HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1982.08.05 - 13895August 5th, 1982
Miscellaneous Resolution # 8229
By Planning and Building Committee - Anne M. Hobart ; Chairperson
In re: Solid Waste Management Plan for Oakland County, Michigan
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS Act 641 of the Public Acts of 1978 requires in part the preparation of county
solid waste management plans; and
WHEREAS this Board, with the adoption of Miscellaneous Resolution #8905 on April 5th,
1979, filed a Notice of Intent to prepare such a plan with the Director of the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR); and
WHEREAS said resolution also selected the county executive to act as the designated
planning agency responsible for the preparation of the plan; and
WHEREAS this Board on January 10th, 1980, appointed a thirteen (13) person Solid
Waste Planning Committee (SWPC) to act in an advisory capacity during the preparation of
the proposed plan; and
WHEREAS the proposed plan consists of a 552-page primary document dated
November 1981, released for public comment on December 7th, 1981, and a 38-page
Appendix dated May 1982 embodying certain amendments or clarifications to the primary
document as a result of public comment received during the Public Hearing process; and
WHEREAS after twenty-four (24) public meetings, including the Public Hearing on
March 23rd, 1982, SWPC hos approved the proposed pion and in accordance with Act 641,
has forwarded it to this Board for approval; and
WHEREAS the Planning and Building Committee, after meetings involving the review
of the proposed plan on June 10th and June 24th, 1982, found certain objections or needs
for further modification or clarification in the plan; and
WHEREAS on July 12th, 1982, SVVPC reviewed the objections and made recommendations
in their regard (see attached items a through 0 .; and
WHEREAS on July 22nd, 1982, the Planning and Building Committee again reviewed the
proposed plan along with the recommendations of the SWPC (see attached items a through f); and
Page 2
WHEREAS as a result of the review of the public comment record and additional testimony
received on June 10th and June 24th, 1982, the Planning and Building Committee objected to the
designation of the proposed Weber Sanitary Landfill as a 190-acre site (item a). The Planning
and Building Committee believes the sanitary landfill designation in the proposed County Plan
should only be for the 28 acres currently permitted by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. The legality of current construction permit is being contested in the Courts by the
Township of Orion, Should the Township prevail, then the Planning and Building Committee
feels the 28-acre site should also he removed from designation in the proposed County Plon: and
WHEREAS the Planning and Building Committee requested that the General Motors
letters dated July 22nd and July 12th, 1982, (letters attached) be considered by the Oakland
County Board of Commissioners in conjunction with their review of Item F.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
hereby approves the proposed plan with the inclusion of the recommendations (items b through
F) made by the Solid Waste Planning Committee (SWPC) from their meeting of July 12th, 1982,
(see attachments) with the following objections
1) the Oakland County Board of Commissioners objects to the inclusion
of the Weber Sanitary Landfill as a 190-acre site and recommends that
the Weber Sanitary Landfill should be included in the plan for only
the 28 acres currently licensed by the DNIR and that, should the
Township of Orion's lawsuit prevail, then the entire Weber Site
should be deleted, and
2) the Oakland County Board of Commissioners objects to the fact that
local input is insufficient and recommends the addition of the following
statement: "To foster local input into inspections of sanitary landfills,
the chief elected official in the host municipality will be afforded
the opportunity to request to accompany the certified health department
:,.Oakland County Environmental Health Division) or the Michigan DNR
during any site visit. The chief elected official may designate a
representative to act in his behalf for this purpose. The intent of
this procedure is to make the certified health department or the
Michigan DNR aware of the local perspective pertaining to any
problem or possible problem before the certified health department
or the Michigan DNR makes any field decision or decisions required
by Act 641, Public Acts of 1978 or rules promulgated thereunder.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SWPC is hereby requested to make their final
recommendations directly to this Board by August 26th, 1982, regarding these changes, as
provided in Act 641,
MR, CHAIRPERSON, on behalf of the Planning and Building Committee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution,
PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE
Item a.) S.W.P.C. Meeting of July 12, 1982
As a result of the review of the Public comment record and additional
testimony received on June 10 and June 24, 1982 the Planning and Building
Committee objected to the designation of the proposed Weber Sanitary Land-
fill as a 190 acre site. The Planning and Building Committee believes the
sanitary landfill designation in the proposed County Plan should only be for
the 28 acres currently permitted by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. The legality of current construction pelmit is being contested
in the Courts by the Township of Orion. Should the Township prevail, then
the Planning and Building Committee feels the 28 acre site should also be
removed from designation in the proposed County Plan.
S.W.P.C. Recommendations:
After due consideration no action was taken to change the size of the
proposed Weber Type II sanitary landfill. Therefore, the Weber sanitary
landfill continues to be recommended for designation bythe S.W.P.C. as a
potential 190 acre site in the proposed County Plan.
Note
Add this to Appendix, Page 6
-1-
Item b.) S.W.P.C. Meeting of July 12, 1982
As a result of the request of the City of Pontiac and additional
discussion with County Staff on June 10 and June 24, 1982 the Planning
and Building Committee objected to the requirement in the proposed County
Plan that type III building demolition waste's originating within the City
of Pontiac had to be disposed of in the City's Collier Road sanitary land-
fill.
SWPC Recommendation
In order to preserve the longevity of the Collier Road sanitary
and construction
landfill, type III building demolition/wastes originating in the City of
Pontiac will be permitted to be disposed of in the County sub-system,
provided payment is made for the standard, established fee in the County
sub-system.
Note
Add to Appendix, Page 17
--2-
Item c.) - S.W.P.C. Meeting of July 12, 1982
As a result of public comment, the Planning and Building Committee
on June 24, 1982 requested further clarification and specificity to the
language limiting the number of sanitary landfills in a township.
S.W.P.C. Recommendation:
Language is improved by adding the following to the Appendix:
Sanitary landfills may not be expanded beyond those descrip- -
tions or acreage as designated in the proposed County Plan for
the twenty year life of the plan unless the Township by action
of its Board of Trustees specifically authorizes the expansion
or expansions and the County Plan is amended accordingly.
Any Township haying one or more designated sanitary landfill
sites in the proposed County Plan ma opt for additional sanitary
landfill sites at any time in the future upon concurrence of
its Board of Trustees and amendment of the County Plan.
Note:
Add to Appendix, Page 18
-3-
Item S.W.P.C. Meeting of July 12, 1982.
As a result of public comment, the Planning and Building Committee
on June 24, 1982 requested further clarification and modification to flow
control implications for the member municipalities of the Southeastern
Oakland County Incinerator Authority (S.O.C.I.A.) and the City of Pontiac.
S.W.P.C, Recommendation:
Items 2., A. thru H. on pages 22 and :23 of the Appendix are improved
to better reflect existing situations in S.O.C.I.A. and the City of Pontiac
by adding the following:
Member municipalities of the Southeastern Oakland County
Incinerator Authority and the City of Pontiac,sub-systems,
in view of existing collection and disposal practices and
agreements may choose to participate fully, participate in
a limited manner, or not to participate at all in flow control
aspects outlined in the proposed County Plan.
Note:
Add to Appendix, Page 23
Item e.) S.W.P.C. Meeting of July 12, 1982
As a result of public comment, the Planning and Building Com-
mittee on June 24, 1982 requested additional language in the proposed
County Plan to better protect the environment and insure the health,
welfare, and safety of the people in Oakland County by requiring coopera-
tion between the sub -systems for back-up disposal in case of emergency
or short-term disposal problems.
S.W.P.C. Recommendation:
In the best planned and operated solid waste disposal systems and
sub-systems emergency or short-term disposal problems can and do occur.
They may arise out of strikes, bad weather, fire, mechanical breakdowns, etc.
It makes sense to have a cooperativeagreement by and between the sub-systems
in the proposed County -Plan providing for emergency or short-term disposal
assistance. The following language is recommended to be added to the
Appendix:
It is understood and agreed that proper collection and disposal
of solid wastes is a vital concern to the health, welfare, and
safety of all people in all the municipalities in Oakland County.
To that end should any sub-system to the County Plan encounter
emergency or short-term problems with solid waste disposal, the
other sub-systems will provide back-up disposal for the duration
of the emergency. Longer term alternate disposal arrangements
will require amendment of the County Plan. Emergency or short-term
problem users of another sub-systems disposal facilities will be
expected to pay those charges ordinarily 'imposed on the host sill-
system.
Note:
Add to Appendix, Pages 23 or 23A
Item f.) S.W.P.C. Meeting of July 12, 1982
On June 17, 1982, General Motors Corporation submitted a paper entitled
"Comments On The Proposed Oakland County Solid Waste Management Plan" to the
Planning and Building Committee. The Planning and Building Committee on June24,
1982 referred that paper to the Solid Waste Planning Committee (S.W.P.C.) for
consideration and recommendation concerning General Motors comments.
Staff Comments:
General Motors objects to the flowrcontrol'and uniform system fee aspects
of the proposed County plan and believes that fees should be based upon the
cost of services provided. They also believe that the plan should allow for
exportation of solid wastes outside the COunty. Staff's position is that flow
control is necessary to insure the proper; disposal of solid waste throughout
the County system and to secure the financing necessary to construct the facili-
ties of the proposed system. Flow control will insure that solid waste is
directed to the proper disposal facilities and not delivered in disproportionate
amounts to some facilities while other facilities are not properly utilized.
During the day-to-day operations of the proposed energy recovery facilities,
it may be necessary to occasionally change the disposal site for collectors
and haulers to compensate for varying volumes of waste and for operational
problems.
A uniform system fee will spread the costs and benefits of the total
system equitably among the users of the system. . A variable fee system would be
totally unmanageable. On some days wastes from a municipality could go to a
landfill, transfer station or resource recovery facility or any combination of
the three. On other occasions it may be necessary to change the disposal sites
for that municipality. A variable fee system would require charging a different
fee for each load delivered, depending on the site of disposal. Under a variable
-6-
fee system a municipality that delivered its waste to a transfer station or
resource recovery facility would feel it was being discriminated against
because it was being charged more for disposal than those municipalities
that disposed of their wastes at a sanitary landfill.
In order for solid wastes generated in one county to be disposed of
in another county, the solid waste management plans of both counties must
recognize that fact. This would require knowledge of where General Motors
wishes to dispose of its waste and the cooperation and approval of the re-
cipient county or counties. This information is not available.
Allowing exportation of solid wastes
havoc with the planning and projections for
was a provision that the generator'of those
to another county would raise
the County facilities unless there
identified exported solid wastes
could never dispose of those identified wastes in the County system without
a plan amendment. The generator that exports solid wastes would do so for
economic reasons, to find the cheapest disp
change its disposal site depending on where
sal possible. It would continually
it could find the lowest rates.
This would make it impossible to plan and predict the capacity required in
Oakland County's system or in the systems of other counties.
During the first several years of the planning period, General Motors
will be in the City of Pontiac sub-system and will not be subject to the flow
control and system fee requirements of the County sub-system. When and if that
situation changes a plan amendment will be necessary and these issues may be
considered at that time.
General Motors believes the flow control and uniform fee approach may
be legally indefensible, being monopolistic and in violation of anti-trust
laws. That opinion has been expressed by their attornies and attornies repre-
senting other private solid waste industry interests. Conversely, our legal
-7-
consultants, various other attornies and the Kent County (Grand Rapids)
Corporation Counsel hold that flow control and uniform system fees are legal.
These issues will have to be resolved by the courts; they cannot be resolved
at this level of government. Without flow control and a uniform system fee,
there will be no solid waste management plan embodying resource recovery.
There will be no way to assure the financing for the construction and operation
of resource recovery facilities, transfer stations or sanitary landfills. With-
out flow control and uniform system fees, the County plan would rely on sanitary
landfills, business as usual; a municipality would dispose of its solid wastes
in any facility or fashion that it desired. That is contrary to the mandate of
Act 641.
General Motors believes that the County plan should provide for the
phased implementation of energy recovery facilities, that initially a small
facility should be developed and later, additional facilities be constructed
as required. Staff believes that, in fact, the facilities proposed in the plan
will be developed in phases. In all probability one or both of the modular
combustion units (MCIJ's) proposed in the plan will be constructed early in the
planning period. As required disposal capacities are better defined with addi-
tional studies based on actual experience and the passage of time, the capacity
of the central resource recovery facility will be adjusted as required during
its design. It will not be constructed until there is a demonstrated guaranteed
quantity of solid waste available to justify its economic feasibility.
If there are no steam users available to execute contracts for the pur-
chase of steam from the MCUTs, the MCU's will not be constructed. In that
event, the central resource recovery facility would be designed and constructed
only when the necessary energy-user contracts can be executed and final sizing
accurately determined. The plan does not impose a rigid time-table for the
-8-
sizing and construction of these facilities but rather allows them to be
phased into the program as dictated by existing conditions.
General Motors objects to the aspect of the plan that requires that
the designation and construction of a new solid waste disposal facility be-
subjected to the lengthy plan amendment process, including the public hearing
requirements of Act 641.
This issue has been discussed by the Solid Waste Planning Committee.
The most sensitive issue pertaining to the proposed County plan is the siting
of solid waste disposal facilities particularly sanitary land fills. The
siting of solid waste disposal facilities is such an important issue that the
public should be allowed and encouraged to provide all the input possible into
the site selection process. Therefore, it 18 necessary that the siting of
solid waste disposal facilities be Made subject to the public hearing require-
ments, S.W.P.C. approval, Board of Commissioners approval, and approval by 67%
of the municipalities in the county in accordance with Act 641.
S.W.P.C. Recommendation
After hearing another presentation by General Motors, the S.W.P..C. took
no action to recommend any additional changes to the proposed County Plan.
Note
Add this to Appendix, Page 15
General Motors Corporation
Statement on
Oakland County Solid Waste Management Plan
before the
Planning and Building Committee
of the
Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Pontiac, Michigan
July 22, 1982
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I am Samuel N. Oaks, Manager
Municipal Affairs for General Motors Industry-Government Relations
Staff. Earlier this week you should have received from me a copy
of our statement presented at the last meeting of the Solid Waste
Planning Committee. In that statement, General Motors suggested
an alternate approach for the County which would not require "flow
control and uniform fees."
I would like to summarize, briefly, our position by making three
primary points:
First, the GM suggested alternate approach would
accomplish the same goal as the County's proposed
plan -- minimizing the use of landfills and maxim-
izing resource recovery. Our approach would rely on
voluntary agreements with the municipalities and
commercial and industrial fiLms, for which there
are participation incentives. Our alternate approach would,
though, avoid the possible legal disputes associated
with "flow control".
Secondly, several members o Solid Waste Planning the
Committee, at the last meeting, indicated that they
objected to "flow control". :Similarly, the cities of
Farmington, Farmington Hills, Novi and Southfield, in
a letter to you dated June 23, 1982, raised some of
the same issues GM has raised. It would appear that
we are not the only waste generators objecting to the
"flow control and uniform fee" approach in the plan.
Third, the County's financial consultant (Blyth Eastman
Paine Webber) issued a report projecting costs for
landfills, resource recovery and uniform fees. That
report shows within two years after the start of
the resource recovery incinerator, the users of the
incinerator will be subsidizing the costs of the land-
fill users with the uniform fee approach. To put this
into perspective, those commercial and industrial
establishments, which generate non-burnable wastes and
must use landfills, will be paying lower fees because
the users of the incinerator would be subsidizing
_3_
the costs. It would appear that such an approach
works against the plan's goal of minimizing the use
of landfills.
General Motors believes that the goal of adequate and environ-
mentally sound disposal of solid waste in Oakland County can be
achieved without the use of "flow control and uniform fees."
Since the Solid Waste Planning Committee has not accepted our
alternate approach, we ask you, the Planning and Building
Committee, to recommend to the Oakland County Board of Commis-
sioners that they amend the plan according to our alternate
approach.
******
A Presentation of General Motors Corporation to
the Oakland County Act 641 Solid waste Planning Committee (SWPC)
Joseph P. Chu, July 12, 1982
1., The SWPC, with its thirteen members, has done an admirable job
in the development of the proposed Solid Waste Management Plan
for the County. The goal of the Plan is to establish a
coordinated system of landfills, transfer stations, and energy
generating incinerators, including a large resource recovery
facility, for minimizing the dependency of landfill disposal of
solid wastes generated within the County.
In the light of the performance of the SWPC, we believe its
activity should not be terminated upon the completion of the
Plan. We.suggest that the SWPC be continued as an advisory group
for assisting the County in future improvements to solid waste
management.
2. GM agrees with, and supports, the goal of the plan because we
believe the reliance on landfills must be minimized. However, we
have recommended some alternatives to improve the means of
achieving the goal.
3. The purpose of this presentation is to provide you with some
details concerning a few points mentioned in GM's comments as
submitted to the Planning and Building Committee of the County
Board of Commissioners on June 17 and reviewed by that Committee
on June 24. We understand that copies of those comments were
provided to the SWPC by the County administration.
4. We have pointed out that, in our opinion, the use of a 'flow
control and uniform fee' approach may put the County in a
position that is not legally defensible under the antitrust laws.
This legal issue will not be addressed today. However, I would
like to point out that one reason GM commented on this matter is
because of our belief that such a legal dispute can be avoided by
the use of our recommended alternative approach.
5. GM understands that the Plan calls for the resource recovery
facility to be established in phases. Under the Plan, a 'flow
control and uniform fee' approach would be implemented as a pre-
condition for this phased establishment. During the early
1980's solid wastes would be disposed of at approved landfills,
and as incineration and resource recovery capacity becomes
available in mid-1980's, more wastes would be directed to such
facilities by the County.
The most important point in our June 17 comments is the alternative
which matches the phased facility establishment with the capacity
or quantity of solid wastes committed. For example, we said that
the first phase of the resource recovery facility, which may
begin operation in 1986, should be established to provide a
capacity for receiving residential wastes from committed
municipalities. Many municipalities are now controlling the flow
of residential wastes by providing solid waste pick-up service.
Similar commitments can also be made by commercial and industrial
firms who are not served by municipal pick-up service. This
alternative utilizes waste commitments and does not require "flow
control" by the County.
Our recommended approach can be incorporated in the Plan to
include the following steps:
a. For the large resource recovery facility, the County should
identify a facility with a minimum economically feasible
capacity. For the sake of discussion, assume the capacity is 600
tons per day of burnable solid wastes. The tipping fee, in $/ton
on the basis of 600 tons/day, should be projected based on
capital, operation, and maintenance costs as well as incomes from
the sale of energy (steam and/or electricity).
b. The County should request municipalities, commercial
establishments, and industrial companies to commit contractually
their solid wastes to the facility. The incentive for such
commitments is a guaranted disposal capacity and a guaranted
maximum fee, in $/ton as projected. It is our understanding
that the fee for the sanitary landfill in Waterford is about
$12/ton while the County's consultant (Blyth Eastman Paine
Webber) projected, in a June 15, 1982 letter, that by 1986 the
tipping fee for the planned resource recovery facility will be
about $13/ton. Therefore there is a substantial economic
incentive for contractual commitments.
The facility would only be constructed after a minimum capacity,
such as 600 tons/day, has been reached by commitments. Further,
if commitments of more than the minimum capacity are received, a
lower tipping fee may be charged. Commitments in purchasing the
energy generated by the facility should also be obtained. All
commitments received by the County and the projected incomes from
the tipping fee and energy sales resulting from such commitments
can be used to backup the financing of the facility.
The "flow control and uniform fee" approach should not be used
for many reasons. One reason is that the operators providing
such services do not have an incentive and may not be easily held
accountable for cost-effective operation.
We agree that, at the present, some landfills charge a fee
lower than energy generating resource recovery facilities.
However we believe that when landfills are upgraded to meet
federal and state requirements, and when landfill sites become
more difficult to find, this disposal option may be more
expensive than energy recovering incinerators. A consultant for
the County (Blyth Eastman Paine Weber) projected that beginning
in 1988, landfill disposal in the County will be more expensive
2
than the option of using the resource recovery facility. We
concur with this trend as projected by the County's consultant.
Therefore, if the County has such a facility in operation by
1986, within about two years, users of the resource recovery
facility would be subsidizing users of landfills. Such type of
subsidy, of course, is inconsistent with the goal of minimizing
landfills.
6. Under our recommended approach, communities, commercial
establishments, and industrial companies not located in the
County area should also be allowed to enter contractual
commitments for utilizing the County's resource recovery
facility.
There also will be no need for the County to prevent solid wastes
generated within the County from being disposed of at locations
outside the County when such wastes have not been committed to
the County's resource recovery facility. Under our approach,
those communities or industries that had not committed to the
County resource recovery facility would likely dispose of their
wastes at licensed landfills or other resource recovery
facilities. Therefore, allowing (or not prohibiting) disposal
outside the County would have the effect of preserving landfill
space within the County.
7. GM is requesting SWPC consider the inclusion of our
recommended alternative in the Plan. We would also like to
point out that the cities of Farmington, Farmington Hills, Novi,
and Southfield raised issues similar to those raised by GM in a
June 23, 1982 letter to the County Board of Commissioners.
8. We further wish to point out that should the "flow control
and uniform fee" approach be selected by the County and for such
an approach to become legally viable, GM stated in our June 17
comments that there must be a clearly articulated legislative
intent to displace private competition and a procedure for
public and state participation in establishing and regulating the
fee setting procedures and the fees to be charged. The plan does
not presently articulate who will approve rates, what procedures
will be followed for public input (opportunity for public
comments, evidentiary hearings, etc.), and whether the various
contractual arrangements contemplated by the County will be
subject to public review and comments before being established.
want to thank you for permitting GM with this opportunity to
discuss our June 17 comments.
3
82228 AIqt 5,
this 5t day of 7-) August 1982
Moved by Hobart supported by Whitlock the resolution be adopted.
Moved by Moffitt supported by Cagney the resolution be amended on page
2, the NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED paragraph, Section 2, line 4 after "host
municipality", delete "will be afforded the opportunity to request to", and
insert "shall be notified and have the right to accompany the certified . .".
Also in Section 2, line 7 after "during site visit,", delete the
following sentence and substitute the following: "Furthermore, the chief
elected official shall have the right to inspect the landfill at any time and
may designate a representative to act in his behalf for this purpose."
AYES: Olsen, Page, Patterson, Peterson, Price, Whitlock, Wilcox, Aaron,
Caddell, Cagney, Calandro, Doyon, Fortino, Gosling, Hobart, Kasper, Lanni,
McDonald, Moffitt, Moore. (20)
NAYS: Perinoff, Pernick, DiGlovanni. (3)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the amendment carried.
Moved by Perinoff supported by Aaron the resolution be amended in the
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED paragraph by deleting objection #I.
AYES: Perinoff, Pernick, Aaron, DiGiovanni. (4)
NAYS: Page, Patterson, Peterson, Price, Whitlock, Wilcox, Caddell, Cagney,
Calandra, Doyon, Fortino, Gosling, Hobart, Kasper, Lanni, McDonald, Moffitt,
Moore, Olsen, (19)
A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the amendment failed.
Discussion followed,
Vote on resolution as amended:
AYES: Patterson, Perinoff, Pernick, Peterson, Price, Whitlock, Wilcox,
Aaron, Caddell, Cagney, Calandro, DiGiovanni, Doyon, Fortino, Gosling, Hobart,
Kasper, Lanni, Montante, Moore, Page. (21)
NAYS: McDonald, Moffitt, Olsen. (3)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution as amended
was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk ofthe County of Oakland and having a seal,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
Miscellaneous Resolution #82228 adopted by the Oakland County Board of ommissioners
at their meeting held on Aug st 5, 1982
with the orginial record thereof now remaining in my office, and
that it is a. true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
whole thereof.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan
Counh Clerk/Register of Deeds