection quantities and landfill disposal quantities in a 5 county area (including Dallas County). From this survey data it was possible to calculate the total waste generated in the 5 counties with reasonable accuracy. This Study was also unable to directly define the total quantity of commercial waste in the area. However a methodology was developed to calculate the amount of commercial waste by first calculating the single‐family residential waste and the multi‐family residential waste and then subtracting those quantities from the total waste collected in the 5 county area. From this calculation and population/employment data available for the region they were able to develop a commercial waste generation rate for the region. They then applied this generation rate to each City and their respective percentage of the region's employment and calculated a base year commercial waste generation quantity for each City in the 5 county area. Even though the rate was calculated based on employment data it was equated to population data for future projections. They then projected this quantity along with the single family residential and multi‐family waste quantities for the base year over the planning period based upon population growth of each City. We are unable to better define these generation rates based upon available data due to the inability to accurately capture the commercial waste quantities in Dallas only. As we were able to correlate the single‐family residential waste generation rate with these study results, we are using the generation rates for the multi‐family and commercial waste from this study as the basics for our waste projections. We feel this is a very reasonable direction to proceed in the absence of more accurate data. In the "Metroplex Study" for the Base Year of 2002 in the City of Dallas the following waste quantities were calculated for a population of 1,208,300 people: Single Family Residential Multi‐Family Residential Commercial * Reported in Survey and not calculated
955,000 tons* 385,602 tons 1,151,564
(58.1% of Population) (41.9% of Population)
Based upon Regional Generation Rates, comparisons with other Cities data and current Residential total tonnage of 449,363 tons in FY 2009‐2010, it appears that the Residential tonnage reported in the 2003 survey may include both single family and multi‐family quantities. The calculated quantity utilizing the regional generation of single family rates, residential waste for 2002 should be approximately 604,000 tons. (1,208,300 x 0.581 x 0.86). The demographics of the residential population (based on information presented in a report titled ”2010 Housing Estimates” by NCTCOG, May 2010) is now estimated to be 47.1% of those living in single family residences and 52.9% of the population living in multifamily residences. For simplicity, the 5,645 other housing units have not been included for purposes of calculating single and multi‐family units. For purposes of Projections we will utilize the following factors: City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Page 2 Waste Generation and Landfill Capacity Projections
HDR Engineering August 2011
Single Family Residential Multi‐Family Residential Commercial (1,151,564 tons in 2002/1,208,30 population)
0.86 tons/person 0.76 tons/person
(47.1% of Population) (52.9% of Population)
0.95 tons/person
(Total Population)
The City of Dallas does not make independent population projections but works with the NCTCOG to develop population projections that are used by the City of Dallas. NCTCOG Population Est. for the City of Dallas (2000) was 1,188,580 NCTCOG ‐ Current Population Est. for City (2010) 1,316,350 Calculated 2005 Population (1,316,350 ‐ 1,188,580/10) = 12,777 Increase per Year 1,188,580 + 5(12,777) = 1,252,465 in 2005 The NCTCOG estimates population based on Market Areas Dallas includes the following Areas: Area 2005 Population 2035 Population 2040 Population 1 3,172 21,175 23,808 7 132,009 169,304 175,437 8 20,403 45,220 49,822 10 69,347 84,304 85,904 11 64,903 83,382 86,108 12 96,676 107,896 109,658 13 185,701 206,794 210,167 14 93,732 114,636 118,526 (165,291) (168,655) 108,672 123,968 126,491 3/4 of 18 (144,896) (96,475) (109,996) (112,067) 27,499 28,017 1/4 of 19 24,118 21 82,831 109,549 114,803 22 46,673 64,606 67,827 23 91,772 102,791 105,344 25 14,635 30,975 34,223 28 101,429 112,939 114,912 29 92,138 133,514 140,961 (100,043) (152,230) (161,194) 50,743 53,731 32 33,348 TOTAL 1,261,559 1,589,295 1,645,739 Based upon Task 1 Tech Memo, the compaction rate in FY 2009‐2010 at the McCommas Landfill was 1382.8 lbs/cy. For Projections Use 1400 lb/cy Based upon this Scenario the McCommas Bluff Landfill will reach capacity in the year 2039.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Page 3 Waste Generation and Landfill Capacity Projections
HDR Engineering August 2011
TASK 2 – This Scenario is based upon Total Dallas Tonnage to McCommas with ELR Implementation The addition of moisture to solid waste, such as ELR, has shown airspace gains between 10% to 30% in relatively short periods of time. Assume that 15% of the airspace consumed in one year is recovered 5 years later. Based upon this Scenario the McCommas Bluff Landfill will reach capacity in the year 2043.
Task 2 ‐ Total Dallas Tonnage with ELR Implementation and an increase of Residential Waste Quantity Diversion through additional Diversion Programs In FY 2009‐2010 the City diverted 40,920 tons through the "Too Good to Throw Away" program and 92,695 tons through the Clean Brush diversion program. This equates to 29.73% of the residential tonnage (449,363) generated by Single Family residences. For purposes of evaluating the effects of future diversion programs we will utilize a scenario to approximately double the percentage of the Residential Waste Generated that would be diverted. Therefore, in this scenario we will assume a diversion rate of 50% of the residential waste stream recognizing that the actual additional diversion may occur in other areas (multi‐family or commercial waste). Based upon this Scenario the McCommas Bluff Landfill will reach capacity in the year 2045.
Scenario
Year Site Life Consumed
Current Users Only
2053
All Dallas Waste
2039
2043
All Dallas Waste with ELR
All Dallas Waste with ELR and Current Diversion Doubled
2045
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Page 4 Waste Generation and Landfill Capacity Projections
HDR Engineering August 2011
2045 1,703,363
2050 1,763,005
2053 1,799,788
2054 1,812,219
2055 1,824,736
2060 1,888,628
0.83% 0.82% 0.82% 0.81% 0.80% 0.77% 0.74% 0.72% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 1,362,422 1,373,722 1,385,022 1,396,322 1,407,622 1,418,922 1,475,421 1,531,921 1,588,421 1,644,920 1,703,340 1,762,981 1,824,711 1,862,781 1,875,647 1,888,602 1,954,730
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1,316,350 1,327,268 1,338,186 1,349,103 1,360,021 1,370,939 1,425,528 1,480,117 1,534,706 1,589,295 1,645,739
This assumes that only the waste from the Current Users will be delivered to McCommas and no additional diversion programs, Enhanced Leachate Recirculation, or any other methods will be added to reduce landfill consumption
Glass Plastic Recyclable Paper Compostable Paper Yard Trimmings Metal Food Wood Textiles Reusables Ceramics Soils Chemicals
5% 8% 18% 18% 20% 5% 9% 6% 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100%
68,686 109,898 247,270 247,270 274,744 68,686 123,635 82,423 68,686 27,474 27,474 13,737 13,737 1,373,722
69,251 110,802 249,304 249,304 277,004 69,251 124,652 83,101 69,251 27,700 27,700 13,850 13,850 1,385,022
Estimated material type based on tonnages received at landfill 69,816 111,706 251,338 251,338 279,264 69,816 125,669 83,779 69,816 27,926 27,926 13,963 13,963 1,396,322
70,381 112,610 253,372 253,372 281,524 70,381 126,686 84,457 70,381 28,152 28,152 14,076 14,076 1,407,622
70,946 113,514 255,406 255,406 283,784 70,946 127,703 85,135 70,946 28,378 28,378 14,189 14,189 1,418,922
73,771 118,034 265,576 265,576 295,084 73,771 132,788 88,525 73,771 29,508 29,508 14,754 14,754 1,475,421
Page 1 of 4
76,596 122,554 275,746 275,746 306,384 76,596 137,873 91,915 76,596 30,638 30,638 15,319 15,319 1,531,921
79,421 127,074 285,916 285,916 317,684 79,421 142,958 95,305 79,421 31,768 31,768 15,884 15,884 1,588,421
82,246 131,594 296,086 296,086 328,984 82,246 148,043 98,695 82,246 32,898 32,898 16,449 16,449 1,644,920
85,167 136,267 306,601 306,601 340,668 85,167 153,301 102,200 85,167 34,067 34,067 17,033 17,033 1,703,340
88,149 141,038 317,337 317,337 352,596 88,149 158,668 105,779 88,149 35,260 35,260 17,630 17,630 1,762,981
91,236 145,977 328,448 328,448 364,942 91,236 164,224 109,483 91,236 36,494 36,494 18,247 18,247 1,824,711
93,139 149,022 335,301 335,301 372,556 93,139 167,650 111,767 93,139 37,256 37,256 18,628 18,628 1,862,781
93,782 150,052 337,616 337,616 375,129 93,782 168,808 112,539 93,782 37,513 37,513 18,756 18,756 1,875,647
Out of Site Life in 2053
94,430 151,088 339,948 339,948 377,720 94,430 169,974 113,316 94,430 37,772 37,772 18,886 18,886 1,888,602
97,736 156,378 351,851 351,851 390,946 97,736 175,926 117,284 97,736 39,095 39,095 19,547 19,547 1,954,730
CY of Landfill Space Consumed Annually (TT at 1400 lbs/CY compaction rate) 1,946,318 1,962,460 1,978,603 1,994,746 2,010,888 2,027,031 2,107,745 2,188,459 2,269,172 2,349,886 2,433,343 2,518,544 2,606,729 2,661,116 2,679,495 2,698,002 2,792,471 Cumulative Cubic Yards Consumed 1,946,318 3,908,778 5,887,381 7,882,126 9,893,015 11,920,046 22,297,344 33,078,210 44,262,644 55,850,648 67,850,448 80,271,594 93,127,657 101,056,368 103,735,864 106,433,866 120,205,982 Remaining Capacity (CY) 99,810,182 97,847,722 95,869,119 93,874,373 91,863,485 89,836,453 79,459,156 68,678,290 57,493,855 45,905,852 33,906,051 21,484,906 8,628,843 700,131 (1,979,364) (4,677,366) (18,449,483)
Year Population (P) % Population increase (per year) Total Tons (TT) (P)(1.035)
Current Users Only
City of Dallas Solid Waste Population and Waste Projections (2010‐2040)
0.82%
0.82%
0.81%
0.80%
0.77%
0.74%
0.72%
0.69%
0.70%
0.69%
0.69%
2045 1,703,306 0.69%
2050 1,762,887 0.69%
2055 1,824,551
0.69%
2060 1,888,373
620,001 625,143 630,285 635,428 640,570 645,712 671,424 697,135 722,847 748,558 769,826 775,143 802,257 830,320 859,364 889,424
0.83%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2039 2040 1,316,350 1,327,268 1,338,186 1,349,103 1,360,021 1,370,939 1,425,528 1,480,117 1,534,706 1,589,295 1,634,450 1,645,739
Enhanced Leachate Recirculation, or any other methods to reduce landfill consumption
This assumes that 100% of the waste expected to be generated in Dallas will be delivered to McCommas without further diversions,
Glass Plastic Recyclable Paper Compostable Paper Yard Trimmings Metal Food Wood Textiles Reusables Ceramics Soils Chemicals
5% 8% 18% 18% 20% 5% 9% 6% 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100%
116,607 186,571 419,786 419,786 466,428 116,607 209,893 139,929 116,607 46,643 46,643 23,321 23,321 2,332,142
117,566 188,106 423,239 423,239 470,265 117,566 211,619 141,080 117,566 47,027 47,027 23,513 23,513 2,351,326
118,525 189,641 426,692 426,692 474,102 118,525 213,346 142,231 118,525 47,410 47,410 23,705 23,705 2,370,510
119,485 191,175 430,145 430,145 477,939 119,485 215,072 143,382 119,485 47,794 47,794 23,897 23,897 2,389,693
120,444 192,710 433,598 433,598 481,775 120,444 216,799 144,533 120,444 48,178 48,178 24,089 24,089 2,408,877
130,036 208,057 468,128 468,128 520,143 130,036 234,064 156,043 130,036 52,014 52,014 26,007 26,007 2,600,714
Page 2 of 4
125,240 200,384 450,863 450,863 500,959 125,240 225,432 150,288 125,240 50,096 50,096 25,048 25,048 2,504,795
134,832 215,731 485,394 485,394 539,326 134,832 242,697 161,798 134,832 53,933 53,933 26,966 26,966 2,696,632
139,628 223,404 502,659 502,659 558,510 139,628 251,330 167,553 139,628 55,851 55,851 27,926 27,926 2,792,550
143,595 229,751 516,941 516,941 574,378 143,595 258,470 172,314 143,595 57,438 57,438 28,719 28,719 2,871,892
144,586 231,338 520,511 520,511 578,346 144,586 260,256 173,504 144,586 57,835 57,835 28,917 28,917 2,891,728
3,077,997 6,181,523 9,310,578 12,465,162 15,645,274 18,850,916 35,262,057 52,311,421 69,999,006 88,324,814 103,453,656 107,301,857 99,810,182 96,706,656 93,577,601 90,423,017 87,242,905 84,037,263 67,626,122 50,576,759 32,889,173 14,563,365 (565,477) (4,413,678) Out of Site Life in 2039
149,644 239,430 538,718 538,718 598,576 149,644 269,359 179,573 149,644 59,858 59,858 29,929 29,929 2,992,879
(24,056,657)
154,878 247,805 557,562 557,562 619,514 154,878 278,781 185,854 154,878 61,951 61,951 30,976 30,976 3,097,568
(44,386,736)
160,296 256,474 577,065 577,065 641,184 160,296 288,533 192,355 160,296 64,118 64,118 32,059 32,059 3,205,919
(65,427,948)
165,903 265,445 597,251 597,251 663,612 165,903 298,625 199,084 165,903 66,361 66,361 33,181 33,181 3,318,060
(87,205,169)
3,077,997 3,103,526 3,129,055 3,154,584 3,180,113 3,205,642 3,333,286 3,460,930 3,588,575 3,716,219 3,821,805 3,848,201 3,982,809 4,122,125 4,266,315 4,415,548
2,154,598 2,172,468 2,190,338 2,208,209 2,226,079 2,243,949 2,333,300 2,422,651 2,512,002 2,601,354 2,675,263 2,693,741 2,787,966 2,885,488 2,986,420 3,090,884
1,250,533 1,260,904 1,271,276 1,281,648 1,292,020 1,302,392 1,354,252 1,406,111 1,457,971 1,509,830 1,552,728 1,563,452 1,618,141 1,674,742 1,733,324 1,793,954
529,225 533,615 538,004 542,394 546,783 551,172 573,119 595,066 617,013 638,960 657,114 661,653 684,797 708,751 733,543 759,201
374,840 377,949 381,058 384,167 387,276 390,385 405,929 421,474 437,019 452,563 465,421 468,636 485,029 501,995 519,554 537,728
Estimated material type based on total tonnages before any diversion
Net Single Family Tons(NSFT) Multi‐family Tons (MFT) (MFRP)(0.76) Commercial Tons (CT) (P)(0.95) Total Tons (TT) NSFT + MFT + CT CY of Landfill Space Consumed Annually (TT at 1400 lbs/CY compaction rate) Cumulative Cubic Yards Consumed Remaining Capacity (CY)
Multi‐family (MFRP) Residenrtial Population (P)(0.529) 696,349 702,125 707,900 713,676 719,451 725,227 754,104 782,982 811,859 840,737 864,624 870,596 901,049 932,567 965,188 998,949 Single Family Tons (SFT) (SFRP)(0.86) 533,201 537,623 542,045 546,468 550,890 555,313 577,424 599,536 621,648 643,760 662,050 666,623 689,941 714,075 739,053 764,904 Single Family Tons Diverted (29.7%) 158,361 159,674 160,988 162,301 163,614 164,928 171,495 178,062 184,629 191,197 196,629 197,987 204,913 212,080 219,499 227,177
Single Family (SFRP) Residential Population (P)(0.471)
% Population increase (per year)
Year Population (P)
All Dallas Waste
City of Dallas Solid Waste Population and Waste Projections (2010‐2040)
0.82%
0.82%
0.81%
Glass Plastic Recyclable Paper Compostable Paper Yard Trimmings Metal Food Wood Textiles Reusables Ceramics Soils Chemicals
0.80%
0.77%
0.74%
0.72%
0.69%
0.69%
0.69%
2043 1,680,041 0.69%
2045 1,703,306 0.69%
2050 1,762,887 0.69%
2055 1,824,551
0.69%
2060 1,888,373
5% 8% 18% 18% 20% 5% 9% 6% 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100%
116,607 186,571 419,786 419,786 466,428 116,607 209,893 139,929 116,607 46,643 46,643 23,321 23,321 2,332,142
117,566 188,106 423,239 423,239 470,265 117,566 211,619 141,080 117,566 47,027 47,027 23,513 23,513 2,351,326
118,525 189,641 426,692 426,692 474,102 118,525 213,346 142,231 118,525 47,410 47,410 23,705 23,705 2,370,510
119,485 191,175 430,145 430,145 477,939 119,485 215,072 143,382 119,485 47,794 47,794 23,897 23,897 2,389,693
120,444 192,710 433,598 433,598 481,775 120,444 216,799 144,533 120,444 48,178 48,178 24,089 24,089 2,408,877
130,036 208,057 468,128 468,128 520,143 130,036 234,064 156,043 130,036 52,014 52,014 26,007 26,007 2,600,714
Page 3 of 4
125,240 200,384 450,863 450,863 500,959 125,240 225,432 150,288 125,240 50,096 50,096 25,048 25,048 2,504,795
134,832 215,731 485,394 485,394 539,326 134,832 242,697 161,798 134,832 53,933 53,933 26,966 26,966 2,696,632
139,628 223,404 502,659 502,659 558,510 139,628 251,330 167,553 139,628 55,851 55,851 27,926 27,926 2,792,550
144,586 231,338 520,511 520,511 578,346 144,586 260,256 173,504 144,586 57,835 57,835 28,917 28,917 2,891,728
147,600 236,160 531,360 531,360 590,400 147,600 265,680 177,120 147,600 59,040 59,040 29,520 29,520 2,952,001
149,644 239,430 538,718 538,718 598,576 149,644 269,359 179,573 149,644 59,858 59,858 29,929 29,929 2,992,879
154,878 247,805 557,562 557,562 619,514 154,878 278,781 185,854 154,878 61,951 61,951 30,976 30,976 3,097,568
160,296 256,474 577,065 577,065 641,184 160,296 288,533 192,355 160,296 64,118 64,118 32,059 32,059 3,205,919
165,903 265,445 597,251 597,251 663,612 165,903 298,625 199,084 165,903 66,361 66,361 33,181 33,181 3,318,060
3,077,997 6,181,523 9,310,578 12,465,162 15,183,575 17,923,687 31,949,744 46,518,290 61,629,324 77,282,848 93,491,743 103,488,463 110,268,344 127,631,646 145,602,305 164,201,566 99,810,182 96,706,656 93,577,601 90,423,017 87,704,604 84,964,492 70,938,435 56,369,889 41,258,855 25,605,331 9,396,436 (600,283) (7,380,165) (24,743,467) (42,714,125) (61,313,387) Out of Site Life in 2043
461,700 465,529 484,676 503,822 522,969 542,116 561,392 573,271 581,213 601,544 622,585 644,363
3,077,997 3,103,526 3,129,055 3,154,584 3,180,113 3,205,642 3,333,286 3,460,930 3,588,575 3,716,219 3,848,201 3,928,410 3,982,809 4,122,125 4,266,315 4,415,548
2,154,598 2,172,468 2,190,338 2,208,209 2,226,079 2,243,949 2,333,300 2,422,651 2,512,002 2,601,354 2,693,741 2,749,887 2,787,966 2,885,488 2,986,420 3,090,884
1,250,533 1,260,904 1,271,276 1,281,648 1,292,020 1,302,392 1,354,252 1,406,111 1,457,971 1,509,830 1,563,452 1,596,039 1,618,141 1,674,742 1,733,324 1,793,954
529,225 533,615 538,004 542,394 546,783 551,172 573,119 595,066 617,013 638,960 661,653 675,444 684,797 708,751 733,543 759,201
374,840 377,949 381,058 384,167 387,276 390,385 405,929 421,474 437,019 452,563 468,636 478,404 485,029 501,995 519,554 537,728
158,361 159,674 160,988 162,301 163,614 164,928 171,495 178,062 184,629 191,197 197,987 202,114 204,913 212,080 219,499 227,177
533,201 537,623 542,045 546,468 550,890 555,313 577,424 599,536 621,648 643,760 666,623 680,518 689,941 714,075 739,053 764,904
696,349 702,125 707,900 713,676 719,451 725,227 754,104 782,982 811,859 840,737 870,596 888,742 901,049 932,567 965,188 998,949
620,001 625,143 630,285 635,428 640,570 645,712 671,424 697,135 722,847 748,558 775,143 791,299 802,257 830,320 859,364 889,424
0.83%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1,316,350 1,327,268 1,338,186 1,349,103 1,360,021 1,370,939 1,425,528 1,480,117 1,534,706 1,589,295 1,645,739
ELR Process is assumed to recover 15% of the Landfill Space consumed 5 years after Placement
This assumes that 100% of the waste expected to be generated in Dallas will be delivered to McCommas and ELR is Implemented
Estimated material type based on total tonnages before any diversion or ELR Landfill Space Recovery
Multi‐family (MFRP) Residential Population (P)(0.529) Single Family Tons (SFT) (SFRP)(0.86) Single Family Tons Diverted (29.7%) Net Single Family Tons Disposed(NSFT) Multi‐family Tons (MFT) (MFRP)(0.76) Commercial Tons (CT) (P)(0.95) Total Tons (TT) NSFT + MFT + CT CY of Landfill Space Consumed Annually (TT at 1400 lbs/CY compaction rate) CY of Landfill Space Recovered as a result of ELR Cumulative Cubic Yards Consumed Remaining Capacity (CY)
Single Family (SFRP) Residential Population (P)(0.471)
% Population increase (per year)
Year Population (P)
All Dallas Waste With ELR Implementation
City of Dallas Solid Waste Population and Waste Projections (2010‐2040)
This assumes that 100% of the waste expected to be generated in Dallas will be delivered to McCommas and ELR is Implemented
0.77%
0.74%
0.72%
0.69%
0.69%
0.69%
0.69%
0.69%
0.69%
Glass Plastic Recyclable Paper Compostable Paper Yard Trimmings Metal Food Wood Textiles Reusables Ceramics Soils Chemicals
5% 8% 18% 18% 20% 5% 9% 6% 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100%
116,607 186,571 419,786 419,786 466,428 116,607 209,893 139,929 116,607 46,643 46,643 23,321 23,321 2,332,142
117,566 188,106 423,239 423,239 470,265 117,566 211,619 141,080 117,566 47,027 47,027 23,513 23,513 2,351,326
118,525 189,641 426,692 426,692 474,102 118,525 213,346 142,231 118,525 47,410 47,410 23,705 23,705 2,370,510
119,485 191,175 430,145 430,145 477,939 119,485 215,072 143,382 119,485 47,794 47,794 23,897 23,897 2,389,693
120,444 192,710 433,598 433,598 481,775 120,444 216,799 144,533 120,444 48,178 48,178 24,089 24,089 2,408,877
Page 4 of 4
125,240 200,384 450,863 450,863 500,959 125,240 225,432 150,288 125,240 50,096 50,096 25,048 25,048 2,504,795
130,036 208,057 468,128 468,128 520,143 130,036 234,064 156,043 130,036 52,014 52,014 26,007 26,007 2,600,714
134,832 215,731 485,394 485,394 539,326 134,832 242,697 161,798 134,832 53,933 53,933 26,966 26,966 2,696,632
139,628 223,404 502,659 502,659 558,510 139,628 251,330 167,553 139,628 55,851 55,851 27,926 27,926 2,792,550
144,586 231,338 520,511 520,511 578,346 144,586 260,256 173,504 144,586 57,835 57,835 28,917 28,917 2,891,728
149,644 239,430 538,718 538,718 598,576 149,644 269,359 179,573 149,644 59,858 59,858 29,929 29,929 2,992,879
154,878 247,805 557,562 557,562 619,514 154,878 278,781 185,854 154,878 61,951 61,951 30,976 30,976 3,097,568
160,296 256,474 577,065 577,065 641,184 160,296 288,533 192,355 160,296 64,118 64,118 32,059 32,059 3,205,919
165,903 265,445 597,251 597,251 663,612 165,903 298,625 199,084 165,903 66,361 66,361 33,181 33,181 3,318,060
2,923,369 5,870,984 8,842,846 11,838,954 14,420,803 17,023,262 30,344,697 44,181,367 58,533,275 73,400,418 88,795,032 104,728,834 121,219,861 138,287,735 155,952,632 99,810,182 96,862,567 93,890,705 90,894,597 88,312,748 85,710,289 72,388,854 58,552,183 44,200,276 29,333,133 13,938,519 (1,995,283) (18,486,311) (35,554,184) (53,219,082) Out of Site Life in 2045
438,505 442,142 460,327 478,512 496,697 514,882 533,190 552,015 571,324 591,309 611,992
2,923,369 2,947,615 2,971,862 2,996,108 3,020,355 3,044,601 3,165,833 3,287,065 3,408,297 3,529,529 3,654,881 3,782,726 3,915,044 4,051,990 4,193,726
2,046,358 2,063,331 2,080,303 2,097,276 2,114,248 2,131,221 2,216,083 2,300,945 2,385,808 2,470,670 2,558,416 2,647,908 2,740,531 2,836,393 2,935,608
1,250,533 1,260,904 1,271,276 1,281,648 1,292,020 1,302,392 1,354,252 1,406,111 1,457,971 1,509,830 1,563,452 1,618,141 1,674,742 1,733,324 1,793,954
529,225 533,615 538,004 542,394 546,783 551,172 573,119 595,066 617,013 638,960 661,653 684,797 708,751 733,543 759,201
266,600 268,812 271,023 273,234 275,445 277,656 288,712 299,768 310,824 321,880 333,312 344,971 357,037 369,526 382,452
Estimated material type based on total tonnages before any diversion or ELR Landfill Space Recovery
Multi‐family Tons (MFT) (MFRP)(0.76) Commercial Tons (CT) (P)(0.95) Total Tons (TT) NSFT + MFT + CT CY of Landfill Space Consumed Annually (TT at 1400 lbs/CY compaction rate) CY of Landfill Space Recovered as a result of ELR Cumulative Cubic Yards Consumed Remaining Capacity (CY)
Net Single Family Tons (NSFT)
Single Family Tons Diverted (SFTD) @ 50% 266,600 268,812 271,023 273,234 275,445 277,656 288,712 299,768 310,824 321,880 333,312 344,971 357,037 369,526 382,452
533,201 537,623 542,045 546,468 550,890 555,313 577,424 599,536 621,648 643,760 666,623 689,941 714,075 739,053 764,904
0.80%
2060 1,888,373
Single Family Tons (SFT) (SFRP)(0.86)
0.81%
2055 1,824,551
696,349 702,125 707,900 713,676 719,451 725,227 754,104 782,982 811,859 840,737 870,596 901,049 932,567 965,188 998,949
0.82%
2050 1,762,887
620,001 625,143 630,285 635,428 640,570 645,712 671,424 697,135 722,847 748,558 775,143 802,257 830,320 859,364 889,424
0.82%
2045 1,703,306
Multi‐family (MFRP) Residenrtial Population (P)(0.529)
0.83%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1,316,350 1,327,268 1,338,186 1,349,103 1,360,021 1,370,939 1,425,528 1,480,117 1,534,706 1,589,295 1,645,739
Single Family (SFRP) Residential Population (P)(0.471)
% Population increase (per year)
Year Population (P)
ELR Process to recover 15% of the Landfill Space consumed 5 years after Placement & Residential Waste Diversion Rates will Double Dallas Total Waste with ELR and Diversion Rate of 50% of Single Family Residential Generation
City of Dallas Solid Waste Population and Waste Projections (2010‐2040)
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION SERVICES LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TRANSFER OPERATIONS Task 3
Prepared for: City of Dallas Sanitation Services Department 1500 Marilla, Room 3FN Dallas, Texas 75201 Prepared by: CP&Y, Inc. 1820 Regal Row, Ste. 200 Dallas, TX 75235
.
Task 3‐ Transfer Operations The City of Dallas contracted with R.W. Beck in 2006 to conduct a review of their Transfer Operations including their Transfer Fleet, Transfer Operations for unloading at McCommas Landfill and Operations at each of their three Transfer Stations. Much of the information from that Report will be the basis for this Task 3 Technical Memorandum. The primary emphasis of this Technical Memorandum will be to update the information from that Report and outline the relevant information from that Report that remains valid. Transfer Operations‐ The City currently owns and operates three transfer stations‐ All waste from these stations is hauled to the McCommas Bluff Landfill (see Figure 1 for these facility locations).
Bachman (Northwest)‐(TCEQ MSW Permit No. 1145) ‐ This facility is located at 9500 Harry Hines Blvd and is shown on the Aerial Photograph (Figure Bachman‐1). Open 6 days per week to City and private commercial haulers, and City of Dallas residents. This is the only Transfer Station operated by the City of Dallas that receives waste from private commercial haulers. Since 2004 the Transfer Station has received an average of approximately 7,000‐8,000 vehicles per month. These vehicles deliver an average of approximately 12,000 ‐15,000 tons per month, of which approximately 10‐15% is delivered by private citizens and private waste haulers. The remaining 85‐90% is delivered by City collection vehicles (residential and commercial). The total FY 2010 tonnage transferred through this station was 162,923 tons. The facility site layout and the building layout are shown in Figures Bachman‐2 and Bachman‐3. This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 2,000 tons per day (approximately 48,000 tons per month) at the current hours of operation without physical expansion of the facility itself. This facility design capacity is over three times the current throughput at the facility and should be able to meet the long term needs of the City under the assumption that the current facility user types remain the same (85‐90% City collection vehicles) and waste quantities increase as projected in Task 2. However, if additional waste quantities (from commercial haulers) are captured and directed to the facility, and if needed, additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, operating hours and staff. Recommendations from the Beck Report of 2006 for expanded throughput for this Station are as follows:
At the Bachman (Northwest) Transfer Station discontinue the practice of storing waste above the pit level, improve the ventilation and lighting, implement a “drop and hook” operation to help reduce the waiting time for drivers to have their vehicles loaded, divert more brush away from the facility, and encourage the increased use of the facility to utilize the available unused transfer capacity of the station. It was also noted in the report that the City should minimize the use of the “Steco” brand transfer trailers for transfer operations. These trailers have a heavier tare weight due to their unloading mechanism. This minimizes the available weight for waste payload due to total vehicle weight load restrictions. City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Transfer Operations
Page 1
HDR Engineering August 2011
These recommendations remain valid as the annual waste receipts have remained almost constant from FY 2004 to FY 2010 (177,528 tons vs. 169,923 tons). Since the completion of the 2006 Transfer Station Report, the City is now also receiving recycled materials at the Bachman Station from the “Too Good to Throw Away” Program. The City recyclables collection vehicles unload on the floor of the building near the “direct load” load‐out hopper. The recyclables are then top‐loaded into “Steco” brand transfer trailers for delivery to Greenstar (formerly Vista Fibers) in Garland for processing and separation. The “Steco” trailers are used to haul the recyclables due to their self‐unloading capability and the weight of the recyclables allows a full load without exceeding total vehicle weight load restrictions. There is no tipper equipment available at Greenstar for unloading, as there is at the McCommas Landfill for transfer trailers. Dry Gulch Recycling which collects recyclables and brush mulching operations are located on the Bachman Site area. There is sufficient area adjacent to the facility to locate additional waste diversion activities. The current hours of operation for the Bachman Transfer Station are:
Monday 7:30am‐7:00pm Tuesday 7:30am‐7:00pm Wednesday 7:30am‐5:00pm Thursday 7:30am‐7:00pm Friday 7:30am‐7:00pm Saturday 7:30am‐5:00pm Sunday CLOSED Fair Oaks (Northeast)‐(TCEQ MSW Permit No. 60) This facility is located at 7677 Fair Oaks Avenue, and is shown on the Aerial Photograph (Figure Fair Oaks‐1). Open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday to City collection vehicles ONLY. The facility is open to City of Dallas residents only on Wednesday and Saturday. No private haulers are accepted. Individual deliveries by private citizens are noted in a vehicle count but their loads are not weighed. City vehicles using the facility average approximately 600‐1,000 vehicles per month delivering an average of approximately 4,000‐6,000 tons per month. The total FY 2010 tonnage transferred through this Station was 52,816 tons. The facility site layout and the building layout are shown in Figures Fair Oaks‐2 and Fair Oaks‐3. The waste quantities delivered by City vehicles is relatively consistent day to day (M, T, Th, F) after the City implemented the once per week residential collection system. This residential once per week collection system was not in place when the 2006 Report was prepared. At that time the City collected residential waste twice per week with Monday/Thursday routes and Tuesday/Friday routes. With that system the waste quantities collected on Thursday and Friday were much less than the waste collected on Monday and Tuesday. Consequently the residential collection vehicles that were collecting on Thursday and Friday were diverted to the Bachman Transfer Station and the Fair Oaks Station was closed on Thursday and Friday. This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 700 tons per day (approximately 15,000 tons per month) at the current hours of operation without physical expansion of the facility itself. This facility design capacity is approximately 2.5 times the current throughput at the facility and should be able to meet the long term needs of the City under the assumption that the current facility user types remain the same
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Transfer Operations
Page 2
HDR Engineering August 2011
(City Residential Collection Vehicles and Private Citizens only) and waste quantities increase as projected in Task 2. However, if additional waste quantities (from commercial haulers) are captured and directed to the facility, the facility is not designed to transfer the entire waste stream from ¼ of the City. Some additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, operating hours and staff. However the facility site is restricted in size due to the surrounding area being in the 100 year flood plain of White Rock Creek and cannot be expanded to meet the overall needs from ¼ of the City. Recommendations from the Beck Report of 2006 for expanded throughput for this Station are as follows: o
At the Fair Oaks (Northeast) Transfer Station the efficiencies could be improved by reducing the number of days that private citizens can access the site, utilizing the additional unused capacity of the facility and increase revenues by accepting waste from other commercial waste haulers, and if additional haulers are accepted, implement a “drop and hook” operation.
The City has improved the utilization of the facility since the 2006 Report by balancing the daily loads to the Station on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday due to the implementation of a once‐per‐week residential collection program. The recommendations for further improvements to increase the throughput remain valid. There is little, if any, area available for additional diversion activities at this site due to the floodplain issues. Current Operating Hours at the Fair Oaks Transfer Station are: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm CLOSED
City Vehicles Only City Vehicles Only Dallas Citizens Only City Vehicles Only City Vehicles Only Dallas Citizens only
Oak Cliff (Southwest)‐(TCEQ MSW Permit No. 1453) This facility is located at 4610 S. Westmoreland Avenue and is shown on the Aerial Photograph (Figure Oak Cliff‐1). Open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday to City collection vehicles ONLY. The facility is open to City of Dallas residents only on Wednesday and Saturday. No private haulers are accepted. City vehicles using the facility average approximately 600‐1,000 vehicles per month delivering an average of approximately 4,000‐6,000 tons per month. The total FY 2010 tonnage transferred through this Station was 57,914 tons. The facility site layout and the building layout are shown in Figures Oak Cliff‐2 and Oak Cliff‐3.The waste quantities delivered by City vehicles is relatively consistent day to day (M, T, Th, F) since the City implemented the once per week collection system. This Transfer Station has the design throughput capacity of 700 tons per day (approximately 15,000 tons per month) at the current hours of operation without physical expansion of the facility itself. This facility design capacity is approximately 2.5 times the current throughput at the facility and should be able to meet the long term needs of the City under the assumption that the current facility user types remain the same (City Residential Collection Vehicles and City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Transfer Operations
Page 3
HDR Engineering August 2011
Private Citizens only) and waste quantities increase as projected in Task 2. However, if additional waste quantities (from commercial haulers) are captured and directed to the facility, the facility is not designed to transfer the entire waste stream from ¼ of the City. There is limited space for facility expansion, but the facility could be expanded in size to meet some of the future needs. If the facility would be expected to transfer all of the waste quantities from ¼ of the City, it is anticipated that the facility should be replaced with a new facility rather than expanding the existing facility. Some additional throughput can be achieved with the addition of transfer vehicles, loading equipment at the facility, operating hours, staff, and the relocation of the office and scale system. Recommendations from the Beck Report of 2006 for expanded throughput for this Station are as follows:
At the Oak Cliff (Southwest) Transfer Station the receiving floor is in poor condition and needs repair. Recommendations similar to those for the Fair Oaks Station were made for the Oak Cliff Station related to private citizen use, utilizing additional capacity and implementing a “drop and hook” operation. If the City chooses to increase the use of the station, the report further recommended the relocation of the office and scale system.
These recommendations remain valid for increasing the throughput at the facility. Since the completion of the 2006 Transfer Station Report, the City is now also receiving recycled materials at the Oak Cliff Station from the “Too Good to Throw Away” Program. The Oak Cliff Station has two load‐out hoppers for loading transfer vehicles. Since the start of recyclable loads receipt at the Oak Cliff Station, one of these hoppers has been designated for “recyclables” and one for “waste being transported to the McCommas Landfill”. The City recyclables collection vehicles unload on the floor of the building near the designated “recyclables” load‐out hopper. The recyclables are then top‐loaded into “Steco” brand transfer trailers for delivery to Greenstar (formerly Vista Fibers) in Garland for processing and separation. The “Steco” trailers are used to haul the recyclables due to their self‐ unloading capability and the weight of the recyclables allows a full load without exceeding total vehicle weight load restrictions. There is no tipper equipment available at Greenstar for unloading, as there is at the McCommas Landfill for transfer trailers. There is sufficient area adjacent to the facility to locate additional waste diversion activities. Current Operating Hours at the Oak Cliff Transfer Station are the same as those at the Fair Oaks Transfer Station: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm 7:30am‐5:00pm CLOSED
City Vehicles Only City Vehicles Only Dallas Citizens Only City Vehicles Only City Vehicles Only Dallas Citizens only
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Transfer Operations
Page 4
HDR Engineering August 2011
Transfer Station Needs to Handle “All Dallas Waste” The total combined capacity of the three existing Transfer Stations is 3400 Tons per Day (Bachman‐2,000 tpd, Fair Oaks‐700 tpd, and Oak Cliff‐700 tpd). This equates to an annual transfer capacity of approximately 1,000,000 tons, based upon a 6 day work week. Based upon the projections developed in Task 2 it is anticipated that the annual waste quantities to be managed for “All Dallas Waste” will increase from approximately 2,200,000 tons per year to approximately 3,100,000 tons per year over the 50 year planning period. Initially, if the City was currently handling “All Dallas Waste”, at least half of all of the waste must be delivered directly to McCommas Landfill, and each of the Transfer Stations must be operated at their design capacity. Without any expansion of the Transfer Stations, the percentage of waste that must be hauled directly to the McCommas Landfill would increase from approximately half to approximately two‐thirds of the total waste. In order to maintain the percentage of waste hauled directly to McCommas Landfill at approximately half of the total waste, the design capacity of the transfer stations must be increased to approximately 1,500,000 tons per year. As previously noted, the Fair Oaks Transfer Station cannot be expanded due to the surrounding flood plain. The Oak Cliff Transfer Station design capacity could potentially be increased in size to 1000 tpd at the existing site. In order to provide the 1,500,000 tons per year (approximately 4800 tpd) of transfer station design capacity, more waste would have to be handled by the Bachman Transfer Station and its design capacity would have to be increased from 2000 tpd to 3100 tpd. This may not be feasible due to various site restrictions (ground water levels, space, increased traffic, on‐site traffic flow, etc.). Transfer Vehicles The City currently utilizes two types of transfer trailers:
Aluminum “possum‐belly” trailers that must be unloaded with a “tipper” at the landfill. Due to their lighter tare weight than the self unloading trailers, these trailers can carry a net payload of approximately 23 tons (46,000 pounds) and not exceed the legal gross weight limit of 80,000 pounds. Most of the waste transferred to the landfill is transported in this type of transfer trailer due to the increased payload. “Steco” brand self unloading trailers can carry a net payload of only 20 tons (40,000 pounds) without exceeding the legal gross weight limit of 80,000 pounds. This is due to their extra tare weight which includes the self unloading mechanism. As noted above, these trailers are currently used primarily to transport recyclables due to their unloading mechanism and the weight of the recyclables allows the trailer to be fully loaded without exceeding the legal gross weight limit.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Transfer Operations
Page 5
HDR Engineering August 2011
Current City records were examined to determine if the City was loading these transfer vehicles to a reasonable load limit without exceeding the legal gross weight limit of 80,000 pounds. Selected records for various months over the past 5years are shown below: Avg Of GROSS_LBS
Max Of GROSS_LBS
Year
Month
2011
5
76,566
88,840
2011
4
75,490
122,180
2011
3
73,376
95,560
2011
2
73,704
86,700
2011
1
72,695
95,140
2010
11
72,959
97,480
2010
7
73,047
85,940
2010
6
71,709
81,720
2010
2
74,360
89,400
2009
9
75,351
89,120
2009
8
74,673
81,420
2009
6
75,815
87,540
2009
3
75,500
99,100
2009
1
74,207
80,920
2008
10
74,052
97,460
2008
8
74,477
97,860
2008
7
74,371
97,000
2008
3
76,803
102,280
2008
2
73,646
89,880
2008
1
74,900
92,980
2007
12
74,694
81,680
2007
10
75,077
85,660
2007
9
74,694
82,920
2007
7
73,878
90,080
2007
6
73,633
89,520
2007
5
73,512
87,640
2007
4
73,177
88,020
2007
2
75,220
94,440
2007
1
75,674
98,420
2006
12
75,080
96,620
2006
11
74,579
94,940
2006
10
74,421
91,820
2006
9
73,732
88,420
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Transfer Operations
Page 6
HDR Engineering August 2011
Year
Month
2006
8
Avg Of GROSS_LBS 69,312
Max Of GROSS_LBS 87,420
As noted in these tables, the average monthly load in the transfer vehicles is slightly below the legal maximum gross load. Based upon discussions with City personnel the City operational strategy is to load these vehicles to the maximum extent without exceeding the legal limits. This is accomplished by using a clamshell/tamper to spread and compact the loads within the trailer while the transfer vehicle is located on a set of scales. These transfer vehicles are periodically weighed in route to the Landfill by State Troopers for compliance with load limits. The City is careful not to routinely overload the trailers due to these periodic weigh inspections and potential fines. As noted in the tables above, on occasion the trailers are overloaded, but not on a routine basis. Based upon these records and the stated City operational strategy, it appears that the City is doing a good job of maximizing the load capacity of the transfer vehicles. Alternate Transportation Methods for Transfer Operations Railroads As noted in the attached Figure RR, each of the transfer stations and the McCommas Landfill has access to rail lines within Dallas County. However, various studies have been performed over many years to examine the economic feasibility of utilizing railroads to transport waste from transfer stations to disposal sites. The consensus results of these studies are that the distance of transfer should be a minimum of 75 miles before even attempting to assess the feasibility of rail transport. Therefore rail transport has not been explored for use in the current facility configuration. In the future if the McCommas Landfill site is closed and the ultimate site for processing and disposal is at a more distant location, rail haul should be reevaluated. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) In recent years many types of vehicles have been manufactured which utilize CNG as the fuel source. This is also true in the Waste Industry where many municipalities and private haulers are utilizing and evaluating CNG fueled vehicles in their collection fleet, including the City of Dallas. CNG fueling stations are also being established at various locations to provide fuel more conveniently. As the current transfer vehicle fleet is replaced, it is recommended that the City evaluate and compare CNG fueled vehicles for this transfer function as well.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Transfer Operations
Page 7
HDR Engineering August 2011
Date: 5/11/2011
McCommas Bluff Landfill
Dallas Solid Waste Facility Locations
Oak Cliff Transfer Station
Bachman Transfer Station
Fair Oaks Transfer Station
0
2.5
5
Figure 1
Miles 10
ÂŻ
Date: 5/11/2011
Bachman Transfer Station Aerial Photograph
0
150
Feet 300
Figure - Bachman-1
75
ÂŻ
Source: City of Dallas Transfer Station Evaluation February 2006 - RWBeck
Date: 5/11/2011
Bachman Transfer Station Building Layout
Figure - Bachman-2
Source: City of Dallas Transfer Station Evaluation February 2006 - RWBeck
Date: 5/11/2011
Bachman Transfer Station Facility Layout
Figure - Bachman-3
Date: 5/11/2011
Fair Oaks Transfer Station Aerial Photograph
0
150
Feet 300
Figure - Fair Oaks 1
75
ÂŻ
Source: City of Dallas Transfer Station Evaluation February 2006 - RWBeck
Date: 5/11/2011
Fair Oaks Transfer Station Building Layout
Figure - Fair Oaks-2
Source: City of Dallas Transfer Station Evaluation February 2006 - RWBeck
Date: 5/11/2011
Fair Oaks Transfer Station Facility Layout
Figure - Fair Oaks-3
Date: 5/11/2011
Oak Cliff Transfer Station Aerial Photograph
0
150
Feet 300
Figure - Oak Cliff-1
75
ÂŻ
Source: City of Dallas Transfer Station Evaluation February 2006 - RWBeck
Date: 5/11/2011
Oak Cliff Transfer Station Building Layout
Figure - Oak Cliff-2
Source: City of Dallas Transfer Station Evaluation February 2006 - RWBeck
Date: 5/11/2011
Oak Cliff Transfer Station Facility Layout
Figure - Oak Cliff-3
Date: 5/20/2011
Dallas Solid Waste Facility Locations - Railroads
Oak Cliff Transfer Station
McCommas Bluff Landfill
Bachman Transfer Station
Fair Oaks Transfer Station
0
1
2
Miles
Figure RR
4
ÂŻ
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION SERVICES LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
DIVERSION PROGRAM OPTIONS Task 4A August 2011 Prepared for: City of Dallas Sanitation Services Department 1500 Marilla, Room 3FN Dallas, Texas 75201 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 17111 Preston Road, Ste. 200 Dallas, Texas 75248 Texas PE Firm Registration No. F-754
Table of Contents Diversion Program Options ............................................................................................................. 1 Description of Key Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 4 Policies ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Commercial Hauler Recycling Requirements ................................................................................ 4 2. Mandatory Source‐Separation Requirements .............................................................................. 6 3. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance ........................................................................... 7 4. Extended Producer Responsibility ................................................................................................ 8 Programs ................................................................................................................................................... 9 5. Separate Collection for Organics .................................................................................................. 9 6. Bulk Item Reuse and Recycling ................................................................................................... 10 7. Community‐Based Social Marketing ........................................................................................... 11 8. Commercial Technical Assistance ............................................................................................... 13 Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 13 9. Resource Recovery Parks ............................................................................................................ 13 10.
Mixed Materials Processing .................................................................................................... 14
Analysis of Diversion Potential of Key Initiatives .......................................................................... 15 Diversion Model ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Diversion Results and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential ....................................................... 18 Diversion Results .................................................................................................................................... 18 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential .................................................................................................... 18
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page i
HDR Engineering August 2011
Diversion Program Options The City of Dallas (City) operates a number of diversion programs to reduce the volume of discarded materials requiring landfill disposal. These include:
Residential Recycling Collection – weekly collection provided to single‐family residences using wheeled carts Big Blue Recycling Drop‐Off Sites – targeting multifamily residences and available to all generators Brush Collection – monthly collection available to all residents Electronics Recycling – drop‐off program available to all residents Pilot Recycling Programs – targeting multifamily residences and hotels Landfill Diversion Programs – targeting metals, concrete, asphalt, sawdust, clean soil and brush
To assist with the development of the Local Solid Waste Management Plan, the City convened the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). Members of SWAC include representatives from public agencies, private sector service providers, and community groups. At the SWAC meeting held on May 26, 2011, SWAC reviewed potential diversion program options, as listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Diversion Program Options Residential Policies
Rate structure incentives Mandatory recycling and composting
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Commercial
Construction and Demolition Debris
All Generators
Require all businesses to have recycling service Require all businesses to recycle specific materials Require all businesses to reach a certain diversion level Ban specific materials from disposal (cardboard, C&D) Require commercial haulers to reach specific diversion levels Require commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers Require all commercial kitchens to have either pulpers or under-sink garbage disposers.
Require C&D generators to prepare C&D diversion plans Require processing of all C&D loads Require all C&D generators to reach a certain diversion level (75% for construction debris, 90% for inert materials) Ordinance requiring Resource Recovery Parks at all transfer stations and landfills
Extended Producer Responsibility Packaging legislation Single use bag ban Voluntary take-back requirements Product bans Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Ordinance Green events ordinance
Page 1
HDR Engineering August 2011
Residential
Commercial
Programs
Add materials to recycling program (textiles, durable plastics, film plastic, scrap metal) Source-separated organics collection (yard trimmings, food scraps) Bulky item reuse and recycling Recycling technical assistance
Social marketing programs for specific generator types or districts (Business Improvement Districts or Building Owner and Manager Association or other) Provide recycling and composting services to all schools Provide recycling and composting services to all multi-family complexes Commercial technical assistance
Facilities
Enhanced recycling processing Expansion of mulch/composting operations
Construction and Demolition Debris
All Generators
C&D diversion technical assistance
Large scale media campaign (Don’t mess with Texas) Community-Based Social marketing
Resource recovery park at City landfill Construction and demolition debris processing
Resource recovery park at City landfill
After a discussion of the potential diversion options, SWAC members were asked to provide additional observations and input. SWAC members identified the following additional initiatives for consideration, as listed in Table 2.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 2
HDR Engineering August 2011
Table 2 Additional Initiatives Identified by SWAC Members Policies
Programs
Facilities
75% of material going to the landfill is a resource. The City could establish rate structure incentives, using a tier pricing based on container size. The voluntary yard waste program (Don’t Bag It) still results in a significant amount of yard waste going to the landfill. Consider making the Don’t Bag It program mandatory. C&D separation and recycling could be mandatory, To ensure commercial customers can recycle, it should be required that all commercial waste haulers provide recycling options. Consider extended-producer responsibility (EPR), maintaining that the manufacturer remains responsible for its product over the product's entire life cycle Public education or incentives are preferred over any requirements or mandates. Change building codes to incorporate recycling systems. Education is key component. We need to train the next generation of residents on the value of waste as a resource. The "disposable mindset" has to be transformed into "resource thinking". Education is important and necessary goal to ensure the success of the solid waste diversion programs. There is a huge opportunity for increasing diversion through single-stream recycling for the commercial sector. The City could dramatically increase diversion percentages if commercial customers had greater access to recycling. Consider single stream recycling technology for commercial. Provide separate collection of brush from bulk items. Consider co-collection of brush, yard waste and food scraps. Establish a "Resource Recovery Park" at the landfill. Develop a composting and mulch facility at the landfill. New technologies are not commercially proven. However, food to fuel appears to be gaining in acceptance. Dallas should be at the forefront of innovative MSW diversion and technology. The City should ensure that there is sufficient capacity at recycling and recovery facilities. Sham recycling operations present a threat to the environment and public health and welfare. In addition to a compost facility, a technology option for putrescible wastes (i.e., food wastes) would be anaerobic methane digester for generating methane gas. The City of Dallas has the opportunity to be on the forefront of innovative technology and the leader in resource recovery.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 3
HDR Engineering August 2011
To understand the effectiveness of the diversion policies and programs, the following key initiatives were evaluated. 1. Require commercial haulers to provide recycling services to all of their customers—targeting multifamily and commercial generators 2. Consider mandatory source‐separation requirements—targeting all generator sectors 3. Develop a construction and demolition debris (C&D) ordinance and provide C&D technical assistance ‐‐ targeting roll‐off and self‐haul generators 4. Advocate for extended producer responsibility at the state level and work with local retailers to increase take‐back programs—targeting all generator sectors 5. Provide separate collection for organics—targeting all generators 6. Provide bulk item reuse and recycling—targeting all generators 7. Undertake a social marketing campaign—targeting all generator sectors 8. Provide commercial technical assistance—targeting multifamily and commercial generators 9. Develop a Resource Recovery Park at the landfill—targeting self‐haul generators 10. Develop a mixed materials processing facility—targeting all generators Note that a detailed discussion of new technology is included in the Technology Options Technical Memorandum and organics processing technology is addressed in the Organics Technology Technical Memorandum.
Description of Key Initiatives Policies 1. Commercial Hauler Recycling Requirements Currently, solid waste collection from an apartment, institution, commercial establishment, or mobile home park may be performed by a collection service provider that has a solid waste collection franchise granted by the City. The City would revise the existing franchise system to direct all franchised haulers in the City to provide recycling services to commercial customers citywide. The requirement for recycling service under this program would specify that recycling must be provided to customers upon request (note that this program does not require customers to recycle, which is addressed below), and allow for the hauler to determine the collection methodology, provision of customer containers, processing arrangements, fee structure, and other components of the recycling services the hauler offers its customers. The City would specify in the franchise requirements which materials must be included in the recycling program to ensure that customers have a reasonable level of service for recycling the types of materials they generate. It is assumed that the list of target materials in this program would include those materials currently collected in the residential recycling program offered through the City. In communities that have exclusive franchise agreements with haulers for commercial solid waste service, commercial recycling service is often included in the scope of services to ensure that customers have the option to recycle through their hauler. This program, which does not require exclusive franchise arrangements with haulers, would allow commercial customers to arrange recycling service with their waste collector, rather than making arrangements with third‐party recycling companies. Many City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 4
HDR Engineering August 2011
recycling firms require special conditions to be met (minimum quantities of materials, source separation by type or material grade, on‐call arrangements) before they agree to provide service, which often discourages commercial customers from recycling. Commercial haulers would be allowed to implement whatever programs work best in terms of collection efficiency and handling methods, but reporting requirements would be necessary to enable the City to monitor the program to ensure it is offered consistently throughout the commercial sector. This program would require additional City staff to conduct periodic monitoring (in the field) and to respond to any customer complaints to ensure that recycling services are being implemented by the hauler upon request by the customer.
Commercial Rate Structure Ordinance The City does not regulate specific rates for service provided through the private sector service providers, but could provide guidance through a rate structure ordinance. The goal of the ordinance would be to establish sufficient customer rate incentives for commercial and multi‐family customers to increase recycling and decrease garbage service. This ordinance would help to minimize the common industry practice of offering price incentives based on volume discounts to customers that subscribe for higher levels of garbage service, thereby creating pricing incentives for customers to shift to increased recycling services. The following sections describe the customer rate modifications for garbage and recycling services, which the haulers would be required to implement under this program.
Garbage rate component: Commercial customer rates could be modified by the hauler to reflect a uniform “per cubic yard” rate for the whole range of bin or container sizes and collection frequency the hauler offers to its customers. The amount of the cubic yard (unit) rate could be established by the hauler to ensure that sufficient revenues are generated to cover the hauler’s costs and still compete for customers. Thus, if a hauler charges a rate of $100 for a one cubic‐yard bin collected once per week, the rate could be $200 for the one cubic‐yard bin collected two times per week, $400 for a four cubic‐yard bin collected once per week, or $1,200 for a six cubic yard bin collected two times per week. In addition, haulers could be required to decrease garbage services and corresponding rates for those services during the term of any contracts they have. This would address some problems that develop where businesses don’t get economic benefit of reducing garbage, as they have a fixed price contract. If a contract is based on a flat fee for all the services provided, haulers could be required to provide line items in their contracts for the costs of garbage, reuse, recycling and composting services, and if garbage service is decreased, then the contracts could be required to specify how the overall contract cost will be decreased. Haulers could also be restricted from entering into agreements for garbage collection service for more than 1 year, but have no such restrictions on reuse, recyclables or compostable collection services. This would enable haulers to invest in new reuse, recycling and composting infrastructure, and not reward continued wasting.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 5
HDR Engineering August 2011
Recycling rate component: Commercial haulers are assumed to offer recycling service to their customers through a proposed recycling ordinance (discussed above), therefore they would be required to offer a discount for the recycling rates compared to the garbage rates. The recycling rate set by the hauler under this program could be no higher than 75% (for example) of the garbage rate for service, as measured by the uniform “per cubic yard” rate for garbage service. If a hauler charges his customer $100 for a one cubic yard bin of garbage, he could charge no more than $75 for a one cubic yard bin of commingled or source separated recyclables. Garbage and recycling rate modifications intended by this program would be established through City adoption of an ordinance that would describe the parameters of the rate modification haulers would need to implement in order to maintain their permits, or franchise agreements, for serving customers within the City. This program would rely on the City’s right to set hauler franchise conditions, and would not require the City to implement exclusive franchises for commercial waste.
2. Mandatory Source-Separation Requirements The City will have the most impact on increasing diversion of recyclable and organic materials through new policy drivers. This policy presents a major shift from voluntary to mandatory participation in recycling collection programs, and is intended to motivate all waste generators (residential and commercial) within the City to separate recyclable materials from the waste they generate at their home or business, and place it in the appropriate recycling collection container on a regular basis for collection. To effect this change, the City would need to develop and adopt a “Mandatory Recycling” ordinance that requires waste generators to source separate recyclables from other waste, and set the recyclables out for collection as appropriate for the recycling programs and services available through their service provider (the City for single family service, franchised waste haulers and/or recyclers for commercial service, multi‐family complexes, etc.). The recycling ordinance would need to be carefully developed based on consideration of legitimate concerns raised by various stakeholder groups and consistent with City policy directives, and publicized adequately to inform all residents, businesses, service providers, and others of the intent and purpose of the ordinance. The South Bayside Waste Management Authority, a joint powers agency which includes ten communities within San Mateo County, California recently completed an evaluation of existing mandatory recycling programs and identified the following approaches for successful implementation:
Use a detailed rationale Include all businesses, regardless of size or type Include all sectors Require source‐separation of any material that is collected Do not specify materials by name in the ordinance Require haulers to deliver tags and warning notices Require haulers to provide information about such actions Establish a protocol for enforcement Establish that government staff have the power to clarify the ordinance through the issuance of regulations
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 6
HDR Engineering August 2011
Establish a sliding scale of fines based on service levels Establish a protocol to grant limited exemptions Use public sector inspectors or third‐party contractors to verify non‐compliance Include specific requirements for multi‐family or multi‐tenant building owners and managers Require haulers to conduct periodic waste audits of loads Establish a grace period of non‐enforcement Initiate a stakeholder and scoping process for ordinance details Focus service delivery on the carrots rather than the threat of the sticks, but convey expectations (“it’s the law”) that recycling must be taken seriously (“enforcement measures can include...”) Use a “light touch” on enforcement (enforce flagrant violations rather than minor infractions)
Although the South Bay Waste Management Authority member agencies have exclusive franchises, the research included evaluation of mandatory ordinance requirements for both generators and haulers and was not specific to exclusive franchises.
Political Capital vs. Financial Capital Mandatory requirements are cost‐effective, particularly if the City does not have to invest in additional staff resources to address compliance issues. New regulations and requirements, just like smoking bans and seat belt laws, require implementation of policy initiatives (and use of political capital), since the City would be asking generators to change their behavior. In contrast, behind the scenes processing technologies require the expenditure of financial capital, since the City or private sector service providers would need to invest in new infrastructure. Individual generators, particularly commercial generators, may realize cost‐savings by increasing recycling collection service and reducing solid waste collection service.
3. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance The City has an opportunity to implement a recycling program that would significantly divert the debris that is generated during construction and demolition activities at project sites. Adoption of a Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Ordinance would address materials that are typically generated during C&D projects that could be reused or recycled rather than landfilled. As much as twenty percent of waste disposed in landfills consists of C&D debris. Adoption of a citywide C&D ordinance would require all sponsors of construction and demolition projects throughout the City to recycle or reuse minimum thresholds of debris generated from those projects. The ordinance would result in significant increased waste diversion of the target C&D materials, particularly during times of increased economic activity when more construction and renovation projects are undertaken. The City’s role would be to:
Adopt policies to increase reuse, recycling and composting of products used in remodeling and new construction; Require larger project building permit holders to provide C&D diversion plans; Transition to higher rates of diversion requirements; Require documentation of diversion amounts; and
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 7
HDR Engineering August 2011
Register facilities and haulers.
A component of this initiative would be implementation of a C&D Technical Assistance program. The program would include:
Technical assistance to construction and demolition debris generators in support of the Construction and demolition debris ordinance; Training in soft demolition, deconstruction, and building materials reuse; Promotion of building adaptive reuse; Information on recycling and reuse outlets and deconstruction services; and Information about rates and services available through private sector service providers and non‐ profit organizations.
4. Extended Producer Responsibility The goal of this initiative is to provide support to statewide Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiatives and to consider local initiatives. EPR also known as “product stewardship” is a product‐centered approach to environmental protection. EPR calls on those in the product life cycle—manufacturers, retailers, users, and disposers—to share responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of products.1 This initiative calls for the City to take an active role in advocating for legislation that requires product manufacturers, retail establishments, wholesale distributors and other appropriate entities to take back certain products or packaging that currently are difficult to recycle, contain toxics or otherwise pose problems when they are discarded as waste. The City would work with the Texas Product Stewardship Council and other federal, state and regional agencies and community groups to ensure that effective take‐back programs are enacted into law, thereby enhancing the City’s goals to reduce the volume and toxicity of the materials entering the City’s waste stream. The following are the four priorities the City would focus on under this program:
Advocate for legislation making businesses responsible for their products that contain toxics, such as pharmaceuticals, fluorescent lights, household batteries, treated wood, and other materials. Advocate for legislation making businesses responsible for their products that are difficult to recycle materials, such as disposable diapers, composite materials, tires, white goods, durable goods, plastic, and food packaging. Advocate for packaging legislation making businesses responsible for their packages, including: alternatives to expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam containers, “peanuts” and “blocks”) and plastic bags; and support for reusable shipping containers.
1
“Wastes - Partnerships - Product Stewardship” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/stewardship/basic.htm (accessed June 23, 2011). City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 8
HDR Engineering August 2011
Adopt a citywide single‐use bag ban on plastic carry‐out bags at all supermarkets and retail establishments, and impose a point‐of‐sale fee on all other single‐use bags, such as paper or compostable bags.
Programs 5. Separate Collection for Organics City Programs to Increase Diversion of Brush, Yard Trimmings and Food Waste The City provides monthly collection of brush and bulk items. The City collects large limbs, shrubbery, bagged leaves (in sealed bags with a maximum 50 gallon capacity), furniture, appliances, mattresses and box springs. The City encourages residents to separate brush from bulk items. Clean loads of brush can be diverted from disposal at the landfill. However, a significant amount of brush set out for collection is commingled with bulky items and requires disposal or processing to separate the two streams. There are two significant modifications to the residential collection system the City can consider in order to improve diversion and collection efficiency. The first is to provide carts to the residents in order to make the collection system more user‐friendly, and the second is to add food waste to the list of acceptable materials (this would need to be phased in, once composting facility capacity to properly process the organic material is in place). Composting facility capacity and development of facilities are discussed in the Organics Technology Technical Memorandum. Provide residents with carts: The residents have been provided with sets of two (2) wheeled carts with lids for convenient storage and curbside set‐out of their garbage and recyclables. Use of the carts has increased collection efficiencies and, coupled with the City’s single‐stream recycling program, resulted in more convenience to the residents and higher participation in the recycling program. The same benefits would occur if the yard trimmings collection program provided a similar “green” cart for storing and set‐ outs of yard trimmings and other organic materials. By offering a choice of “green” cart sizes (e.g., 48–gallon, 64‐gallon, 96‐gallon or similar capacity), residents can select a size that meets their need, based on how much yard materials they generate or how much storage space they have for an additional cart. The City, in providing customers with garbage and recycling carts, has gained valuable experience in recent years with using automated and semi‐automated vehicles to collect those materials, and residents have become familiar with the simplified set‐out requirements for carts. Given this background, a cart program for handling yard trimmings would not require a pilot program to test the collection methods and equipment. Given the benefits to the residents under a cart collection program, this program modification would result in improved customer satisfaction and higher participation in the yard trimmings collection program. Phase in food scraps and other organics in the program: If the City decides to provide customer carts for the yard trimmings collection program, the City should consider adding food scraps and other organic material such as food‐soiled paper and similar compostable materials to the residential collection program. This program modification is recommended only in the event the City will have established the use of carts for yard trimming collections. Due to the high density (weight) of food scraps, the carts and automated lifting mechanism on the collection vehicle will be required for handling City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 9
HDR Engineering August 2011
the material. This program also requires availability of permitted compost facilities (City and/or private facilities) within the region that would receive, process, and market yard trimmings commingled with food scraps and other organic materials suitable for conversion to compost products. Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City would need to ensure that there is sufficient processing capacity to handle the increased organics tonnages that would be collected through the expanded yard trimmings program. The City may want to conduct a pilot program to insure that yard trimmings co‐mingled with food scraps can be adequately composted for end‐use markets. Pending the final results of the pilot program, the City could modify and expand its yard trimmings collection program to include other organic materials such as food scraps, food‐contaminated paper, and similar compostable materials. This program is designed to increase residential waste diversion by encouraging residents to place food scraps and other organic materials in their green carts. Expand program to Commercial and Multi‐family properties serviced by the City or private haulers: Once the residential program has converted to a cart system for yard trimmings, food scraps and other organics, the City should provide the equivalent service to any of its commercial customers that generate food scraps and other organics. In the case of multi‐family properties, the City could either provide the service to the complexes, or require that private haulers providing recycling services also provide yard trimmings (with food scrap) service.
6. Bulk Item Reuse and Recycling Initiatives to Modify Bulk Item Collection to Increase Waste Diversion Currently, the City provides monthly collection of brush and bulk items, including furniture, appliances, mattresses and box springs. Clean loads of brush are diverted from disposal at the landfill, but bulk items and loads that combine brush and bulk items are disposed. The City diverts some bulk items by conducting semiannual “hard to recycle” collection events where residents can deliver bulk items to designated “drop‐off” locations. The City can also encourage residents to recycle bulk items through charitable organizations and thrift stores. This message could be conveyed through the City’s Bulk Item Collection web page, on all printed program materials, and through the Customer Service call center. Work with reuse/recycle partners The City could create a pilot program to partner with one or more reuse and/or recycle entities (thrift stores, repair shops, and non‐profits such as Goodwill Industries and Salvation Army) to repair, reuse, and resell appropriate bulk items that are currently being set out for collection by City crews and ultimately sent to a landfill. The City could include in its pilot service contracts with reuse partners to define operating procedures, service requirements, performance standards, and establish program parameters to ensure that the bulk item reuse program is closely coordinated with the bulk item collection program operated by the City and does not impede City operations. Under this approach, it is likely the City would provide its bulk item daily route sheets or service addresses to its reuse partners, who would then proceed ahead of the City collection crews and collect all the items it considers to be reusable or repairable. An alternative could be to have the customer contact the reuse partner directly to arrange its own separate collection of the reusable items. This would eliminate some of the scavenging of materials set out for collection and reduce the workload for the City program. City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 10
HDR Engineering August 2011
On‐Call scheduling of pick‐ups To reduce operating costs, provide more opportunities for reuse and recycling, and provide better control over the materials and reduce scavenging the City could consider a pilot study to test the effectiveness of on‐call scheduling of bulk item collections. Residents would call customer service to schedule the collection day in advance. The collection crews (using crane trucks, flatbeds or collection truck‐trailers) could still be utilized in the same way they are now for collecting items, but daily route assignments would be by area according to the number of households scheduled in advance. This would allow the daily routes to be balanced and distributed based on need for coverage, rather than specific areas according to the current monthly schedule.
7. Community-Based Social Marketing Community‐based social marketing or social marketing2 is the systematic application of marketing, along with other concepts and techniques, to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good. A variation of social marketing has emerged as a systematic way to foster more sustainable behavior. Referred to as Community‐Based Social Marketing by Canadian environmental psychologist Doug McKenzie‐Mohr, Community‐Based Social Marketing strives to change the behavior of communities to reduce their impact on the environment.3 Realizing that simply providing information is usually not sufficient to initiate behavior change, Community‐Based Social Marketing uses tools and findings from social psychology to discover the perceived barriers to behavior change and ways of overcoming these barriers. Among the tools and techniques used by Community‐Based Social Marketing are focus groups and surveys (to discover barriers) and commitments, prompts, social norms, social diffusion, feedback and incentives (to change behavior). The tools of Community‐Based Social Marketing have been used to foster sustainable behavior in many areas, including energy conservation, environmental regulation, and recycling. A community‐based social marketing program could be implemented to help change the culture and behavior in the City and transform the “disposable mindset” into “resource management”. Different messages can be targeted to different demographic groups using a wide assortment of tools. The City would work closely with electronic and print media to encourage their coverage of the City’s goals, plans, and project implementation, and to challenge them to help engage the public in creative new ways. Funding programs on an on‐going basis (over multiple five‐year campaign periods) to educate target audiences about the new rules and changes is an important part of increasing diversion. This program would greatly enhance public awareness about where to reuse, recycle, and compost materials to keep them out of landfills, and encourage residents, businesses, workers, and visitors to fully participate in achieving a more sustainable future.
Definition excerpted from Wikipedia article on “Social Marketing” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_marketing (accessed June 23, 2011).
2
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531-537.
3
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 11
HDR Engineering August 2011
Similar campaigns have been very effective. The Texas Department of Transportation initiated the “Don’t Mess with Texas” campaign in 1986 which was successful in reducing littering by 72% statewide. The goal of community‐based social marketing program is to create a “culture change” using social marketing and media campaign strategies. This requires efforts beyond a typical large‐scale recycling campaign. Behavior change on this magnitude will require significant investment in outreach, to have a powerful impact at the beginning and to remain consistently potent over each five‐year campaign. It will be essential to command the attention of the public and gradually increase their participation in the many new behaviors. For the media and outreach campaign, the first step in this multi‐year effort would be the development of a Strategic Outreach Plan to determine exactly what segments would be targeted, and identify specific messages, and tactics. The proposed strategy is to penetrate all three major aspects of each individual’s life (home, work, and play) with a resource conservation message. This would not take the form of three separate campaigns, but rather an integrated lifestyle campaign. In terms of overall strategic framework, the first year would be a large‐scale Awareness campaign, employing mostly mass media tactics with media buys. The media campaign would then shift to the Persuasion phase, which typically requires more hands‐on, community‐based work, and then revert to a media focus during the Implementation (how‐to) phase. Finally, the Confirmation phase would focus on publicity for the success stories, awards ceremonies, and other positive benefits. An example of this phased approach would be as follows: Year 1: Awareness campaign with minimal Persuasion (mass media‐focused) Year 2‐3: Persuasion campaign with minimal decision making and Implementation (experiential/community‐focused) Year 4‐5: Implementation campaign with minimal Confirmation (combination of focus on hands‐on and mass media) Year 5: Confirmation with publicity for successes, and beginning Awareness of the next stage; basically it becomes a circular process getting us closer to sustainable behavior (mass media‐focused, again). There is also an important role for civic leaders and elected officials, to lead by example as exemplars of the new social norms. This requires clear and consistent messages from the City Council and City management and staff to “Enable, Engage, Encourage, and Exemplify”.4 Strategies for changing the norms of behavior include:
Providing leadership to visibly encourage and reward successful innovation; Focusing financial resources on innovation, including both public and private sources; Using incubator models for testing and piloting innovations; and Establishing institutions to link small scale enterprises to larger organizations such as business
Achieving Culture Change: A Policy Framework, David Knott with Stephen Muers and Stephen Aldridge, January 2008, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100125070726/http://cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy /assets/achieving_culture_change.pdf (accessed June 23, 2011). 4
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 12
HDR Engineering August 2011
and legislative bodies. Partnering with the business sector to engage all commercial generators in changing behaviors and improving participation.
8. Commercial Technical Assistance Under this program, the City would provide enhanced technical assistance to commercial customers in order to encourage them to initiate or expand recycling and waste reduction practices at their place of business. The City would publicize the technical assistance program and encourage businesses to use this free service to increase recycling wherever feasible and at the same time lower their disposal costs. The City would need to hire additional staff to work directly with commercial generators in order to assist them in setting up a recycling program tailored to their needs. Technical assistance would include conducting on‐site waste assessments to identify target materials for recycling and waste reduction, providing contact information for securing recycling services, and distributing appropriate outreach materials describing best practices for setting up or expanding recycling services for different types of businesses. Technical assistance would help to minimize or overcome various obstacles to recycling faced by commercial customers (space constraints, labor and sorting requirements, lack of information or training, etc.). Technical assistance provided by the City would encourage more commercial customers to set up an effective recycling program that is suited to the customer’s site, whether it be a large office complex, bar, restaurant, factory, warehouse, shopping center, small retail business or other type of commercial site.
Facilities 9. Resource Recovery Parks Resource Recovery Parks are places where materials can be dropped off for donation or buyback and co‐ locate reuse, recycling and composting, processing, manufacturing, and distribution activities. Typically, these facilities are located in industrially zoned areas that are reserved for companies that process secondary materials or make products from these materials. The Resource Recovery Park concept has been evolving naturally at landfills and transfer stations across the country. These facilities provide additional recycling opportunities for self‐hauled loads. Landfills and transfer stations have been near the centers of waste generation. A Resource Recovery Park can make the landfill or transfer station more sustainable by diversifying revenue, conserving capacity, and extending the useful life of those facilities. Resource Recovery Park are facilities open to the public that receive certain recoverable materials that typically are contained in self‐hauled loads delivered by residents or businesses to a disposal site for disposal. The materials received at Resource Recovery Park are processed and marketed as recyclables, or made available for reuse/resale (either at the Resource Recovery Parks or off‐site at other related reuse stores or resale facilities). At some facilities, the diversion activity takes place after the fee gate and the public is required to separate materials for recycling and reuse. If they would like to proceed directly to the disposal area, they are required to pay an extra fee. Tipping fees at Resource Recovery Park can provide a significant incentive to users. Most provide drop‐off or buyback options for revenue‐ generating recyclables. Some charge lower rates for certain items (yard trimmings, clean fill). The Resource Recovery Park at the Cold Canyon Landfill in San Luis Obispo, California charges flat rate for all City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 13
HDR Engineering August 2011
small vehicles, then an extra fee if the generator does not want to separate out materials. Cold Canyon reports that 97 percent of users elect to source‐separate their materials. Diversion levels and costs at Resource Recovery Park can vary widely depending on the extent of the diversion activities. These activities can include public area drop‐off for traditional recyclables (cans, bottles, and paper), salvaging materials from the tipping area at a transfer station or landfill (large pieces of metal, cardboard or wood), diverting reusable items (furniture, building materials, and household goods), and providing retail sales on site. Some activities may be co‐located at a transfer station or landfill, but others may be off‐site. The concept of using off‐site facilities has been described as a “serial MRF”, where multiple salvage, processing, and sales activities happen in a variety of locations in close proximity that are cross‐promoted. Resource Recovery Parks provide one of the very few opportunities to divert self‐hauled materials. Requiring landfills and transfer stations to provide drop‐off areas for recycling and reuse is a low cost, low impact method of diverting some potentially recyclable material prior to disposal. Proper signage to direct self‐haulers to the drop‐off area and signs designating the materials accepted at each storage bin or off‐loading area are typically sufficient to educate the public about the recycling options available at the facility. Processing self‐hauled materials for recycling or providing salvage operations at landfills or transfer stations can also increase diversion, but require increased costs.
10. Mixed Materials Processing Mixed materials processing facilities target municipal solid waste that is left‐over after recycling and composting and can include residual waste from recycling and composting facilities. Mixed materials processing facilities include mixed Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), anaerobic digestion, advanced thermal recycling (waste‐to‐energy), and non‐combustion thermal technologies, such as gasification, plasma arc gasification, and pyrolysis. These new technologies are further described in the Technology Options Technical Memorandum. A mixed MRF, also referred to as a “dirty MRF”, is a facility that processes municipal solid waste through mechanical, optical, and hand sorting to separate recyclable and compostable materials from municipal solid waste from residential and commercial sources. These facilities can also be adapted to sort or remove different materials to prepare municipal solid waste for composting, advanced thermal recycling, and other conversion technologies. Appropriate loads for processing include municipal solid waste from residential and commercial generators, and inappropriate loads for processing include concentrated amounts of C&D materials or concentrated amounts of wet materials, such as restaurant food. All of the other mixed materials processing facility types can include a mixed MRF to prepare the materials for the technology. Anaerobic digestion is a biological process where micro‐organisms break down biodegradable materials, (e.g., food and paper) in an oxygen‐deficient system, creating a biogas that can be used to produce electricity or can be converted into a transportation fuel. The technology converts waste to energy using bacteria to break down waste to produce biogas. This type of biogas consists primarily of methane and carbon dioxide. These facilities process paper, compostable plastics, food scraps, and other organics. Although the first phase of the biological process (hydrolysis phase) of these facilities often operate in batch‐type processes, methane generating and subsequent electrical generation phases of these facilities are designed to operate continuously and provide uninterruptible power. With a proper
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 14
HDR Engineering August 2011
feedstock, these reactions can reduce the volume of waste by 70 percent, provide energy, and residuals can be sent to a compost facility. Pyrolysis, gasification, and plasma arc gasification are all technologies used to treat waste producing a synthesis gas (“syngas”) that can be used to produce electricity or can be converted into a transportation fuel. Pyrolysis uses an indirect external source of heat in the absence of oxygen; gasification partially oxidizes the waste; and plasma arc uses a plasma torch to super‐heat the waste to produce the synthesis gas. These facilities use an external heat source to heat waste to high temperatures in a low oxygen environment. This causes the waste to decompose and produce syngas. Syngas consists primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. With a proper feedstock, this process can reduce the volume of waste by 80 percent, and is intended to produce more energy than is required for processing the materials. Ideal feedstock for these facilities includes mixed paper, plastics, and other dry organics. Temperatures for treating waste using these technologies range from: 750°F to 1,650°F for pyrolysis; 1,400°F to 2,500°F for gasification; and 5,000‐8,000°F for plasma arc gasification. Gasification is used at the commercial scale for coal, and plasma arc technology is used at the commercial scale to treat hazardous and radioactive wastes. These technologies are still emerging as methods to treat municipal solid waste. Advanced thermal recycling (waste‐to‐energy), uses municipal solid waste from residential or commercial generators, residual waste from other solid waste facilities, or processed (pelletized) waste known as Refuse‐Derived‐Fuel (RDF) to produce an uninterruptible source of energy. Waste‐to‐energy facilities produce energy and reduce waste volume by combusting the waste and injecting air at atmospheric pressure to reach the chemically balanced air‐fuel ratio for combustion. This combustion provides energy to produce steam, which is used to turn a steam turbine that generates electricity. Exhaust air is treated to remove air pollutants to meet clean air emissions standards from the EPA and other environmental regulatory agencies. Some of the air pollutants that are monitored and treated include: mercury, lead, furans, dioxins, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, ozone, and methane. The amount of ash produced by waste‐to‐energy facilities depends on the amount of processing and the composition of waste that goes to the waste‐to‐energy facility. Typically, the volume of waste is reduced by 75 to 90 percent through advanced thermal technology. Highly processed, homogenous dry organic waste with low levels of glass, metal, ash, and other inerts is the most efficient feedstock, both for volume reduction and energy production. Waste‐to‐energy facilities should not be used for construction waste, industrial waste, ashes, and liquids.
Analysis of Diversion Potential of Key Initiatives Diversion Model The diversion model was developed to evaluate the effects of the key initiatives on disposal and diversion throughout the City. The generation, diversion and disposal data for 2010 were used for the baseline tons and include estimates by generator type (single family, multifamily, and commercial). The diversion model uses composition estimates published by North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) in 2002 using data from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 15
HDR Engineering August 2011
Strategic Plan 2001‐2005.5 The “other” material category was divided into additional types (textiles, reusables, ceramics, soils and chemicals). The “paper” material category was further divided into “recyclable paper” and “compostable paper.”
Composition of Discarded Materials Reusables, Ceramics, 2% 2% Textiles, 5%
Chemicals, Soils, 1% Glass, 5% 1%
Wood, 6%
Plastic, 8%
Recyclable Paper, 18%
Food, 9% Metal, 5% Yard Trimmings, 20%
Compostable Paper, 18%
Source: TNRCC Strategic Plan 2001-2005 with adjustments made by dividing the other category into textiles, reusables, ceramics, soils and chemicals and dividing the “paper” category into recyclable paper and compostable paper.
Through research of comparable programs and policies reasonable assumptions were developed to calculate the waste diversion associated with each option. The assumptions regarding participation and efficiency associated with each program were developed to reflect diversion potential once the program is fully implemented and has been in place for two to three years; therefore, reflecting sustainable levels of diversion potential. Table 3 lists the participation rates and efficiency rates developed for the diversion model. “Participation rates” means the percentage of total generator sector tons available that are targeted by the program; “efficiency rates” means the percentage of the targeted tons that can be reasonably diverted by the program; and “capture rate” is the yield or product of the participation rate and efficiency rate which is used to estimate the net tons diverted. These participation and efficiency rates are inputs in the waste flow model and are used to calculate the net additional tons that can be diverted for each program and policy implemented. For example, if the target generator sector produces 100
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) was the predecessor agency to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) which is the lead environmental agency within the State of Texas.
5
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 16
HDR Engineering August 2011
tons/year of aluminum cans, and the program has a 50 percent participation rate and 30 percent efficiency rate, then the total resulting capture rate would be 15 percent and the program would yield 15 additional tons of diversion (e.g., 100 tons available x (50% participation x 30% efficiency = 15% capture) = 15 tons). Table 3 provides the residential policy and program assumptions for the “participation rate”, “efficiency rate” and the resulting “capture rate” for each program.
Table 3 Capture Rates for Key Initiatives Program Option Policies 1. Commercial hauler requirements 2. Mandatory sourceseparation requirements
3. C&D ordinance 4. Extended producer responsibility Programs 5. Source-separated organics collection (yard trimmings, food scraps) 6. Bulk item reuse and recycling 7. Social marketing 8. Commercial recycling technical assistance Facilities 9. Resource recovery parks
10. Mixed materials processing
Targeted Materials
Participation
Efficiency
Capture Rate
Recyclable materials
20%
90%
18%
Paper
100%
75%
75%
Metal, glass All other recyclable materials Food scraps, compostable paper, wood Yard trimmings Selected C&D materials4 Plastic bags, polystyrene, household hazardous waste
100% 75%
80% 75%
80% 56%
90%
30%
27%
95% 100%
90% 50%
86% 50%
80%
75%
60%
95%
90%
86%
30%
30%
9%
90% 90%
75% 23%
68% 21%
20%
25%
5%
15%
30%
5%
50%
40%
20%
75% 75%
50% 100%
38% 75%
100%
50%
50%
Yard trimmings Food scraps, compostable paper, wood Major appliances Bulky items Recyclable materials, compostable materials, bulk items Recyclable materials and compostable materials Recyclable materials, yard trimmings, bulky items, electronics Selected C&D materials Major appliances Recyclable materials, compostable materials, wood
1Recyclable
materials: Glass, Plastic, Recyclable Paper, Metal materials: Compostable paper, Food, Yard Trimmings 3All other materials: Textiles, Reusables, Chemicals, Wood, Ceramics (rocks, asphalt, concrete), Soils 4Selected C&D Materials: Wood, Ceramics (rocks, asphalt, concrete), Soils 2Compostable
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 17
HDR Engineering August 2011
Diversion Results and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential Diversion Results Based on the assumptions and calculations included in the diversion model, implementing the key initiatives will increase the citywide diversion rate to 84 percent. Table 4 summarizes the diversion estimates by generator type.
Table 4 Diversion Estimates by Generator Single Family Diversion (tons) Disposal (tons) Diversion rate
Multifamily
575,000 92,000 86%
Commercial
539,000 123,000 81%
Total
1,307,000 257,000 84%
2,421,000 472,000 84%
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding. Single family diversion estimates include the current single family diversion rate of approximately 30%.
The diversion rates are presented as a snapshot in time assuming full implantation of all programs. In reality, policies and programs will be developed over time through additional research, testing, and pilot programs before the programs are fully implemented. Several policies will require new ordinances and regulations which will require City Council action and time to implement. Based on this analysis, the City can increase its diversion rate to at least 84 percent, a very high rate of diversion, by implementing the policies and programs described in this Technical Memorandum.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential The key initiatives described in this Technical Memorandum can significantly reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the estimated diversion rates discussed above, Table 5 presents the greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential of the scenarios using U.S. EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) factors to estimate greenhouse gas emissions reduction based on material types and amounts diverted.
Table 5 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Estimates by Generator E1
MTCO2 Equivalent number of cars removed from the road
Single Family (523,000)
Multifamily (749,000)
Commercial (1,783,000)
Total (3,056,000)
96,000
137,000
327,000
560,000
1
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
The U.S. EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. WARM calculates and totals greenhouse gas emissions of baseline and alternative waste management practices—source reduction, recycling, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE), metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E), and energy units (million BTU) across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste. City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Diversion Program Options
Page 18
HDR Engineering August 2011
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION SERVICES LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTRACT NO: BDZ1103
Composting Analysis Source Separated Organics
June 22, 2011
Prepared for: City of Dallas Sanitation Services Department 1500 Marilla, Room 3FN Dallas, Texas 75201 Prepared by: Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc. 5200 Keller Springs Road, Suite 927 Dallas, Texas 75248
Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
Table of Contents Compost Analysis – Source Separated Organics
Feedstocks
Page 1
Site Capacity
Page 1
Throughput Analysis
Page 2
Conclusions
Page 3
List of Tables Table 1.
Page 1
Feedstocks/yr (based on 2010, modified B&B program, current generators) Table 2. Site Capacity
Page 2
Table 3. Throughput Analysis
Pages 2 and 3
Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
i
Composting Analysis Source Separated Organics
This analysis addresses the ability to process source separated organics at the McCommas Landfill using open windrow technology. It reflects a short-term option for the management of source separated organics. Mid-and long-term considerations are addressed only conceptually. Feedstocks The basis of analysis is a feedstock made up of all of the brush and yard waste projected to be collected by a modified Brush and Bulky collection system. Although there is some brush and yard waste hauled to City of Dallas facilities by private haulers, the quantity of this material is reported by the City to be insignificant at this time. Digested municipal wastewater sludge (biosolids) generated by Dallas Water Utilities is also assumed to be available. Data collected by the City of Dallas throughout 2010 on a tonnage basis were manipulated by SAIC, who reported them in a memorandum dated May 10, 2011 referencing Brush and Bulky Collection Analysis and Implementation Outline. These data, converted to a volume basis, are the basis of this analysis of composting. They reflect implementation of a new Brush and Bulky collection scheme. Although this analysis only considers organic feedstock materials currently collected by City of Dallas forces, additional feedstocks may be available in the future. Nonhazardous, organic feedstocks suitable for composting in the future may include food residuals, selected industrial wastes and sludges, selected commercial wastes, many agricultural residuals, or any compostable materials which are currently disposed or processed at facilities other than those controlled by the City of Dallas. The following table reflects the basis of analysis relative to feedstocks. Table 1. Feedstocks/yr (based on 2010, modified B&B program, current generators) COD collected brush and yard waste
82,666T
371,997 yd3
Sludge is available at 16% solids
Site Capacity The City of Dallas has identified an area including all or parts of the areas designated for Cells 8 through 14, which is available for windrow composting. Although the entire area is nominally approximately 100 acres, not all of it is available for windrow composting. Some of this area is often flooded. Some of the acreage will be required Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
1
for access, materials receiving and storage, grinding, mixing, curing, screening, blending, and distribution. The area readily available for windrow development is considered to be approximately 58 acres, or an area about 1500 feet wide and 1700 feet long. The most efficient use of space is with use of the largest size of windrow feasible. The following table provides data relative to site capacity and utilization. Table 2. Site Capacity Approximate area for windrows
58 acres (1500’ X 1700’)
Windrows 21’ base, 7’ top, 7’ tall
98 ft3/ft
Windrows 300’ long
240 windrows
Site capacity in windrows
261,333 yd3
Throughput Analysis The following is an overview of whether the identified acreage will be adequate to accommodate an open windrow process for the identified feedstocks at current generation rates, and in the future. In order to analyze how much material that the site can handle in windrows, it is necessary to make a number of design and operational assumptions. First, the type of feedstock and the method with which it is processed has a significant bearing on the area required for the windrow process. A feedstock with a low Carbon-to-Nitrogen Ratio (C:N) will biodegrade faster, and produce a hotter windrow, than one with a higher C:N. Brush, wood and yard trimmings have a relatively high C:N, so it is assumed for this analysis that these feedstocks alone will require six months in the active windrow phase. Whereas, a feedstock mix with more biosolids, or food residuals will require much less time to biodegrade. Adding these materials to yard waste at a typical ratio of one volume of biosolids or food residual to three volumes of wood and yard trimmings is assumed to reduce the required time for active windrow processing to approximately three months. Aggressive windrow management, including effective volume reduction through turning and consolidating windrows after their volumes are reduced, also increases site capacity. The criteria used to conduct this analysis are all based on rules of thumb. Results will vary in actual practice. The following illustrates the capacity of the site for windrowing, under assumed conditions, with and without the addition of biosolids or food residuals. Table 3. Throughput Analysis Scenario 1 – Without Biosolids or Food Residuals Assumed Minimum Time in Windrow • •
6 months
Approximately 71% of the site will be required for windrows for all wood, brush and yard waste currently delivered by the City of Dallas. Available acreage will allow just over 8 months in windrows.
Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
2
Table 3. Throughput Analysis (continued) Scenario 2 – With Biosolids or Food Residuals Assumed Minimum Time in Windrow • •
3 months
Approximately 47% of the site will be required for windrows for all wood, brush, and yard waste currently delivered by the City of Dallas and the addition of biosolids. Available acreage will allow just over 6 months in windrows.
Without the addition of biosolids or food residuals, or other higher nitrogen feed stocks, it is estimated that a windrow operation will produce approximately 185,000 yd3 of compost product per year. With the addition of higher nitrogen feedstocks, the operation is estimated to produce approximately 250,000 yd3 of product per year. Both estimates are based on very broad operating assumptions, approximately 50% reduction by volume throughout the entire process, no recycle of process materials (screened “overs”), and no additional feedstocks beyond that currently controlled by the City. Production rates can very significantly depending on process parameters, feedstocks, and recycle rates. Conclusions This analysis is very general in nature, but leads to the conclusion that the site will support a large windrow composting operation. Even without the addition of nitrogen to wood and yard trimmings, the site will accommodate the entire available feedstock without additional measures to increase available acreage for windrows or to increase operating efficiencies. The following are measures that may be considered to increase throughput capacity either to accommodate all of the feedstock currently generated, or to accommodate growth. • • •
Divert some wood or brush from composting directly to mulch. Improve more of the designated acreage for a larger windrow area. Intensive windrow management, including consolidating windrows at the earliest opportunity to conserve space.
Growth might be the result of increased development within the City, additional organic feedstocks diverted to composting, reduction of disposal and processing alternatives outside the City of Dallas, or aggressive feedstock marketing efforts. Additional feedstocks that the City might consider composting, depending on market conditions and future city policies, include: Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
3
• • • • •
Paper Food residuals from residential, commercial, and industrial sources Agricultural residuals Untreated wood from C&D waste High-value feedstocks generated outside the City of Dallas, such as liquids, sludges, and compostable materials from generators with sustainable goals
Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
4
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION SERVICES LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS Municipal Solid Waste Task 5A September 2011 Prepared for: City of Dallas Sanitation Services Department 1500 Marilla, Room 3FN Dallas, Texas 75201 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 17111 Preston Road, Ste. 200 Dallas, Texas 75248 Texas PE Firm Registration No. F-754
Table of Contents 1.0
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
Description of Technology Options ................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Anaerobic Digestion ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Aerobic Composting ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) ............................................................................................. 4 2.4 Refuse‐Derived Fuel (RDF) Processing and Combustion ..................................................................... 5 2.4.1 RDF Processing ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.4.2 RDF with Stoker Firing .................................................................................................................. 7 2.4.3 RDF with Fluidized Bed Combustion ............................................................................................ 8 2.5 Mass Burn Combustion ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Gasification ....................................................................................................................................... 10 2.7 Plasma Arc Gasification ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.8 Pyrolysis ............................................................................................................................................ 14 2.9 Hydrolysis .......................................................................................................................................... 16 2.10 Catalytic Depolymerization ............................................................................................................. 17 2.11 Autoclaving ..................................................................................................................................... 18 2.12 Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) ............................................................................ 19 2.13 Combined Technologies .................................................................................................................. 20 3.0
Summary of Technology Options .................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A – Process Flow Diagrams
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page i
HDR Engineering September 2011
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS – MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 1.0 Introduction As we move into the future, there will be opportunities to globally use the resources of municipal solid waste (MSW) to be transformed into useful products, such as energy, fuel and products for commercial applications such as aggregates, compost, mulch and other specific materials. The City of Dallas (City) needs to consider the realm of technology options for future solid waste infrastructure expansion to handle their materials through technology options including the new emerging technologies for treating waste prior to landfilling residues. This section both generally defines and evaluates the MSW technology options that are either currently being developed or in some stage of operation at this time. The technology options included in this review are those that have been implemented successfully, technologies that have been tried but failed to date to successfully and/or economically handle an MSW stream on a commercial scale, those that are either in the demonstration or pilot phases and those that are currently considered theoretical. While example vendors are listed that propose particular technologies, the listed vendors are neither represented as all vendors that offer the technology. The specifics of individual vendors’ technology would be considered for a more in‐depth review should a specific technology be considered by the City. Technologies that are discussed in this section include thermal, biological, chemical and mechanical technologies. These include:
Anaerobic digestion Aerobic composting Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) Refuse‐derived fuel (RDF) Mass‐burn combustion Gasification Plasma arc gasification Pyrolysis Hydrolysis Catalytic depolymerization Autoclaving Mixed waste MRF Combined technologies
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 1
HDR Engineering September 2011
2.0 Description of Technology Options 2.1 Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion (AD) is typically a process in which the organic matter found in the waste stream is converted in an aqueous environment in the absence of oxygen into a combustible gas. Potential waste‐derived organic feedstocks are MSW‐derived organics, wastewater treatment plant bio‐solids, manure, and food waste. Anaerobic digestion can take place in one or two phases. Typically, anaerobic digestion is a two‐phase process in which the first phase blends into the second one without a noticeable interruption. These two phases are known as the “acid phase” and the “methane‐producing phase.” Generally, in a digester that is working on a continuous basis, the two phases are not noticeable since “raw” wastes are added to wastes already in the process of being broken down. However, some designs of anaerobic digestion systems purposely and physically segregate the acid phase process from that of the methane‐producing stage, with the objective being an overall more efficient processing system. There are several factors that influence the design and performance of anaerobic digestion. Some of these factors include: the concentration and composition of nutrients in the feed, temperature of the digesting mass, retention time of the material in the reactor, pH, acid concentration, and oxygen level. In the past, the material to be digested was mixed with water to reach a concentration of solids on the order of 8% to 9%. This process is known as “wet” digestion. Makeup water is required for the wet digestion process since the waste by itself does not have sufficient water content for the process. Water from the process is recovered and recycled internally as a component of the wet digestion process; however, some water is lost through evaporation and in the form of the residual moisture content of the dewatered process residue (sludge). Thus, some makeup water must be provided in the process. During the last few years, the technology associated with anaerobic digestion of MSW organics has made advances. These advances have been particularly achieved in member countries of the European Union in response to the need to meet current strict regulations limiting quantities of biodegradable waste that can be disposed in landfills. As a consequence, the conventional “wet” digestion has been, in some instances, replaced by “solid state” digestion or “dry” digestion. In the process, the organic material is maintained in the reactor at solids concentrations on the order of 50% to 70%. This technology requires a different method of mixing than that employed for “wet” digestion. Additionally, the residue (digested) material from a dry digestion process is solid in character so it does not require dewatering prior to the further processing that is required to biologically stabilize the mass (e.g., composting) prior to use. As indicated in the prior paragraph, the solids remaining after wet digestion must be dewatered from the digester effluent after it is discharged so that the solids can be effectively bio‐stabilized using further biological processing, such as composting.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 2
HDR Engineering September 2011
As discussed, usually the process is applied to food and green waste, agricultural waste, sludge, or other similarly limited segments of the waste stream. The availability of suitable feedstock can be a limiting factor in development of this technology. The end products of anaerobic digestion are: biogas, compost, and a solid or liquid residue. The biogas consists primarily of methane (60% to 70% by volume), carbon dioxide (29% to 39%), and trace amounts of hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and other gases. The gas produced can be used as a fuel for boilers, directly in an internal combustion engine or, in sufficient quantities, in a gas turbine to produce electricity. Odor is a characteristic of AD. Site location and odor control are a major factor in the implementation of this technology. AD is widely used on a commercial‐scale basis for industrial and agricultural wastes, as well as wastewater sludge. AD technology has been applied on a larger scale in Europe on mixed MSW and source separated organics (SSO), but there is only limited commercial‐scale application in North America. The Greater Toronto Area is home to two of the only commercial‐scale plants in North America that are designed specifically for processing SSO; the Dufferin Organic Figure 1 - Anaerobic Digestion Facility, Spain Processing Facility and the Newmarket AD Facility. There are a number of smaller facilities in the U.S. operating on either mixed MSW, SSO, or in some cases co‐digested with bio‐solids. However, in the US there are no large‐scale commercial facilities currently operating using mixed MSW as a feedstock. The block diagram illustrates the anaerobic digestion process. The digestion process is similar to what occurs in a landfill and can be quite malodorous. Most systems are smaller in size due to the limited feedstock. A low‐Btu gas might be collected for energy recovery in a boiler, engine, or other device, or in small quantities it could be flared. The remaining residue or sludge, which can be more than
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Figure 2 - Anaerobic Digestion Block Diagram
Page 3
HDR Engineering September 2011
50% of the input, could be screened and used as a soil amendment. The environmental risks include potential emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases. Minor hydrocarbon emissions can occur and result in odor complaints from neighbors. Some water might be used; however, in many cases, excess water can be discharged from the facility. Depending on the feedstock, the soil amendment product could have trace metals or other contaminants. Upon combustion of the methane NOx emissions may require control. The primary risk associated with this technology would be the potential for odors. If feedstock other than source separated organic materials is utilized, there would be risk of difficulties with processing materials as well as performance issues associated with deleterious materials in the waste stream. This technology would be able to handle food waste or other source separated organic materials, but it would not be applicable to the entire waste stream without up‐front screening and processing. Example of Vendors: Arrow Ecology, Urbaser (Valorga International), Mustang Renewable Power Ventures, Ecocorp, Organic Waste Systems, Greenfinch and On Site Power. A process flow diagram is provided in Figure A.1 in Appendix A.
2.2 Aerobic Composting Aerobic composting is usually implemented through a windrow, aerated static pile or in‐vessel type processes. These and other technologies for handling source separated organic materials are discussed in more detail in the Technical Memorandum, “Technology Options – Source Separated Organics”.
2.3 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) is a variation on composting and materials recovery that incorporates a two‐stage process of mechanical and biological treatments. During the mechanical stage the materials are sorted to remove recyclables and contaminants and then shredding or grinding takes place for size reduction of the materials prior to the biological stage. The biological stage includes either digestion or composting in an enclosed system to produce a potential bio‐gas for energy production and a material that is usually utilized as a refuse‐derived fuel (RDF) product as described below. This technology is generally designed to process a fully mixed MSW stream. Materials usually derived from the process include marketable metals, glass, and other recyclables. As described, RDF is also produced that can be used for energy generation. Limited composting is used to break the MSW down and dry the fuel. The order of mechanical separating, shredding, and composting can vary. It is an effective waste‐management method and can be built in various sizes. The RDF produced by an MBT process must be handled in some way: fired directly in a boiler; converted to energy via some thermal process (e.g., combustion, gasification, etc.); or selling it to a third party (e.g. Cement Kiln).
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 4
HDR Engineering September 2011
This technology has been used in Europe, including Herhof GmbH facilities in Germany. There has not been widespread commercial application of this technology in North America. The City of Toronto is currently developing a commercial‐scale MBT facility. Owing to its similarity to RDF processing and its use of composting rather than an energy recovery technology, RDF, as described below is used for further consideration.
2.4 Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) Processing and Combustion 2.4.1 RDF Processing An RDF processing system prepares MSW by using shredding, screening, air classifying and other equipment to produce a fuel product for either on‐site combustion, off site combustion, or use in another conversion technology that requires a prepared feedstock. As with mechanical biological treatment (MBT), the goal of this technology is to derive a better fuel (limited variations in size and composition) that can be used in a more conventional solid‐fuel boiler as compared to a mass‐burn boiler. The theory is that the smaller boiler and associated equipment would offset the cost of the processing equipment. The fuel goes by various names but generally is categorized as a refuse‐derived fuel (RDF). All of the post‐recycling municipal waste stream can be processed by this technology with limited presorting. This same technology, perhaps with some differences such as finer shredding, is required to prepare MSW as a feedstock for other conversion technologies. RDF technology is a proven technology that is used at a number of plants in the U.S., Europe and Asia (generally larger plants with capacities greater than 1,500 tons per day). There are also a number of commercial‐ready technologies that convert the waste stream into a stabilized RDF pellet that can be fired in an existing coal‐boiler or cement kiln. Figure 3 - RDF Processing Facility, Virginia Some RDF plants within the US include facilities at Ames, IA; Southeastern Public Service Authority, VA; French Island, WI; Mid‐ Connecticut; Honolulu, HI; and West Palm Beach, FL. RDF facilities can be used to address nearly the entire mixed waste stream. Facilities can range in size from several hundred ton per day to more than 3,000 ton per day. Historically, RDF facilities were large to take economic advantage of the reduced size of the combustion
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 5
HDR Engineering September 2011
equipment. Recycling processes can also be built into an RDF facility; however, these mixed waste MRFs (which sort mixed MSW and recyclables) usually are limited in their productivity. Metals can usually be sorted by magnets and eddy current separators. An RDF facility strives to develop a consistently sized fuel with a relatively constant heating value relative to mass‐burn incineration. These facilities can employ multiple shredding stages, large trommel screens or other types of screens for sizing, several stages of magnets, and possibly air separation and eddy current magnets. The product would typically have a nominal particle size of 3 to 4 inches, have the grit and metals largely removed, and be ready to feed into a boiler. The complexity of an RDF facility can be quite high, since the plant attempts to produce a fuel with a consistent size, moisture and ash content. The fuel user might be dedicated and/or located onsite or nearby. It is also possible that the fuel produced could be supplied to an existing off‐site boiler that can handle the RDF as a supplemental feedstock. Some existing wood or coal‐fired boilers could be able to process the RDF and save on fuel costs. However, corrosion is a concern for boilers that are not designed for RDF. Other RDF facilities can be classified as a “shred and burn” style, which shred the material and magnetically remove ferrous metals without removing fines. Some RDF facilities have converted to shred and burn through blanking the small holes in trommels. The purpose for this is to reduce the overall amount of residue (fines) landfilled. There are several examples of RDF plants in the U.S. that use varying degrees of preprocessing and RDF production. RDF front‐end processing can create challenges for the facility. Explosions can occur in the shredders, thus requiring, at a minimum, the primary shredders to be placed in explosion‐resistant bunkers. Trash is very abrasive, which causes wear and tear on all components. All systems are subject to high maintenance costs and require extensive repairs and frequent cleaning to keep the facility online. Normally, processing occurs on one or two shifts with a shift reserved each day for cleaning and maintenance. Therefore, processing systems need to be sized larger than the associated boilers, and storage capacity must be provided both for incoming waste and for RDF to keep the facility running smoothly. Full‐scale commercial facilities exist in the U.S., so it is considered a demonstrated technology. When the combustion and power generation is not collocated with the RDF processing, arrangements can be hard to establish and maintain which increases the operating risk to the RDF facility if the power plant decides to stop accepting the supplemental fuel. As an example, during site visits to Germany in March 2007, study team members observed significant RDF stockpiles. City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 6
HDR Engineering September 2011
Figure 4 - Stockpiled RDF in Rennerod, Germany
RDF facilities will have some air emissions directly from the processing as well as from the boiler. Fugitive particulates from the process must be controlled. Odors could be an issue from the processing facility. The combustion system will have similar air emission issues and similar APC equipment as mass‐burn facilities. The residue from the processing could be landfilled and could be used as landfill cover material in some cases. Ash from the boiler facility would also need to be landfilled. Water will be required for the facility, and wastewater might be discharged. All of these issues can be addressed. Examples of Vendors: Energy Answers, RRT A process flow diagram is provided in Figure A.2 in Appendix A. 2.4.2 RDF with Stoker Firing This technology uses a spreader stoker type boiler to combust RDF. A front‐end processing system is required to produce a consistently sized feedstock as described above. The RDF is typically blown or mechanically injected into a boiler for semi‐ suspension firing. Combustion is completed on a traveling grate. Thermal recovery occurs in an integral waterwall boiler. Air‐pollution control equipment (APC) on existing units includes good combustion practices, dry scrubbers for acid gas neutralization, carbon injection for control of mercury and complex organics (e.g., dioxins), and fabric filters for particulate removal. These facilities are capable of meeting stringent air emission requirements. New units would likely require additional Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) control such as selective non‐catalytic reduction (SNCR), selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or flue gas recirculation.
Figure 5 - Spreader Stoker Unit
This technology is used at the following facilities mentioned above: Southeastern Public Service Authority, VA; Mid‐Connecticut; Honolulu, HI; and West Palm Beach, FL. Examples of Boiler Vendors: Alstom; Babcock and Wilcox; Babcock Power
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 7
HDR Engineering September 2011
2.4.3 RDF with Fluidized Bed Combustion This technology uses a bubbling or circulating fluidized bed of sand to combust RDF. A front‐end processing system is required to produce a consistently sized feedstock. Heat is recovered in the form of steam from waterwalls of the fluidized bed unit as well as in downstream boiler convection sections. The required APC equipment is generally similar to that described above for spreader stoker units. Lime can be added directly to the fluidized bed to help control acid gases such as sulfur dioxide (SO2). RDF may be co‐fired with coal, wood (as in the case of the French Island facility shown), or other materials. This technology is in limited commercial use in North America for waste applications with one operating facility at French Island, WI. Fluidized bed combustion is more commonly used today for combustion of certain other biomass materials and coal than it was at the time most of the existing RDF facilities were developed. This technology would be suitable for combustion of RDF alone or together with biomass and other combustible materials that are either suitably sized or can be processed to a suitable size. Figure 6 - Fluidized Bed RDF Combustion, Wisconsin
Examples of Fluidized Bed Boiler Vendors: EPI, Von Roll Inova, Foster Wheeler, and Ebara
2.5 Mass Burn Combustion Mass burn combustion technology can be divided into two main types: (a) grate based, waterwall boiler installations; and (b) modular, shop erected combustion units with shop fabricated waste heat recovery boilers. The modular units are typically limited to less than 200 tons per day (tpd) and are historically used in facilities where the total throughput is under 500 tpd. The larger Mass Burn Combustion process with waterwall boilers feed MSW directly into a boiler system with no
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 8
Figure 7 - Mass Burn Facility, Florida
HDR Engineering September 2011
preprocessing other than the removal of large bulky items such as furniture and white goods. The MSW is typically pushed onto a grate by a ram connected to hydraulic cylinders. Air is admitted under the grates, into the bed of material, and additional air is supplied above the grates. The resulting flue gases pass through the boiler and the sensible heat energy is recovered in the boiler tubes to generate steam. This creates three streams of material: Steam, Flue Gases and Ash. The steam is sent to a turbine generator and converted into electrical power. In the smaller modular mass burn systems, MSW is fed into a refractory lined combustor where the waste is combusted on refractory lined hearths, or within a refractory lined oscillating combustor. Typically there is no heat recovery in the refractory combustors, but rather, the flue gases exit the combustors and enter a heat recovery steam generator, or waste heat boiler, where steam is generated by the sensible heat in the flue gas, resulting in the same three streams, steam, flue gas and ash. The steam is either sent to a steam turbine to generate electricity or it can be piped directly to an end user as process steam, or a combination of these uses. Ash residue generated will be about 30% of the incoming weight and about 10% of the volume. Ferrous and nonferrous metals can be recovered from the ash. It has been demonstrated that the combined ash can achieve the requirements to be classified as nonhazardous and can be disposed in a landfill. Often the material is used as daily cover and for other landfill uses. Some demonstration projects have shown that at least the bottom ash can be screened for use as an aggregate and used as roadbed subgrade material, formed into artificial reefs, used for mine capping, or employed for other uses. However, large‐scale commercial end uses for the ash have not occurred in North America. In Europe, bottom ash is kept separate from fly ash, and all the bottom ash is typically used as aggregate. Mass burn technologies utilize an extensive set of air pollution control (APC) devices for flue gas clean‐up. The typical APC equipment used include: either selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or non‐ catalytic reduction (SNCR) for NOx emissions reduction; spray dryer absorbers (SDA) or scrubbers for acid gas reduction; activated carbon injection (CI) for mercury and dioxins reduction; and a fabric filter baghouse (FB) for particulate and heavy metals removal. Water will be required for the facility and discharges will be likely without special design considerations. Discharge permit requirements will define the systems required. If needed to comply with stringent requirements, a zero discharge design could be developed. Mass‐burn technology is the most demonstrated and commercially viable of the technologies available. Projects of various sizes exist in the U.S. and throughout the world. Large‐scale and modular mass‐burn combustion technology is used in commercial operations at more than 80 facilities in the U.S., two in Canada, and more than 500 in Europe, as well as a number in Asia. Waste is a difficult and variable material to deal with, and the mass‐burn approach minimizes the handling and processing of this material.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 9
HDR Engineering September 2011
Examples of larger‐scale grate system technology vendors: Martin GmbH, Von Roll Inova, Keppel Seghers, Steinmuller, Fisia Babcock, Volund, Takuma, and Detroit Stoker. Examples of smaller‐scale and modular mass burn combustion vendors: Enercon, Laurent Bouillet, Consutech, and Pioneer Plus. A process flow diagram is provided in Figure A.3 in Appendix A.
2.6 Gasification Gasification converts carbonaceous material into a synthesis gas or “syngas” composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This syngas can be used as a fuel to generate electricity directly in a combustion turbine, or fired in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to create steam that can be used to generate electricity through a steam condensing turbine. The syngas generated can also be used as a chemical building block in the synthesis of gasoline or diesel fuel. The feedstock for most gasification technologies must be prepared from incoming MSW through shredding and pre‐sorting to pull out recyclables or non‐conforming materials (e.g., bulky or household hazardous waste) or the technology may only process a specific subset of waste materials such as wood waste, tires, carpet, scrap plastic, or other waste streams. Similar to Fluidized Bed Combustion, these processes typically require more front end separation and more size reduction, and result in lower fuel yields (less fuel per ton of MSW input). The feedstock reacts in the gasifier with steam and sometimes air or oxygen at high temperatures and pressures in a reducing (oxygen‐starved) environment. In addition to carbon monoxide and hydrogen, the syngas consists of water, smaller quantities of CO2, and some methane. Processing of the syngas can be completed in an oxygen‐deficient environment, or the gas generated can be partially or fully combusted in the same chamber. The low to mid British Thermal Unit (BTU) syngas content can be combusted in a boiler, gas turbine, or engine or used in chemical refining. Of these alternatives, boiler combustion is the most common, but the cycle efficiency can be improved if the gas can be processed in an engine or gas turbine, particularly if the waste heat is then used to generate steam and additional electricity in a combined cycle facility. If the gasification facility is sited near an industrial gas user, the syngas produced and be used to supplement the gas used in the industrial processes. Air pollution control equipment similar to that of a mass burn unit will be required if the syngas is used directly in a boiler. If the syngas is conditioned for use elsewhere, the conditioning equipment will need to address acid gases, mercury, tars and particulates.
Figure 8 - Gasification Facility, Tokyo
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Gasification has been proven to work on select waste streams, particularly wood wastes. Gasification of wood has been practiced successfully on a large scale since
Page 10
HDR Engineering September 2011
World War II, and coal gasification is receiving a lot of attention right now. However, the technology does not have a lot of commercial‐scale success using mixed MSW when attempted in the U.S. and Europe. At least two large commercial‐scale gasification systems were developed and built in Germany. Operational problems have resulted in the shutdown and closure of the facilities. No other more recent attempts at commercialization have been made in Europe. Japan has several operating commercial‐scale gasification facilities that claim to process at least some MSW. In Japan, one goal of the process is to generate a vitrified ash product to limit the amount of material having to be diverted to scarce landfills. In addition, many university‐size research and development units have been built and operated on an experimental basis in North America and abroad. Gasification and pyrolysis are somewhat similar technologies. Gasification technology generally involves higher operating temperatures. Gasification technology has been in development in a number of locations in the U.S. and around the world. Generally, the process and physical design of the units require a prepared fuel with much of the inert materials (glass, metals, etc.) removed and the remaining material sized to the requirements of the unit. The technology can process nearly the entire post‐recycled waste stream.
Figure 9- Gasification Block Diagram
Economically, units have not fared well. For mixed waste, if significant preprocessing is required, the capital and operating cost for the front‐end equipment drives up the facility cost. Generally efficiency and availability have been lower than for some other technologies. If the facility is
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 11
HDR Engineering September 2011
designed to handle only limited waste stream products, the size of the facility is limited, which makes economics harder to achieve. Facilities will have some of the same air emissions issues as mass‐burn facilities. Units that heat the feedstock in an oxygen‐deficient environment would produce less NOx. Mercury would be expected to be largely driven off with the gas and would have to be dealt with from the exhaust of the gas combustion device. Other metals would likely remain with the char. Some water will be required for the facility, and wastewater could be discharged. Odors could be an issue from the processing facility and residue will need to be addressed. The residue from the processing could be landfilled and could be used as landfill cover material in some cases. Ash remaining after combusting the char from the boiler facility would also need to be landfilled. Examples of gasification vendors: Ebara, Thermoselect, Primenergy, Brightstar Environmental, Energos, Taylor Biomass Energy, SilvaGas, Technip, Compact Power, PKA, and New Planet Energy. A process flow diagram is provided in Figure A.7 in Appendix A.
2.7 Plasma Arc Gasification Plasma arc technology uses carbon electrodes to produce a very‐high‐temperature arc ranging between 3,000 to 7,000 degrees Celsius that “vaporizes” the feedstock. The high‐energy electric arc that is struck between the two carbon electrodes creates a high temperature ionized gas (or “plasma”). The intense heat of the plasma breaks the MSW and the other organic materials fed to the reaction chamber into basic elemental compounds. The inorganic fractions (glass, metals, etc.) of the MSW stream are melted to form a Figure 10 - Plasma Arc Gasification, Ottawa liquid slag material which when cooled and hardened encapsulates toxic metals. The ash material forms an inert glass‐like slag material that may be marketable as a construction aggregate. Recyclable and contaminated materials can be recovered through a pre‐processing system. Metals can be recovered from both feedstock pre‐processing and from the post‐processing slag material. Plasma arc processing uses graphite electrodes to cause an electrical arc through the feedstock. The temperature within the arc is often stated to be hotter than the surface of the sun. In such an environment, the feedstock gasifies. A low‐Btu gas is generated that could, with some cleanup, be suitable for use in a gas turbine, engine, or boiler as a fuel source. The remaining ash and metal will liquefy, forming a slag‐and‐metal mixture. The slag can then be separated from the metal when it is removed from the arc vessel.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 12
HDR Engineering September 2011
Generally the gasification process and physical design of the units require a prepared fuel to remove much of the larger, inert materials (glass, metals, etc.) and the remaining material to be sized to the requirements of the unit. Other units might allow waste to be charged without much preprocessing. The technology can process nearly all the post‐recycled waste stream. Similar to gasification and pyrolysis (described below) processes, the MSW feedstock is pre‐ processed to remove bulky waste and other undesirable materials, and usually shredded for size reduction. Plasma technology also produces a syngas; this fuel can be combusted and the heat recovered in a HRSG, or the syngas can be cleaned and combusted directly in an internal combustion engine or gas turbine. Electricity and/or thermal energy (i.e. steam, hot water) can be produced by this technology. Vendors of this technology claim efficiencies that are comparable to conventional mass burn technologies (600‐700+ kWh/ton (net)). Some vendors are claiming even higher efficiencies (900‐1,200 kWh/ton (net)). These higher efficiencies may be feasible if a combined cycle power system is proposed. However, the electricity required to generate the plasma arc, as well as the other auxiliary systems required, brings into question the amount of parasitic electrical load required. This technology claims to achieve lower harmful emissions than more conventional technologies, like mass burn and RDF processes. However, APC equipment similar to other technologies would still be required for the clean‐up of the syngas or other off‐gases. This is due to the facilities generally having similar air emissions issues as other gasification or mass‐burn facilities. Mercury and some other more volatile metals are expected be driven off with the gas and would have to be dealt with from the exhaust of the gas combustion device. Other metals will melt, and the ash will become a liquid slag material. The metals might be recoverable and the slag solidified into a glasslike material. Some water will be required for the facility, and wastewater might have to be discharged. Plasma technology has received considerable attention recently, and there are several large‐scale projects being planned in North America (e.g. Saint Lucie County, Florida; Atlantic County, New Jersey). In addition, there are a number of demonstration facilities in North America, including the Plasco Energy Facility in Ottawa, Ontario and the Alter NRG demonstration facility in Madison, Pennsylvania and PyroGenesis Canada, Inc., which also has a demonstration unit (approximately 10 tpd) located on Hurlburt Air Force Base in Florida that has been in various stages of start‐up since 2010. No operating facilities exist in North America. A project in Ottawa has been in extended startup for several years. Facilities operate in Japan, most notably three developed by Hitachi Metals, in Yoshii, Utashinai, and Mihama‐Mikata. These facilities are referred to as plasma direct melting reactors. This is significant owing to the desire in Japan to vitrify ash from mass burn waste to energy facilities. Many gasification facilities in Japan accept ash from conventional WTE facilities for vitrification. The facilities are in many cases intended as ash vitrification facilities rather than energy recovery
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 13
HDR Engineering September 2011
facilities. The benefit of the vitrified ash is to bind potentially hazardous elements thereby rendering the ash inert. According to an October 2002 presentation by the Westinghouse Plasma Corporation to the Electric Power Generating Association, the Yoshii facility accepts 24 tons per day of unprocessed MSW together with 4% coke and produces 100 kWh of electricity per ton of MSW. The facility also produces steam for a hotel/resort use. This facility started operation in 2000. According to the same presentation, the Utashinai facility processes 170 tpd of MSW and automobile shredder residue (ASR) together with 4% coke and produces 260 kWh/ton. This is less than half the energy production that would be expected of a mass burn WTE facility. The technology should be capable of handling the entire waste stream with required processing depending on the fuel feed system requirements. Examples of Plasma Arc vendors: Startech, Geoplasma, PyroGenesis Canada, Inc., Westinghouse, Alter NRG, Plasco Energy, and Coronal.
2.8 Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is generally defined as the process of heating MSW in an oxygen‐deficient environment to produce a combustible gaseous or liquid product and a carbon‐rich solid residue. This is similar to what is done to produce coke from coal or charcoal from wood. The feedstock can be the entire municipal waste stream, but, in some cases, pre‐sorting or processing is used to obtain a refuse‐ derived fuel. Some modular combustors use a two‐stage combustion process in which the first chamber operates in a low‐oxygen environment and the combustion is completed in the second chamber. Similar to gasification, the gas or liquid derived from the process can be used in an internal combustion engine or gas turbine or as a feedstock for chemical production. Generally, pyrolysis occurs at a lower temperature than gasification, although the basic processes are similar. Historically, a few large‐scale facilities were built in the U.S. and had mechanical and other problems when processing mixed waste. Of particular note were large‐scale pyrolysis plants built near Baltimore and San Diego. They were scaled up from pilot projects and were never able to function at a commercial level. Several other projects were also completed but none have proved to be economically viable. In Germany, at least one pyrolysis facility is operating. It was built in the mid‐1980s and appears to still be operating today. It is a relatively low capacity facility and has not been replicated on a larger scale. At least one other larger‐scale project was attempted in the mid‐ Figure 11 - Pyrolysis, California
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 14
HDR Engineering September 2011
1990s in Germany using another technology, but operational problems forced its closure after a short time. Pyrolysis has also been attempted to process specific waste components such as shredded wood or used tires. Pyrolysis systems have had some success with wood waste feedstocks. A high‐carbon‐ content char and a low‐energy gas or a liquid fuel is produced. Formation of charcoal from wood or coke from coal is a pyrolytic process. Normally, the process is completed in an oxygen‐deficient environment to limit the combustion of the feedstock and maximize the fuel generation. A larger quantity of residue remains for pyrolysis than for other thermal processes. The char could conceivable be recovered and combusted or used for other purposes.
Figure 12 - Pyrolysis Block Diagram
Facilities using the pyrolytic oil and other products as fuel could have some of the same air emissions issues as mass‐burn facilities. Less SO2 might be generated in the gas or oil, because most of the sulfur is expected to stay with the char. However, if the char is combusted, the sulfur could be released. Units that heat the feedstock in an oxygen‐deficient environment would produce less NOx. Mercury would be expected to be largely driven off with the gas and would have to be dealt with from the exhaust of the gas combustion device. Other metals could remain with the char and could largely be separated from the char prior to combustion with a suitable processing system. Some water will be required for the facility, and wastewater might be discharged. Odors could be an issue from the processing facility. Residue will need to be addressed. The residue from the processing could be landfilled and could be used as landfill cover material in some cases. Ash remaining after combusting the char from the boiler facility would also need to be landfilled after demonstrating nonhazardous properties. Examples of pyrolysis vendors: Brightstar Environmental, Mitsui, Compact Power, PKA, Thide Environmental, WasteGen UK, International Environmental Solutions (IES), SMUDA Technologies (plastics only), and Utah Valley Energy.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 15
HDR Engineering September 2011
A process flow diagram is provided in Figure A.6 in Appendix A.
2.9 Hydrolysis There is much interest and development in the area of cellulosic ethanol technology to move from corn based ethanol production to the use of more abundant cellulosic materials. Applying these technologies to waste materials using hydrolysis is part of that development. The hydrolysis process involves the reaction of the water and cellulose fractions in the MSW feedstock (e.g., paper, food waste, yard waste, etc.) with a strong acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) to produce sugars. In the next process step, these sugars are fermented to produce an organic alcohol. This alcohol is then distilled to produce a fuel‐grade ethanol solution. Hydrolysis is a multi‐step process that includes four major steps: Pre‐treatment; Hydrolysis; Fermentation; and Distillation. The pre‐ treatment step includes separation of the MSW stream as necessary to remove the inorganic/inert materials (glass, plastic, metal, etc.) from the organic materials (food waste, yard waste, paper, etc.). The organic material is shredded to reduce the size and to make the feedstock more homogenous. The hydrolysis step places the shredded organic material into a reactor where it is introduced to the acid catalyst, with the cellulose in the organic material converted into simple sugars as discussed above. The fermentation step utilizes these sugars to be fermented and converted into an organic alcohol. The distillation step takes the organic alcohol and distills it into fuel‐grade ethanol. The byproducts from this process are carbon dioxide (from the fermentation step), gypsum (from the hydrolysis step) and lignin (non‐cellulose material from the hydrolysis step). Since the acid acts only as a catalyst, it can be extracted and recycled back into the process. Like Catalytic Depolymerization, hydrolysis will address only a portion of the total waste stream. This process would use the cellulose‐rich portion of the waste. Few demonstration projects and tests have been completed, and those that have were focused on the use of corn stover and other biomass materials for ethanol production. Tests with mixed waste or even paper feedstock have been limited, and therefore cost information is limited. No known commercial facilities are in operation with mixed waste as a feedstock. Similarly, the environmental risks are not well defined. In addition to the environmental risks of any associated technology, there would be some emissions risks related to methane emissions or issues dealing with potential chemical spills. It is expected that significant quantities of water and wastewater use would be required. There have been some demonstration and pilot‐scale hydrolysis applications completed using mixed MSW and other select waste streams. However, there has been no widespread commercial application of this technology in North America or abroad. A commercial‐scale hydrolysis facility has been permitted for construction in Monroe, New York in the U.S., but this project is currently on‐ hold.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 16
HDR Engineering September 2011
Examples of hydrolysis vendors: Masada OxyNol, Bluefire Ethanol, Biofine and, Arkenol Fuels. A process flow diagram is provided in Figure A.5 in Appendix A.
2.10 Catalytic Depolymerization In a catalytic depolymerization process, the plastics, synthetic‐fiber components and water in the MSW feedstock react with a catalyst under non‐atmospheric pressure and temperatures to produce a crude oil. This crude oil can then be distilled to produce a synthetic gasoline or fuel‐grade diesel. There are four major steps in a catalytic depolymerization process: Pre‐processing, Process Fluid Upgrading, Catalytic Reaction, and Separation and Distillation. The Pre‐processing step is very similar to the RDF process where the MSW Figure 13 – Catalytic Depolymerization, Spain feedstock is separated into process residue, Feedstock: Unknown metals and RDF. This process typically requires additional processing to produce a much smaller particle size with less contamination. The next step in the process is preparing this RDF. The RDF is mixed with water and a carrier oil (hydraulic oil) to create a sludge‐type material. This sludge is sent through a catalytic turbine where the catalytic reaction under high temperature and pressure produces a light oil. The light oil is then distilled to separate the synthetic gasoline or diesel oil. This catalytic depolymerization process is somewhat similar to that used at an oil refinery to convert crude oil into usable products. This technology is most effective with processing a waste stream with a high plastics content and may not be suitable for a mixed MSW stream. The need for a high‐ plastics‐content feedstock also limits the size of the facility. There are no large‐scale commercial catalytic depolymerization facilities operating in North America that use a purely mixed MSW stream as a feedstock. There are some facilities in Europe and one in Mexico that utilize this or a similar process to convert waste plastics, waste oils, and other select feedstocks. One vendor claims to have a commercial‐scale facility in Spain that has been in operation since the second half of 2009. However, operating data (including feedstock used) or an update on the status of this facility could not be obtained. Catalytic depolymerization has been proposed in some locations for select portions of the waste stream with concentrated plastics content. It might be most effectively applied at a very large plastics manufacturing facility or similar industry that can become the source of the feedstock. Because such arrangements are very rare, limited interest in this technology has developed. Some City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 17
HDR Engineering September 2011
vendors claim that oil products could be produced. This process would be able to address a small percentage of the waste stream – the plastics, which would have to be segregated. In addition, the environmental risks are not well defined. In addition to the environmental risks of any similar technology, catalytic cracking could emit some hydrocarbons from the process. There could also be some other risks resulting from the handling of the catalysts or solvents and related compounds that might be required for the process. Water and wastewater use is not known. There are also technology vendors that utilize a process that is thermal in nature (e.g., gasification, pyrolysis) to convert the MSW stream to a syngas that is further treated by a chemical process, such as depolymerization or an associated refining process (e.g., Fischer Tropsch synthesis), to generate a synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel. The City of Edmonton project in Alberta, Canada that uses the Enerkem technology is an example of a commercial‐scale facility that will use such a process. The City of Edmonton has conducted some pilot testing, and the commercial‐scale project is currently in construction (scheduled to be operational by 2012). Examples of catalytic depolymerization‐type vendors: ConFuel K2, AlphaKat/KDV, Enerkem, Changing World Technologies, and Green Power Inc. A process flow diagram is provided in Figure A.4 in Appendix A.
2.11 Autoclaving Autoclaving is classified as a “mechanical” process that uses heat and pressure in a mechanical rotating cylinder to separate the cellulosic material from other portions of the municipal solid waste stream. The basic autoclave technology has been in use for sterilization of hospital wastes and equipment and other related applications for many years. Like anaerobic digestion, autoclaving addresses only a portion of the waste stream, namely the cellulose‐ fiber‐containing portion, which is usually 40% to 50% of the total MSW input stream. However, this technology can also be used as a “front‐end” to many of the other emerging technologies such as hydrolysis for production of a fuel product, gasification or Figure 14 – Autoclaving, California pyrolysis for energy generation, anaerobic digestion for energy and compost production, or for fiber recovery for the pulp/paper industry. A trommel screen is usually utilized after autoclaving to separate out the various mixes of fibrous organic materials produced from autoclaving and other materials (i.e., fine organics stream, bulky organics stream, and overs, such as recyclable glass, metals and plastics). If the goal for the autoclaving
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 18
HDR Engineering September 2011
technology is recovery for paper production, because the fibers are of such a mixed grade, the main product that can be produced is a lower‐grade cardboard. Autoclaves are large rotating vessels that have steam injected and kept at a certain temperature and pressure over a 2 to 3 hour period to convert the MSW. Autoclaves are currently operating in batch mode accepting from approximately 1 to 25 tons per batch (2‐3 hour). All of the demonstration projects have been completed on a fairly small scale (less than 300 tpd) on different feedstocks besides MSW. No known commercial operation exists at this time in the U.S. or elsewhere for processing MSW. HDR general conclusions on autoclave process are:
Potential for over 60% reduction in waste volume
Cellulose recovery has potential to be used as feedstock for
o
Paper production
o
Ethanol production feedstock
o
Compost feedstock
o
Digester feedstock for methane production
If and when proven viable on the commercial level, autoclaving can be an important part of sustainable waste management system.
2.12 Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) There are a number of types of materials recovery facilities (MRFs) in the US and internationally. Most can be classified into two groups, 1) those that accept source separated recyclables, sometimes referred to “clean” MRFs, as currently used in the City and 2) those that take the residual or black bin waste (mixed solid waste) and process these materials to recover recyclables and reusable materials leaving the residual waste for landfill, or another appropriate waste reduction applications. This section describes the latter technology, a MRF that handles mixed solid waste materials. The MRF process begins with mixed solid waste from residential and commercial collection vehicles being off‐loaded onto a tipping floor. Materials are first sorted on the floor using manual labor and mobile equipment to remove larger or bulky items such as appliances, dimensional wood, metal, or large pieces of plastics that might clog or interrupt operations of the processing system. Loaders or grapples then load a conveyor or surge hopper to convey the material to the sort lines and mechanical equipment for landfill diversion separation. In most cases either a mechanical device or manual labor is used to open bags and containers prior to screening and sorting. Material is usually processed through multi‐stage screens to separate fiber (OCC, ONP, and mixed paper), containers, City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 19
HDR Engineering September 2011
and small contaminants. This is usually accomplished through the use of mechanical or pneumatic screening equipment to separate materials into size classifications and/or light versus heavier materials. Fiber is usually hand sorted off elevated conveyor platforms into commodities and dropped into bunkers below. Containers are processed through ferrous magnets, eddy‐current magnets, air screens and hand sorting. The small contaminant stream (dirt, rocks, broken glass and ceramics, bottle caps, etc.) may be further processed by optical/pneumatic sorting. Sorted material is moved from bunkers and baled (fiber, plastic, metal) or loaded directly into roll‐off trucks (glass). The remaining material is shipped to a local landfill. Sometimes these materials are shipped to composting facilities with multiple and fine screening processes to remove contaminants. The main purpose of this type of MRF is to removes recyclable material from mixed municipal solid waste. Commodities that are removed are usually stored in boxes or bunkers and then baled or consolidated and sold and shipped to markets. These types of facilities usually recover about 10% to 20% (about 15% on average); although some facilities have reported recovery above these figures. Usually the residual from this process are in the form of garbage, food scraps, yard trimmings, electronic waste, hazardous waste, wood, dirt and other inert materials. Most of the useable products from this process are in the form of traditional recyclables (OCC, ONP, mixed paper, aluminum cans, metal cans, HDPE, PET, mixed plastics, glass bottles, etc.) and alternative daily cover (ADC) for landfills. Examples of equipment vendors: CP Manufacturing, Bulk Handling Systems, Krause Manufacturing, Harris, IPS, Ptarmigen
2.13 Combined Technologies Gasification systems have been proposed to be combined with other technologies to attempt to produce a liquid fuel. The Enerkem Alberta Biofuels project in Calgary proposes to use gasification followed by catalytic synthesis of the syngas to produce ethanol. A gasification facility proposed by Interstate Waste Figure 15 – Gasification & Catalytic Synthesis, Alberta Source: www.enerkem.com Technologies (IWT) in Taunton, Massachusetts that ran into approval difficulties owing to a statewide incineration ban had also proposed converting the syngas to ethanol. There are facilities that would be considered demonstration facilities because the technology has not previously been proven commercially on a municipal solid waste feedstock. City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 20
HDR Engineering September 2011
Vendors: Enerkem, IWT In addition, autoclaving is being looked as the front‐end of several combined technology processes. In Salinas, California the Waste Authority has looked first autoclaving the waste materials and then using the fiber in a paper mill or conversion into a fuel product and gasification of the residuals materials.
3.0 Summary of Technology Options The technologies discussed in Section 2.0 cover a wide spectrum of waste‐processing approaches. The state of development of technologies being considered varies widely. One technology is in commercial operation using MSW as a feedstock in numerous facilities worldwide. Another is in limited commercial operation using supplemented MSW as a feedstock in Japan. A third is in operation using a selected portion of the MSW waste stream at a few commercial installations in Europe. Others have demonstration and/or pilot facilities in operation or development using MSW as a feedstock. Some have prototype facilities under construction. Some have yet to be developed commercially. Each of the technologies poses environmental considerations. Each of the technologies presents a different risk profile. These differences will be tabulated for comparison. The certainty associated with estimating capital and operating costs is limited with the less developed technologies. The economics from both a capital and operating costs vary between the technology options. Table 1 below presents a summary of the various technology options and certain critical criteria. Table 1- Summary of Technology Options
Technology
State of Development
Environmental Considerations
Anaerobic digestion
Proven for select Waste Stream
Odor is primary concern. Can be addressed.
Aerobic Composting
Proven for select Waste Stream
Odor is primary concern. Can be addressed.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 21
Risk
Limited based on composition of the waste received; needs to be purely organic materials Limited based on feedstock and can be sited appropriately to avoid odors to nearby residents
Applicability to the waste stream At this time can only address source separated organic materials Needs source separated organic feedstock
Relative Cost (High, Medium & Low) High
Low
HDR Engineering September 2011
Technology
State of Development
RDF processing and combustion
Commercially proven
Mass burn combustion
Commercially proven
Gasification
Limited commercial operation in Japan and Europe
Plasma Arc Gasification
Limited commercial operation in Japan
Pyrolysis
Limited commercial development
Hydrolysis
No known commercial facilities are in operation using mixed waste Laboratory scale Catalytic Depolymerization using select materials Demonstration/Pilot Thermal Depolymerization scale using select materials
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Environmental Considerations
Risk
Applicability to the waste stream
Emissions primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards. Emissions are primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards. Emissions are primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards. Emissions are primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards.
Limited if combustion is located with processing.
Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly
Limited
Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly
Emissions are primary concern. APC equipment can meet standards. Not well defined
High risk due to limited experience on MSW
Not well defined
High risk due to limited experience on MSW
Not well defined
Medium to high risk due to limited experience on MSW; requires higher energy input than catalytic depolymerization
Page 22
Relative Cost (High, Medium & Low) High
High
Some operability and economic risk
Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly
High
Some operability and economic risk
Can take entire waste stream or appropriate portions if prepared properly Can take entire waste stream if prepared properly.
High
High risk due to limited experience on MSW
Needs source separation of the cellulosic portion of the waste stream Needs source separation of the plastics & similar materials Needs source separation of the feedstock materials
High
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
HDR Engineering September 2011
Technology
Autoclaving
Mixed Waste MRF
State of Development Limited development using MSW as feedstock; more proven when using other homogeneous or organic feedstocks Commercially proven
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Environmental Considerations
Risk
Applicability to the waste stream
Some minor emissions from autoclaving process; controls can mitigate these concerns
High risk due to limited experience on MSW ant at commercial levels needed
Works best on source separated materials; some testing done with MSW
Minor emissions from mobile equipment
Very limited
Can take entire waste stream
Page 23
Relative Cost (High, Medium & Low) Medium
Medium
HDR Engineering September 2011
3.1 Summary From the list of the many technology options described above, the current feasibility of each option for the City of Dallas whether through technology, environmental, risk or economic viability was assessed. Those technologies that do not appear that the City should consider for implementation at this time due mainly to economic or technical viability include: Anaerobic digestion, RDF processing and combusting, Mass burn combustion, Gasification, Plasma arc gasification, Pyrolysis, Hydrolysis, Autoclaving, and Catalytic depolymerization. As these technologies could become increasingly feasible in the future, the City should monitor the progress of each technology at least every five (5) years. If there has been one or more of these technologies that have significantly advanced within the five year monitoring period (through cost decreases and technical viability), the City should conduct a feasibility review to understand if it suits the City of Dallas. Through vendors or other cities and sources, the City may have become aware of some of these technologies discussed above that do not appear to be currently feasible for implementation by the City. These technologies are of interest in other communities because of several reasons: no landfill space available, no other diversion opportunities available, high water tables (unsuitable for landfills) such as in areas of Florida, and tip rates for disposal very high and close in comparison to these technologies. The technologies that appear to be most suitable at this time for consideration include: aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion, a mixed waste materials recovery facility (MRF) and continuing with landfilling and the current system of landfill gas‐to‐energy recovery. Estimated costs for the most feasible technology options discussed above are as follows:
Aerobic Composting – This will be handled in a separate memorandum. Mixed Waste MRF – This type of facility would include an enclosed building that receives mixed waste, separates the bulky and potentially hazardous materials from the rest of the materials received on the tipping floor and then conveys the remaining materials through a sorting process that includes both manual and mechanical recovery processes. The mechanical equipment should include screens and pneumatic separation, ferrous magnets and eddy current systems to recover metals, balers and other equipment as needed. The manual labor can sort out fibrous materials such as papers and cardboard and glass as required. The facility would be designed to handle waste at an infeed rate of approximately 500 tons per day (tpd). The capital cost is estimated to be approximately $25 to $50 million with the overall net tipping fee approximately (including amortization of the capital and netting out materials sales) $35 to $60 per ton.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Page 24
HDR Engineering September 2011
Appendix A – Process Flow Diagrams
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Appendix A 1
HDR Engineering August 2011
Anaerobic Digestion MSW
Examples of Vendors CCI BioEnergy, Inc. Ecocorp
Greenfinch Mustang Renewable Power Ventures Organic Waste Systems Urbaser (Valorga International)
Input Equipment Process Material Revenue Generation Residual Conversions
MSW
Receiving
Legend
Pre‐Processing
Feedstock
1‐3% of MSW In
10‐15% of MSW In
Digester 40‐50% of Feedstock
Bio‐Gas Processing Technology (see A.6)
Solid
Liquid
Separator
Compost
Aerobic Composting 15‐25% of Feedstock
Figure A.1 Anaerobic Digestion
Description: Anaerobic digestion (or AD) is the process of decomposing the solid organic fraction of the MSW stream in an oxygen‐deficient environment. It has been extensively used to digest and stabilize sewage sludge and animal manures, and has had recent application treating Sanitary Sewer Overflow (or SSO). The AD process may either be a wet or dry process depending on the total solids content being treated in the reaction vessel. Both types of AD processes involve the injection of the organic material into an enclosed vessel where microbes are used to decompose the waste to produce a liquid, a solid digestate material, and a biogas that consists mainly of methane, water, and carbon dioxide (CO2). The resulting low‐ to mid‐energy‐content biogas can be utilized in a reciprocating engine or gas turbine to produce electricity, or can be compressed into a vehicle fuel. The remaining digestate material, which can be up to 50 % of the input depending on the type of AD process used, can be treated further (e.g. cured aerobically) to produce a compost that can be marketed as a soil amendment. The incoming mixed MSW or SSO will require a pre‐treatment process that involves shredding, pulping and separation of the non‐digestible fraction of the waste stream. In many cases, this technology can be used in conjunction with composting, mechanical biological treatment (MBT), or a refuse‐derived fuel (RDF) process.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Appendix A 2
HDR Engineering August 2011
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Combustion
Energy Answers (EA) Dongara Westroc Energy Ambient Eco Group Cobb Creations
Legend
MSW
Examples of Vendors
Input Equipment Process Material Revenue Generation Residual Conversions
MSW
Receiving
RDF
Pre‐Processing
1‐3% of MSW In
10‐15% of MSW In Thermal Conversion Boiler
Steam
75‐80% of RDF to Flue Gas as Products of Combustion
15‐20% of MSW In
Steam Recycle
Electricity
Treated Flue Gas
Air Pollution Control
Turbine
5‐10% of MSW In
Exhaust
Stack
Figure A.2 Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Description: This technology prepares MSW by shredding, screening, and removing non‐combustible materials prior to additional processing. The goal of this technology is to derive a better, more homogenous, Refuse Derived Fuel (or RDF) that can be used in a more conventional solid‐fuel boiler as compared to a mass‐burn combustion waterwall boiler. The RDF process typically results in a fuel yield in the 80% to 90% range (i.e., 80 to 90 percent of the incoming MSW is converted to RDF). The remaining 10% to 20% of the incoming waste that is not converted to RDF is composed of either recovered ferrous metals (1‐5%) which can be sold to market, or process residue (15% to 19%) that must be disposed of in a landfill. In most cases, the fuel is used at the same facility where it is processed, although this does not have to be the case. The RDF is blown or fed into a boiler for semi‐suspension firing. Combustion is completed on a traveling grate. Thermal recovery occurs in an integral boiler. The APC equipment arrangement for an RDF facility would be similar to that of a mass‐burn combustion system.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Appendix A 3
HDR Engineering August 2011
Traditional Mass Burn Combustion Legend
MSW
Examples of Vendors Large Unit Technologies Fisia Babcock Keppel Seghers Laurent Bouillet Martin (Covanta) Steinmueller Takuma Volund (with Babcock & Wilcox) Von Roll (Wheelabrator)
Input Equipment Process Material Revenue Generation Residual Conversions
MSW
Receiving
Small/Modular Unit Technologies Consutech Enercon Systems, Inc. Laurent Bouillet Pioneer Plus
97‐99% of MSW In
Thermal Conversion Boiler
Steam
70‐80% of MSW to Flue Gas as Products of Combustion
Steam Recycle
Electricity
1‐3% of MSW In
Treated Flue Gas
Air Pollution Control
Turbine
Bottom Ash
Metals
Residue Handling
5‐10% of MSW In
20‐25% of MSW In
Exhaust
Stack
Figure A.3 Mass Burn Combustion Description: Mass Burn combustion technology can be divided into two main types: (a) grate based, waterwall boiler installations; and (b) modular, shop erected combustion units with shop fabricated waste heat recovery boilers. The modular units are typically limited to less than 200 tonnes per day and are historically used in facilities where the total throughput is under 500 tpd. In Mass Burn combustors, MSW is fed directly into a boiler system with no preprocessing other than the removal of large bulky items such as furniture and white goods. In the larger Mass Burn Combustion units, the MSW is typically pushed onto a grate by a ram connected to hydraulic cylinders. Air is admitted under the grates, into the bed of material, and additional air is supplied above the grates. The resulting flue gases pass through the boiler and the sensible heat energy is recovered in the boiler tubes to generate steam. In the smaller modular mass burn systems, MSW is fed into a refractory lined combustor where the waste is combusted on refractory lined hearths, or within a refractory lined oscillating combustor. The flue gases exit the combustors and enter a heat recovery steam generator, or waste heat boiler, where steam is generated by the sensible heat in the flue gas. In Mass Burn Combustion, four main streams are generated; steam, flue gas, bottom ash and fly ash. The steam is either sent to a steam turbine to generate electricity or it can be piped directly to an end user as process or district heating steam, or a combination of these uses. Mass burn technologies utilize an extensive set of air pollution control (APC) devices for flue gas clean‐up. The typical APC equipment used include: either selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or non‐catalytic reduction (SNCR) for NOx emissions reduction; spray dryer absorbers (SDA) or scrubbers for acid gas reduction; activated carbon injection (CI) for mercury and dioxins reduction; and a fabric filter baghouse (FF) for particulate and heavy metals removal.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Appendix A 4
HDR Engineering August 2011
Catalytic Depolymerization Legend
MSW
Examples of Vendors AlphaKat/KDV ‐ Covanta Changing World Technologies ConFuel K2 Enerkem Green Power Inc
Input Equipment Process Material Revenue Generation Residual Conversions
MSW
Receiving
Non‐Processable
20‐40% of MSW In
Feedstock
Pre‐Processing
1‐3% of MSW In
Catalyst Hydraulic Fluid
Fluid
Processing Fluid
Fluid
Reaction Turbine
Distillation
20‐30% Feedstock
Diesel Fuel
Desulphurization
Figure A.4 Catalytic Depolymerization
Description: In a catalytic depolymerization process, the plastics, synthetic‐fibre components and water in the MSW feedstock react with a catalyst under non‐atmospheric pressure and temperatures to produce a crude oil. This crude oil can then be distilled to produce a synthetic gasoline or fuel‐grade diesel. There are four major steps in a catalytic depolymerization process: Pre‐processing, Process Fluid Upgrading, Catalytic Reaction, and Separation and Distillation. The Pre‐processing step is very similar to the RDF process where the MSW feedstock is separated into process residue, metals and RDF. This process typically requires additional processing to produce a much smaller particle size with less contamination. The next step in the process is preparing this RDF. The RDF is mixed with water and a carrier oil (hydraulic oil) to create RDF sludge. This RDF sludge is sent through a catalytic turbine where the reaction under high temperature and pressure produces a light oil. The light oil is then distilled to separate the synthetic gasoline or diesel oil. This catalytic depolymerization process is somewhat similar to that used at an oil refinery to convert crude oil into usable products. This technology is most effective with processing a waste stream with a high plastics content and may not be suitable for a mixed MSW stream. The need for a high‐plastics‐content feedstock may also limit the size of the facility.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Appendix A 5
HDR Engineering August 2011
Hydrolysis Legend
MSW
Examples of Vendors Arkenol Fuels BioFine/KAME Masada OxyNol
Input Equipment Process Material Revenue Generation Residual Conversions
MSW
Receiving
1‐3% of MSW In
Non ‐ Processable
15‐30% of MSW In
Feedstock
Pre‐Processing Drying
10‐15% of MSW In Hydrolysis
Gypsum
Acid
Energy Recovery
Fermentation
Stillage
Ethanol
Distillation
Figure A.5 Hydrolysis
Description: The hydrolysis process involves the reaction of the water and cellulose fractions in the MSW feedstock (e.g., paper, food waste, yard waste, etc.) with a strong acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) to produce sugars. In the next process step, these sugars are fermented to produce an organic alcohol. This alcohol is then distilled to produce a fuel‐grade ethanol solution. Hydrolysis is a multi‐step process that includes four major steps: Pre‐treatment; Hydrolysis; Fermentation; and Distillation. Separation of the MSW stream is necessary to remove the inorganic/inert materials (glass, plastic, metal, etc.) from the organic materials (food waste, yard waste, paper, etc.). The organic material is shredded to reduce the size and to make the feedstock more homogenous. The shredded organic material is placed into a reactor where it is introduced to the acid catalyst. The cellulose in the organic material is converted into simple sugars. These sugars can then be fermented and converted into an alcohol which is distilled into fuel‐grade ethanol. The byproducts from this process are carbon dioxide (from the fermentation step), gypsum (from the hydrolysis step) and lignin (non‐cellulose material from the hydrolysis step). Since the acid acts only as a catalyst, it can be extracted and recycled back into the process.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Appendix A 6
HDR Engineering August 2011
Pyrolysis Legend
MSW
Examples of Vendors Compact Power International Environmental Solutions Mitsui PKA SMUDA Technologies Thide Environmental Utah Valley Energy WasteGen UK
Input Equipment Process Material Revenue Generation Residual Conversions
MSW
Receiving
Pre‐Processing
Non ‐ Processable
80‐90% of Feedstock Converted to Syn‐Gas and Oil
Pyrolysis
1‐3% of MSW In
10‐20% of MSW In
Oil Residue Handling Engine
Char Metals
Residue
Chemicals
Synthesis
Exhaust
Electricity
Chemical Byproducts
Syn‐Gas
Gas Cleaning
10‐20% of Feedstock
0‐1% of Feedstock Syn‐Gas Processing Technology (see Figure A.5)
Figure A.6 Pyrolysis
Description: Pyrolysis is generally defined as the process of heating MSW in an oxygen‐deficient environment to produce a combustible gaseous or liquid product and a carbon‐rich solid residue. This is similar to what is done to produce coke from coal or charcoal from wood. The feedstock can be the entire municipal waste stream, but, in some cases, pre‐sorting or processing is used to obtain a refuse‐derived fuel. Some modular combustors use a two‐ stage combustion process in which the first chamber operates in a low‐oxygen environment and the combustion is completed in the second chamber. Similar to gasification, once contaminants have been removed the gas or liquid derived from the process can be used in an internal combustion engine or gas turbine or as a feedstock for chemical production. Generally, pyrolysis occurs at a lower temperature than gasification, although the basic processes are similar.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Appendix A 7
HDR Engineering August 2011
Gasification Input Equipment Process Material Revenue Generation Residual Conversions
MSW
Receiving
Pre‐Processing
Feedstock
AdaptiveArc * Alter NRG * Compact Power Ebara Enerkem Geoplasma * Integrated Environmental Technologies * New Planet Energy PKA Plasco Energy Group * Primenery PyroGenesis Canada, Inc. * SilvaGas Startech * Taylor Biomass Energy Technip Thermoselect
Legend
MSW
Examples of Vendors
10‐25% of MSW In 10‐15% of MSW In
1‐3% of MSW In Gasification
Types of Gasification 70‐80% of Feedstock converted to Syn‐Gas
0‐1% of Feedstock
Syn‐Gas
Gas Cleaning
Ash
Metals
Residue Handling
ChemicalByproducts
Fixed Bed Fluidized Bed Moving Bed Plasma Arc (indicated by a *)
10‐20% of Feedstock
Syn‐Gas Processing Technology (see Figure A.5)
Figure A.7 Gasification
Description: Gasification converts carbonaceous material into a synthesis gas or “syngas” composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Following a cleaning process to remove contaminants this syngas can be used as a fuel to generate electricity directly in a combustion turbine or engine, or the gas can be fired in a boiler to generate steam that can be used to generate electricity, for process uses or district heating, or a combination of both. The syngas generated can also be used as a chemical building block in the synthesis of gasoline or diesel fuel. The feedstock for most gasification technologies must be prepared into RDF developed from the incoming MSW, or the technology may only process a specific subset of waste materials such as wood waste, tires, carpet, scrap plastic, or other waste streams. Similar to Fluidized Bed Combustion, these processes typically require more front end separation and size reduction, and result in lower fuel yields (less fuel per tonne of MSW input). The feedstock reacts in the gasifier with steam and sometimes air or oxygen at high temperatures and pressures in a reducing (oxygen‐starved) environment. The low‐ to mid‐ Megajoule syngas can be combusted in a boiler, or following a cleanup process a gas turbine, or engine or used in chemical refining. Of these alternatives, boiler combustion is the most common, but the cycle efficiency can be improved if the gas can be processed in an engine or gas turbine, particularly if the waste heat is then used to generate steam and additional electricity in a combined cycle facility. Industry experts generally expect that the flue gas will be lower in acid gases, combustion gases, organics, and metals, but APC equipment and syngas cleaning systems will still be required. The remaining ash and char produced by the syngas process may be marketed as a construction base, or disposed of in a landfill if a market does not exist.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Technology Options
Appendix A 8
HDR Engineering August 2011
THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION SERVICES LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS Source Separated Organics Task 5B August 2011
Prepared for: City of Dallas Sanitation Services Department 1500 Marilla, Room 3FN Dallas, Texas 75201 Prepared by: Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc. 5200 Keller Springs Road, Suite 927 Dallas, Texas 75248
Table of Contents
Windrow Composting
Page 1
Aerated Static Pile Composting
Page 2
In-Vessel Composting
Page 2
Anaerobic Digestion
Page 3
Waste-to-Fuel Conversion
Page 4
Waste-to-Energy or Biomass-to-Energy Processing
Page 4
Commercial Kitchen Pulpers
Page 4
Landfill Gas Recovery (ELR)
Page 5
Recommendation
Page 5
APPENDIX - Organic Waste Management Technology Comparison Matrix
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Source Separated Organics
Page i
HDR Engineering August 2011
Technology Options Source Separated Organics
The following information describes several available technologies for diverting organics from landfill disposal by various processes. They produce products for beneficial use, enable energy recovery, or both. The current condition, landfilling with recovery of methane for energy, is the baseline for relative comparison. Analysis and comparison of specific project parameters for these technologies is beyond the scope of this plan. Therefore, this analysis is intended to facilitate broad comparison on the basis of environmental protection; economics; regulatory requirements; potential for nuisance such as odor, dust and noise; and various operational concerns. Appendix 1 to this technical memo provides a synopsis of the comparison. As some of these technologies are relatively new and have not yet been proven in large-scale operation in the United States over time, it will be necessary to revisit this evaluation periodically. Note that this comparison is based on the assumption of source-segregated organic wastes. Windrow Composting Windrow Composting is an ancient technique for managing organic waste materials and improving soil characteristics for agriculture or horticulture. Short of using organics from the municipal solid waste stream directly as animal food, it is the most basic and direct method of converting waste organics into a usable product. Windrow composting is highly flexible in terms of variable feedstocks and market requirements for finished product. The process is generally accomplished outside, although indoor operations are sometimes more successful if particularly harsh weather conditions exist. The process generally includes preprocessing of organic material, typically grinding and mixing of various feedstocks, an aerobic decomposition phase in managed windrows, a curing phase, and product distribution. Environmental benefits include not only those associated with the use of compost as a soil conditioner, as listed in Appendix 1, but also with diversion of organics from an anaerobic landfill environment to an aerobic composting environment. This shift from anaerobic to aerobic decomposition results in generation of less methane and more carbon dioxide. Even with recovery of methane for energy recovery, this diversion is considered an improvement in overall greenhouse gas generation. This technology demands careful operational management using best management practices to avoid unacceptable nuisance conditions, and realizes revenue potential in the form of a tipping fee on the front end and product sales on the back end.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Source Separated Organics
Page 1
HDR Engineering August 2011
Aerated Static Pile Composting Aerated Static Pile (ASP) Composting uses the same principles as windrow composting, but it generally entails forcing air through piles using fans that either force air up through the piles into the enclosure, or pull air down through the piles and eventually exhaust to the atmosphere. The aerobic decomposition phase is somewhat accelerated compared to basic windrow composting. The piles are typically not turned, but remain static throughout the aerobic decomposition phase, although some systems involve mechanical mixing or turning as well. ASP operations are generally indoors, and use some sort of biofilter, scrubber, or another means of treating air for odors before it is emitted to the atmosphere. Some operations are outdoors. ASP processes involve higher capital expense than windrow composting, but may be more appropriate in settings where odor is a particular concern. They are more successful with consistent feedstocks so extensive pre-processing is often required. Occupational safety can be a concern due to the potential for hazardous environments in the enclosures. ASP facilities are less flexible in the sense that they are designed for a certain throughput, and growth beyond that design limit requires expansion of the building and equipment. One unique form of ASP composting employs long bags filled with organic material which are aerated using mechanical blowers. They are not in enclosed buildings and accommodate growth in throughput more easily than more traditional ASPs in buildings. In-vessel Composting There are a variety of in-vessel composters, ranging in size from very small ones designed to serve a single generator such as a prison or school, to quite large facilities that serve mixed MSW streams from entire communities. These units provide mechanical mixing and aeration in an enclosed vessel in order to further speed up the aerobic decomposition process and entirely contain odors within the vessel. In virtually all cases, the product of this type of system must undergo further processing in a windrow operation, followed by a curing process. These systems are extremely capital intensive on a large scale, and sometimes require significant pre-processing or carefully source-separated feedstocks. Because they reduce the total processing time, they can reduce the footprint of an operation as compared to a basic windrow operation alone. City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Source Separated Organics
Page 2
HDR Engineering August 2011
Anaerobic Digestion Whereas composting is an aerobic process, generating carbon dioxide, anaerobic digestion is the decomposition of organics without oxygen and generates methane. It is a common process with considerable operating history, particularly associated with municipal wastewater and agricultural wastes. Wastewater treatment plants anaerobically digest sludge in enclosed digesters, often collecting methane for energy recovery. Organic wastes can be anaerobically digested in dedicated facilities which produce residue that can be added to a compost process. This is a complex biochemical process which is costly to build and operate. The residue provides limited nutrient value to the composting process. An alternative, with even more limited experience is to process organic food waste prior to adding it to an existing sludge digester at a wastewater treatment plant. This has the benefit of using an existing facility rather than going to the considerable expense of building a new facility. But it does decrease the capacity of the digester to receive sludge. These processes require high moisture content and are generally not appropriate for large quantities of wood and brush, and better suited to food waste processing. Recovering methane from the anaerobic phase is analogous to recovering methane from a landfill.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Source Separated Organics
Page 3
HDR Engineering August 2011
Waste-to-Fuel Conversion Anaerobic digestion can be one form of converting waste to energy, as can direct processing in a mass-burn unit or a refuse-derived-fuel process. However, the category of waste-to-fuel for this purpose addresses a number of much more complex biochemical processes. Typical products are ethanol or other fuel products sometimes referred to as syngas. There is very little operating history for these processes in the United States, particularly at full-scale. They are highly variable and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Because of the lack of operating history, regulatory approvals for these processing facilities can be difficult. In Texas, a full permit-level authorization will be required for a municipal solid waste processing facility, even for a pilot-scale demonstration project. Waste-to-Energy or Biomass-to Energy Processing These techniques for diverting organics from landfills and recovering energy are well established in the United States. They include the recovery of energy in the form of steam heat or electric generation. Traditional waste-to-energy technologies such as mass burn facilities are large-scale facilities which process the entire mixed municipal solid waste stream; although, they are improved with pre-processing to remove inorganic recyclables before combustion. Refuse-Derived-Fuel facilities do require preprocessing to remove inorganic recyclables and process the combustible fraction into a more uniform fuel product which is typically burned in a dedicated furnace. Both produce rejects and residue that must be landfilled. These facilities are extremely capital intensive, operationally complex, and are not generally warranted when ample and affordable landfill capacity with energy recovery is available. Biomass-to-energy typically refers to burning or processing biomass, such as wood, in a facility for energy recovery. These facilities require a consistent and sustainable source of fuel to be successful. Commercial Kitchen Pulpers One way to capture some of the food waste from the municipal solid waste stream, such as for composting, is to encourage or require the installation of food waste pulpers in commercial or institutional kitchens. These machines process source-segregated food waste by pulping it, often followed by further processing City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Source Separated Organics
Page 4
HDR Engineering August 2011
to form pellets or material which is more easily handled and transported for composting. A variation on this technology is a machine that grinds, dewaters and disinfects food waste from kitchens, grocery stores, or food processors. This type of equipment is sometimes cost effective when hauling raw food waste with a high moisture content is not feasible. In both cases, the equipment is best installed at the generator, and is not applicable to residential applications. Because of the cost and the need to modify operations at the generator, any form of mandatory participation will likely be met with opposition.
Landfill Gas Recovery (ELR) The current condition is landfilling of all organic waste currently under the control of the City, with the exception of some brush which is being diverted from the landfill as mulch. The McCommas Bluff Landfill is authorized for Enhanced Leachate Recirculation in future cells, which facilitates accelerated production and recovery of methane produced from anaerobic decomposition. The landfill currently recovers methane from landfill gas for electric generation. Any decreases in methane generation due to increased diversion of yard waste is likely to be offset by increased overall disposal rates over time, especially since the primary component of yard waste currently landfilled is wood. Wood produces less methane in an anaerobic landfill environment than grass and leaves, which are not currently collected for landfill disposal anyway. Organics in the landfill waste stream currently include organics in unsegregated residential, commercial, and industrial waste streams, and segregated portions of residential and commercial yard waste. Diversion of organics from the landfill will somewhat decrease gas generation per ton of material disposed. However, the primary organic component that is likely to be diverted is brush and wood, which is a relatively low source of methane generation compared to food waste. Most grass and leaves are already diverted through the City’s effective “Don’t Bag It” program. Because a large percentage of the organic material currently landfilled will not be diverted in the short- to mid-term, methane generation is not expected to decrease appreciably, especially if overall disposal rates at the landfill increase over time as projected. Recommendation In the short- to mid-term, windrow composting represents a proven technology of relatively low cost, with high potential for both front-end and back-end revenues. It is highly flexible over time as feedstocks change with changing waste stream characteristics. Windrow composting will preserve landfill life through diversion without significant decrease in methane generation over time, and it will realize other environmental benefits associated with the beneficial use of compost and mulch products.
City of Dallas Local Solid Waste Management Plan Source Separated Organics
Page 5
HDR Engineering August 2011
‐ moderate facility cost ‐often requires building ‐ moderate equipment cost ‐low operating cost ‐landfill diversion decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill ‐product revenue
‐ low facility cost ‐ moderate equipment cost ‐low operating cost ‐landfill diversion ‐decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill ‐product revenue
‐ decreased GHG ‐ decreases water demand ‐ decreases fertilizer use/runoff ‐ erosion control ‐landfill diversion
‐ decreased GHG ‐ decreases water demand ‐ decreases fertilizer use/runoff ‐ erosion control ‐landfill diversion
Economic
Environmental
Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
Aerated Static Pile Composting (forced air or induced draft, enclosed or covered)
Criterion Technology* Windrow Composting
‐ authorization type depends on feedstocks (registration or lower) ‐ monitoring and reporting required ‐OSHA concerns ref. hazardous indoor environment if applicable
‐biofilter typically required for odor control ‐dust reduced if enclosed or covered
Nuisance Potential ‐ authorization ‐ minimal odor with careful type depends on operation and feedstocks feedstock (registration or management lower) ‐ dust and noise ‐ monitoring and reporting required potential
Regulatory
APPENDIX Organic Waste Management Technology Comparison Matrix ‐ highly flexible ‐ BMPs essential to maintain product quality, marketability, and nuisance reduction ‐requires separate collection ‐contamination can be removed after processing ‐accelerates aerobic decomposition ‐less flexible than windrow ‐typically covered piles, Ag‐bag, or enclosed structure ‐biofilter or other odor control typically required ‐requires separate collection or extensive pre‐
Operations
1
‐efficient GHG/energy recovery ‐low environmental risk associated with processing ‐decreases available wastewater digester capacity
‐relatively unproven at full scale
Anaerobic Digestion (Wastewater Digester or Dedicated)
Waste‐To‐Fuel Conversion (ethanol, syngas,
Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
decreased GHG ‐ decreases water demand ‐ decreases fertilizer use/runoff ‐ erosion control ‐landfill diversion
In‐Vessel Composting
‐high capital cost for dedicated facility or expanded digester capacity ‐high capital cost for pre‐processing and pipeline ‐methane revenue ‐increased financial risk with new technologies ‐decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill ‐high capital cost ‐long‐term financing
‐high capital cost ‐electricity cost ‐high pre‐processing cost ‐moderate operating cost ‐decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill ‐product revenue
‐permit required under Research and Development
‐little operating experience in U.S.
‐if in wastewater ‐low for enclosed sludge digester, systems under wastewater permit ‐if in stand‐alone digester, under solid waste permit and likely under research and development provisions
‐ authorization ‐reduced nuisance potential type depends on feedstocks ‐ monitoring and reporting required
processing ‐typically requires windrow or ASP after in‐vessel pre‐ processing ‐somewhat decreased processing time & decreased footprint ‐increased pre‐ processing ‐less flexible than windrow and ASP ‐requires separate collection ‐increased operational risk with new technologies ‐requires separate collection and extensive pre‐ processing ‐end product can be composted ‐ not appropriate for large yard trimmings/wood and brush ‐little full‐scale operational experience 2
‐preserves methane generation and recovery at landfill ‐decreases landfill capacity
‐variable rates of GHG recovery
‐permit
high capital cost ‐permit required high O&M cost ‐long‐term financing ‐decreases methane generation and recovery at landfill ‐reject and residue disposal ‐increased cost to none generators ‐specialized hauling or on‐site composting/digestion required
‐low environmental risk with proper operation and controls ‐reject and residue disposal ‐low impact
provisions
‐organics increase potential for odor
‐high potential associated with storage and transportation of pulp
‐low with proper operation and controls
‐brush and large wood may require special handling, increased compaction effort
‐facilitates all processes ‐requires separate collection ‐public opposition due to increased cost of installation
demonstrated ‐typically requires separate collection or extensive pre‐ processing, or both ‐highly specialized operation ‐typically mixed MSW for mass‐ burn and RDF ‐typically single fuel for biomass ‐highly specialized operation
Risa Weinberger & Associates, Inc.
* ASSUMPTION: Does not address mixed MSW grease/grit trap processing.
GHG – Green House Gas, BMP – Best Management Practices, ASP – Aerated Static Pile, O&M – Operations and Maintenance, MSW – Municipal Solid Waste, RDF – Refuse Derived Fuel
Commercial Kitchen Pulpers Required by Ordinance (specialized machines for producing organic pulp form commercial food waste) Landfill Gas Recovery (ELR) (CURRENT CONDITION)
Waste‐to‐Energy or Biomass‐to‐Energy Processing
etc.)
3
City of Dallas
Appendix B
Appendix B: NCTCOG Closed Landfill Inventory List
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas
Appendix B This page is intentionally left blank.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
Environment & Development - NCTCOG.org
Search NCTCOG
Programs
Topics A-J
Topics K-Z
Departments
Services
About Us
Home > Environment and Development > Disposal Options > Landfills Print this page
SEE Less Trash-Solid Waste SEE Safe, Clean & Green
SEE Less Trash Program
Development Excellence
Closed and Abandoned Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Inventory Update
Committees Environment & Development Home
Dallas County Permitted Landfill Sites
View Map
Click on the ID to view all available information for the site. ID
SITE NAME
255
CARROLLTON, CITY OF
2.5M SW CITY HALL ON W SIDE WALLACE-CROSBY RD.,CARROLTON.
750
Carrollton, City of
5,000 FT.W OF IH-35E ON S SIDE OF SANDY LAKE RD.
City of Garland 1277 Castle Drive Landfill
LOCATION
Intersection of Castle and Miles
61
DALLAS, CITY OF
146
DALLAS, CITY S of I-30 and W of Loop 12 OF/DAHLSTROM
87
Dallas, City of/Leslie
between Second and 175
88
DALLAS, CITY OF/S LOOP
6000 EAST SOUTH LOOP 12
63
DALLAS, CITY OF/TM DYE
between RR tracks and Newbery
89
DALLAS, CITY OF/WALNUT HL
2300 W. WALNUT HILL ROAD AT IH 35
447
DUNCANVILLE, CITY OF
Appears to be Estes Park per Mapsco
1261
Duncanville, City on Gifco Road, Midlothian of
FARMERS 1049 BRANCH, CITY OF
S of I-30, W of Loop 12
on Valley View Lane
601
FRANK PRASIFKA
west side of Dowdy Ferry Rd., disturbed
471
GRAND PRAIRIE, CITY OF
on Hardrock Rd
128
HIGHLAND PARK, CITY OF
at end of Conveyor Lane
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/cli_list.asp?County=Dallas&Permit=1&Submit=Submit+Form[7/28/2011 8:26:29 AM]
Environment & Development - NCTCOG.org
1236 Hutchins Landfill
1.75M E-NE OF IH45&IH20 INTSCN,750'S OF IH20,E END LANGDON DR., 800'N CLEVELAND RD,S OF LANGDON RD,2M NE OF HUTCHINS CITY HALL
964
IRBY LANE PROPERTIES
location description is unclear, can't pinpoint exactly on map
264
IRVING, CITY OF
Twin Wells Park
974
JAMES R. ALLEN
E OF BALLWAG RD, 7.5M SW OF DUNCANVILLE CITY LIMITS
313
KLEBERG, CITY 1400 ALEXANDER RD 225FT SW OF OLD SEAGOVILLE & ALEXANDER OF INTSC
520
LAS COLINAS CORPORATION
Royal Lane
1379
LAS COLINAS CORPORATION
1200'S IH635,.6M N ROYAL LN,.6M E RASBERRY RD,.4M W TRINITY R.
799
Mesquite Landfill 1 mile W of Kleburg near Jordan Valley Road
2195
PRASIFKA, Post Oak at Fulgham Rd. BARBARA JOAN
205
SMITH LANDFILL COMPANY
3333 FT WORTH AVE. DALLAS, TEXAS
556
Trinity Oaks Landfill
0.5 miles SE of US 175 at IH635 in Mesquite
Total Number of Dallas County Sites: 26
Go Back
CONTACT US | SITE MAP | LEGAL | SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS North Central Texas Council of Governments | 616 Six Flags Drive P.O. Box 5888 Arlington, TX 76005-5888 Main Operator: (817) 640-3300 | Fax: (817) 640-7806
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/cli_list.asp?County=Dallas&Permit=1&Submit=Submit+Form[7/28/2011 8:26:29 AM]
Environment & Development - NCTCOG.org
Search NCTCOG
Programs
Topics A-J
Topics K-Z
Development Excellence Committees
Services
About Us
Home > Environment and Development > Disposal Options > Landfills Print this page
SEE Less Trash-Solid Waste SEE Safe, Clean & Green
Departments
SEE Less Trash Program Closed and Abandoned Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Inventory Update
Environment & Development Home
Dallas County Unauthorized Landfill Sites
View Map
Click on the ID to view all available information for the site. ID
SITE NAME
LOCATION
U1720
183 Land Corporation
NE quadrant of the HWY 183/International Place intersection
U2039
A. L. Allen
At entrance city of Mesquite Landfill P#556
U857
Balch Springs
3-way intersection
U1359
Bob King
Irving: S.E. Cornor of Story & Ruby Rd.
U2091
Bob Lewis
5625 & 5631 Parkdale Drive
U1543
Brown Site
S. of Vetch Rd. Vetch & Mars Rd.
U1339
Bruton Rd. Site
NE corner of 635 and Bruton Rd. (Cartwright Rd.)
U859
California Crossing
2100 California Crossing and Newkirk St
U861
Carrolton Dump
Carrollton, Beltline and Luna, SE quadrant
04T048 Centennial Plaza Addition
Southeast corner of IH35E and Lombardy
U1386
Centerville at Nutler Rd.
Garland: Centerville & Miller
U1387
Centerville Rd. Landfill
Garland: On either side of Mills Branch upstream of Rowlett.
04T046
City of Farmers Branch Keenan Bridge Rd
1800 Valley View, Farmers Branch, TX
04T045
City of Farmers Branch Senlac Drive
13333 Senlac Dr., Farmers Branch, TX
U924
City of Mesquite
NE corner of 635 and Bruton Rd. (Cartwright Rd.)
U863
Coit Road Brush Site
7700 Clodus Fields Dr and 12100 Coit Rd
U865
Connell
NW Hwy Frontage RD at Spangler, 200-300' W of Spangler Rd interchange
U1186
Dabney/Cedar Hills
Joe Wilson & Pleasant Run
U2036
Dallas Demolition Co (Ray Lohden)
Between Linfield & Felllows Rds at NE end of Stokes Rd
U2126
Dal-Tile
From I-45,E on Pleasant Run Rd, 2.1 mile on left
U869
De Soto Landfill
Wintergreen Rd
U1246
Dempsey/Warrior Trail #3
Great Southwest Parkway
U2129
Don Poteet
Immediately NW of 14830 Kleberg Rd
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/cli_list.asp?County=Dallas&Permit=0&Submit=Submit+Form[7/28/2011 8:23:51 AM]
Environment & Development - NCTCOG.org
U872
Duncanville (Ballweg)
Ballweg Rd/Just N of Mansfield Rd
U2093
E. J. Pickle
S Beltline
U2094
Earl Woody
2300 Blk of Bowers
U1348
East Garland Rd.
Garland: Old St. Hwy west of Rowlett Creek
U1352
East Miller Rd.
Garland: East Miller Rd. SW intersection
U1171
Forest/Greenville
SW quadrant of Forest & Greenville
U875
Forney
4700 - 5200 Military Parkway
U2037
Frank Presifka
Intx of Fulghum & Post Oak Rds, Dallas Co.
U876
Fulsom
600 yds from Wintergreen and Old Hickory Rd
U907
Garland Rd LF
Garland Rd
U2040
George Lucas
3101 Beltline Rd
U2184
Gramatan Co
from I-45, E. Pleasant Run Rd, 2.1 mi on right
U908
Grand Prairie
Lion Country now Wildlife Pkwy
U1361
Grand Prairie
East of Grand Prairie clity limits: on Bear Creek E. of Belt Line.
U909
Grapevine Disposal Site
Hwy 121 in Dallas County
U2134
Greg Nelson Salvage Yard
2300 Moonlight
U1255
Hague Financial Group
S. Central Expressway (310) & I-20
U1327
Hardrock Rd
east of Hard Rock, south of Oakdale
U2138
Herman Gibbons
5003 S Lamar
U910
Highland Rd Brush Site
1800 Highland Rd at Ash Creek
04T049 Holford Road Property
Borders Holford Rd. and Lacewood in Garland
U1565
Horseshoe Lake Rd.
N of TrinityR., S of Lone Star Park
U911
Hunter Ferrel @ Meyers Rd
Hunter Ferrel & Meyers Rd
U912
Hutchins
Langdon Rd, 2 mi E of IH 45, S of IH 635
U1281
IH 30 Corridor Land
Hwy 30 & Beltline
U1360
Illegal Site
Irving: N. W. corner 700 ft. N. of county. Central & 183 Service Rd.
04T047 Inspiration Dr. and IH35
NW corner of Inspiration Dr. and IH35 in Dallas
U2132
J.O. McPeters
E Shady Grove (2400 blk) & E Irving Blvd intx
U2135
James Currey
3200 Stag Rd
04T044 Jaycee Park
North of Singleton and East of Bernal near U927
U2035
Jessie Majors
8500 Julius Schepps Hwy, N of Simpspn Stuart Rd, S of Loop 12
U914
John Lomey Dump
Same location as U1343
U925
Karl Mirkes
100 yds S Intx of Wintergreen & Old Hickory Rd in DeSoto
U915
Kiest
south side of Southerland
U916
Killough Brush Site
brush site was on S side of rd, N of creek
U917
King Site
SW corner of Glenwick St & Ruby Rd in Irving
U918
Kleberg-Koontz
Alexander is called Ravenview here
U919
Lancaster
Steinbeck Rd
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/cli_list.asp?County=Dallas&Permit=0&Submit=Submit+Form[7/28/2011 8:23:51 AM]
Environment & Development - NCTCOG.org U1358
Lancaster Site
Lancaster: N. side of Lavedner Rd. 0.9 miles E. of Ferris.
U920
Lindamood Site
2000 Blk of S. Nursery Rd
U921
Linfield
4800 Linfield Dr.
U2130
Lloyd Miller
7600 South Central Expressway (310) in Hutchins
U1206
Luna Stemmons I & II
"W & S of IH 35, E at Booth"
U922
Merrifield
Now part of Spur 408
U923
Mesquite
SE of Intx of 635 and 175
U1350
Mesquite Sanitary Landfill
North of Forney Rd at Forney and Town E. Blvd
U1532
Mesquite Sanitary Landfill
NE corner of 635 and Bruton Rd. (Cartwright Rd.)
U1349
Miles Rd.
Roulett: Between Castle & Pleasant Valley Rd.
U1225
Mullins Warehouse
SE corner Marsh & Simpson Ln
U1287
Murff Annex
10500 Spangler Road in Dallas
U926
Murff Property
1800 W Northwest Hwy
U2090
Nabors & Whittle
2725 Dowdy Ferry Rd.
U1570
No Name
Coppell-300 N. Lodge Rd.
U1571
No Name
Cedar View is a short road
U1572
No name
Cedar Hill-Duncanville Rd. 50yds. S. of Parkersville Rd.
U1563
No Name
Grand Praire-S. of I-20 at the bend of Mathew near Dallas Lane.
U1373
No Name
Grand Praire: 300 West of N. Beltline. South side of Hunter Ferrell.Hunter Ferrell.
U1375
No Name
south of the cemetary off of Cedar Hill Drive
U1376
No Name
Cedar Hill: Meadow Ridge & Jargeon Lane
U1377
No Name
Cedar Hill: 1382 FM Rd. 1/2 mile Wl of Rd. Straus
U1378
No Name
Cedar Hill: Straus Rd. S. of Sorcey Rd.
U1379
No Name
Cedar Hill: Joe Wilson Rd. 200 yds N or Hwy. 67.
U1380
No Name
Irving: E. of Texas Stadium. Into spur 482. Clover Leaf.
U1340
No name
Mesquite: Highway 67 at Motley Street
U1343
No name
Same location as U914
U1356
No Name
Cedar Hill: Mansfield Rd. 1/2 mi. W. of Robbin Rd.
U1357
No Name
Cedar Hill: Balway Rd. N. of Mansfield Rd.
U927
Nomas
3200 Claiborne Blvd at 5500 Nomas St
U1169
Oak Cliff
"E & adjacent to Coombs Creek, S of Kiest"
U1366
Old City Dump
Lion Country now called Wildlife Parkway, SW intx is part of P471
U873
Old Farmers Branch LF
2509 Royal Lane
U931
Old Richardson Landfill
near Sherrill Park G.C. and Owen's Spring Creek Farm
U2122
Omega Financial
3737 Middlefield Rd, E of and S of Middlefield Rd
U1245
Overstreet/Warrior Trail #4
Great Southwest Trafficway
U1344
Pinnell
Dallas: 2221 Lombardy Lane
U929
Ray Talley
at dead end of Deepwood; no entrance at Deepwood
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/cli_list.asp?County=Dallas&Permit=0&Submit=Submit+Form[7/28/2011 8:23:51 AM]
Environment & Development - NCTCOG.org U930
Richardson LF
.25 mi E of Intx of Plano Rd & Greenville Rd
U2125
Ron Buckzlew
Pin Oak Rd
U2139
Sam Nabor
5101 Youngblood ST
U1544
Sand Branch Site
E. side of Beltline Rd .at Bench St.
U1288
Sargent Rd
1240 Sargent Rd
U932
Seagoville
Bois D'Arc Rd, between Combine & Bilindsday
U1440
Smith Site
Approx. same location as P205
U2133
T. E. Frossard
6512 S Loop 12
U933
Tanner Hutchins-Wilmer
Vetch Rd
U2120
Tim Canterbury
W side of Gilbert Rd, 1/4 mi N of int w/ Shady Grove Rd
U934
TX Industries
Same location as P61
U936
University Park/Garland
Miller Rd at Centerville Rd
U1561
Unknown
Grand Praire: 300 ft north of Oakdale. Corner of Oakdale & County Line.
U1569
Unknown
Coppell-1400 Block of Sandy Lake Rd.
U937
Unnamed
On E side of Trinity River and S side of Martin Luther King Blvd at end of Lenway St
U878
Unnamed (Garland)
Intersection of MKT RR and Centerville Rd (approx 1200 Block)
U938
Vilbig
3300 Bill Harrod
U2038
Warren Morean
3837 Simpson Stuart Rd
U1248
Warrior Trail
1426 Southwest Parkway
U1242
Warrior Trail #1
E Southwest Pkwy
U1244
Warrior Trail #8
Warrior Trail
U1241
Warror Trail #2
SW Parkway
U2128
Wesley Nunley
Bird Rd. and extension of road,W of 310
U939
West Dallas
Joe Irwin Addition No. 5
U940
West Davis
700 N Walton Walker Fwy
U1351
Westlake
Mesquite: In Westlake Park under tennis courts.
U941
Winnetka
Possibly other owners to S of Blk 7110 (developed)
U942
Yorktown
300 Yorktown St Total Number of Dallas County Sites: 127
Go Back
CONTACT US | SITE MAP | LEGAL | SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS North Central Texas Council of Governments | 616 Six Flags Drive P.O. Box 5888 Arlington, TX 76005-5888 Main Operator: (817) 640-3300 | Fax: (817) 640-7806
http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEELT/disposal/facilities/cli_list.asp?County=Dallas&Permit=0&Submit=Submit+Form[7/28/2011 8:23:51 AM]
City of Dallas
Appendix C
Appendix C: Model Ordinances and Contracts
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas
Appendix C This page is intentionally left blank.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas
Appendix C
Summary of Selected U.S. Mandatory Commercial Recycling Ordinances (provided by Stopwaste.org)
Jurisdiction
Sacramento, CA
Materials Covered All food / beverage establishments: aluminum & steel containers; glass bottles / containers; plastics; cardboard and boxes. All other businesses: paper; plastic; aluminum cans; scrap metal; wood pallets.
Thresholds: Business / MFD / Mobile
Enforcement/
All business and non-residential properties that subscribe to 4 cubic yard or greater per week garbage service.
Hazardous material and food inspectors check for compliance.
Multifamily with five or more units per parcel.
Exemption
Exemption: A selfhauling form is filled out that certifies all self-hauling activities. Exempt if space limitation or if compliance will result in zoning violation. Up to $1000/day fine for noncompliance
Performance Metric (goal, reporting)
Amount Spent on Enforcement/ Funding
Businesses submit a detailed plan about on-site recycling.
1st year enforcement = $400k.
Haulers report quarterly on recycling tonnages and destination of recyclables.
This covers 3,000 businesses per year of the 9,000 total targeted for enforcement.
Waste haulers required to submit Recycling Plans; City staff review quarterly hauler reports, conduct on-site inspections, and can audit hauler records.
Enforcement on a 3 year cycle City spends approximately $100-$130 / business to enforce on approximately 40% of eligible businesses Franchise hauler fees ($500 per truck annually)
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
Technical Assistance Outreach
/
Each business has to provide containers for recycling, signage, and written recycling requirements site. SWA provides a handbook, sample signage, and other information; Over 10,000 Direct Mailers were mailed out.
City of Dallas Jurisdiction
Materials Covered All papers, cardboard, plastic and glass bottles and jars, metal cans, and also other materials for which markets exist.
Thresholds: Business / MFD / Mobile
Enforcement/
Residential / multifamily:
Solid waste code enforcement officers work in concert with recycling staff.
Phased approach for commercial customers, by size: I. 20,000 square feet or more, II. 10,000 square feet or more and III all businesses. Phased approach: I. For multifamily 100 units or more, II. for 50 or more, III. for all complexes unless exempt.
San Diego, CA
Almost all recyclables (i.e. paper, bottles, cans and plastic, etc.) and compostables.
City and County of San Francisco
Appendix C
All--applicable to everyone. No threshold. Multifamily is included.
Exemption
Exemptions for 6 cubic yards per week or less of generation of recyclables and refuse. A business may also apply for an exemption if they lack space to recycle, or if they generate no recyclables.
Drivers will leave tags when they see the wrong material in trash, recycling or composting containers.
Performance Metric (goal, reporting) Haulers must provide an annual report. Staff targets those with low service levels of recycling, informs them of the ordinance, and offers assistance. If service levels don't increase, staff can take enforcement actions.
100% compliance is the goal. On-site inspection for reviewing compliance.
Other hauler employees may look as can City/County staff, including SFE, DPW and DPH . Exemptions include a space waiver and small generator fines are capped at $100. Mixing of materials at multi-tenant buildings will not be enforced until July 1, 2011.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
Amount Spent on Enforcement/ Funding Approximately $221,000/year (estimated) Recycling enterprise fund fee A direct fee for multifamily complexes One code enforcement inspector, 2 recycling specialists, .5 admin aide
$185k per year Existing funding will be used, in addition to fines and fees that will provide funding.
Technical Assistance Outreach
/
The party who sets up the recycling program is also responsible for educating tenants or occupants annually, upon occupancy, or when changes to the program occur. Technical assistance to businesses, events and venues is also provided by City staff. There are guidelines for appropriate containers and signage. City/County Agency will do broad outreach on the ordinance in an effort to make every person in SF aware of it. The City will send letters to businesses and apartment owners. Private hauler (Recology) will include info in bills and send letters to small property owners and hang flyers on containers as they re-label them.
City of Dallas Jurisdiction
Materials Covered Prohibited from commercial trash: significant amount of paper, cardboard, yard
Seattle, WA
Appendix C Thresholds: Business / MFD / Mobile
Enforcement/
The ordinance (this is a landfill ban, not a mandatory recycling ordinance) is applicable to residential, multifamily, commercial, and self-haul customers.
The penalty phase started one year after the implementation of the program.
Free recycling for multifamily customers. Some flexibility for hotels.
Exemption
Performance Metric (goal, reporting) 60% diversion goal.
Non-compliance is defined as more than 10% of such material in trash by visual inspection. Two warnings, then $50 surcharge to haul the material away. So far, 18 fines were collected. Exemption: space limitation for containers.
Amount Spent on Enforcement/ Funding One full-time commercial business inspector has been hired. Funded through solid waste rates.
Technical Assistance Outreach The City contracts with Resource Venture, a program of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, to provide free waste reduction and recycling technical assistance to Seattle businesses.
Links to Sample Mandatory Recycling Ordinances Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority Business and Multifamily Recycling Requirements http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/swa/Documents/Title-IV.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009) San Diego Recycling Ordinance http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter06/Ch06Art06Division07.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009) San Francisco Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/library/sf_universal_recycling__composting_ordinance.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009) Seattle Prohibition of Recyclables in Garbage http://www.seattle.gov/util/stellent/groups/public/@spu/@csb/documents/webcontent/cos_003964.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009)
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
/
City of Dallas
Appendix C
Summary of C&D Ordinances in Alameda County, CA (provided by Stopwaste.org) Jurisdiction
Diversion Requirement
Threshold
Alameda
50% of waste generated
Projects valued at $100,000 or more
Albany
100% of asphalt, concrete and similar material, at least 50%, by weight, of all other C&D Debris generated. 100% of concrete and asphalt, 50% of remaining waste generated (Applicants shall make salvageable materials available for reuse prior to demolition)
Projects valued at $75,000 or more. $25,000 for just demolition projects.
Berkeley
Dublin
All construction or renovation projects valued at $100,000 or greater. All demolition projects.
100% of concrete and Asphalt
Projects valued at $100,000 or more.
50% of remaining waste Generated
Projects valued at $1,000,000 or more require a performance security deposit.
Fremont
100% of concrete and asphalt 50% of remaining waste generated.
Hayward
100% of asphalt, concrete and similar material (dirt, inerts) 50% of remaining waste generated (not inerts)
Construction and renovation projects valued $300,000 or greater (residential, commercial and civic). All demolition projects. Projects valued at $75,000 or more and all City sponsored projects.
Livermore
50% of waste generated
Projects valued at $300,000 for construction or renovation.
Who can haul Local franchise waste hauler - Alameda County Industries (ACI) or Permitee as approved by Public Works Department. Self-haul if materials are loaded onto fixed body vehicle and delivered directly to facilities. Local franchise waste hauler. Self haul for commodities, donated materials or materials hauled by owner or occupant, or its contractor. Mixed debris or source separated materials can be self-hauled to a qualifying mixed C&D facility (identified in the builders guide). Self-haul clean loads to Berkeley transfer station which sorts mixed C&D material, and has discount fee for clean compostable loads unpainted untreated wood, sheetrock, garden trimmings. Contractor, self-haul, or local franchised haulers: City of Berkeley, Biagini Refuse Services, Golden Gate Disposal, Richmond Sanitary, US Eagle, Waste Management & Bayview Refuse. Debris boxes must be from a City of Dublin Pre-Approved Franchisee. Source separated recyclable materials may be removed by licensed transporters. Demolition debris may be removed by a licensed demolition/construction company. Request a list of approved haulers from the City. Anyone can haul. Recycling loads cannot contain more than 10% residual waste, otherwise Allied Waste must haul as Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Strictly MSW boxes must go through Allied Waste. Debris boxes must be from franchise haulerWaste Management of Alameda County (WMAC). Mixed debris or source separated materials can be self-hauled to a qualifying mixed C&D facility (identified in the builders guide). Weight tags are required to be turned in at the end of the project. Open competition.
$40,000 for demolition. $1,000,000+ requires performance security deposit.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas Jurisdiction Newark
Appendix C Diversion Requirement
100% Asphalt and Concrete 50% of remaining waste Generated
Oakland
100% Asphalt and Concrete 65% of remaining waste Generated
Threshold All City or privately owned projects valued at $100,000 or greater. Structure demolition projects greater than $20,000 All new construction, All demolition projects, Commercial projects valued at $50,000 or more.
Piedmont
50% of waste generated
All construction, demolition or renovation valued at $50,000 or more
San Leandro
100% of asphalt, concrete, and similar material.
All construction projects valued at $100,000 or more.
50% of remaining waste generated (not including inerts). Union City
50% of waste generated
Construction and demolition projects valued at $100,000 or more. Residential remodels increasing square footage by 50% or more
Alameda County
Castro Valley Sanitary District
Traditional Public Works projects are required to divert 75% of asphalt, concrete, and similar materials and 50% for remaining C&D materials generated. County Projects must divert 50% of all C&D materials generated. 50% of waste generated
Who can haul
Licensed franchised collector, Waste Management of Alameda County. Source separated C&D may be collected through private arrangements between generator and collector or licensed contractor as part of service or self-haul. The City will provide one-half the cost of debris boxes used exclusively for the purpose of mixed C&D materials removed from the site by the City’s franchised waste hauler for covered projects until funding is exhausted. The contractor/ subcontractors can self-haul; or local franchised waste hauler Alameda County Industries 510-357-7282 or Waste Management of Alameda County 510-6138710; or A cleanup contractor (D63 classification) if doing cleanup work at the site. Allied Waste is the City’s solid waste franchisee and provides collection and debris box services for construction sites. The City issues permits for others to collect and process construction and demolition debris. Permit holders shall only collect construction and demolition debris that has been separated from other solid waste and placed at a designated location for collection.
Construction – County projects and traditional public works projects valued at $100,000 or more. Demolition projects valued at $25,000 or more.
Construction and renovation projects valued at $75,000 or more. Demolition projects totaling an area of 1,000 square feet or more. Small projects do not fall under full enforcement of ordinance, but must still divert at least 50% and either use Waste Management of Alameda County or self-haul.
Franchised hauler, Waste Management of Alameda County or Self-haul by a fixed body vehicle to District-approved site. (sites approved as needed; no list available).
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas Jurisdiction Oro Loma Sanitary District
Appendix C Diversion Requirement
100% of asphalt, concrete, and similar materials. 50% of remaining waste materials generated
Threshold Construction projects valued at $100,000 or more.
Who can haul Self-haul or use debris boxes from District’s franchised waste hauler.
Demolition projects valued at $40,000 or more.
Links to Sample Non-Exclusive C&D Hauling Franchises and C&D Ordinances City of Santa Rosa Non-Exclusive C&D Franchise Agreement http://web1.ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/city_hall/pdf/City_Council/25494attA.pdf (accessed October 15, 2009) City of Palo Alto C&D Ordinance http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=15593 (accessed October 15, 2009) City of Santa Clara Non-Exclusive Industrial Franchise Agreement http://cityclerkdatabase.santaclaraca.gov/pdfCreator/Export.aspx?did=AAAAD051209051026389.DID&db=SCAGEN DA (accessed October 15, 2009)
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas
Appendix D
Appendix D: Acronyms and Definitions
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
City of Dallas
Appendix D This page is intentionally left blank.
Volume II – Local Solid Waste Management Plan February 2013
Acronyms and Definitions Acronyms BOPA
Batteries, Oil, Paint and Antifreeze
BTU
British Thermal Unit
NCTCOG
North Central Texas Council of Governments
C&D
Construction and Demolition Debris
City
City of Dallas
DFW
Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
EPR
Extended Producer Responsibility
ETJ
Extra-Terrestrial Jurisdiction
FY
Fiscal Year (the City’s fiscal year is October 1st to September 30th)
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
HHW
Household Hazardous Waste
MRF
Materials Recovery Facility
MTCE
Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent
MTCO2E
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
PAYT
Pay-As-You-Throw
SWAC
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
TAC
Texas Administrative Code
TCEQ
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly TNRCC)
TNRCC
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now TCEQ)
tpd
Tons per day
tpy
Tons per year
US or U.S.
United States
U.S. EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
WARM
Waste Reduction Model
Definitions Community-based social marketing or social marketing1 Social marketing is the systematic application of marketing, along with other concepts and techniques, to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good. A variation of social marketing has emerged as a systematic way to foster more sustainable behavior. Referred to as Community-Based Social Marketing by Canadian environmental psychologist Doug McKenzie-Mohr, Community-Based Social Marketing strives to change the behavior of communities to reduce their impact on the environment.2 Realizing that simply providing information is usually not sufficient to initiate behavior change, Community-Based Social Marketing uses tools and findings from social psychology to discover the perceived barriers to behavior change and ways of overcoming these barriers. Among the tools and techniques used by Community-Based Social Marketing are focus groups and surveys (to discover barriers) and commitments, prompts, social norms, social diffusion, feedback and incentives (to change behavior). The tools of Community-Based Social Marketing have been used to foster sustainable behavior in many areas, including energy conservation, environmental regulation, and recycling. Compostable Materials Materials, such as yard trimmings, food scraps, and food-soiled paper, which can be aerobically composted and used as a soil amendment. Diversion Waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting activities to divert discarded materials from landfills. Eco-Depots Drop-off facilities for reusable items, recyclables and hard-to-recycle materials, such as carpet, electronics, and batteries, oil, paint and anti-freeze (BOPA materials). Eco-Depots can be co-located with thrift stores, recycling centers, or landfills. Eco-Industrial Park & Eco-Business Park An industrial development where by-products from one manufacturing process can be used at another co-located remanufacturing facility. Can also include siting remanufacturing activities next to processors of recycled materials. Generator Single-family and multifamily residents, commercial and institutional businesses that discard materials for diversion or disposal. Entities that collect materials for diversion or disposal are not considered generators of the collected material.
Definition excerpted from Wikipedia article on “Social Marketing� http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_marketing (accessed February 21, 2011).
1
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531-537.
2
Household Hazardous Waste Leftover household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive ingredients are considered to be “household hazardous waste” or “HHW.” Products such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides that contain potentially hazardous ingredients and require special care when discarded. Legacy Discards Materials that cannot be recycled or composted and have been “designed for the dump.” These materials were designed before Zero Waste systems were in place and will continue to need to be handled through municipal collection programs for many years to come. Materials Recovery Facility A “Materials Recovery Facility” or “MRF” is a facility specifically designed to accept mixed materials, such as recyclables or trash, and separate them into commodities to be sold or further processed. “Clean MRFs” are designed for clean materials, such as recyclables that have been collected from curbside recycling programs. “Dirty MRFs” or “Mixed Materials Processing Facilities” process trash or garbage collected from residential or commercial garbage collection programs. Municipal Solid Waste Municipal Solid Waste is defined at 30 TAC 330.3(88) as: “Solid waste resulting from or incidental to municipal, community, commercial, institutional, and recreational activities, including garbage, rubbish, ashes, street cleanings, dead animals, abandoned automobiles, and all other solid waste other than industrial solid waste.” For purposes of this plan, the term ‘solid waste’ shall mean municipal solid waste. Organics Materials such as yard trimmings, food scraps, and food-soiled paper, which can be aerobically composted and used as a soil amendment. Planning Period The “Planning Period” referenced in the local Solid Waste Management Plan covers the period from 2011through fiscal year 2060. Recyclable Materials Recyclable materials is defined at 30 TAC 330.3(122) as: “A material that has been recovered or diverted from the nonhazardous waste stream for purposes of reuse, recycling, or reclamation, a substantial portion of which is consistently used in the manufacture of products that may otherwise be produced using raw or virgin materials. Recyclable material is not solid waste. However, recyclable material may become solid waste at such time, if any, as it is abandoned or disposed of rather than recycled, whereupon it will be solid waste with respect only to the party actually abandoning or disposing of the material.” Compostable materials are considered recyclable. Resource Recovery Centers Facilities, typically located at transfer stations and landfills where materials that are selfhauled by residents and businesses can be conveniently separated for reuse, recycling and composting. The most comprehensive Resource Recovery Centers have space available for diverting materials into the different Categories of Recyclable Materials.
Zero Waste As defined by the Zero Waste International Alliance, Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical, economical, efficient and visionary, to guide people in changing their lifestyles and practices to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are designed to become resources for others to use. Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health.3
3
Zero Waste International Alliance, Zero Waste Definition, http://www.zwia.org/ (accessed November 3, 2010)
ADDENDUM ITEM # 4
KEY FOCUS AREA:
Economic Vibrancy
AGENDA DATE:
February 27, 2013
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
4
DEPARTMENT:
Sustainable Development and Construction Police
CMO:
Ryan S. Evans, 670-3314 A. C. Gonzalez, 671-8925
MAPSCO:
48E ________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT Authorize a two-year lease agreement with Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center for approximately 2,500 square feet of office space and five parking spaces located at 5351 Samuel Boulevard for the Police Department’s Youth and Family Crimes Division for the period March 1, 2013 through February 28, 2015 – Total not to exceed $98,499 – Financing: Current Funds (subject to annual appropriations) BACKGROUND This item authorizes a lease agreement for approximately 2,500 square feet of office space located at 5351 Samuel Boulevard. This lease will be used for the Police Department’s Youth and Family Crimes Division while working with Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center on child abuse cases. The Child Abuse Unit of Youth and Family Crimes Division uses this facility to address the special needs of victims of child abuse. The facility has been specially designed for this purpose and will continue to be used in this manner. The Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center is relocating to the new building located at 5351 Samuel Boulevard because they outgrew their previous building located at 3611 Swiss Avenue, where the Police Department had leased space since January 1999. The lease will begin on March 1, 2013 through February 28, 2015 for a total of $98,498.40. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) This item has no prior action.
FISCAL INFORMATION $98,498.40 – Current funds (subject to annual appropriations) OWNER Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center Lynn M. Davis, President/CEO MAPS Attached
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 2
COpyright C 2006 MAPSCO . Inc .
Mapsco 48E
OMi
O.13 M;
~ Scale 1 : 8 166
025Mi
I
t R. L. 1hornton Freeway
f7777J rLLLJ 5351
S amuel Blvd.
COUNCIL CHAMBER
February 27, 2013 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager, upon approval as to form by the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement (the “Lease”) between Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center, a nonprofit corporation, or its successor and assigns, as landlord, hereinafter referred to as "Landlord", and the City of Dallas, as tenant, hereinafter referred to as "City" for approximately 2,500 square feet of office space located at 5351 Samuel Boulevard, Dallas, Dallas, County, Texas (“Premises”) to be used by the Police Department’s Youth and Family Crimes Division. SECTION 2. That the special terms and conditions of the lease are: a)
The lease is for a term of two (2) years beginning March 1, 2013 through February 28, 2015.
b)
Monthly rental payments during the term shall be as follows: (subject to annual appropriations): March 1, 2013 – February 28, 2015
$4,104.10 per month
The rental payments shall begin March 1, 2013 (“Rental Commencement Date”). If the Rental Commencement Date is other than the first of the month rent for the resulting partial month shall be prorated by days. c)
The Landlord shall pay all real estate taxes on the Premises during the lease term.
d)
The City shall be responsible for the installation, maintenance and expense of its own telephone, communication and security services to the Premises.
e)
The City shall pay all charges for utilities, janitorial and sanitation services to the Premises during the lease term.
f)
Landlord shall provide a minimum five (5) reserved parking spaces.
g)
The City reserves the right to terminate the lease (i) at its convenience upon 30-days written notice and (ii) on the last day of any current fiscal year due to non-appropriation of funds.
COUNCIL CHAMBER
February 27, 2013 SECTION 3. That the City Controller is hereby authorized to draw warrants payable to Dallas Children's Advocacy Center or its successors and assigns on the first day of each month in advance during the lease term beginning March 1, 2013 in the amounts specified below: March 1, 2013 - February 28, 2015 (subject to annual appropriations)
$4,104.10 per month
SECTION 4. That the payments will be charged as follows: March 1,2013 - September 31,2013: Fund 0001, Dept. DPD, Unit 2163, Object Code 3330, Encumbrance No. DPDLEAS13D11, Commodity Code 97145, Vendor No. 263854. October 1, 2013 - September 31,2014: Fund 0001 , Dept DPD, Unit 2163, Object Code 3330, Encumbrance No. DPDLEAS14A03, Commodity Code 97145,VendorNo.263854. October 1, 2014 - February 28,2015: Fund 0001, Dept DPD, Unit 2163, Object Code 3330, Encumbrance No. DPDLEAS15A03, Commodity Code 97145, Vendor No. 263854. SECTION 5. That the City Controller is hereby authorized to draw warrants payable to the respective telephone, communications and security companies upon receipt of a bill for services or other applicable charges throughout the term of the lease. SECTION 6. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is accordingly so resolved. APPROVED AS TO FORM Thomas P. Perkins Jr., City Attorney
ADDENDUM ITEM # 5
KEY FOCUS AREA:
Economic Vibrancy
AGENDA DATE:
February 27, 2013
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
14
DEPARTMENT:
Sustainable Development and Construction
CMO:
Ryan S. Evans, 670-3314
MAPSCO:
45 F ________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT An ordinance granting a Planned Development District for mixed uses on property zoned Planned Development Subdistrict No. 73 in Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, and a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District – Z123-129 – Financing: No cost consideration to the City BACKGROUND On February 13, 2013, the City Council approved a Planned Development District for mixed uses on property zoned Planned Development Subdistrict No. 73 in Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, and a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District and asked that the ordinance return on the February 27, 2013, agenda. PRIOR ACTION / REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARD, COMMISSIONS) On February 13, 2013, the City Council approved a Planned Development District for mixed uses on property zoned Planned Development Subdistrict No. 73 in Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, and a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District and asked that the ordinance return on the February 27, 2013, agenda. On January 10, 2013, the City Plan Commission approved a Planned Development District for mixed uses on property zoned Planned Development Subdistrict No. 73 in Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, and a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District.
FISCAL INFORMATION No cost consideration to the City MAP Attached.
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 2
---, ~
i
s(.'-~
[};
ct:
s;-
QY
6
(.I).€
.tJ>
0\>;4D ~9 ~~ (1 ,f
,p'l'
\)
1'~
&",~<;, '1-",
'--
f
~~ /
~/""
VICINITY MAP 1:6,000
Case no:
Date:
Z123-129 _-=.:=--=-=:.=......._ 12/26/2012
_
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
(
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 ACM: Ryan S. Evans
FILE NUMBER: Z123-129(MW)
DATE FILED: November 2,2012
LOCATION: East side of McKinney Avenue, between Routh Street and Fairmont Street COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14
MAPSCO: 45-F
SIZE OF REQUEST: Âą1.704 acres
CENSUS TRACT: 17.04
REPRESENTATIVE:
Susan Mead/Jonathan Vinson, Jackson Walker, L.L.P.
APPLICANT:
Pegasus Uptown, L.P.lLG McKinney Limited Partnership
OWNER:
Pegasus Uptown, L.P.
REQUEST:
An application for a Planned Development District for mixed uses on property zoned Planned Development Subdistrict No. 73 in Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, and a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic 'District, with deed restrictions on a portion
SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to develop the request site with a mixed use project consisting of a 50,000 square-foot grocery store with 225 multifamUy units above it. Parking will be provided below grade with separate areas for retail and multifamily residential uses.
c
CPC RECOMMENDATION:
Approval; subject to a development plan, landscape plan and conditions
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval; subject to a development plan, landscape plan and conditions
DESIGNATED ZONING CASE
1
2123-129 (MW) Partners/Principals/Officers:
Pegasus Uptown, L.P.
(
Pegasus Uptown, L.P. Cox Pegasus GP, LLC Justin Cox-CEO Todd Kesterson-President and Treasurer Cindy Wolf-Secretary
c
c 8
Z123-129 (MW)
Partners/Principals/Officers:
o
LG McKinney Limited Partnership
LGMCKINNEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Texas limited partnership
By: Gables NW LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its general partner By: Lion Gables Realty Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, itsmember By: Gables GP, Inc., a Texas corporation, itsgeneral partner
o
lion Gables Realty Limited Partnership isowned by thefollowing: 1%General Partner - Gables GP, lnc., aTexas corporation 98.96% Limited Partner- Lion Gables Residential Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust 0.04% Limited Partner - Markan Villas, lnc., aGeorgia corporation
c) 9
Z123-129 (MW)
e
Gables GP, Inc. Officers Name
!il!ÂŁ
Susan M.Ansel
President and ChiefExecutive Officer
Dawn H. Severt
Philip B. Altschuler
Executive Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer Executive Vice President. and ChiefInvestment Officer Executive VIce PresidentOperations and Assistant Secretary Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary, and Assistant Treasurer Senior Vice President
David K. Reece
Senior Vice President
Joseph G. Wilber
Senior Vice President
Jennifer B. Antos
Vice President
P. Darin Botelho
Vice President
Lynette R, Hegeman
Vice President
Heidi Kormann
Vice President
Robert D.Lamb
Vice President
Rosemary LaPrete
Vice President
Benjamin C. Pisklak Cristlna F. Sullivan Dennis R Rainosek
Address 2650 Cedar Springs Road 8uite800 Dallas, TX75201 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE 8uite600 Atlanta, GA30326 2925 Briarpark Suite 1220 Houston, TX77042 225 N.E. Mizner Blvd. 8uite400 Boca Raton, FL33432 2925 Briarpark Suite 1220 Houston, TX77042 8280 Greensboro Drive Suite 605 Mcl.ean, VA22lQ2 3399 Peachtree Rd., NB Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 225 N.B. Mizner Blvd. Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL33432 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX75201 3399 Peachtree Rd., NB Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX75201 225 N.E. Mizner Blvd. 8ulte400 Boca Raton, FL33432 225 N.E. MIzner Blvd. Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL33432
C
c 10
Z123-129 (MW) Name
(
C
~
Robert K. Presley
Vice President
Gail Ruggles
Vice President
David L Skelton
Vice President
Christopher R. Smurda
Vice President
Donna Summers
Vice Presid~nt
Ashley r. Tewell
Vice President and Assistant Secretary
Pamela A. Wade
Vice President
Julie s. Wilsey
Vice President
Matthew C. Bearden
Regional Vice President
F. Gregory Gasior
Regional Vice President
Jorgen Punda
Regional Viee President
Thomas R. Ryan
Regional Vice President
Tiffany B.Wharton
Regional Vice President
Gables GP,Inc. Directors
C
Name Susan M. Ansel C. Stephen Cordes Brad S.Lebovitz Frank L. Sullivan, Jr. Mark A. Walsh
Title Director Director Director Director Director
11
Address 2925 Briarpark Suite 1220 Houston, TX 77042 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 3399 Peachtree Rd., NESuite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75201 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 7025 West Tidwell Suite 104 Houston, TX 77092 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75201 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 225 N.B. Mizner Blvd. Suite 400 BocaRaton,FL33432 8280 Greensboro Drive Suite 605 Mclean, VA 22102 2925 Briarpark Suite 1220Houston, TX 77042 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75201
(
<
c
pEARLST
.-
c
222 25 5 500' 2/13/2013
Z123-129
CC 1:3,600
Page l ofB 2/1Z120I3
Notification List ofProperty Owners Z123-129 222 Property Owners Notified Vote
Label # Address
25 Property Owners in Favor
Owner
2413
ROUTHST
PEGASUS UPTOWN LP
2
2400
MCKINNEY AVE
PEASE RALPH W & DOROTIN M
3
2500
STATEST
MCBRIDE THOMAS R
0
4
2504
STATEST
NEMEC EDWARD C & PAULA R
0
5
2508
STATEST
PELLETIER GEORGE TRUSTEE
0
6
2321
ROUTHST
PELLETIER GEORGE A
0
7
2315
ROUTHST
ROUTH STREET PARTNERS LLC
0
8
2317
ROUTHST
PELLETIER GEORGE ET AL
0
9
2519
THOMAS AVE ..-
WALKER JOHN NEWTON
10
2517
THOMASST
BAYLESSALVIN KENT &
11
2515
THOMAS AVE
TIMELESS COLLECTABLES INC
12
2509
THOMAS AVE
YLAWLLC
13
2505
THOMAS AVE
5701 MAIN ST LLC
14
2501
THOMAS AVE
5701 MAIN STREET LLC
15
2602
MCKINNEY AVE
UPTOWN ENERGY PARTNERS LP
16
2614
MCKINNEY AVE
J&K REAL ESTATE INV LTD
17
2609
HIBERNIAST
HUMPHRIES JOHN JR
18
2500
ROUTHST
GARZA PPTIES L L C
19
2615
HIBERNIAST
SWIFT DALE MATTHEW
20
2511
BOLLST
FEFERMAN RJOSH
21
2619
HIBERNIAST
EHM PROPERTIES HIBERNIA LLC
22
2600
HIBERNIAST
DOWNTOWN PREGNANCY CENTER
23
2414
ROUTHST
ROUTH COFFEE HOUSE LLC
24
.2604
HIBERNIAST
NICHOLS DOUGLAS R &
25
2608
HIBERNIAST
HARTMAN PRINCELLA
26
2614
HIBERNIAST
SMITH STEPHEN S & MARLA F
0
X
0
0
0
X
-
5 Property Owners Opposed
1
-,
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
0
="=='"
0
0
Vote
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
Owner
Label # Address 58
2508
MAPLE AVE
RESTAURANT & BAR ARTHUR S
59
2603
FAIRMOUNT ST
2603 FAIRMOUNT INVESTORS
60
2711
ROUTHST
PEGASUS FOUNDATION THE
61
2707
ROUTHST
TURTLE CREEK MANOR INC
62
2533
MCKINNEY AVE
OR ASSET HOLDINGS LP
63
2520
FAIRMOUNTST
W J FAIRMOUNT LP
64
2600
FAIRMOUNTST
STARK JERRY COMPANIES INC
65
2615
ROUTHST
VILLANUEVA MARIA &
66
2530
FAIRMOUNT ST
KORNYE GEORGE W &
67
2512
MAHONST
GINSBURG BROOKE MINORS
68
2518
MAHONST
BABYROUTH INC
69
2518
MAHONST
CHARTER 2700 FAIRMOUNT LP
70
2604
FAIRMOUNT ST
SMITH SHARON HAYSLIP &
71
2701
MCKINNEY AVE
STORY HERBERT B JR
72
2619
MCKINNEY AVE
XL CAPITAL LLC
73
2703
BOLLST
OGLE LINDAKET AL
74
2704
ROUTHST
MARTIN INV LP
75
2621
MCKINNEY AVE
BLACI<FRIARPROPERTY LLC
76
2633
MCKINNEY AVE
2633 MCKINNEY AVE LLC
77
2324
MCKINNEY AVE
MAPLE AND MCKINNEY LP
78
2222
MCKINNEY AVE
AMREIT UPTOWN DALLAS LP
79
2212
MCKINNEY AVE
ALH PPTIES NO EIGHTEEN LP
80
2332
LEONARDST
GIVENS RECORDS DEV LP
81
2309
BOLLST
ALLMILAND LTD
82
2600
STATEST
2600 STATE INVESTORS
83
2711
HIBERNIAST
DUNAWAY DIANE
84
100
CRESCENTCT
CRESCENT TC INVESTORS LP
85
2401
MCKINNEY AVE
ELK FINANCIAL INC
86
2512
MAPLE AVE
HEIDARIALI
87
2515
MCKINNEY AVE
CHATEAU PLAZA HOLDINGS LP
88
2708
ROUTHST
~SROUTHSTPARTNERSLLC
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
•
0
0
-
0
Vote
Label # Address
Owner
120
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
JORDAN TOMMY S
121
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
GALLMAN ROBERT & LAURA
122
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
ENGELMANN HOLLY
123
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
MOLINAS FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST
124
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
MCGARRY JOHN
125
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
DUGGINS JAMES L
126
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
HAMMER STEVEN
127
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
STROHBEHNTHOMAS M
128
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
CORONADO NATASHA M &
129
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
PHILPOT RICHARD THOMAS III
130
2305
WORTHINGTONST
ESTES Sf EVEN &
131
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
NITTIES JAMES E
132
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
NEHLS CAROLINE E
133
2305
WORTHINGTONST
DYMOTT JEAN ANN
134
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
SMITH R BARCLAY
135
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
KNOXJAMESD
136
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
MCKEE AMY
137
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
GURMENDI LEXA
138
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
DHARAMSI FARID & JENNIFER
139
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
NARULA MONICA & RAJ
140
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
MARTIN MARSHA F
141
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
BERTHOUD CLAUDE M
142
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
HAAGBETTYJ
143
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
STENZLER ZACHARYR
144
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
TIllBODEAU JENNIFER A
145
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
REESE CLARK D
146
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
PETERS KORT J JR
147
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
ROBERTSON TOM M &
148
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
NGUYENNGA
149
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
RAMAN SWAMINATHAN V & VASANTHl
150
2305
WORTHINGTON Sf
MACDONALD HEATHER M
0
0
,?~
0 Tuesday, February 12,2013
Vote
-
Label # Address
Owner
182
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
OLIVER JODIE W
183
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
FRANCIS JOHN WTR &
184
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
HERNANDEZ RUBEN M
185
2305
WORTHINGTONST
SLAVIN CLAUDIA C
186
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
SECHRIEST WALTER S
187
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
GARDNER WILLIAM
188
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
KIESCHNICK BYFASS TRUST
189
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
RIGBY AARON
190
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
CUPPLES DORIS KATHLEEN
191
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
CHLOES CASTLES LP
192
2300
LEONARDST
GOSTANIAN RAFFI J
193
2300
LEONARDST
KELLY JOSEPH T & BONNIE L
194
2300
LEONARDST
RUBDOWNLLC
195
2300
LEONARDST
BONNEVILLE LP
196
2300
LEONARDST
BOSWELL MARKS
197
2300
LEONARDST
VERSES SOCRATES & JUDY
198
2300
LEONARDST
RANDALLPAMELAG
199
2300
LEONARDST
AIELLO ROBERT
200
2300
LEONARDST
GLOGAU ALEXANDER I
201
2300
LEONARDST
LABEN GARY S &
202
2300
LEONARDST
EDUCATIONAL DEV GROUP
203
2300
LEONARDST
TAUSCHERJOSEPHW
204
2300
LEONARDST
WARNER WILLIAM JAMES TRUSTEE
205
2300
LEONARDST
VELIZJOSEG
206
2300
LEONARDST
BERARDUCCI BRENT A
207
2300
LEONARDST
DMP DALCON LLC
208
2300
LEONARDST
HAJDUSIEWICZ NICK
209
2300
LEONARDST
DON A KARCHMER REVOCABLE TRUST
210
2300
LEONARDST
BUESCHER AMBER R
211
2300
LEONARDST
KIM DANIEL J
212
2300
LEONARDST
REMSEN LARRYM
,....,,.......
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
"
0
0
0
Vote
(
Owner
Label # Address 213
2300
LEONARDST
PK PPTIES LLC
214
2300
LEONARDST
GREESONJONMJR
215
2300
LEONARDST
SELL STEPHEN G
216
2300
LEONARDST
SCIOLIVANCEJJR
217
2300
LEONARDST
BARWEL PARTNERS LP
218
2300
LEONARDST
HAAS MARK L TRUSTEE
219
2300
LEONARDST
AREFI GINO R
220
2300
LEONARDST
POWELL DAVID G
221
2300
LEONARDST
DALLAS METRO CLUB LLC
222
2300
LEONARDST
GIVEN CHARLES S
c
c, Tuesday, February 12,2013
....
............
ADDENDUM ITEM # 6
KEY FOCUS AREA:
Economic Vibrancy
AGENDA DATE:
February 27, 2013
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
14
DEPARTMENT:
Sustainable Development and Construction
CMO:
Ryan S. Evans, 670-3314
MAPSCO:
45 F ________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT An ordinance granting a new subdistrict, a resolution accepting deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant, and a resolution accepting the termination of existing deed restrictions on property zoned a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District on the northwest side of State Street, between Routh Street and Fairmount Street â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Z123-130 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Financing: No cost consideration to the City BACKGROUND On February 13, 2013, the City Council approved a new subdistrict, deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant, and the termination of existing deed restrictions on property zoned a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District on the northwest side of State Street, between Routh Street and Fairmount Street and asked that the ordinance and deed restriction instruments return on the February 27, 2013, agenda. PRIOR ACTION / REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARD, COMMISSION On February 13, 2013, the City Council approved a new subdistrict, deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant, and the termination of existing deed restrictions on property zoned a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District on the northwest side of State Street, between Routh Street and Fairmount Street and asked that the ordinance and deed restriction instruments return on the February 27, 2013, agenda.
PRIOR ACTION / REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARD, COMMISSION (CONTINUED) On January 10, 2013, the City Plan Commission approved a new subdistrict and the termination of existing deed restrictions on property zoned a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District on the northwest side of State Street, between Routh Street and Fairmount Street. FISCAL INFORMATION No cost consideration to the City MAP Attached.
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 2
Z123-130(MW)
(
c
VICINITY MAP 1:6,000
Z123-130 12/26/2012
•• 26
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
(
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13,2013 ACM: Ryan S. Evans
FILE NUMBER: Z123-130(MW)
DATE FILED: November 2,2012
LOCATION: Northwest side of State Street, between Routh Street and Fairmount Street COUNCIL DISTRICT: 14
MAPSCO: 45-F
SIZE OF REQUEST: ±1.264 acres
CENSUS TRACT: 17.04 ~ ... _..-.-."7">-"""-;
c
c
"'-
•.•
REPRESENTATIVE:
Susan Mead/Jonathan Vinson, Jackson Walker, L.L.P.
APPLICANT:
Pegasus Uptown, L.P.lLG McKinney Limited Partnership
OWNER:
Pegasus Uptown.Lj>,
REQUEST:
An application to terminate deed restrictions and for a new subdistrict on property zoned a Historic Transition Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 225, the State-Thomas Special Purpose District with Historic Overlay District No. 25, the State Thomas Historic District, with deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant.
SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to develop the request site with 24 townhouse-style multifamily units. The applicant proposes to terminate the existing deed restrictions, which require the request site to remain as open space, but has volunteered new deed restrictions to' ensure a ±0.043-acre open space tract on the east corner of the request site. The applicant does not propose to amend the State Thomas Historic District preservation criteria.
CPCRECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the termination of deed restrictions and approval of a new subdistrict; subject to a development plan, landscape plan and conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the termination of deed restrictions and approval of a new subdistrict; subject to a development plan, landscape plan and conditions.
DESIGNATED ZONING CASE
1
Z123-130(MW)
c
Partners/Principals/Officers:
LG McKinney Limited Partnership
LOMCKINNEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Texas limited partnership
By: Gables NW LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, itsgeneral partner By: Lion Gables Realty Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, itsmember By: Gables GP, Inc" a Texas corporation, itsgeneral partner
Lion Gables Realty Limited Partnership Isowned bythe following: 1% General Partner - Gables GP, Inc" aTexas corporation 98.96% Limited Partner - Lion Gables Residential Trust, a Maryland rea I estate investment trust 0.04% Limited Partner - Markan Villas, lnc., aGeorgia corporation
( 9
Z123-130(MW)
()
Gables GP, Inc. Officers
Nams
Title
Susan M.Ansel
President and ChiefExecutive Officer
DawnH. Severt
Philip E. Altschuler
Executive Vice President, CbiefFmancialOfficer, Secretary and Treasurer Executive Vice President and CbiefInvestment Officer Executive Vice PresidentOperations and Assistant Secretary Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary, and Assistant Treasurer Senior Vice President
David K.Reece
Senior Vice President
Joseph G. Wilber
Senior Vice President
Jennifer B. Antos
Vice President
P. Darin Botelho
Vice President
Lynette R, Hegeman
Vice President
Heidi Kormann
Vice President
Robert D. Lamb
Vice President
Rosemary LaPrete
Vice President
Benjamin C.PisklakCristina F. Sullivan Dennis E. Rainosek
Address
2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TIC 75201 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 2925 Briarpark Suite 1220 Houston, TX77042 225 N.E. Mizner Blvd. Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL33432 2925 Briarpark Suite 1220 Houston, TIC 77042 8280 Greensboro Drive Suite 605 McLean, VA22102 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 225 N.E. Mizner Blvd. Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL33432 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX75201 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, 75201 225 N.B. Mizner Blvd. Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL33432 225N.E. Mizner Blvd. Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL33432
0
rx
o 10
Z123-130(MW)
Name
C
C
~
Robert K Presley
Vice President
Gail Ruggles
Vice President
David 1. Skelton
Vlee President
Christopher R. Smnrda
Vice President
Donna Summers
Vice President
Ashley LTewell
Vice President and Assistant Secretary
Pamela A. Wade
Vice President
Julie S.Wilsey
Vice President
Matthew C. Bearden
Regional Vice President
F. Gregory Gasior
Regional Vice President
Jorgen Punda
Regional Vice President
Thomas R. Ryan
Regional Vice President
Tiffany B.Wharton
Regional Vice President
Gablea GP.Inc. Directors
C
~ Susan M. Ansel C. Stephen Cordes Brad S.Lebovitz Frank L. Sullivan, Jr. Mark A.Walsh
Title Director Director Director Director Director
11
Address 2925 Brlarpark Suite 1220 Houston, TX 77042 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 3399 Peachtree Rd., 1lE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75201 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 7025 West Tidwell Suite 104 Houston, TX 77092 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75201 3399 Peachtree Rd., NE Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30326 225 N.B. Mizner Blvd. Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33432 8280 Greensboro Drive Suite 605 McLean, VA 22102 2925 Briarpark Suite 1220 Houston, TX 77042 2650 Cedar Springs Road Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75201
(
c 78
66
66
/ 214 16 6 500' 2/13/2013
Property Owners Notified (107 parcels) Replies in Favor (27 parcels) Replies in Opposition (6 parcels) Area of Notification Date
Z123-130 CC
1:2,400
Pagel 0/8 211212013
Notification List ofProperty Owners Z123-130 6 Property Owners Opposed
214 Property Owners Notified Vote
Label # Address
16 Property Owners in Favor
Owner
1
2413
ROUTHST
PEGASUS UPTOWN LP
2
2400
MCKINNEY AVE
PEASE RALPH W & DOROTHYM
3
2500
STATEST
MCBRIDE THOMAS R
0
4
2504
STATEST
NEMEC EDWARD C & PAULA R
0
5
2508
STATEST
PELLETIER GEORGE TRUSTEE
0
6
2321
ROUTHST
PELLETIER GEORGE A
7
2315
ROUTHST
ROUTH STREET PARTNERS LLC
0
8
2317
ROUTHST
PELLETIER GEORGE ET AL
0
9
2519
THOMAS AVE
WALKER JOHN NEWTON
10
2517
THOMASST
BAYLESS ALVIN KENT &
11
2515
THOMAS AVE
TIMELESS COLLECTABLES INC
12
2509
THOMAS AVE
YLAWLLC
13
2505
THOMAS AVE
5701 MAIN ST LLC
14
2501
THOMAS AVE
5701 MAIN STREET LLC
15
2512
THOMAS AVE
HEARST JUDITH SMITH
16
2516
THOMASST
OTTO PHYLUS ELAINE
17
2602
MCKINNEY AVE
UPTOWN ENERGY PARTNERS LP
18
2614
MCKINNEY AVE
J&KREAL ESTATE INV LTD
19
2609
HIBERNIAST
HUMPHRIES JOHN JR
20
2500
ROUTHST
GARZA PPTIES L L C
21
2615
HIBERNIAST
SWIFT DALE MATTHEW
22
2511
BOLLST
FEFERMAN RJOSH
23
2619
HIBERNIAST
EHM PROPERTIES HIBERNIA LLC
24
2600
HIBERNIAST
DOWNTOWN PREGNANCY ~
25
. 2414
ROUTHST
ROUTH COFFEE HOUSE LLC
26
2604
HIBERNIAST
NICHOLS DOUGLAS R &
0
X
X
0
'0
Tues.ay, February12, 2013
(J
=
-
0
0
Vote X
Label # Address
Ownel'
27
2608
IDBERNIAST
HARTMAN PRINCELLA
28
2614
IDBERNIAST
SMITH STEPHEN S & MARLA F
29
2616
IDBERNIAST
STAR B PROPERTIES LLC
30
2508
BOLLST
HUMPHRIES JOHN F JR
31
2415
BOLLST
SIMS LEON
32
2601
STATEST
KIRVEN JOE
0
33
2607
STATEST
ARMSTRONG BERGER
0
34
2611
STATEST
ARMSTRONG BERGER PARTNERS
35
2615
STATEST
PETERS PAULINE &
36
2621
STATEST
PASCAL ENTERPRISES INC
0
37
2606
STATEST
ALLMILAND LTD
0
38
2610
STATEST
GRAGERT AMY
X
39
2608
STATEST
PRAEGERLAURENCEJ&
40
2616
STATEST
SIMS ELLA M
41
2620
STATEST
MCKNIGHT MARY D
42
2605
THOMAS AVE
BLACK DALLAS REMEMBERED
43
2609
THOMAS AVE
WEST OLIN
44
2613
THOMAS AVE
THOMAS ST PARTNERSHIP
45
2617
THOMAS AVE
BARNEY & DAVID LTD
X
46
2600
THOMAS AVE
LAWSONYOLANDAR
0
47
2604
THOMAS AVE
THOMAS AVENUE TOWNHOMES
0
48
2608
THOMAS AVE
THOMAS AVE TOWNHOMES LTD
49
2612
THOMAS AVE
IONA PROPERTIES
50
2616
THOMAS AVE
2616 THOMAS PARTNERS LP
51
2514
BOLLST
AJP PROPERTIES
52
2701
HIBERNIAST
FINCHMARKM
53
2706
HIBERNIAST
MYSLIWY ALLffi RAYMOND &
54
2700
HIBERNIAST
HUMPHRIES JOHN F
55
2410
BOLLST
ADA CAPITAL LTD
56
2707
STATEST
MEADOWS CURTIS WJR &
57
2507
FAIRMOUNTST
MURPHYPLAZALLC
(
X
C
0
( Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Vote
0
Label # Address
Owner
58
2515
FAIRMOUNT ST
MURPHY PLAZA LLC
59
2517
FAIRMOUNT ST
COLUE GRIFFIN W &
60
2504
MAPLE AVE
PASHA & SJNA INC
61
2508
MAPLE AVE
RESTAURANT & BAR ARTHUR S
62
2533
MCKINNEY AVE
OR ASSET HOLDINGS LP
63
2520
FAIRMOUNTST
W JFAIRMOUNT LP
64
2619
MCKINNEY AVE
XL CAPITAL LLC
65
2324
MCKINNEY AVE
MAPLE AND MCKINNEYL P
66
2222
MCKINNEY AVE
AMREIT UPTOWN DALLAS LP
67
2212
MCKINNEY AVE
AU! PPTIES NO EIGHTEEN LP
68
2200
PEARLST
FED RESERVE BK OF DALLAS
69
2400
THOMAS AVE
STATE THOMAS APT LP &
70
2502
THOMAS AVE
STATE THOMAS APARTMENTS 7
71
2504
THOMAS AVE
STATE THOMAS APARTMENTS &
72
2510
THOMAS AVE
STATE THOMAS APARTMENTS
73
2332
LEONARDST
GIVENS RECORDS DEV LP
74
2309
BOLLST
ALLMILAND LTD
75
2625
THOMASST
GUM ROY & TERRI
76
2600
STATEST
2600 STATE INVESTORS
77
2618
THOMAS AVE
ADAMS THOMAS P
78
100
CRESCENTCT
CRESCENT TC INVESTORS LP
79
2401
MCKINNEY AVE
ELK FINANCIAL INC
80
2515
MCKINNEY AVE
CHATEAU PLAZA HOLDINGS LP
81
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
GALKE BRIAN R
82
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
BUSTOS RANDOLPH
83
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
MAHDISYEDJ & NAGEEN FATIMA
84
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
COBLE ROBERT MCLEAN ill
85
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
BRANT ELIZABETH JUNE &
86
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
ElSELTDBRYAN
87
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
KAILERALAN &
88
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
WHITE NATAUA
,
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
0
0
0
Vote
Label # Address
Owner
120
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
CORONADO NATASHA M &
121
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
PHILPOT RICHARD THOMAS III
122
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
ESTES STEVEN &
123
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
NITrIES JAMES E
124
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
NEHLS CAROLINE E
125
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
DYMOTT JEAN ANN
126
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
SMITHR BARCLAY
127
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
KNOXJAMESD
128
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
MCKEE AMY
129
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
GURMENDI LEXA
130
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
DHARAMSI FARID & JENNIFER
131
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
NARULA MONICA & RAJ
132
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
MARTIN MARSHA F
133
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
BERTHOUD CLAUDE M
134
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
HAAGBETTYJ
135
2305
WORTHINGTONST
STENZLER ZACHARY R
136
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
THIBODEAU JENNIFER A
137
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
REESE CLARK D
138
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
PETERS KORT J JR
139
2305
WORTHINGTONST
ROBERTSON TOM M &
140
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
NGUYENNGA
141
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
RAMAN SWAMINATHAN V & VASANTHI
142
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
MACDONALD HEATHERM
143
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
DECKER MARK
144
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
HAYS AMARYLUS
145
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
DURAN LEONARD & LYNDA L
146
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
NORTHROP KARL S
147
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
GEORGE MARGARET E
148
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
MITTAKANTI KRITHIKA
149
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
WRIGHT TRAVIS
150
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
ARNOLD BRIAN
Tuesday, February 12,2013
-
-
0
0
"""
•
0
Vote
Owner
Label # Address 182
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
CUPPLES DORIS KATHLEEN
183
2305
WORTHINGTON ST
CHLOES CASTLES LP
184
2300
LEONARDST
GOSTANIAN RAFFI J
185
2300
LEONARDST
KELLYJOSEPH T & BONNIE L
186
2300
LEONARDST
RUBDOWNLLC
187
2300
LEONARDST
BONNEVILLE LP
188
2300
LEONARDST
BOSWELL MARK S
189
2300
LEONARDST
VERSESSOCRATES & JUDY
190
2300
LEONARDST
RANDALLPAMELAG
191
2300
LEONARDST
AIELLO ROBERT
192
2300
LEONARDST
GLOGAU ALEXANDER I
193
2300
LEONARDST
LABEN GARY S &
194
2300
LEONARDST
EDUCATIONAL DEV GROUP
195
2300
LEONARDST
TAUSCHERJOSEPHW
196
2300
LEONARDST
WARNER WILLIAM JAMES TRUSTEE
197
2300
LEONARDST
VEUZJOSEG
198
2300
LEONARDST
BERARDUCCI BRENT A
199
2300
LEONARDST
DMP DALCONLLC
200
2300
LEONARDST
HAJDUSIEWlCZ NICK
201
2300
LEONARDST
DON AKARCHMER REVOCABLE TRUST
202
2300
LEONARDST
BUESCHER AMBER R
203
2300
LEONARDST
KlMDANIELJ
204
2300
LEONARDST
REMSEN LARRY M
205
2300
LEONARDST
PKPPTIESLLC
206
2300
LEONARDST
GREESONJON MJR
207
2300
LEONARDST
SELL STEPHEN G
208
2300
LEONARDST
SCIOLIVANCEJJR
209
2300
LEONARDST
BARWEL PARTNERS LP
210
2300
LEONARDST
HAAS MARK L TRUSTEE
211
2300
LEONARDST
AREFIGINOR
212
2300
LEONARDST
POWELL DAVID G
0
0
0 Tuesday, February 12,2013
Vote
c
Label # Address
Owner
213
2300
LEONARDST
DALLAS METRO CLUB LLC
214
2300
LEONARDST
GWEN CHARLES S
c
Tuesday, February 12,2013
ADDENDUM ITEM # 7
KEY FOCUS AREA:
Economic Vibrancy
AGENDA DATE:
February 27, 2013
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
1
DEPARTMENT:
Sustainable Development and Construction
CMO:
Ryan S. Evans, 670-3314
MAPSCO:
54D ________________________________________________________________
SUBJECT An ordinance abandoning a portion of Neely Street to Dallas County Schools, the abutting owner, containing approximately 17,005 square feet of land located near its intersection with Zang Boulevard â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Revenue: $170,000 plus the $20 ordinance publication fee BACKGROUND This item authorizes the abandonment of a portion of Neely Street to Dallas County Schools, the abutting owner. The area will be included with the property of the abutting owner for the expansion of employee and visitor parking. The abandonment fee is based on an independent appraisal. Notices were sent to 35 property owners located within 300 feet of the proposed abandonment area. There were no responses received in opposition to this request. PRIOR ACTION /REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) This item has no prior action. FISCAL INFORMATION Revenue: $170,000, plus the $20 ordinance publication fee OWNER Dallas County Schools Dr. Rick Sorrells, Superintendent
MAPS Attached
Agenda Date 02/27/2013 - page 2
copyright© 2006 MAPSCO, Inc
540 Scale 1 : 16332
C/3369
Neely Stres
Neely Street
N
OJ
::J
o';1\
l:l)
CD
(Q
CD
OJ
'<
< 0..
Âť < CD
8/3368
Davis Street
, _ _ = Abandonment Area
ORDINANCE NO.______________ An ordinance providing for the abandonment of a portion of Neely Street located adjacent to City Blocks B/3368 and C/3369 in the City of Dallas and County of Dallas, Texas; providing for the quitclaim thereof to Dallas County Schools; providing for the terms and conditions of the abandonment and quitclaim made herein; providing for the barricading; providing for the indemnification of the City of Dallas against damages arising out of the abandonment herein; providing for the consideration to be paid to the City of Dallas; providing for the payment of the publication fee; and providing an effective date for this ordinance. ooo0ooo WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dallas, acting pursuant to law and upon the request and petition of Dallas County Schools, a County school district, hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE, deems it advisable to abandon and quitclaim the hereinafter described tract of land to GRANTEE, and is of the opinion that, subject to the terms and conditions herein provided, said portion of Neely Street is not needed for public use, and same should be abandoned and quitclaimed to GRANTEE, as hereinafter stated; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dallas is of the opinion that the best interest and welfare of the public will be served by abandoning and quitclaiming the same to GRANTEE for the consideration and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter more fully set forth; Now, Therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: SECTION 1. That the tract of land described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes, be and the same is abandoned, vacated and closed insofar as the right, title and interest of the public are concerned; subject, however, to the conditions hereinafter more fully set out.
GM/38205
1
SECTION 2. That for and in monetary consideration of the sum of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($170,000.00) DOLLARS paid by GRANTEE, and the further consideration described in Sections 8, 9 and 10, the City of Dallas does by these presents FOREVER QUITCLAIM unto the said GRANTEE, subject to the conditions, reservations, and exceptions hereinafter made and with the restrictions and upon the covenants below stated, all of its right, title and interest in and to the certain tract of land hereinabove described in Exhibit A. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all of such right, title and interest in and to the property and premises, subject aforesaid, together with all and singular the rights, privileges, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto in any manner belonging unto the said GRANTEE forever. SECTION 3. That upon payment of the monetary consideration set forth in Section 2, GRANTEE accepts the terms, provisions, and conditions of this ordinance. SECTION 4.
That the City Controller is authorized to deposit the sum paid by
GRANTEE pursuant to Section 2 above in the General Fund 0001, Department DEV, Balance Sheet 0519 and Department of Sustainable Development and Construction â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Real Estate Division shall be reimbursed for the cost of obtaining the legal description, appraisal and other administrative costs incurred. The reimbursement proceeds shall be deposited in General Fund 0001, Department DEV, Unit 1183, Object 5011 and any remaining proceeds shall be transferred to the General Capital Reserve Fund 0625, Department BMS, Unit 8888, Revenue Source 8416. SECTION 5. That the abandonment and quitclaim provided for herein are made subject to all present zoning and deed restrictions, if the latter exist, and are subject to all existing easement rights of others, if any, whether apparent or non-apparent, aerial, surface, underground or otherwise, and are further subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes. SECTION 6. That the terms and conditions contained in this ordinance shall be binding upon GRANTEE, its successors and assigns. SECTION 7. That the abandonment and quitclaim provided for herein shall extend only to the public right, title, easement and interest, and shall be construed to extend only to that interest the Governing Body of the City of Dallas may legally and lawfully abandon and vacate.
GM/38205
2
SECTION 8. That as a condition of this abandonment and as part of the consideration for the quitclaim to GRANTEE herein, GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, agree to indemnify, defend, release and hold whole and harmless the City of Dallas of, from and against any and all claims for damages, fines, penalties, costs or expenses to persons or property that may arise out of, or be occasioned by or from:
(i) the use and
occupancy of the property described in Exhibit A by GRANTEE, its successors and assigns; (ii) the presence, generation, spillage, discharge, release, treatment or disposition of any Hazardous Substance on or affecting the area set out in Exhibit A; (iii) all corrective actions concerning any discovered Hazardous Substances on or affecting the area described in Exhibit A, which GRANTEE, its successors and assigns agree to undertake and complete in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations; and (iv) the abandonment, closing, vacation and quitclaim by the City of Dallas of the area set out in Exhibit A. GRANTEE, its successors and assigns hereby agree to defend any and all suits, claims, or causes of action brought against the City of Dallas on account of same, and discharge any judgment or judgments that may be rendered against the City of Dallas in connection therewith. For purposes hereof, “ Hazardous Substance” means the following: (a) any “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq., as amended; (b) any “hazardous substance” under the Texas Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Control Act, TEX. WATER CODE, Section 26.261 et seq., as amended; (c) petroleum or petroleum-based products (or any derivative or hazardous constituents thereof or additives thereto), including without limitation, fuel and lubricating oils; (d) any “hazardous chemicals” or “toxic chemicals” under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 651 et seq., as amended; (e) any “hazardous waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq., as amended; and (f) any “chemical substance” under the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq., as amended. References to particular acts or codifications in this definition include all past and future amendments thereto, as well as applicable rules and regulations as now or hereafter promulgated thereunder.
GM/38205
3
SECTION 9.
That as a condition of this abandonment and as a part of the
consideration for the quitclaim made herein, GRANTEE shall file a final replat of the adjoining properties prior to the issuance of any building permits affecting the tract of land abandoned and quitclaimed herein.
This final replat shall be recorded by
GRANTEE in the official real property records of the county in which the abandoned area is located after its approval by the City Plan Commission of the City of Dallas. SECTION 10.
That as a condition of this abandonment and as a part of the
consideration for the quitclaim made herein, GRANTEE shall, immediately upon the passage of this ordinance, close, barricade and/or place signs in the area described in Exhibit A in accordance with detailed plans approved by the Director of Department of Sustainable Development and Construction. GRANTEEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibility for keeping the area described in Exhibit A closed, barricaded and/or the signs in place shall continue until the street improvements and intersection returns are removed by GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, to the satisfaction of the Director of Department Sustainable Development and Construction. SECTION 11. That the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance for recordation in the official real property records of the county in which the abandonment area is located, which certified copy shall be delivered to the Director of Department of Sustainable Development and Construction, or designee. Upon receipt of the monetary consideration set forth in Section 2, plus the fee for the publishing of this ordinance, which GRANTEE shall likewise pay, and the filing of the final replat set forth in Section 9, the Director of Department of Sustainable Development and Construction, or designee: (i) shall deliver to GRANTEE a certified copy of this ordinance; and (ii) is authorized to and shall prepare and deliver a QUITCLAIM DEED with regard to the area abandoned herein, to GRANTEE hereunder, same to be executed by the City Manager on behalf of the City of Dallas, attested by the City Secretary and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
The Director of
Department of Sustainable Development and Construction, or designee, shall be the sole source for receiving certified copies of this ordinance for one year after its passage.
GM/38205
4
SECTION 12.
That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its
passage and publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is accordingly so ordained.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: THOMAS P. PERKINS, JR. City Attorney
By
THERESA O'DONNELL Director of Department of Sustainable Development and Construction
_
Assistant City Attorney
Passed
-------------
GM/38205
5
EXHt"B'l STREET ABANDONMENT ZANG'S CRYSTAL HILL ADDITION ADJACENT TO BLOCK B/3368 BEING A 17,005 SQUARE FOOT TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE G.S.C. LEONARD SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 780 AND ALSO BEING IN THE ZANG'S CRYSTAL HILL ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME I, PAGE 75 OF THE MAP RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING DEDICATED AND CREATED AS NEELY STREET (60' RIGHT-OF-WAY) BY SAID ZANG'S CRYSTAL HILL ADDITION ALONG WITH A 10' X 10' DEDICATION CREATED BY DCS ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING ON ZANG, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AS RECORDED UNDER INSTRUMENT NUMBER 201100266127, OFFICAL PUBLIC RECORDS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT Y2" IRON PIPE SET WITH RED CAP STAMPED RPLS #1722, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL TRUSTEES TRACT OF LAND AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 80248, PAGE 1523, DEED RECORDS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK B/3368 OF SAID ZANG'S CRYSTAL HILL ADDITION AND ALSO BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF ZANG BOULEVARD (115' RIGHT-OF-WAY) AND THE SOUTH LINE OF NEELY STREET (60' RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE NOoo08' I I"E WITH THE EAST LINE OF ZANG BOULEVARD, 70.00' TO A W' IRON ROD FOUND WITH SILVER CAP STAMPED RPLS #5632 AT THE NORTH CORNER OF A 10' X 10' CORNER CLIP DEDICATION FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID DCS ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING ON ZANG ADDITION AND ALSO BEING A SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT I A, BLOCK C/3369 OF SAID ADDITION; THENCE S45째00'00"E WITH SAID CORNER CLIP AND SAID LOT lA, BLOCK C/3369, 14.14' TO A W' IRON ROD FOUND WITH SILVER CAP STAMPED #5632 ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NEELY STREET AND ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT lA, BLOCK C/3369; THENCE N89째52'00"E WITH SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT lA, BLOCK C/3369 AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NEELY STREET, PASSING AT 142.50' THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT lA, BLOCK C/3369 AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND TO DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS RECORDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 201200006436, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND CONTINUING A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 271.74' TO A Yo" IRON ROD FOUND AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS TRACT (201200006436) AND ALSO BEING ON THE WEST RIGHTOF-WAY LINE OF BECKLEY AVENUE (60' R.O.W.); THENCE SOoo39'08"E WITH SAID WEST LINE OF BECKLEY AVENUE, 60.20' TO A Yo" IRON ROD FOUND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK B/3368 OF SAID ZANG'S CRYSTAL HILL ADDITION AND ALSO BEING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NEELY STREET; THENCE S89째54'37"W WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NEELY STREET AND PASSING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5 AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK B/3368 OF SAID ZANG'S CRYSTAL HILL ADDITION AT 130' AND CONTINUING A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 282.59' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 17,005 SQUARE FEET OR 0.390 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
BASIS OF BEARING IS THE NORTH LINE OF DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL TRUSTEES TRACT S89째54'37"W AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 80248, PAGE 1523, D.R.D.C.T..
JIMMY W. POGUE, INC. LAND SURVEYOR 3510 MARVIN D. LOVE DALLAS, TX 75224
eM I' IPF
100
-I
60' R.o."'.
L{-
..... co ..... 0
r-,
r-,
~<Sn..r::::,
C\J
~
d
z dz
\D
(Y) (Y)
r-: r-:
(/)
LOT
<,
~
<[
3
<[
(/) ~
<[
r-,
~
co 0'
U 0 -.J
'<t
(Y)
LOT
C.M. CONTROLLING MoNUMEN INST. NO. INSTRUMENT NUMBER IRF
IRON ROD FOUND
IPF
IRON PIPE FOUND
IPS R.C.
IRON PIPE SET "'ITH RED CAP
S.C.
SILVER CAP STAMPED 'RPLS 5632'
M.R.D.C.T.
7
~
D.R.D.C.T.
LOT 8
LOT
.... L()
1
<' ".> ~"
.> .---''/0.
BASIS OF BEARING IS THE NORTH LINE OF DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL TRUSTEES TRACT S89'54'37'''' AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 80248 PAGE 1523 D.R.D.C.T.
"-.0 132.30'
A.
MAP RECORDS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEED RECORDS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
P.o.B.
POINT OF BEGINNING
R.o."'.
RIGHT-oF-"'AY
VOL. PG.
30'
95'
--:'""""~",..,.._-..L-----=!.~----I,
DAVIS STREET
'Registered Professiono.l Lo.nd Surveyors' 3510 Mo.rvin Love F'rE.'E.'wo.y (214) Do.llo.s, TE.'xo.sD. 75224 (214) 371-0666 371-9900 V~Oi~CE.'~_-=:st-:;;::.~~:=-!::.~:;"_=::;':S~ F' JiMMy"'. Pogue R.P.L.S. 1722 'JE.'bsitE.' ' www.Jil.ll.lywpogUE...col.l El'Io.il' kstuo.rt@jil'll'lywpogUE.'.col'l
VOLUME PAGE
DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL TRUSTEES F DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS VOL. 83128 PG. 3690 D.R.D.C.T
(60' R.D.w.)
JIMMY \J. POGUE.. INC.
""I"
100'
~:J
LEGEND ..,
EXHIBIT B ADDITIONAL ABANDONMENT PROVISIONS That as a condition hereof, this abandonment is subject to any utilities or communication facilities, including without limitation water and wastewater lines, gas lines, and storm sewers, ("Facilities") presently located within the abandoned area described in Exhibit "A", owned and/or operated by the City of Dallas or any utility or communications company, public or private, ("Utility") and to the rights of any Utility for the use of the abandoned area for its Facilities. It is the intent of the foregoing to confirm and maintain and there is hereby reserved and excepted unto the City of Dallas, and not abandoned or conveyed hereunder, an easement (to which this abandonment is made expressly subject) over, upon, under, through, in, and across the abandoned area for each Utility for its respective Facilities located therein at the time of this abandonment, together with the right to make any subsequent alterations, additions, expansions, upgrades or modifications to such Facilities as may, from time to time be deemed necessary or convenient by the Utility owning and/or operating same. No buildings, structures (above or below ground) or trees shall be constructed or placed within the abandoned area without written consent of each affected Utility.
Each Utility shall have the full right to remove and keep
removed all or part of any buildings, fences, trees, or other improvements or growths which in any way may endanger or interfere with the construction, maintenance or efficiency of its respective Facilities lying within the abandoned area and shall at all times have the full right of ingress and egress to or from and upon the abandoned area for the purposes of reconstructing, removing, relocating, inspecting, patrolling, maintaining, expanding, upgrading, and/or adding to all or part of its Facilities without the necessity at any time of procuring the permission of anyone. The easement reserved hereunder and the conditions and restrictions to which this abandonment is subject shall remain for the benefit of the applicable Utility and/or operators of the Facilities until said Facilities are removed and relocated from the abandoned area.
The relocation, removal or adjustment of any or all such Facilities, if made
necessary by GRANTEE'S (whether one or more natural persons or legal entities) use of the abandonment area, shall be at the expense of GRANTEE herein, or GRANTEE'S successors and assigns.
Should GRANTEE'S relocation or removal of the Facilities require the obtaining of new
easements, the acquisition of same shall be at the expense of GRANTEE, GRANTEE'S successors and assigns. If any of the Facilities (or relocations thereof) are allowed to remain on any part of the abandoned area, the easements and buildings restrictions provided herein shall remain thereon. Upon removal or relocation of all of the Facilities, any easements reserved or created herein relating to such removed or relocated Facilities shall terminate, and any building restrictions herein created shall cease.
ABAN.EXB (revised 11/9/00)