Island County, WA Final Report by marc rogoff

Final Report Solid Waste Operational Assessment and Benchmarking Study

Presented to:

Island County, Washington

Cli ent Logo Island County P.O. Box 500 Coupeville, Washington 98239 (360) 679-7338 Presented by: SCS ENGINEERS 4041 Park Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida (813) 621-0080 April 24, 2008 File No. 09207003.00 Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com

FINAL REPORT Solid Waste Operational Assessment and Benchmarking Study

Presented To: Island County P.O. Box 500 Coupeville, Washington 98239 (360) 679-7338 Presented by: SCS ENGINEERS 4041 Park Oaks Boulevard, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida (813) 621-0080

April 24, 2008 File No. 09207003.00

Table of Contents Section

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................1

Operational Recommendations...........................................................................................................1 Financial Recommendations..................................................................................................................2 New Facilities..........................................................................................................................................2 Curbside Recycling Program................................................................................................................3 introduction....................................................................................................................................................1

Objective of the Study..........................................................................................................................1 Background of the System Assessment..............................................................................................1 Geography...................................................................................................................................1 Population................................................................................................................................................2 Economy........................................................................................................................................2 Geology........................................................................................................................................2 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................3 Transportation..............................................................................................................................3 current Solid waste system.........................................................................................................................4

Solid Waste Generation......................................................................................................................4 Solid Waste Programs..........................................................................................................................6 solid waste collection programs..........................................................................................................8 Solid Waste Recycling Facilities.........................................................................................................9 county Solid Waste transfer facilities.............................................................................................12 Bayview Drop Box Station......................................................................................................12 Camano Transfer Station........................................................................................................12 Island County Solid Waste Complex...................................................................................13 Oak Harbor Transfer Station.................................................................................................16 Freeland Recycle Facility........................................................................................................17 Historic Solid Waste Management Studies.........................................................................18 Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Management Strategies........................18 Incineration Feasibility Study......................................................................................19 Solid Waste/Septage Composting Assessment......................................................19 Oak Harbor Transfer Station Study..........................................................................20 Oak Harbor Materials Recovery Study...................................................................21 Operational assessment...........................................................................................................................22 Facility operational statistics.............................................................................................................22 Equipment and Vehicle Inventory.....................................................................................................22 Sinking Fund....................................................................................................................27 Debt Financing...............................................................................................................28 Leasing.............................................................................................................................28 facilitY operations...............................................................................................................................29 Upgrade Coupeville Transfer Station..................................................................................29

Island County

Contents (Continued) Section

Page

Expand Yard and Wood Waste Recycling at Coupeville Station................................30 Improve Operations of Disposal Contract With Rabanco...............................................31 Develop New Camano Island Transfer Station..................................................................33 Environmental Cleanup of Freeland Site.............................................................................33 Proposal by Oak Harbor to Develop Joint City/County Oak Harbor Transfer Station ........................................................................................................................................................36 Expand or Consolidate Bayview Drop Box Station With Island Recycling..................38 expand curbside Recycling Opportunities.....................................................................................38 Financial Issues......................................................................................................................................39 Adjustment of the Minimum Service Fee..............................................................................40 Set Tipping Fees for to Encourage Additional Recycling.................................................40 Operating Reserves.................................................................................................................41 Benchmarking Study..................................................................................................................................43

5 6

benchmarking Overview....................................................................................................................43 Island County Benchmarking Program.............................................................................................43 findings and reCommendations..............................................................................................................49 References...................................................................................................................................................53

No.

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1.Map of Island County, Washington.................................................................................................1 Figure 2.Moderate-Risk Wastes Being Processed At Island County Solid Waste Complex...............5 Figure 3.Bayview Transfer Station, Island County, WA...........................................................................12 Figure 4.Camano Island Transfer Station, Island County, WA................................................................13 Figure 5.Island County Solid Waste Complex, Island County.................................................................14 Figure 6.Photograph Showing Exterior of Transfer Station, Island County..........................................15 Figure 7.Typical stand-alone open top MSW facility for commercial or individual resident use. Six such slots located at the Coupeville facility, four at the Camano Transfer Station ....................15 Figure 8.Auto/Household battery collection area, part of the Moderate Risk Waste facility at the Island County Solid Waste Complex............................................................................................................16 Figure 9.Paint Exchange Area, Island County Solid Waste Complex...................................................16 Figure 10.Oak Harbor Transfer Station, Island County, WA..................................................................17 Figure 11.Freeland Recycle Facility..............................................................................................................18 Figure 12.Historic Solid Waste Tonnages Delivered to Transfer and Drop Box Stations, Island County..................................................................................................................................................................24 Figure 13. Capital Equipment Cost Curves..................................................................................................26 Figure 14.Materials on Tipping Floor Can Be Recycled...........................................................................29 Figure 15.Wood Waste Collection Area, Island County Transfer Station...........................................30 Figure 16.Bioswale Requiring Ongoing Maintenance...............................................................................31 Figure 17.Special Equipment Used to Further Process Accumulated Yard Waste..............................31 Figure 18.Cantilevered Container Tarping System...................................................................................33 35 Figure 19.Current Camano Island Improvements.......................................................................................35 Figure 20.Change in Monthly Cost by Reducing Number or Frequency of Trash Cans............................................................................................................39 42 Figure 21.Private Landfills in Washington/Oregon and Various Transport Methods.......................42 Figure 22.2008 County Tipping Fees, Washington...................................................................................44 46 Figure 23.Operating Cost of Representative Publicly Operated Transfer Stations..........................46 No.

List of Tables

Page

Table 1.Population Statistics For Island County, WA...................................................................................2 Table 2.Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Island County.......................................................................5 Table 3.Recent Moderate-Risk Waste Generation in Island County........................................................6

Island County

Contents (Continued) Section

Page

Table 4.Participation in Moderate-Risk Waste Program at County Facilities........................................6 Table 5.Municipal Solid Waste Generation Projections, Island County..................................................6 Table 6.MSW Disposal Projections, Island County.......................................................................................6 Table 7.Summary of Previous Solid and Moderate-Risk Management Plan Recommendations........7 Table 8.Waste Collection Providers, Island County.....................................................................................8 Table 9.Garbage Collection Fees for 2006(a) (Dollars/Month for Weekly Collection).....................8 Table 10.Drop Off and Buy Back Centers, Island County.......................................................................10 Table 11.Summary of Materials Accepted at Drop-Off and Buy-Back Centers, Island County.....11 Table 12.MSW Quantities Received at Transfer and Drop Box Stations, Island County.................23 Table 13.Actual Operating Costs, Coupeville Transfer Station, 2005-2007......................................25 Table 14.Coupeville Transfer Station Customer Survey, July-August 2007........................................37 Table 15.Benchmarking Survey Data...........................................................................................................47 Appendices APPENDIX Appendix A Equipment Inventory Vehicles Equipment Appendix B Washington Disposal Rate History for Communities Exporting Solid Waste

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

OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Our review of the Department’s facilities indicates that they are well managed and equipment maintained in accordance with established solid waste industry maintenance practices. Current staffing levels to most functions appear optimal with respect to other similarly sized solid waste agencies. Data collected during our benchmarking survey of other similar transfer stations suggests that the Coupeville Transfer Station’s operating costs (not counting the cost of transportation and disposal) compares favorably with well-run, publicly operated facilities. Increasing deliveries of waste to the station and processing of the waste from the tipping floor and then into the compactor and the trailers is a daily challenge for staff because of the existing capacity of the Station. By expanding the tipping floor by two or more additional bays, the County would see immediate economic benefits. The added space will provide needed additional operating area, reduce congestion, increase storage capacity in the event of service interruption, and also permit additional space for staff to remove potential recyclables form the incoming waste stream. The County currently offers reduced tipping fees for customers delivering segregated loads of recyclable materials such as wood wastes. The County’s current contractor for yard and wood waste recycling has experimented with innovative methods to improve separation and screening of yard waste materials as well as identifying markets for boiler fuels. Again, every additional ton recycled from the incoming waste stream results in disposal costs savings. It is recommended that the County work with its recycling contractors to develop markets for these segregated materials and adjust its tipping fees to attract these supplies.

ES-1

Island County

FINANCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS The County currently funds its replacement of equipment and vehicles out of its cash reserves. Many solid waste agencies are using a sinking or revolving fund to spread the costs of funding new vehicles or equipment over a longer period of time. In comparison to the current cash method of financing, a sinking fund would help even out the annual volatility of the agency’s replacement funding needs and to predict the Department’s annual funding needs over a long planning horizon. The County also currently maintains a $1.3 million restricted reserve for use in emergency postclosure environmental issues at closed landfill facilities. In addition, the County has about $2.5 million in operating reserves that covers equipment repair and new capital facilities. Based on the County’s current budget of roughly $6 million per year, we are of the opinion that the County should consider establishing a goal of $1.5 million for operating reserves apart from funding these future capital facilities.

NEW FACILITIES A review of the current operations at the existing Camano Transfer Station suggests the improvements currently under way as part of the Camano Hill Road rebuild will improve many of site's existing problems. Planned upgrades, in addition to the already installed second scale, should significantly improve recycling operations, interior circulation, lighting, and site access. Queuing on the roadway should not be an issue with the revised access points and relocation of the East Camano Drive Intersection. Ultimately, with future growth on the Island, the County will need to investigate the siting and construction of a new transfer station. Data at this time do not support the construction of a shared transfer station with the City of Oak Harbor at this time. While there are significant numbers of residents in the City who are driving directly to the Coupeville Transfer Station, the drive distance is not unreasonable given current industry benchmarks. In this case, most of the vehicles delivering refuse to the Station are passenger or light trucks. It is our opinion, therefore, that more detailed estimates of the Oak Harbor wasteshed be conducted to provide a more detailed evaluation. Clearly, however, the City and the County should conduct further evaluation of the existing Oak Harbor Drop Box Station to determine if operating improvements can be made to the Station to expand refuse disposal services for City residents. These improvements may be more economical than construction and operation of a new transfer station. A review of current tonnage and customer delivery records of the Bayview Drop Box Station indicated an increasing demand for services at the southern portion of Whidbey Island. There has been some suggestion that those economies could be realized by consolidation of the two operations at the Freeland Facility. Although it is unusual for two facilities to provide similar services in close proximity to one another, it is our opinion that consolidation of these two operations may not result in significant costs savings to the County because some customers may have to drive an additional six miles further for drop off services. In the interim, the county should continue to replace smaller boxes with larger capacity containers similar to recent

ES-2

Island County

upgrades in the recycle area. Consequently, further study is needed to determine current and future customer use for a significantly expanded station at Bayview.

CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM A large percentage of the County's residents in the unincorporated areas do not currently subscribe to a waste collection program. Further, there is not a viable curbside collection service for recyclables. Much of these materials and wastes are delivered to County facilities resulting in heavy traffic and requiring the County to keep the Coupeville Transfer Station open seven days a week to provide the necessary service levels. Our review of the proposal offered by Waste Connections via Island Disposal indicates that it offers significant opportunities to increase recycling rates in the unincorporated areas of the County, while at the same time enabling homeowners to reduce their overall monthly collection costs. Although not scientific, the survey conducted by the County suggests a significant number of respondents were in favor of this change. The proposal required a "level of service" ordinance that would require all customers on curbside trash pickup to participate in a mandatory program. Those who believe they would not benefit from such a program may prefer to self-haul. Alternatively, an RFP approach may allow the County additional control over the program. A curbside recycling program would undoubtedly result in overall cost savings to the County because the greater volume of recovered recyclables would not have to transported and disposed at a remote landfill SCS is of the opinion that an Island Disposal (Waste Connections) and a Waste Management (Camano Island) proposal be thoroughly examined both in the context of homeowner and County cost savings and increases in levels of service.

ES-3

Island County

INTRODUCTION

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

BACKGROUND OF THE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT Geography Island County, Washington is located to the north of Seattle and encompasses two large populated islands, Whidbey and Camano. Whidbey Island is roughly 40 miles long and from one to 10 miles in width. Camano Island is about 15 miles long and from one to eight miles wide. In total, the two main islands have about 200 miles of marine shoreline in Puget Sound. The County has three incorporated cities and towns: Coupeville, Langley and Oak Harbor. The County is bounded on the east by Snohomish County, to the west by Jefferson County, to the north and northwest by Skagit County and San Juan County, respectively.

Figure 1.

Map of Island County, Washington

Island County

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

Population Statistics For Island County, WA

City Coupeville Langley Oak Harbor Unincorporated Total Area North Whidbey Central Whidbey South Whidbey Camano Island Total

1980 1,006 654 12,271 30,117 44,048

1990 1,377 845 17,176 40,797 60,195

2000 1,723 959 19,795 49,081 71,558

34,592 8,205 10,069 7,329 60,195

34,737 9,467 14,007 13,347 71,558

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

Island County

Island County is located between the Cascade Range to the east and the Olympic Mountains on the west. The County’s topography, soils, and water resources have been affected by the area’s glacial past. There are few large surface water systems on the islands thereby requiring that ground water provides the primary source of potable water supplies for most County’s residents, except for the City of Oak Harbor and the Naval Air Station, which both bring in water by pipeline. Importantly, Whidbey and Camano Islands have been designated as sole source aquifers, pursuant to the Federal Drinking Water Act (Public Law 93-523). This designation in 1982 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandates that no new or expanded solid waste landfills can be sited in Island County. Land Use Land use policy in the County, is aimed at maintaining the rural character of unincorporated Island County. Currently, the urban growth areas associated with the County’s three cities (Coupeville, Langley, and Oak Harbor) comprise only four percent of the County’s total land use. The rural land use designation comprises nearly 80,000 acres, with rural agriculture and rural forest designations amount to a total of more than 22,000 acres. The County implements the mandates outlined by the Plan through the County’s zoning ordinance. Overlay designations such as wetlands, scenic corridors, water resources, critical drainage areas, and historic resources are uses to protect sensitive land use features. Recent efforts by County, State, and private groups to preserve farmland have focused on an agricultural easement programs allow a farm owner to permanently protect the land from non-farm development without giving up ownership. This is usually accomplished through an agreement between the landowner and the local, state, or federal government with terms that are binding on present and future landowners. The landowner retains most rights to the land and can sell it or pass it on to heirs. However, the donated land cannot legally be used for anything other than agriculture. Transportation Access to both Whidbey and Camano Islands impacts the patterns of solid waste management in Island County. Since there is no direct transportation access between Whidbey and Camano Islands solid waste must be transported directly through adjacent counties. There is currently no barge or rail transportation to either island. Access to Whidbey Island is from State highway 20 over Deception Pass from Skagit County, by ferry from Mukilteo in Snohomish County to Clinton on south Whidbey Island, and by ferry from Port Townsend. State Highway 20 and 525 are the major north-south roadways on Whidbey Island. Access to Camano Island is provided by State Highway 525 from Stanwood in Snohomish County.

Island County

C U R R E N T S O L I D WA S T E S Y S T E M

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

SOLID WASTE GENERATION As described in the County’s Solid and Moderate-Risk Management Plan (the Solid Waste Plan), solid waste is categorized into three classifications: municipal solid waste, other special waste, and moderate-risk waste. Municipal solid waste (MSW) represents the largest volume of solid waste generated in the County and includes garbage and recyclable materials that residences, businesses, and institutions set out for collection of self-haul to a waste receiving station or center. The special waste category is defined as solid waste that is typically managed separately from MSW. This includes septage, construction and demolition debris (C&D), land clearing waste, auto bodies, biomedical waste, appliances (white goods), tires, and inert materials. A portion of these materials are delivered to County solid waste facilities and accurate records appear to be maintained by the County. However, specific quantities for C&D, auto bodies, biomedical waste, and inert materials are not tracked sine they are incorporated into MSW tonnage without differentiation. The County has specific figures on septage in particular, as well as appliances and tires because they are entered as a specific commodity code. Lastly, moderate-risk wastes are hazardous wastes generated by households and businesses in small quantities. These include such materials as: paints, solvents, pesticides, cleaners, anti freeze, and motor oils. The County accepts these moderate-risk wastes at its facilities (Figure 2). As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the number of individuals disposing of moderate-risk waste at County facilities has decreased from 2001 to 2005, while the quantity of waste disposed has increased. Table 2 details the best available information and data from the Solid Waste Plan on solid waste generation over the period from 1990 to 2005. The averages for the period of 2000 through 2005 are 0.9 pounds per person per day for recycling, 3.3 pounds for waste disposal, and 4.2 pounds for total waste generated. The Solid Waste Plan utilizes these per capita recycling and disposal averages to develop projections of future solid waste generation for Island County (Table 5). MSW generation also exhibits seasonal peaks during the year (highest in the summer months and at a minimum in the winter months) and this affects overall solid waste facility design capacity. Projected MSW disposal rates for an annual average day, the peak week and the peak day are listed in Table 6.

Island County

Figure 2.

Moderate-Risk Wastes Being Processed At Island County Solid Waste Complex

Table 2. Year

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Population

55,400 57,900 60,000 61,700 63,100 64,100 65,500 66,800 67,700 69,629 71,558 72,446 73,335 74,223 75,112 76,000

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Island County Waste Recycled Tons/Year (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 7,900 9,200 10,400 3,885 3,811 19,602 (2) (1) 4,346 21,917 (2) 9,215

Waste Recycling Rate lbs/Person/Day (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.5 (1) 0.3 1.6 0.7

Waste Disposed Tons/Year 24,200 26,000 24,500 24,700 26,700 26,800 28,000 29,700 31,700 34,574 36,938 39,458 42,151 47,006 48,012 51,464

Waste Disposal Rate lbs/Person/Day 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.7

Waste Generated Tons/Year 24,200 26,000 24,500 24,700 26,700 26,800 35,900 38,900 42,000 38,500 40,700 59,100 (1) 51,400 69,900 60,700

Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007 Notes: (1) Information not available (2) Additional recycling tonnages in 2001 and 2004 are from large, one-time shipments

Waste Generation Rate lbs/Person/Day (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.1 4.5 (1) 3.8 5.1 4.4

Island County

Table 3.

Recent Moderate-Risk Waste Generation in Island County

Year

Amount of Waste Handled (Pounds) 2001 71,558 3,371 345,686 2002 72,670 3,523 204,523 2003 73,780 3,140 366,551 2004 74,890 3,023 441,099 2005 76,000 2,663 493,027 Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007 Table 4.

Population

Number of Customers

Participation in Moderate-Risk Waste Program at County Facilities

Area

Number of Individuals Disposing at County Facilities 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Oak Harbor 254 174 262 423 370 Central 1,610 1,794 1,249 948 996 Bayview 515 467 585 724 670 Camano 925 999 975 854 558 Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007 Table 5.

Municipal Solid Waste Generation Projections, Island County

Current 2015 2025 Population 76,000 87,400 101,100 Waste Recycled (tons) 25 29 34 Waste Disposed (tons) 141 162 188 Waste Generated (tons) 166 191 221 Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007 Table 6.

MSW Disposal Projections, Island County

Statistics (tons) 2005 2015 2025 Annual Daily Average 141 162 188 Peak Week 1,157 1,330 1,540 Peak Day 241 277 320 Source: Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, April 2007

SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS Pursuant to Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), development and maintaining a local solid waste management plan is required. Typically, this is a joint city and county responsibility in most jurisdictions whereby city solid waste management plans are

Island County

integrated into a countywide plan. In 1991, the Cities of Oak Harbor and Langley and the Town of Coupeville entered into long-term (21 year) interlocal agreements with Island County regarding solid waste management. Specifically, the County is required to prepare a comprehensive countywide Solid Waste Plan, which was last amended in April 2007. The Solid Waste Plan addresses the regulatory requirements established in the RCW. Administratively, the Island County Public Works Department (the Department) has the lead responsibility for amending the Solid Waste Plan. The Island County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), which includes representatives of the two cities, town, County, public interest groups, waste management firms, and locally elected public officials, is responsible for reviewing the Solid Waste Plan, conducting the required public hearings, and providing input concerning ongoing solid waste management programs and policies. The most recently adopted Solid Waste Plan (April 2007) replaces the previously adopted Solid Waste Plan, which was submitted to the State of Washington. Table 7 details the status (completed, ongoing, or both) of the management or program recommendations. Table 7.

Summary of Previous Solid and Moderate-Risk Management Plan Recommendations

Program Waste Reduction Economic Incentives Resource guide for Reusable Household Products Youth Classroom Education Program Education Outreach Program Recycling Expansion of Recycling Area at Bayview Collection Promotion of Curbside Collection Services Transfer Increase Emergency Storage Capacity at Coupeville Increase Unloading and Storage Capacity at Bayview Increase Unloading and Storage Capacity at Camano Increase Access and Receiving Capacity at Coupeville Treatment and Disposal Designate Four Biosolids Disposal Sites Purchase Additional Buffer Areas for Coupeville Landfill Develop Four New Monitoring Wells Other Special Waste Establish Contingent Strategy for Demolition Waste Establish Contingent Staging Location for Disaster Debris Establish Management Recommendations for Disaster Debris

Ongoing

Completed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Island County

Table 7. (Continued) Program Moderate-Risk Waste Public Education for Household Hazardous Waste Education and Technical Assistance for Small Quantity Generators Administration Increase Minimum Level of Service at Receiving Facilities Revise Target Balance for Working Capital Remodel Administration Offices Regulation Prevention Campaign for Illegal Dumping and Littering New Uniform Enforcement Procedure

Ongoing

Completed

* * * * * * *

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

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

Waste Collection Providers, Island County Estimated Population in Service Area 21,720 38,770 15,510

Number of Customers

Tonnage Collected

3,994 9,930 3,363

8,500 16,900 744

Garbage Collection Fees for 2006(a) (Dollars/Month for Weekly Collection) City of Oak Harbor

Residential Weekly Collection Minican One Can Two Cans Three Cans Extra Can

13.46 18.42 30.89 41.08 4.50

Island Disposal, Inc. 11.43 14.31 20.29 28.97 3.09

Waste Management 11.40 13.20 19.80 26.40 3.35

Island County

Table 9. (Continued) Biweekly Collection(b) One Can Monthly Collection One Can Nonresidential 1 cubic yard 1.5 cubic yards 2 cubic yards 3 cubic yards 4 cubic yards 6 cubic yards (a) (b)

95.09 162.23 228.01 290.96 388.48

11.43

9.70

6.20

4.70

80.91 114.49 149.26

74.43 93.63 113.40 151.80 191.20 260.93

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

The Whidbey Island NAS operates its own solid waste collection program. A private company, under contract to the Department of the Navy, is responsible for collection, transfer, and disposal of these wastes. For comprehensive planning purposes these wastes are considered separate from the waste management program used by the rest of the County. In addition to these waste collection providers, many residents and businesses self-haul their wastes to the County’s transfer station facilities, which will described in the paragraphs below.

SOLID WASTE RECYCLING FACILITIES As shown in Table 10, there are eight drop-off collection stations for recyclable materials in Island County. Seven of these stations are located on Whidbey Island; one is located on Camano Island. These stations accept a variety of recyclable materials (Table 11). In addition to these multi-material collection points, there are several additional stations that accept only single materials. For example, there are two drop-off stations for glass in Oak Harbor. The City of Langley operates a drop-off yard waste collection station at its wastewater treatment plant. Maillard Landing Nursery accepts sheetrock, yard debris, and wood waste. Metals are received at the Freeland facility and at Christians Auto Recycling. Lastly, wood waste is accepted at the Island county Solid Waste Complex, which is then shipped to Everett, Washington for fuel in a co-generation facility. In addition to these multi and single materials recycling facilities, the City of Oak Harbor provides weekly curbside collection of recyclables for all single-family through fourplex dwelling units located within the City. The City also provides recycling service to businesses on a voluntary basis. The City of Oak Harbor residential yard waste is collected weekly curbside in the City of Oak Harbor (95 gallon cart or 30-gallon paper bags) from March 1 through November 30, and 9

Island County

monthly from December 1 to February 28. This service is provided for an additional fee. The materials are then collected and transported by the City to Skagit Soils. Finally, solid waste collected by Waste Connections through Island Disposal is currently transported to a MRF, which is located near the County’s Solid Waste Complex in Coupeville, for processing to recover recycles. Table 10. Drop Off and Buy Back Centers, Island County Facility Bayview Drop Box Station Camano Island Drop Box Station Christians Auto Recycling Island Recycling Island County Solid Waste Complex Mallard Landing Nursery Oak Harbor Drop Box Station Oak Harbor Recycle Center

Address 14566 SR 525 75 E. Camano Road

Hours 9:30 – 5:00 Mon, Wed, Sat, Sun 9:30 – 5:00 Every Day

615 Christian Road 20014 SR 525 20018 SR 20

8:00 – 5:00 Mon-Fri 9:00 – 5:00 Tues-Sun 9:30 – 5:00 Every Day

3060 N. Oak Harbor Road 3151 Oak Harbor Road 2050 NE 16th Avenue

8:30 – 5:00 Mon-Sat 9:30 – 5:00 Tues, Sat, Sunday 10:00 – 5:00 Mon-Fr, 10:00 -4:00 Sat

Island County

Table 11. Summary of Materials Accepted at Drop-Off and BuyBack Centers, Island County Drop Box Stations

Paper Newspaper Corrugated Cardboard Office Paper Magazines Telephone Books Catalogs Mixed Waste Paper Plastic Bottles Tubs Glass Clear Green Brown Ferrous Metals Tin Cans Appliances, no cfc’s Appliances, w/ cfc’s Auto Bodies Wire Ferrous Other Ferrous Non-Ferrous Metals Aluminum Cans Aluminum Foil Aluminum Scrap Stainless Steel Copper Brass Lead Wire, Insulated Other Yard and Garden Tires

Coupeville

Oak Harbor

Bayvie w

Camano

Oak Harbor Recycling

•

• • • • •

• •

Christians Auto Recycling

Island Recycling

• •

• • •

• Fee Fee

•

• Fee Fee

• Fee

Fee Fee • • • • • • • •

Fee Fee • •

• •

Fee Fee

• • •

Fee Fee Fee • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • •

•

• • • • • •

Fee

• • • •

Fee

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

Island County

COUNTY SOLID WASTE TRANSFER FACILITIES Island County operates two solid waste transfer and two drop box stations, which are permitted to act as disposal sites for MSW. The Freeland Recycle Park is County-owned and operates under a private contractor (Island Recycling) as the processing center for all of Whidbey’s drop box stations. It accepts the normal range of recyclables plus steel/ferrous metals, auto bodies, and incidental MSW. No MRW is accepted. A fee is charged for the MSW. The contract expires June 2008; and RFP will be issued in March-April 2008. The sections which follow provide a brief description of their operations. Bayview Drop Box Station The Bayview Drop-Box Station contains attendant-staffed gate house, four compacting drop boxes (two 20-yard boxes and two 30-yard boxes), six recycling boxes, 10 forklift hoppers, a moderate risk waste collection facility for collection/transfer of household chemicals, paints, batteries, used oil, antifreeze, and vehicle batteries, approximately 24,000 square feet of paved storage and parking space, fencing, landscaping, and employee break facilities/office. The facility operates from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday. Figure 3 is an aerial photograph illustrating the location of these facilities at the station.

Figure 3. Bayview Transfer Station, Island County, WA In 2008, a forklift with two 2.5 cy self-tipping boxes were introduced to streamline material sorting and step climbing. This system enables staff to more easily remove contaminants and eliminates the need for the public to climb stairs to deposit materials into 20 yard open top containers (See Figure 3). Camano Transfer Station The Camano Transfer Station is open seven days a week from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. As shown in Figure 4, the station consists of a moderate risk waste collection facility for collection/transfer of household chemicals, paints, batteries, used oil, antifreeze, and vehicle 12

Island County

batteries, a scale house, two weigh scales, approximately 56,000 square feet of paved surfaces, 13 unloading positions fencing, landscaping, and employee break facilities. Solid wastes are unloaded into four 105-yard transfer trailers for transport and disposal off the island. A backhoe is used by staff to compact waste materials after it has been placed into the containers. Figure 4 is an aerial photograph illustrating the location of these facilities at the station. The County has recently added new scales to the site as well as an employee break room with a bathroom, shower, and eye wash station.

Figure 4.

Camano Island Transfer Station, Island County, WA

Island County Solid Waste Complex The Island County Solid Waste Complex (the Complex) is located approximately two miles southeast of the Town of Coupeville. The complex is located at the former site of the Coupeville Landfill, now closed (Figure 5). The Station is open seven days a week from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. The current complex includes a scalehouse, two 70-feet weight scales, 1,200 feet of on-site access roads, an approximately 4,500 square foot tipping floor enclosed in a metal building (Figure 6), a mechanical compactor with transfer trailer loading capabilities, a trailer storage area , and employee facilities. As designed, the complex has 20 unloading positions where self-haul waste generators may deposit solid waste materials into up to five 105yard open-top trailers away from the transfer station building (Figure 7). The County has moderate-risk collection areas at the Complex including auto and household batteries (Figure 8), household chemicals, and paints. To minimize costs, the county has implemented an extensive waste identification and processing program before these wastes are

Island County

then transported offsite by a licenses collector for proper disposal. There is also an extensive paint exchange program (Figure 9). The recycle park at the Oak Harbor complex includes paved collection area with 20 cy open top boxes, an OCC/plastics baler and storage facility, a thrift store, a small second hand sales yard and office. It is staffed by the private contractor processing recyclables form County transfer stations. Other structures/facilities at Coupeville include paved yard/garden waste pad, wood waste collection/storage area, a paved metal recycling storage area, and an equipment repair/storage building containing mechanical/welding shops conference room and library. A septage treatment facility, two County records storage buildings and an animal care facility (aka dog/cat pound) are also located at the Complex. Closed landfill water/gas monitoring systems, a gas extraction system with flare and stormwater drainage systems are also located at the Complex.

Figure 5.

Island County Solid Waste Complex, Island County

Island County

Figure 6.

Photograph Showing Exterior of Transfer Station, Island County

Figure 7. Typical stand-alone open top MSW facility for commercial or individual resident use. Six such slots located at the Coupeville facility, four at the Camano Transfer Station

Island County

Figure 8. Auto/Household battery collection area, part of the Moderate Risk Waste facility at the Island County Solid Waste Complex

Figure 9.

Paint Exchange Area, Island County Solid Waste Complex

Oak Harbor Transfer Station The Oak Harbor Drop Box Station consists of approximately 6,000 square feet of paved surfaces, four compacting 30-yard drop boxes, six 20-yard recycling boxes, fencing landscaping, and employee facilities. The Station is open from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. The Station does not have a moderate risk facility like the Bay view and Camano Stations. Figure 10 is an oblique aerial photograph of the site illustrating the placement of the various drop and recycling boxes. 16

Island County

Figure 10. Oak Harbor Transfer Station, Island County, WA Freeland Recycle Facility Under private contract, the Freeland Recycle Park (Figure 11) is the central processing facility for the County’s recyclables collected at its Whidbey transfer stations. Facilities include recycle materials collection, steel/non-ferrous collection/processing yard, recycling processing operation (large baler) thrift store, over 20,000 sq. ft. of paved operations areas, drainage systems (CB’s O/W separators, and stormwater stilling basins) and a materials re-sale yard (steel, machinery, tires, and other recycled objects). Due to impacts from an auto dismantling operations at Freeland Facility, the site entered a voluntary cleanup program (VCP) through the Department of Ecology in 2004. The auto dismantling operation developed over time due to closing of south end private sector services in the 1990’s and a perceived need to offer some form of service to the south end. The County committed nearly $100,000 since 2004 to identify, mitigate and clean up impacts. The phase III cleanup was completed in 2007 by HWA Geosciences, Inc. During the first quarter of 2008, the operator and the County received further input from the Department of Ecology that impacts from the operation are persisting and require additional attention. Final action at the site is unresolved at this time, although it is clear that a change in operations to eliminate further environmental impacts will be required.

Island County

Figure 11. Freeland Recycle Facility Historic Solid Waste Management Studies Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Management Strategies As part of the County’s Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (April 2007), alternative solid waste management strategies were evaluated for MSW, inert and demolition waste, wood waste, infectious, sewage sludge, and septage waste streams generated in Island County. Four evaluation criteria were used by the authors to compare these alternative management strategies. These included: • • • •

Capital and operating costs Flexibility Consistency with regulatory requirements Level of uncertainty associated with each management alternative The recommended MSW management strategy for the Island County at that time included a source reduction program, a waste recycling program including yard waste composting, and a regional waste disposal program. This recommended County source reduction program had the following elements:

• • • •

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

Island County

• •

Providing waste reduction audits for commercial waste generators Diverting inert, demolition and wood waste from the municipal waste stream With regards to recycling, the recommended recycling program included continuing the existing drop-off and buy-back activities at county facilities, developing a facility to process yard and garden waste (to be sited at the Coupeville Landfill), and developing and implementing a municipal waste recycling program in NAS Whidbey Island, and Oak Harbor, as required by the state’s “urban program requirements”. The recommended MSW disposal strategy was to use a regional landfill facility to dispose of Island County’s non-recyclable waste, which would routed through a new transfer station to be located at the closed landfill site in Coupeville. Further, MSW from Camano Island was recommended to be routed through the north Snohomish County Transfer Station for disposal with Snohomish County at a regional disposal facility selected by Snohomish County.

Incineration Feasibility Study A consultant study was conducted in late 1983 to evaluate the feasibility of developing a refusefired steam plant in Island County to supplement all of part of the Whidbey Island NAS’s steam load. At the time of the study, the NAS operated a boiler plant, which powered a steam turbine to produce electrical power. While the study indicated that a waste-to-energy facility was economically viable, this recommendation was predicated on the need for all solid waste generated in Island County and nearby Skagit County would be available for the project. Unfortunately, Skagit County was not particularly receptive to providing solid waste to the project since they were planning their own solid waste incinerator. Without this waste flow from Skagit County, the waste flow from Island County was deemed insufficient for the wasteto-energy project to move forward. Solid Waste/Septage Composting Assessment A two-year pilot study in 1989-1991 was conducted by the University of Washington to evaluate the feasibility of MSW and septage composting in Island County. MSW was transported to a research site in Kent, Washington, which was operated by the University of Washington, then mixed with septage and a small fraction of sawdust. An aerated static pile was formed from the compost, and then monitored for temperature and moisture. Following the composting period, the compost was analyzed for nutrients, metals and pathogens. Plan germination and growth studies were carried out by the research team for two growing seasons. On the basis of the laboratory and field results, the research team was able to conclude that compost from Island County waste was low in trace metals and nutrients; it was not a good source of plant nutrients. However, the team concluded that the compost was a good physical medium for plant growth, provided that nutrients were supplied in sufficient quantities by fertilization. It is important to note that composting technology was in its infancy at the time of this study. A decision was made at that time to set aside consideration until operations were established in

Island County

other jurisdictions to assess successful track records. Concern with this early investigations, and subsequently, include unproven operations/technologies, labor intensive nature, susceptibility to contamination, odor problems, and lack of control over input materials Also of concern with solid waste composting was emphasis on higher recycling recovery efforts resulting in an increasing diversion of the compostable fraction (fibers, esp. paper, OCC, etc.) from the waste stream leaving a decreasing and possibly more toxic feedstock not compatible with a usable compost end product. Oak Harbor Transfer Station Study The City of Oak Harbor requested that the County consider the possibility of a shared transfer station several times in the past. Possible savings on transportation, handling, and other operational benefits were suggested. To that end, SCS was engaged in 1998 by the City of Oak Harbor to evaluate the cost of building and operating a proposed solid waste transfer station and waste export system for the City of Oak Harbor. A limited residential population not on curbside trash pickup in unincorporated north Whidbey with solid waste and recycling drop-off services. Most residents in unincorporated areas south of Oak Harbor seem to find it more convenient to use the scaled Coupeville facility with its larger capacity and more accurate weighing capabilities. The proposed new transfer station would service Oak Harbor’s needs and was assumed to be located adjacent to the intersection of Goldie Road and Gun Club Road west of the closed landfill site in the City. Utilizing projections of waste generation, SCS sized the proposed facility to accommodate peak daily flows of 55 tons per day and 25 tons per day as a daily throughout. This capacity equates to 300% of Oak Harbor’s current waste stream, which should allow for 20 years of population growth (2 percent per year). To develop preliminary costs of construction and operation, the consultants assumed that the station would incorporate a pre-engineered metal building supported on a reinforced concrete foundation. The facility would use a scale system to weigh incoming waste trucks. Estimated annual costs at the time of the study were as follows: •

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

•

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

•

$46 per ton for waste disposal If the City decided to proceed on this project, it was also assumed that the City would be required to undertake all of the other solid waste services currently provided by the Island County. That is, development and implementation of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, mandated under Chapter 70-95 of RCW and implementation of the moderate-risk collection program. These were estimated by SCS at the time of the study as $14,000 annually to implement the moderate-risk collection program, $116,000 for operation and maintenance of the program; and $77,000 for administration and enforcement of the program. In addition, SCS

Island County

assumed an additional cost of $45,000 to complete the initial Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan, which must be updated every three years. Oak Harbor Materials Recovery Study The City of Oak Harbor engaged the services of URS in 2007 to evaluate the economics of a City-owned Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The consultant developed a conceptual MRF layout, which included a pre-engineered metal building (100 feet by 80 feet), a concrete tipping floor, a covered storage area for paper/cardboard, and outdoor storage areas for metals and plastics. A review of the historic recycling records suggested the following plant sizing: • • • • •

Historical peak of 14.5 tons of recyclables; average of 5 tons per day Recent average of 100 tons of recyclables which was projected to grow 12 hours of labor per day (1.5 FTE) 2-3 sorters with one bucket loader/driver 0.1 FTE for an administrator and 0.15 FTE for a supervisor Making these design assumptions, URS estimated a capital cost of $1.1 million with a monthly operating cost of roughly $15,000. Potential revenues were estimated at $133,000 per year. Dependent on the average monthly recycling sale prices, which are somewhat variable, URS suggested that there is a potential for the City to recover some additional revenues as opposed to paying Island disposal to sort and sell its recyclables. However, they were of the opinion that a stand-alone recyclables reload or a MRF may not be an economically viable option. URS indicated that the City should carefully consider the degree of risk and extent of financial commitment for this project.

Island County

O P E R AT I O N A L A S S E S S M E N T

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

FACILITY OPERATIONAL STATISTICS The County’s two transfer stations accept solid wastes from municipal and commercial collectors and self-haul generators, whereas the drop box stations accept only MSW from self-haul generators. All of the transfer and drop box stations accept recyclables for free and scrap metal and tires for a fee. In addition, the two transfer stations accept refrigerated appliances for a fee. The transfer station also accepts construction and demolition wastes. Only the transfer station at Coupeville accepts clean wood, yard waste, and inert wastes (e.g., incidental asphalt, concrete, etc.). Table 12 summarizes the quantity of MSW accepted, number of customers, operating hours, storage capacity, and materials accepted at these four stations. Figure 11 graphically illustrates the increasing levels of solid waste delivered to the transfer and drop box stations by haulers in Island County over the past decade. Operating data for the Coupeville Transfer Station were subsequently reviewed with County staff to develop estimates of actual processing costs for waste processing at the station and to enable benchmarking of the operation. Table 13 is an annual summary for the past three operating years. As shown, the annual operating costs, expressed on a per ton basis, are $26.36, $25.42, and $29.58 in 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively. These are the County’s costs to process received waste at the Station, but do not include the additional costs of transportation and disposal.

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

Island County

Table 12. MSW Quantities Received at Transfer and Drop Box Stations, Island County Statistics Waste Deliveries (2006) Numbers of Arriving Vehicles (2006) Storage Capacity (Daily Tons) Operating Hours

Self Haul Franchise or Commercial Haul Recyclables Accepted Unloading Positions Annual Growth Rate (%)

Transfer Stations Coupeville Camano 42,596 10,246

Bayview 1,366

Drop Box Stations Oak Harbor Freeland 389 2001

81,048

46,710

21,131

6,756

17,0002

160

Daily 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sat, Sun, Tues 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Daily except Monday 9-5

Yes Yes

Sat, Sun, Mon, Wed 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Yes No

Yes No

Yes1 No

Yes

6.9

9.6

17.9

18.8

5.0

Source: Island County, 2008 Notes: 1

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

Most customers are self-haul recyclers.

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

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

Island County

Solid Waste Tonnages by Hauler 60,000

50,000

40,000

OH Site

Tons

Camano Bayview

30,000

Cpvl Public City of OH

20,000

Is. Disposal

10,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Figure 12. Historic Solid Waste Tonnages Delivered to Transfer and Drop Box Stations, Island County

Island County

Table 13. Actual Operating Costs, Coupeville Transfer Station, 2005-2007 Budget Item

Year 2006

2005 Bad Debt Subtotal Bad Debt Salaries and Wages Overtime Benefits Subtotal Office/Operating Supplies Fuel Consumed Small Tools/Equipment Communications Operating/Leases Public Utility Services Repairs/Maintenance Miscellaneous Subtotal Maintenance and Operations External Taxes/Assessments Subtotal Other Government Buildings and Structures Other Improvements Machinery and Equipment Subtotal Capital Interfund Prof Services (Health) Interfund Insurance Services Interfund Oper. Rent Interfund Supplies Subtotal Interfund TOTAL Tons Processed $ Operational Costs/Ton

2007

2,720 2,720 563,926 34,370 207,671 805,968 53,216

0 0 567,892 36,476 241,389 845,757 47,545

0 0 608,210 37,016 287,646 932,872 43,325

23,884 6,372 12,267 3,683 13,154 45,989 1,173 159,740

25,698 13,394 14,129 1,619 16,812 22,050 3,790 145,036

29,045 11,918 11,294 4,019 18,361 37,256 852 156,070

78,963

79,741

97,857

78,963

79,741

97,857

0 0 0 0 38,571

0 0 0 0 53,099

0 0 0 0 59,626

36,064

7,533

38,259

0 966 75,600 $1,122991 42,596 $26.36

0 1,217 61,849 $1,132,383 44,540 $25.42

0 0 97,885 $1,284,684 43,427 $29.58

Source: Island County, 2008

Island County

Currently, the Department funds the costs of these replacements from its annual budget. With the ever increasing costs of vehicles and equipment for solid waste management, many communities similar in size to Island County are evaluating their budgets and how they approach overall vehicle and equipment replacement programs. Historically, local governments have reduced fleet sizes and deferred replacements during economic downturns or times of budget shortfalls to provide a balance against the need to increase user fees or rates to meet operating expenses. While one can argue that the decision to reduce fleet replacement spending is a valuable corrective action, it could result in increasing fleet expenses for these agencies if they tip the balance of fleet replacement spending too far. All vehicles and equipment used in public works eventually wear out and become more expensive to maintain and operate. That is, unplanned maintenance and repairs due to component failures tend to rise with increasing age of the vehicles or equipment. These unpredictable incidents result in such events as increasing shop time, delays in securing major parts for repair, as well as delays in getting the vehicle or equipment back into operation. As illustrated in Figure 5, capital costs tend to decline over time, while operating and maintenance costs increase. The combination of these two basic curve functions results in a “UShaped” cost curve, oftentimes called “total costs”. The economic theory of vehicle and equipment replacement predicts that vehicles and equipment should ideally be replaced during the flat portion of the curve, that is, at the time annual operating costs begin to outweigh capital costs. As the graph vividly illustrates, deferring replacement purchases in order to accommodate short-term budget shortfalls can result in future increased replacement costs and oftentimes unmanageable fleet replacement backlogs.

Figure 13. Capital Equipment Cost Curves Source: American Public Works Association, Vehicle Replacement Guide, 2001. Cash Purchases Commonly, public sector organizations attempt to purchase solid waste vehicles and equipment using cash generated from their annual operating income. In essence, this is somewhat akin to an individual paying for a personal vehicle in cash from his or her annual salary – a somewhat daunting task for most people. Similarly, many agencies have historically used cash as the

Island County

primary means of funding their replacement program. Since it involves no interest or debt financing costs, cash purchases are viewed by many finance and solid waste managers as a financially prudent method for funding fleet replacement. Unfortunately, the use of cash to primarily fund vehicle and equipment replacements results in volatile funding requirements with high annual peaks and valleys. For example, in order for many agencies to replace a “big ticket” vehicle or piece of equipment, it might be necessary to freeze a significant portion of other fleet replacements and cut other operational programs (i.e., training, safety, and professional development, etc.) within the agency’s overall budget authority. In our opinion, this almost always results in a deferral of some replacement purchases. Typically, where agencies use cash as the primary means to fund vehicle and equipment purchases, one often finds older fleets, higher maintenance costs, and backlogs in purchases. Guaranteed Buy-Back Programs These buyback programs are an alternative to an outright cash purchase of fleet equipment. That is, the agency has the right to sell, lease, trade or otherwise dispose of the vehicle. However, in the bid for equipment, the bidder guarantees that he will repurchase the machine from the agency at the end of a specified hourly or annual term from the date of delivery. Typically, many agencies use these provisions to keep maintenance costs to a minimum and to enable them to procure new equipment at a frequent rate. Sinking Fund In order to fund fleet replacements, many solid waste agencies have used a sinking or revolving fund to spread the costs of funding new vehicles or equipment over a longer period of time. Essentially, this type of financing approach requires that an agency make periodic payments into a fleet replacement fund thereby ensuring that there will adequate funds available for the replacement vehicle or unit when it comes due for replacement. For example, if the initial purchase price for a vehicle is $120,000 and the replacement cycle is determined to be six years, then $20,000 is budgeted every year to pay for the replacement of the vehicle. In comparison to the cash method, a sinking fund helps even out the annual volatility of the agency’s replacement funding needs. Critical to its success is the ability of the agency to properly account for the inflationary increases in purchase prices for the replacement vehicles or equipment, interest earning on the funds placed in reserve, and salvage values of the vehicles or equipment, if any. In essence, a basic advantage to this approach is that it enables the agency to predict its annual funding needs over a long planning horizon. Notwithstanding, a major disadvantage of the sinking fund method of funding, however, is that it oftentimes is prohibitively expensive to establish for most agencies if there already a large backlog of fleet replacement needs. That is, a large amount of cash must be deposited initially to create the working capital necessary to start replacing vehicles or equipment. Further, there is always the temptation on the part of municipal officials to raid such funds during lean budget years undermining a well-designed fleet replacement program in a single year.

Island County

Debt Financing In comparison to cash or sinking fund financing programs, debt financing typically allows solid waste agencies an option to spread out the costs of fleet replacement. Rather than trying to accumulate cash reserves in a sinking fund, an agency can borrow funds from financial institutions, either as lines of credit, fixed-term, bank loans or bonds, repaying the outstanding principal and interest on a periodic basis once the vehicles or equipment are placed in service. Similar to the sinking fund method of financing fleet replacement, debt financing enables the agency to eliminate the peaks and valleys in replacement funding requirements. Also, in some respects the predictable natures of the annual expenditures have tended to make replacement funding less subject to controversial budget decision making. Historically, many solid waste agencies have shied away from debt financing to fund their fleet replacements. Oftentimes, much of this is due to local or managerial preferences to avoid high interest charges for vehicles and equipment that have a short lifespan. In other cases, state or local laws prohibit the use of debt financing without voter approval. Leasing Leasing or lease-purchase options are other commonly used methods by solid waste agencies for financing fleet replacements. Usually, these financing programs are offered directly from the manufacturer or third-party distributor. In comparison to the other financing methods discussed in the paragraphs above, leasing enables the agency to pay a fee (“installment purchases”) for a vehicle or equipment and then essentially ‘walk away” from it after a specified period. New municipal lease programs now being offered on the market allows agencies to have new trucks every two years with full factory warranties on the vehicle chassis and body. A variant of leasing is a lease-purchase where an agency can own the equipment. Overall, there is no hard and fast rule in lease financing since the terms may differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. In most cases, their obligation terminates if the department fails to appropriate funds to make the renewal year's lease payments. Because of this provision, neither the lease nor the lease payments are considered debt. Payments can be structured monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually based on the cash flow of the agency. What makes municipal leasing financially desirable is its treatment of interest under Section 103 of the Federal Internal Revenue Code. The interest earnings under a properly structured and documented lease are exempt from federal income tax under the same tax laws that enable a municipal bond to carry a tax-exempt rate. Because the lessor does not pay federal tax on the interest earned, the tax-exempt lease oftentimes carries a much lower interest rate than other kinds of leases and installment loans thus significantly lowering the cost of financing for the borrower. This enables the agency to replace vehicles or equipment more frequently without having to acquire significant cash reserves before purchases the replacements. In summary, each of the financing methods described above has its own particular advantages and disadvantages, which can be influenced by local municipal circumstances. Clearly, there is no single best approach to financing fleet replacement costs. With the financial challenges facing local governments today in providing cost-effective and timely solid waste management

Island County

services, evaluation of these various approaches should be made focusing on ways to minimize costs and providing value-added services to the public.

FACILITY OPERATIONS The following sections discussed several potential operational improvements to the County’s system based on our review of current operations and a review of current and historic statistics. Upgrade Coupeville Transfer Station We reviewed the Coupeville Transfer Station operations during the course of the study. It appears that a considerable amount of solid waste delivered to the station is potentially recyclable if additional tipping floor space was made available. Currently, due to the limited existing size of the tipping floor and the scheduling of the Rabanco transfer trailers, we are of the opinion that County staff does not have adequate time to recover these recyclable materials (Figure 14). The lack of a viable residential curbside program in the unincorporated County also probably contributes to excessive volumes of recyclables in the waste stream deposited at Coupeville and other transfer stations. In 2008, the County has placed several well-labeled 2.5 cubic yard self-tipping boxes adjacent to the transfer station and open-tops. These are serviced by the private recycler with the objective of providing easily accessible diversion at the point of waste disposal. County staff is currently working with SCS on the conceptual layout of a Station expansion, which will include a one or two-bay expansion of the station with a push wall running the length of the existing north wall. This expansion would enable the County to undertake some separation of potentially recyclable materials and thereby reduce the County tonnage that would otherwise have to be transferred out-of-state. In the interim, the County staff has worked diligently to put more waste delivered to the station through the compactor, enabling staff to increase the weights of the open-top

Figure 14. Materials on Tipping Floor Can Be Recycled

Island County

trailers. For example, station staff has been able in December 2007 to increase weights in the trailers to an average of slightly over 25 tons. Expand Yard and Wood Waste Recycling at Coupeville Station The Coupeville Transfer Station receives a significant amount of woody waste materials (Figure 15). Presently, these are processed under private contract for transport and delivery to industrial users as boiler fuel for electrical production. Solid Waste Division's goals have historically been to concentrate program efforts on recycling, environmentally sound solid/moderate risk handling/disposal, and waste diversion. The division did not want to start entrepreneurial efforts in areas that we believe more properly belong in the private sector. To that end, the Division worked with the County Planning and Health departments and State Dept. of Ecology to develop guidelines for composting enterprises in the private sector (ICC 8.08.B.160). These guidelines/regulations were approved in 2004. To date two operations in the private sector have been approved to provide this service to Whidbey and Camano Island with two others seeking approval. The County will maintain a yard waste collection service at Coupeville, but expects an increasing amount of this material to go to the private sector while expecting wood waste handled by the County program to expand. Outside of processing costs, operational costs associated with these separately managed product streams include paved surfacing and maintenance of a bioswale (Figure 16) for the yard/garden waste, and further screening of materials left over from grinding operations for both streams. Figure 17 shows the use of a revolving screen at the Coupeville station, which is installed at the end of a Volvo track hoe, to further improve separation and screening of yard waste materials onsite. These materials had been accumulating at the Coupeville site for several years. With the use of this and other innovative methods, the County is attempting to further refine residuals from wood and yard waste streams for further beneficial uses, with just the final residue disposed as solid waste.

Figure 15. Wood Waste Collection Area, Island County Transfer Station 30

Island County

Figure 16. Bioswale Requiring Ongoing Maintenance

Figure 17. Special Equipment Used to Further Process Accumulated Yard Waste Improve Operations of Disposal Contract With Rabanco In January 2007, Island County signed a six-year contract (2007-2012) with Rabanco Ltd (Contractor) to accept loaded transfer trailers (closed containers) at the County’s transfer stations and transport and dispose of the acceptable waste at the company’s disposal site. The technical 31

Island County

specifications for operation of the waste transfer operations, which were included with the master contract, define the requirements of both the Contractor and the County. Briefly, pursuant to the contract, the County is required to deliver 95 percent of all of the County’s acceptable waste to the Contractor delivered to its transfer stations. However, the County reserves the right to recycle and divert as much waste delivered to its transfer station as can be accomplished. The contract also establishes a minimum weight of 22 tons delivered by the County to the Contractor for each closed container. The maximum weight of 30 tons for each closed or opentop container is specified in the contract The Contractor is required to have chassis equipment that can accept these wastes in either a closed or open-top container, so long as the container complies with the maximum 30 ton weight limit. The contract requires the Contractor to utilize the closes intermodal (train) facility by ensuring a minimum of four containers a day be directed to that facility. The County would like to see a greater percentage of Coupeville containers directed to the Burlington intermodal facility in the future. During the course of our initial field visit for this project, the County expressed some concerns with the Contractor’s ability to supply adequate numbers of containers, chassis, and tractors to enable the County to remove the incoming waste from the Coupeville Transfer Station in a expeditious manner. Insufficient daily chassis turnaround or deliveries arriving after 4:00 pm or not at all cause backups. Late or non delivery of containers result in longer staff hours and/or waste on the floor in the morning. Excessive waste on the floor in the morning interferes with early commercial unloading, blocks access to the compactor, increases littering, and generally interrupts a smooth operation given limited space. The County’s goal is zero waste on the floor both as an operational and health issue; the latter due to increase exposure to rodent/bird vectors. Figure 18 illustrates the recent installation of a cantilevered tarping system by Rabanco at the Island County, which enables re-tarping the open-top containers without having to climb up the sides of the containers (14 feet in the air) and adjust the large tarp. Mattresses are generally a hard to handle waste that don’t compact well. Staff should continue to experiment with placement of these items on top of loads coming off the compactor given the approximately two feet of freeboard under the tarp. And relative light weight of these bulky items. The tarping system structure may serve as a platform for loading mattresses from a loader bucket.

Island County

Figure 18. Cantilevered Container Tarping System Develop New Camano Island Transfer Station A review of the current operations at the existing Camano Transfer Station strongly suggests that further improvements will be necessary in the near future to increase unloading and waste storage capacities. Current site conditions require off-site queuing of trucks. Off site queuing has been significantly reduced with installation of the second scale in 2006, enlarged entrance, and revised interior circulation. Circulation patterns also need to be improved to assure adequate roadway safety of customers and waste transporters in light of recent access road modifications by the Washington Department of Transportation. To achieve this objective, Figure 19 illustrates a further engineered upgrade made possible by the traffic revision on the adjacent roadway. This project will be completed in 2008. The current high-speed intersection and roadway adjacent to and accessing the facility will become a cul-desac. The relocated intersection will be westerly of the station permitting a stand-alone single stream containerized recycling system that will eliminate much of the conflicting traffic movements within the facility, and essentially eliminating queuing on a through road. New recycle stalls will eliminate customers climbing stairs to place recycle material sin 40 cy containers. The containers themselves will be serviced from what is now a through-roadway opening up the site for wider access roads and improved interior circulation. Environmental Cleanup of Freeland Site The Freeland Recycling Center is operated by Island Recycling on a site owned by Island County. The site was formerly used as sand and gravel pit becoming the Freeland Landfill in 1950 and was a burn dump until 1969. Burning ceased after that date. The landfill accepted 33

Island County

household, municipal, and septic wastes between approximately 1950 and 1984. In 1978, the landfill no longer accepted household wastes, but continued to receive yard waste, demolition debris, automobiles, and appliances. The landfill was closed to waste disposal in 1984 and the site has been operated as a private recycling center (Island Recycling) since that date, with no additional waste disposed of at the site. A soil cap was placed over the landfill area in 1985. Soil and groundwater investigations in 2005 on the site conducted by Earthworks Environmental, Inc. (EEI) have indicated some contamination due to the auto hulking and dismantling operations. As a consequence, the County engaged a consultant to prepare a more extensive environmental site assessment. Results from this study required the County to initiate an environmental cleanup of the site at considerable expense. Due to the environmental exposure of auto hulking and dismantling operations on County property, we are of the opinion that the County should not allow similar operations in the future. We are unaware of similar auto hulking and dismantling as part of County recycling programs elsewhere. This type of operation is more typical of privately owned and operated facilities.

Island County

Figure 19. Current Camano Island Improvements

Island County

Preferably, it is our recommendation that a new station be designed to enable that refuse be loaded directed irrespective of weather conditions into transfer trailers and then to the intermodal facility operated by various waste haulers in the Cities of Everett and Seattle. Further study is needed to evaluate site requirements and to accurately estimate design, construction, and operating costs for this new station. Current estimated costs for a new station range from approximately $1.9 million to $2.1 million. Proposal by Oak Harbor to Develop Joint City/County Oak Harbor Transfer Station At the outset of the benchmarking study SCS met with representatives of the City and County to discuss the feasibility of a new solid waste transfer station for the Oak Harbor area. Currently, the County operates the Oak Harbor Drop-Box Station, which is located just immediately west of the City of Oak Harbor. When we discussed the potential need for an expanded transfer station in Oak Harbor, City officials expressed a strong opinion that there was a significant demand for the expended or a new transfer station because many City residents routinely drive to the Coupeville Transfer. The available data (Table 13) do not appear to support construction of a shred facility at this time. Due to the volume of daily transactions at the Coupeville Transfer Station, scale attendants are currently unable to record MSW data indicating geographic origin. As population increase on north Whidbey, a co-operated transfer station might be a viable approach in the future. Consequently, for the purposes of this study, we worked with County staff to devise a quick survey to enable Scalehouse Attendants at the Coupeville Station to gather some useful statistics in July and August 2007 on where the customers using the Station generally reside and their initial starting point before arriving at the Station. Although this was not a scientific survey, the data in Table 13 enable some initial observations to be made for solid waste planning purposes: •

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

•

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

•

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

•

The fewest number of customers reside in the City of Langley

Island County

Table 14. Coupeville Transfer Station Customer Survey, JulyAugust 2007 Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

General Area North of Oak Harbor City of Oak Harbor Between Oak Harbor and Coupeville Town of Coupeville Between Coupeville and Greenbank South Whidbey City of Langley

Number of Customers 934 858 1,129 667 1,603 1,589 162

Source: Island County, August, 2007 Future population growth will undoubtedly be an important factor in the City and County’s decision to site a new transfer station in Oak Harbor since the data noted above only measures a snapshot on current waste generation and transfer station usage. Population projections for both the entire island and the City of Oak Harbor suggest that much of the population growth currently is anticipated in the unincorporated areas of the County. Projections provided by the City’s Planning Department reveal an annual population growth of approximately 1.4 and 1.5 percent annually through 2025. Subsequent discussions with City Planning officials indicated that these projections are somewhat lower than previous population estimates. As previously stated, it is difficult to make a clear recommendation regarding development of a new transfer station in the City of Oak Harbor. While there are significant numbers of residents in the City who are driving directly to the Coupeville Transfer Station, the drive distance is not unreasonable given current industry benchmarks. Typically, a transfer station is usually considered economically feasible if the direct haul distance for large solid waste collection vehicles is more than 18 to 20 miles. In this case, most of the vehicles delivering refuse to the Station are passenger or light trucks. It is our opinion, therefore, that more detailed estimates of the Oak Harbor Wasteshed be conducted to provide a more detailed evaluation. Clearly, however, the City and the County should conduct in the future further evaluation of the existing Oak Harbor Drop Box Station to determine if operating improvements can be made to the Station to expand refuse disposal services for City residents. These improvements may be more economical than construction and operation of a new transfer station. The Oak Harbor Transfer station is not intended to serve the residents of the City of Oak Harbor who have their own city-run curbside waste pickup and recycling program. Larger loads should be hauled to Coupeville. At a time when the county’s unincorporated residential/commercial population and/or other economic factor group to a point where a shared facility is viable the County should be supportive of this transfer station since it will provide for both the County and the City.

Island County

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

EXPAND CURBSIDE RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES Recyclable materials are currently delivered by residents in the County at the transfer stations and drop-box locations. Waste Connections, the parent company of Island Disposal proposed a curbside recycling program,. The proposed curbside program is for Island Disposal. Island Disposal to provide a fee-based, bi-weekly, collection of “mixed recyclables”, which would include cardboard, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and “mixed waste papers". Not included ” are glass, food contaminated cardboard or paper and hazardous waste containers, among other contaminants. Island Disposal specifically excluded glass from the mixed recyclables because they believed that glass could not be adequately sorted at its MRF. Island Disposals’ proposal is to give residential customers a 60, or 96-gallon roll-out container, or, in special cases, a sticker that could be placed on a standard 32-gallon container. The separate container for recyclables will allow customers to decrease the number or frequency of trash cans set out and potentially reduces their trash service bills as follows: + New curbside recycling services - $6.40 - Rebate (70% of recyclables value) of $0.84 (based on July 2007 market values) - Savings from weekly to bi-weekly service (1 can) - $3.47 $2.09 more per month for curbside recycling Figure 20 illustrates the possible service fee increases or reductions, based on this proposal.

Island County

Change in Monthly Cost, $

Change in Monthly Cost by Reducing Number or Frequency of Trash Cans 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14

5.56 5.56 2.38

2.09

3 cans/wk to 2 cans/wk 3 cans/wk to 1can/wk 2 cans/wk to 1can/wk

-1.31

1 can/wk to 1 can/2wks 1 can/wk to 1can/mo.

-3.46

-4.32

1 can/wk to 1 Mini-can/wk No change in service Self-haul recyclables

-11.29 Change in Service Level

Figure 20. Change in Monthly Cost by Reducing Number or Frequency of Trash Cans In July 2007, the County conducted a non-scientific survey of its customers. Of the approximately 10,000 surveys distributed (mailed to Island disposal customers as part of billing notice, self-haulers at County solid facilities, attendees of Island County Fair, downloads from County website). Briefly, the survey indicated the following results: •

58% of the respondents live in the incorporated area

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

Island County

waste system. For example, the County had experienced a nearly 60 percent increase in the cost of solid waste disposal, primarily the result of the new solid waste disposal agreement with Rabanco. Further, the County had also experienced equipment and maintenance expenses, as well as staffing expenses increasing by over 16 percent each, because of the increase in solid waste tonnages delivered to the County’s transfer stations. As a result of the rate study, the County increased solid waste rates in March 15, 2007 for self haulers, and for franchise haulers on May 25, 2007. Adjustment of the Minimum Service Fee With the completion of the most recent solid waste rate study in 2007, the County increased the minimum fee to $ 10.00 for a single can or bundle of waste materials (not exceeding 40 pounds) delivered to County’s transfer stations. A second can or bundle is now charged an additional $3.00. A review of available solid waste disposal fees from neighboring communities suggests that the $10.00 rate is still somewhat below that charged by other communities in Western Washington. More importantly, in our opinion, this relatively low minimum fee sends a signal to residents encouraging them not to subscribe to curbside collection service. Thus, with fewer customers in the unincorporated areas, the private hauler in Island County is unable to provide cost-effective service because many potential customers are being provided disposal services at below market rates. Ultimately, the sheer number of self-haulers requiring services is severely taxing the County’s staffing resources at the transfer stations. It is our opinion, therefore, that the County should undertake a comprehensive study to evaluate the minimum service fees with respect to its impact on collection system subscriptions, transfer station staffing and operational costs. Set Tipping Fees for to Encourage Additional Recycling The County currently offers reduced tipping fees at the transfer stations for segregated yard and garden waste, and segregated wood waste (clean painted or unpainted lumber, plywood, particle board, etc.). Based on our observations, it appears that these rates have significantly increased the segregated tonnages of these materials disposed of at the Coupeville Transfer Station, which are then recycled by the County’s contractor. Ultimately, these materials do not make into the waste stream that must be currently transported by Rabanco, pursuant to its long-haul disposal contract with the County. SCS is of the opinion that the County should explore development of similar fee structures for other segregated commodities where these materials can be effectively recycled. This is particularly important since Island County has become increasingly dependent on its solid waste disposal needs from the large, more distant “mega-landfills” being operated in Eastern Washington and Oregon (Figure 21). The increases in the cost of fossil fuels are anticipated to result in increased transportation costs in future years. Therefore, by increasing its recycling rate of such potentially recycled commodities, we are of the opinion that the County could see significant savings in its overall disposal costs.

Island County

Operating Reserves In enterprise accounting, the term “fund balance’ is very often misunderstood. In essence, it is an accounting construct that is the difference between the governmental fund’s current assets – cash, inventories, investments and other unrestricted assets to finance current operations – and its current operating expenditures. A positive fund balance of current assets over current operating expenses is an indication of the resources that are available to finance ongoing operations. For most local governments, any fund balance that is not appropriated for specific expenditures usually serves as a general operating reserve for the governmental entity. Determining an adequate level of unrestricted fund balance is one of the more difficult questions for policymakers and decision makers for public utilities. There is a paucity of research and literature about the most appropriate level of reserve funds for local governments providing solid waste management services. A recent survey conducted by SCS suggests that those governments who have established a reserve policy have adopted a standard of setting aside three months of operating costs for their cash contingency reserves for nonrecurring or unforeseen needs that arise during the fiscal year, including: •

Expenses associated with unforeseen weather

•

Natural disasters

•

Unexpected liability created by State of Federal law

•

New public safety

•

Requirements that have been identified after the budget process has occurred

•

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

•

Startup expenditures for new programs undertaken at mid-year

•

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

Island County

Figure 21. Private Landfills in Washington/Oregon and Various Transport Methods

Island County

B E N C H M A R K I N G S T U DY

BENCHMARKING OVERVIEW Benchmarking has been used by solid waste management agencies or organizations to identify for best management practices, policies, innovative operational procedures, and innovative programs for an organization to enhance performance. Typically, the objective of this benchmarking process is to adapt these practices, policies, procedures, and ideas to further the performance of their own organization or agency. Over the years, benchmarking has become engrained into the culture as part of an ongoing philosophy of continuous improvement. As most recently pointed out in a groundbreaking study on solid waste collection practices (SWANA, 2007), benchmarking has been most often used in two key areas in solid waste management: • •

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

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

ISLAND COUNTY BENCHMARKING PROGRAM With SWANA’s transfer station benchmarking program not yet finalized, SCS initiated the benchmarking effort for Island County by reviewing available data and information in SCS’s office files and collecting similar benchmarking data, which has been published by other national or regional professional organizations. We also developed a request for available benchmarking data and information and posted this request on electronic bulletin boards, which are sponsored by the American Public Works Association (APWA), the National League of Cities (NACO), and SWANA. As a result of emails, faxes, and information received over the telephone, we developed a series of operational benchmarks to enable comparisons to be made across the many jurisdictions. These included data and information in the following key areas: ownership, staffing, days/hours of operation, customers per day, size of facility, distance to landfill, and costs (operating, tipping fees). An attempt was made to locate benchmark communities, similar to Island County, who operate smaller capacity transfer stations and utilize remote landfills. At the outset, we surveyed 18 counties throughout the State of Washington, which utilize remote, long-haul disposal of their solid wastes. The objective was to assess the historic and current ranges in overall system tipping fees for waste disposal as compared to Island County. As 43

Island County

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

Tipping Fee ($)

300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00

Ki ts a M p as A d on a Th m s ur st Li on nc ol n C la r Le k wi s G S ra ka ys g it Sn Har oh bo o r C mis ol um h W bia hi t Sp ma ok n W an ha e tc o Pa m cif ic Is l Je an ff e d Sa rso n n Ju an

0.00

County

Figure 22. 2008 County Tipping Fees, Washington Source: SCS Engineers, January 2008 A brief review of these data and interviews of County solid waste officials suggests that not all of these communities account for their costs in the same manner. That is, they may not all practice full cost accounting in development of their budgets and overall rate structures. As such, it is difficult to use these data and information to fully account for any inherent subsidies, budget overruns, or supposed cost efficiencies. The data do illustrate, however, that Island County’s tipping fees are higher than a few of the counties in Western Washington, but they generally appear to be in line with many of their neighbors that operate transfer stations, and utilize remote, long-haul landfills for their disposal needs. As noted in the paragraphs above, we surveyed communities in the Western United States, which operate transfer stations systems in helping to reveal any useful operational comparisons with the stations operated by Island County. Table 15 summarizes the survey information received for this study in terms of design features, operational characteristics of the stations, staffing, programs to increase recycling and reduce materials for long-haul disposal, and costs. While it

Island County

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

In order to make the most meaningful operating cost evaluation of the County’s Coupeville Transfer Station, we surveyed an additional number of solid waste authorities such as the Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority (West Palm Beach, Florida) and the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) of Virginia (Norfolk, Virginia), which operate extensive transfer station systems, and also compile detailed financial benchmarking data. As shown in Figure 23, the Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority have collected detailed operating cost information on their transfer stations since 1992, which include stations that process average waste flows that vary from 250 to 2,000 tons per day. The operating costs shown in the graph are their aggregate costs (not including transport and disposal for all stations over this time period. Recent discussions with Authority managers indicate that total operating costs per ton for their smaller stations are currently trending towards $18.00 to $20.001. Based on these data, it appears that Island County’s recent operating costs at the Coupeville Transfer Station compare favorably with the Palm Beach costs. Not surprisingly, Island County’s operating costs are somewhat higher given its remote location on an island, the availability of competing equipment suppliers, and relatively increased cost of running a transfer station with compaction equipment. Notwithstanding, the Coupeville Transfer Station appears to offers competitive operating costs in light of the extensive Palm Beach benchmarking data.

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

Island County

$18.00

$16.00

$15.87 $13.90

$14.00

$13.88 $13.11 $12.95 $13.24 $13.04

$ per ton

$12.00

$12.46

$11.59

$12.70 $12.04

$13.97 $13.32

$12.39

$10.00 cost per ton $8.00

$6.00

$4.00

$2.00

$0.00 92/93

93/94

94/95

95/96

96/97

97/98

98/99

99/00

00/01

01/02

02/03

03/04

04/05

05/06

fiscal year

Figure 23. Operating Cost of Representative Publicly Operated Transfer Stations Source: Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority, 2008

Island County

Table 15. Benchmarking Survey Data

TRANSFER STATION LOCATION STATION STATISTICS

Public or Private owned/operated

Staffing (FTE)

Days/Hours of Operation

Distance to Landfill (One-Way Miles) Number of Scales Scale House Customers Per Day Tons per Day (permitted and actual)

Bans on Materials

Recycling Incentives

Equipment (type and numbers)

Copper-mine, Page, AZ

Hood River, OR

Carey, ID

San Juan Co., WA

Ohio Gulch, ID

Ketchikan, AK

Richland, WA

City of Lewiston, ID

Kittitas Co., WA

Metro South, Oregon City, OR

Factoria, Bellevue, WA

Private (Allied)

Private (Waste Connections)

Publicly owned and operated

Publicly owned and operated— planned for demolition and replacement with a bigger facility

2.5

1.5

12 (10 FT/4 PT)

6.5

5-6

Mon-Sat 8am8:30pm

Mon-Sat 9am-5pm

Tues-Sat 9am6pm

Wed-Sun 10am4pm

Mon-Sat 8am530pm

Mon-Sat 8am-4pm

165 mi

33 mi

115 mi

400 miles (by train)

109 mi

650 miles

300 ft2

N/A

150 ft2

150 ft2/ 25 ft2

150

8-9

200-300

160

50-55

300

Actual <15 Permitted-no amt.

Actual-25 Permitted- 15-40

Actual-125 Permitted- no amt.

Hazardous waste, asbestos, paint, waste oil, antifreeze, tires

Lead Acid Batteries, Haz Waste, Paint, Antifreeze

Lead Acid Batteries, Tires, Haz Waste, Bulk Liquids

Solvents

Lead Acid Batteries, Tires, Haz Waste, Bulk Liquids

Free

Recyclables are free

Differential fee structure

Free recycling

Loader, Crawler D5, Wood Grinder

Transfer trailers, 580 Case backhoe

1 T 28 G Loader, 310 SE Backhoe, Three transfer trucks, five transfer trailer compactors

7 days/wk 8am4pm

7 days/wk 8am4:30pm

Mon-Sat 8am-4pm

600 ft

9 mi

300 ft2

Public 7 days/wk 8am-4pm

Mon-Fri 6:15am11:30pm Sat-Sun

Comm. 3an-7pm 7 days/wk

8:30am-5pm

145 mi

150 mi

20 mi

3000 ft2

300 ft2

3 houses Avg 500 ft2 ea

470 ft2

150-200

125

145

350-450

Self-haul 900 Comm. 275

Self-haul 300 Comm. 65

Actual 200 Permitted-2.5 mil tons for the life of the site

Actual-125 Permitted- no amt.

Actual 268,000 tons Permitted- No amt

Self-haul 90 Comm. 380

Radioactive, Asbestos, Explosives

Subtitle D materials

Asbestos, used oil, batteries, paint, antifreeze

Haz waste, bulk liquids, asbestos, explosives

Haz waste, bulk liquids, asbestos, soil, dirt

Appliances, haz. Waste, liquids, C&D (open bed trucks), electronics, mercury-containing products

Differential fee structure

No charge for recyclables

Scrap metal free

Yes (did not specify)

Penalty of $35.55/ton for <15% recovery.

Free

2 backhoes, 2 fifth wheel tractors

Motor Rator, D8 Crawler, 3 loaders, forklift, tractor, dump truck

D6 Dozer, 2 excavators, tub grinder, compost turner, shredder, compactor

Open top 40yd containers

Backhoe, loader

Front end loader

N/A

Goat (some kind of tractor?), packer (2), compactor

2 vehicle 1 floor

Baler(s)

Yes-scrap metal only brought in once a year

Yes-for recycling

Yes

Yes for cardboard

Floor Sorting Capability

Yes-limited

Yes, aluminum

Yes

Island County

TRANSFER STATION LOCATION STATION STATISTICS

Copper-mine, Page, AZ

Hood River, OR

Carey, ID

San Juan Co., WA

Ohio Gulch, ID

Ketchikan, AK

Richland, WA

City of Lewiston, ID

Kittitas Co., WA

Metro South, Oregon City, OR

Factoria, Bellevue, WA

Yes

3 bays

Yes

Pit Operation

2,500 ft2

3,850 ft2

1,400 ft2

1,800 ft2

4,500 ft2- two bldgs

14,400 ft2

3600 ft2

14,000 ft2

9,000 ft2

31,000 ft2

57,000 ft2

Recycling Drop-off Area

500 ft2

300 ft2

50 ft2

1,800 ft2

5400 ft2

3,000 ft2

2-30yd containers

600 ft2

22,000 ft2

25,000 ft2

16,000 ft2

Storage for Recovered Materials

Yes

1,800 ft2

Yes

Yes- limited

Office did not know sf

Office (did not know sf)

750 ft2

1,755 ft2

1,600 ft2

200 ft2

800 ft2

120 ft2

1500 ft2

Office 4,800 ft2

Yes (did not know sf)

100 ft2

No-except for one yearly event

50 ft2

1,000 ft2

2,400 ft2

2,000 ft2

1,600 ft2

5000 ft2

1,600 ft2

Operating facility

Designed to sustain severe winter conditions

Restrictive height ordinance and added TS to existing incinerator

Designed to sustain severe winter conditions

16 TPD incinerator

Large customer vehicle quantity

Design-build

Heavy snow load design

Existing TS; Added 2 compactors

Did not know

1st 17,000 tons/mo =$159230.54, every ton after pay $8.90/ton Recovered material $35.55/ton

$74.67/ton

$71.14 + transaction fee ($3 for automotive self haul or $8.50 for scale house.)

$3.50/ton moderate risk surcharge

(confirm) Tunnel/Bay Load-out Transfer Building/ MSW Area

Office and Visitor Center HHW Facility Special Features and Challenges

Operating Costs ($/Ton)

Tip Fees (Material types)

Reference Phone Requested Copy Email

Restaurant grease bio treatment and custom erosion control

Confidential

$40/ton

$37/ton

Did not know

$31/ton

$93.18/ton

$38.95/ton

MSW loose-$8/cy, MSW Compacted $18/cy, C&D $8/cy, Inert $7/cy, Wood $1/cy

$278.00/ton

MSW-$55/ton, C&D $55/ton, Inert $20/ton, Wood $10/ton, Scrap metal no charge

$.06/lb, $120/ton

Emailed price list

Not Available

Wes Gavett

Terry Schultz

Not Available

Terry Schultz

Bob Silversten

Kip Eagles

Dan Johnson

Patti Johnson

Jim Watkins

Lisa Williams

928.645.3885

541 386-2272

208.432.9082

360. 370.0532

208.432.9082

907.228.5615

509.942.7471

208.746-3671

509.962.7070

503.797.1599

206.296.8488

tschultz@sisw.org

Did not know

$17/ton

$15-20/ton

No charge for residential curbside

keagles@ci.richland.wa.us

Commercial Waste: Up to one cubic yard free each month $20.00/cy after Ist 12 cy in fiscal year

watkinsj@metro.dst.or.us

Did not know

$102.05/ton$15 minimum/car

Island County

F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

Based on the data and information collected during the course of this study, SCS makes major findings and recommendations in the following areas: 1. Operational Assessments of Facilities–Our review of the Department’s facilities indicates that they are well managed and equipment maintained in accordance with established solid waste industry maintenance practices. Current staffing levels to most functions appear optimal with respect to other similarly-sized solid waste agencies. Data collected during our benchmarking survey of other similar transfer stations suggests that the Coupeville Transfer Station’s operating costs (not counting the cost of transportation and disposal) compares favorably with well-run, publicly operated facilities. 2. Expand the Coupeville Transfer Station – Over the past decade, waste tonnages and customer traffic at the Coupeville Station have steadily increased. Our review of current operations indicated that the facility was well managed and maintained. Staffing was appropriate for the size of the station with highly motivated and customer-friendly, employees. With the closure of the adjacent County landfill, solid waste was hauled for the first 14 years by WMI to their privately-owned landfill in Oregon, and, starting in 2007 for the next five years hauled by Rabanco to their privately-owned landfill in Eastern Washington. Increasing deliveries of waste to the station and processing of the waste from the tipping floor and then into the compactor and the trailers is a daily challenge for staff because of the existing capacity of the Station. By expanding the tipping floor by two or more additional bays, the County would see immediate economic benefits. This added space could effectively be used by staff to cull out potential recyclables from the incoming waste stream, thereby decreasing the County’s disposal fees to Rabanco, and resulting in additional recycling revenues. We urge the County to move expeditiously on this project. 3. Improve Operations of Disposal Contract With Rabanco–In January 2007, the County entered into a five-year contract with Rabanco Ltd. To accept loaded transfer trailers at the County’s transfer stations and transport these wastes to a privately-owned landfill. During the course of our initial field visit for this project, the County expressed some concerns with the Contractor’s ability to supply adequate numbers of containers, chassis, and tractors to enable the County to remove the incoming waste from the Coupeville Transfer Station in a expeditious manner. Trucks are arriving late requiring County staff to remain later in the day to assure that all waste is cleaned off the transfer station floor, as required by the County’s operating permit. We urge the County to enter into negotiations with Rabanco to resolve this issue. 4. Adjust Tipping Fees at the Coupeville Station to Encourage Segregated Loads– The County currently offers reduced tipping fees for customers delivering segregated loads of recyclable materials such as wood wastes. The County’s current contractor for yard and wood waste recycling has experimented with innovative methods to improve separation and screening of yard waste materials as well as identifying markets for boiler fuels. Again, every additional ton recycled from the incoming waste stream results in disposal costs savings. We recommend that the County work with its recycling contractors to 49

Island County

develop markets for these segregated materials and adjust its tipping fees to attract these supplies. 5. Establish Equipment Replacement Reserve –The County currently funds its replacement of equipment and vehicles out of its cash reserves. Many solid waste agencies are using a sinking or revolving fund to spread the costs of funding new vehicles or equipment over a longer period of time. Basically, this type of financing approach requires that an agency make periodic payments into a fleet replacement fund thereby ensuring that there will be adequate funds available for the replacement vehicle or unit when it comes due for replacement. In comparison to the current cash method of financing, a sinking fund would help even out the annual volatility of the agency’s replacement funding needs and to predict the Department’s annual funding needs over a long planning horizon. 6. Establish Policy for Operating Fund Reserves – It is our understanding that the County currently maintains a $1.3 million restricted reserve for use in emergency post-closure environmental issues at closed landfill facilities. In addition, the County has about $2.5 million in operating reserves that covers equipment repair and new capital facilities. Based on the County’s current budget of roughly $6 million per year, we are of the opinion that the County should consider establishing a goal of $1.5 million for operating reserves apart from funding these future capital facilities. 7. Develop a New Camano Island Transfer Station – A review of the current operations at the existing Camano Transfer Station suggests the improvements currently under way as part of the Camano Hill Road rebuild will improve many of site's existing problems. Planned upgrades, in addition to the already installed second scale, should significantly improve recycling operations, interior circulation, lighting, and site access. Queuing on the roadway should not be an issue with the revised access points and relocation of the East Camano Drive Intersection. Ultimately, with future growth on the Island, the County will need to investigate the siting and construction of a new transfer station. We recommend that the County to take the necessary steps to begin planning now for this eventuality. 8. Further Investigation of Oak Harbor Transfer Station – As noted earlier in this report, data at this time doe not support the construction of a shared transfer station with the City of Oak Harbor at this time. While there are significant numbers of residents in the City who are driving directly to the Coupeville Transfer Station, the drive distance is not unreasonable given current industry benchmarks. Typically, a transfer station is usually considered economically feasible if the direct haul distance for large solid waste collection vehicles is more than 18 to 20 miles. In this case, most of the vehicles delivering refuse to the Station are passenger or light trucks. It is our opinion, therefore, that more detailed estimates of the Oak Harbor Wasteshed be conducted to provide a more detailed evaluation. Clearly, however, the City and the County should conduct further evaluation of the existing Oak Harbor Drop Box Station to determine if operating improvements can be made to the Station to expand refuse disposal services for City residents. These improvements may be more economical than construction and operation of a new transfer station. 50

Island County

9. Expand or Consolidate Bayview Drop Box Station – A review of current tonnage and customer delivery records of the Bayview Drop Box Station indicated an increasing demand for services at the southern portion of Whidbey Island. There has been some suggestion that economies could be realized by consolidation of the two operations at the Freeland Facility. Although it is unusual for two facilities to provide similar services in close proximity to one another, it is our opinion that consolidation of these two operations may not result in significant costs savings to the County because some customers may have to drive an additional six miles further for drop off services. In the interim, the county should continue to replace smaller boxes with larger capacity containers similar to recent upgrades in the recycle area. Consequently, further study is needed to determine current and future customer use for a significantly expanded station at Bayview. 10. Implement a Curbside Collection and Recycling Program - A large percentage of the County's residents in the unincorporated areas do not currently subscribe to a waste collection program. Further, there is no curbside collection service for recyclables. Much of these materials and wastes are delivered to County facilities resulting in heavy traffic and requiring the County to keep the Coupeville Transfer Station open seven days a week to provide the necessary service levels. Our review of the proposal offered by Waste Connections via Island Disposal indicates that it offers significant opportunities to increase recycling rates in the unincorporated areas of the County, while at the same time enabling homeowners to reduce their overall monthly collection costs. Although not scientific, the survey conducted by the County suggests a significant number of respondents were in favor of this change. The proposal required a "level of service" ordinance that would require all customers on curbside trash pickup to participate in a mandatory program. Those who believe they would not benefit from such a program may prefer to self haul. Alternatively, an RFP approach may allow the County additional control over the program. A curbside recycling program would undoubtedly result in overall cost savings to the County because the greater volume of recovered recyclables would not have to transported and disposed at a remote landfill. SCS is of the opinion that an Island Disposal (Waste Connections) and a Waste Management (Camano Island) proposal be thoroughly examined both in the context of homeowner and County cost savings and increases in levels of service. As noted, the County could issue an RFP for curbside recycle services and evaluate those proposals. 11. Adjust Minimum Service Fees At Transfer Station – With the completion of the most recent solid waste rate study in 2007, the County increased the minimum fee to $ 10.00 for a single can or bundle of waste materials (not exceeding 40 pounds) delivered to County’s transfer stations. A second can or bundle is now charged an additional $3.00. A review of available solid waste disposal fees from neighboring communities suggests that the $10.00 rate is still somewhat below that charged by other communities in Western Washington. More importantly, in our opinion, this relatively low minimum fee sends a signal to residents encouraging them not to subscribe to curbside collection service. Thus, with fewer customers in the unincorporated areas, the private hauler in Island County is unable to provide cost-effective service because many potential customers are being provided disposal services at below market rates. Ultimately, the

Island County

sheer number of self-haulers requiring services is severely taxing the County’s staffing resources at the transfer stations. It is our opinion, therefore, that the County should undertake a comprehensive study to evaluate the minimum service fees with respect to its impact on collection system subscriptions, transfer station staffing and operational costs. 12. Staffing and Hours At Transfer Stations and Drop Boxes – The Department provides an extensive level of service to County residents at its transfer station and drop boxes. As noted in the paragraphs above, we have recommended improvements in the capacity of this system through enlargement of tipping bays, addition of larger capacity storage boxes, and modification of the traffic flow into and out of these stations. Preliminary surveys conducted by the County have suggested that some residents are traveling longer distances to dispose recyclables and solid wastes. Continued development trends on Whidbey and Camano Islands, and possible changes in waste collection and curbside collection suggest to us that the County should undertake a study to evaluate whether staffing and operating hours needs to be adjusted in order to provide the desired levels of service to the public. 13. Further Benchmarking of Facility Operations and Costs – Benchmarking is an important tool used by the private sector to help compare operating costs and look for ways to improve services. Until recently, benchmarking was not widely practiced by the public sector, particularly in solid waste management. National and regional initiatives by SWANA to gather benchmarking information and data on waste collection are only recent events. We urge the County to approach SWANA and the Department of Ecology to undertake an initiative to begin benchmarking transfer station operations in the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest. It is our opinion that these data and I formation would prove useful to the County to improve its operations.

Island County

REFERENCES

Engineers-Architects, P.C. and Widjac Corporation, Feasibility Study for the Conversion of Combustible Refuse to Useful Energy, Kirkland, Washington, 1983. Green Solutions, Island County Solid Waste and Moderate-Risk Waste Management Plan, South Prairie, Washington, April 2007. HWA Geosciences, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment and Cleanup Report – Island County Facility, August 2007. Paul S. Running and Associates, Island County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, Volume I, Seattle, Washington, February, 1991. SCS Engineers, City of Oak Harbor Transfer Station Study, Bellevue, Washington, 2005 Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc., Solid Waste and Septage Rate Study for the Island County Solid Waste Program: 2007-2009, Superior, CO., March, 2007. Solid Waste Association of North America, The Benchmarking of Residential solid Waste Collection Services, SWANA Applied Research foundation Collection Group Sponsors and Project Sponsors, June 2007. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Evaluation of Island County Municipal Refuse Compost as a soil Amendment, December 1991. URS, Presentation on the Materials Recovery Facility Study, Presented to the City of Oak Harbor, June 21, 2007.

Island County

APPENDIX

Island County

Appendix A Equipment Inventory

Island County

Vehicles License Description

Veh #

Serial #

Make

Loc/Site

Purchased from

Date

Amount

709

00883C

Truck - utility 1987

1GBHR34K1HJ147640

Chevrolet

CP/Doug

709

CAPITOL CHEV

04/10/87

$11,764.40

715

12148C

Truck - DUMP GMC, 1977

TMC 927 V590431

GMC

CP/Doug

Shop

SNOHOMISH CNTY

10/08/90

$16,500.00

729

27736C

Truck - P/U 1993 Sonoma

1GTCS192P8523902

GMC

Camano

George Gee Pontiac

04/19/93

$10,388.04

732

29555C

Automobile - 1994 Chevy Corsica

161LD5548R4217684

Chevrolet

CP/Adele

Adele

03/29/94

$11,535.66

734

33423C

Truck Freightliner -1990

SN2FUPDSYB4LV390986

Freightliner

CP/Doug

Septage

King County, WA

02/06/95

$41,488.10

736

33428C

Truck - 1995 Ford Ranger

VIN 1FTCR14AXSPA44514

Ford

CP/Jerry

MRW

Frontier Ford

04/10/95

$11,897.80

Metal recycling

Frontier Ford

04/10/95

$12,673.05

737

12154C

Truck - 1995 1 ton flatbed F-350

VIN 1FDKF37H8SEA40655

Ford

740

33474C

Truck-1996 Chev. S10

1GCCS19X6T8168616

Chev S-10 pickup

OFFICE

Dave Bonvouloir Gilchrist Chevrolet

02/26/96

$15,689.87

746

49991C

Truck-Chev. 1\2T 1999

1GCEK14V7XE194406

Chevrolet

CP/Brian

Brian Weaver BUD CLARY CHEVROLET

04/09/99

$19,044.79

757

64173C

Truck - F600 Ford 1991

1FDMK64P8MVA25626

Ford

HHW

MRW

Northend Truck Equipment

11/25/02

$7,898.00

764

42600C

Truck - T10PU GMC 1997

1GTDT14X7V8521005

GMC

Septage

Steve

Is Co GSA

775

33482C

Ford Escort

VIN# FASP15J3TW170355

Ford

Cpvl

GSA- Interfund

Adele

5/17/05 3/7/2007 $

$2,000 1,200.00

Island County

Equipment License

Veh #

Description

Serial #

Make

701

C41116

Loader, wheel - CAT

81J6607

CAT 950

723

C02911

Generator w/trailer 714- 1991 9830091X

735

33426C

Trailer - Sludge 1984

744

TRX3000 ATV 1997 Honda

749

57635C

752

60610C

754

756

761

2002

MWMDES10

Loc/Site

CP/

Purchased from Date

Transfer Station

Amount

NC MACHINERY

05/01/75

$51,597.00

CP/Doug Shop

Castaway

11/01/91

$0.00

1H4B04129EJ012302 Freuhoff

CP/Doug Septage

Metro Fixed Assets 03/06/95

$10,861.65

478TE1506VA804214 TRX300FWV

CP/Brian Shop

Maryott's Honda

04/03/97

$5,302.20

TRAILER-FORD/PUMP 1989 1J9ED2267KS052194 STRONG BOY

CP/Doug Septage

CITY OF SALEM

9/15/00

$2,501.00

Trailer - 1981 Thompson 5000gal 2041 Vacuum

Thompson Tank

CP/Doug Septage

JMP Industrial Services 7/13/01

$32,000.00

Oil Vacuum Pump

Masport M-1 Pump

CP/Brian Transfer Station

ERICKSON TANK &11/27/01 PUMP

$2,003.06

CP/Jerry Recycle

Northern Tool & Equip 10/14/02

$10,499.98

D & J Equipment Sales 01/13/04

$3,836.00

Forklift, Toyota

42278 78/118v #M53680KK

Yard Goat

VIN #50726

765

Sweeper

770

Yard Goat

VIN #74845

771

BACKHOE LOADER

772

BACKHOE LOADER

773

2006 Deere 544J Loader - CP

Ottawa, 1977

CP/Brian OTTAWA

Ben-Ko-Matic

03/28/05

3808.00

D & J EQUIPMENT 04/17/06

$32,384.50

T0410GX960773 JOHN DEERE 410G

PAPE MACHINERY 10/16/06

$67,452.48

T0410GX960753 JOHN DEERE 410G

PAPE MACHINERY 10/23/06

$55,032.48

JOHN DEERE 444J

PAPE MACHINERY3/27/2007

95150.86

Island County

Appendix B Washington Disposal Rate History for Communities Exporting Solid Waste

Island County

Snohomish Kitsap

Tons Disposed 2006

Tons Disposed 2002

Disposal Rate 07-08

507,122 84950 (self-haul) 125,021 (curbside)

440,007

248,051

62.02

Additional Fees and Rates

Disposal Rate 10/6/2008

Disposal Rate 4/3/2008

Disposal Rate 6/2/2008

Disposal Rate 2/1/2008

Disposal Rate 12/1/1997

Disposal Rate 6/1/1995

Disposal Rate 8/1/1994

Disposal Rate 1/1/1993

Disposal Rate 2/1/1992

Disposal $/Ton

Disposal Method/Location

Tax

Export-Roosevelt, WA

62.02

57.63

61.71

56.7

62.02

Export – Arlington, OR

69.77

69.03

77.55

74.5

71.45

74.45

Export – Boardman, OR

70.8

66.3

71.69

62.1

50.9

63.6

53.24

70.8

Export – Roosevelt, WA

70-100

100

103.65

100

90.94

70-100

Export – Roosevelt/Arlington

85.99

82.5

85.99

103.15

Export – Roosevelt, WA

71.43

68.5

Export – Roosevelt, WA

84.95

Export – Roosevelt, WA

105

C-$104.25; Pub.$110

Export – Roosevelt, WA (’07-’12)

42.75

Export – Roosevelt, WA

$10.00 Transaction Fee

12.4

Clark

277,529

232,769

76.77

Thurston

199,692

162,731

Whatcom

152,668

99,719

Skagit

104,070

89,891

Grays Harbor

Emailing…

45,600

Lewis

66,133.67

50,350

$2.95 refuse tax

Island

SCS has…

42,150

104.25 (110.00 self-haul)

$7.28 fee and 3.6% tax

Mason

36,384

27,000

76.2

Tax

53.5

Jefferson

20,608

16,828

110

Tax

110

115

76.48

110

Export – Roosevelt, WA

Pacific San Juan

$2.99 tax

14497.56

90.54

105

83.8

95.85

82.3

100

105

Export – Arlington, OR

12,071

260 (increasing 4/08-278.00)

238

192.67

194.56

185.55

162

11,651

238

Export – Arlington, OR

Roosevelt

Adams

15,781

68 (April 08)

Whitman

29,826

Export-Arlington, OR

Spokane

354,704

In County WTE & Export to Roosevelt

Lincoln

1,908.10

69.5

69.50 (74.00-2007)

In County Landfill & Export to Roosevelt

Columbia

Emailing…

86(06) 90(07)

Walla Walla

Source: Island County and SCS Telephone Survey, January 2008