Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1990.06.28 - 16847June 28, 1990 Miscellaneous Resolution # 90141 BY: Larry P. Crake, Commissioner, District #5 : IN RE: UPDATE OF OAKLAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN; TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS! Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed the proposed update to the Oakland County Solid Waste Management Plan (-the "Plan Update') as prepared by the County Executive and approved by the Oakland County Solid Waste Planning Committee ("SWPC") on May 10, 1990, all in accordance with Act 641 of the Public Acts of 1978, as amended ("Act 641"); and WHEREAS, this Board, by resolution adopted on May 31, 1990, noted nine objections to the proposed Plan Update and returned the Plan Update to the SWPC with a request that the SWPC make its final recommendations to this Board by June 30, 1990 regarding the objections, as provided in Act 641; and WHEREAS, the SWPC met on June 14, 1990 to consider this Board's objections to the Plan Update and has submitted its written recommendations to this Board pursuant to a letter dated June 19, 1990 from the chairman of the SWPC; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered the recommendations of the SWPC and deems it is necessary and advisable to approve the Plan Update with certain changes as hereinafter described. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners hereby approves the Plan Update as issued on May 10, 1990 by the Solid Waste Planning Committee with the following changes. 1. The BFI/Rose Township landfill designation will be removed from the Plan Update. 2. Section 8.5.10 will be amended to include the following host community fee language. As compensation for the various impacts associated or perceived to be associated with a solid waste facility, this plan endorses the concept of payment, by the facility owner, to the community in which the facility is located, of a "host community fee." The two parties involved (the facility owner and the community within which the facility is located) shall have the responsibility of negotiating a mutually acceptable host community fee. For new or expanded facilities, the existence of a mutually agreed-upon host community fee, or the lack thereof, may be taken into account in the evaluation, recommendation, and decision to include or deny inclusion of the proposed facility in this Plan. 3. Sections 8.5.4 and 8.5.6 (CRC representation by local agencies) will be amended to include the following language. The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 8.5.4 will be amended by adding at the end thereof "with the consent of the Board of Commissioners." The third sentence of the first paragraph of Section 8.5.6 will be amended by deleting "will be issued 60 calendar days' and substituting therefor "will not be issued for at least 60 calendar days." Figure 8.5-1 will be adjusted to accurately reflect the final interim siting process as attached. 4. Section 8.8.1 (System Financing) will be amended as follows. Section 8.8.1 will be amended by deleting the second sentence of the first paragraph thereof and inserting in place thereof, "The System will be self supporting through revenues generated by waste delivered to the various system components to pay bondholders for any bonds issued to finance the facilities." 5. Part 2 of Section 8.5.10 (Interim Siting Criteria) will be amended as follows (new language underlined). Identify any airports within 10,000 feet of the site. For landfill siting proposals, written evidence of contact with the Michigan Aeronautics Commission must be provided, regardless of the site proximity to the airport(s). 6. The last sentence of Section 8.5.12 (Board of Commissioners Approval Process) will be amended as follows (new language underlined). The Board will give due regard to the CRC and County Executive recommendations in evaluating the proposal, will approve or deny the recommendations only by affirmative action of the Board and will reject a recommendation only if there is clear and convincing evidence that a proposed site does not meet the goals and objectives of the Plan. 7. Limiting language will be added to the designation of the SOCRRA landfill expansion as follows. This expansion is included only as a covered ash monof ill for waste-to-energy residue. Mr. Chairperson, I move the adoption of thq for4- • ng rAllet ol. 'o Aor ey P r rake ... r. County Commissioners, District 45 - • I 1 :1\ PP2 :11,11 viup fly p •tx8CLIIA Oak BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Plan Update with the changes noted above, shall be submitted first to Oakland County's 61 municipalities for their approval and after receiving 67% affirmative responses (41 minimum), the Plan Update shall be submitted to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for its final approval. #90141 June 28, 1990 Moved by Crake supported by Caddell the resolution be adopted. Moved by Chester supported by Aaron the SOCCRA Incinerator be removed from the 641 Plan. Discussion followed. AYES: Chester, Gosling, Johnson, R. Kuhn, Law, Luxon, McConnell, McPherson, Moffitt, Price, Bishop. (11) NAYS: Caddell, Calandro, Crake, Huntoon, Jensen, S. Kuhn, McCulloch, Oaks, Olsen, Pappageorge, Pernick, Rewold, Skarritt, Aaron. (14) ABSTAIN: Wolf. (1) A sufficient majority not having voted therefor; the amendment failed. Moved by Chester supported by McPherson to remove and delete the proposed new SOCCRA Incinerator from the 641 Plan without prejudice, for SOCRRA's right to apply for inclusion in the Incinerator Plan once it has air permit from the state, and has met other requirements opposed by the County Plan. The Chairperson ruled the amendment out of order. Mr. Chester appealed the decision of the Chair. The Chairperson stated a "yes" vote would sustain the Chair. AYES: Calandro, Crake, Gosling, Huntoon, Jensen, Johnson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Law, Luxon, McConnell, McCulloch, Moffitt, Oaks, Olsen, Pappageorge, Pernick, Price, Rewold, Skarritt, Aaron, Caddell. (22) NAYS: Chester, McPherson, Bishop. (3) ABSTAIN: Wolf. (1) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the decision of the Chair was sustained. Moved by Chester supported by McPherson the County Plan be amended to provide that any new or existing waste-to-energy facility must have a minimum 1000 foot set-back from any resident, school, park or similar structural facility. AYES: Chester, Gosling, Johnson, Luxon, McPherson, Moffitt, Price, Bishop. (8) NAYS: Crake, Huntoon, Jensen, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Law, McConnell, McCulloch; Oaks, Olsen', Pappageorge, Pernick, Rewold, Skarritt, Aaron, Caddell, Calandro. (17) ABSTAIN: Wolf. (1) A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the amendment tailed. Moved by Bishop supported by Price to amend the resolution on Page 3, item #7, by striking the SOCCRA Landfill from the 641 Plan. AYES: Gosling, Johnson, R. Kuhn, Law, McPherson, Moffitt, Price, Rewold, Bishop, Chester. (10) NAYS: Crake, Huntoon, Jensen, S. Kuhn, Luxon, McConnell, McCulloch, Oaks, Olsen, Pappageorge, Pernick, Skarritt, Aaron, Caddell, Calandro. (15) #90141 Continued - page 2. A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the amendment failed. Moved by Johnson supported by Skarritt that section 8.5.10 be amended -in the 1st paragraph, 5th sentence by adding the words "or contigious County" following the words "within the County". A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the amendment carried. Vote on the 641 Solid Waste Management Plan as amended: AYES: Huntoon, Jensen, Johnson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Law, Luxon, McConnell, Oaks, Olsen, Pappageorge, Pernick, Price, Rewold, Skarritt, Wolf, Aaron, Caddell, Calandra, Crake. (20) NAYS: Gosling, McCulloch, McPherson, Moffitt, Bishop, Chester. (6) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution, as amended, was adopted. STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do*hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on June 28, 1990 with the original record thereof now remaining in my office. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the .County of Oakland at Pontiac, Michigan this 28th day of g/ 1 9 90 LynnA, Allen, County Clerk • COUNTY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SOLID WASTE DIVISION Daniel T. Murphy, Oakland County Executive Roger J. Smith, P.E. Deputy Director - Solid VVaste June 19, 1990 Oakland County Board of Commissioners Oakland County Courthouse Pontiac, Michigan RE: Act 641 Update Plan SWPC Comments and Recommendations Dears Sirs and Mesdames: On Thursday, May 31, 1990, the Board of Commissioners reviewed the Draft Act 641 Update Plan issued by the Solid Waste Planning Committee (SWPC) on May 10, 1990. The Board of Commissioners, after a review of the public comment record and after receiving additional material and comments on the Plan, raised nine objections to the Plan as issued by the SWPC. Additionally, the Board requested that the SWPC consider the objections and make its final recommendations directly to the Board by June 30, 1990 in accord with the provisions of Act 641. The SWPC met on June 14, 1990 to consider the objections raised by the Board, to consider background information on each item as developed by staff and as a result, took the following actions. 1. Bost Community Fees - Board Objection: Bost Community fees should be conceptually discussed in the Plan outlining considerations which would form the basis for such fees. The SWPC concurs with the Board and it is recommended that the Board amend 8.5.10 of the Update Plan to include the following language. As compensation for the various impacts associated or perceived to be associated with a solid waste facility, this plan endorses the concept of payment, by the facility owner, to the community in which the facility is located, of a "host community fee." The two parties involved (the facility owner and the community within which the facility is located) shall have the responsi- bility of negotiating a mutually acceptable host community fee. For new or expanded facilities, the existence of a .mutually agreed-upon host community fee, or the lack thereof, may be taken into account in the evaluation, recommendation, and decision to include or deny inclusion of the proposed facility in this Plan. One Public Works Drive • Pontiac, Michigan 48054-1695 (313) 858-1085 • FAX No. (313) 858-1066 PROPOSA Applicant requests an advisory analysis on a new solid waste management facility or proposed expansion from County Health Dept. Proposal may be revised by applicant COUNTY BoTC DISAPPROVES COUNTY EXECUTIVE DISAPPROVES CRC DISAPPROVES FIGURE 8.5-1 FACILITY SITING AND DESIGNATING PROCESS HEALTH DEPT. ANALYSIS Health Department responds within 15 days, supplies the applicant with SWMP, and notifies affected and adjacent communities and the Dept, of Solid Waste. Public Notice In local newspapers Is provided. COUNTY BOARD APPROVES Proposal and CRC, County Executive's findings are posted APPLICATION FOR SWMP DESIGNATION Applicant submits review fee and complete PSD for proposed facility. COUNTY EXECUTIVE EVALUATION county Executive evaluates all data within 30 days of replaying CRC recommendation and disapproves application or recommends approval of proposal to County Board COMPLETENESS REVIEW The County reviews the PSD and notifies affected and adjacent communities within 30 days. rCRC EVALUATION CRC evaluates elf data w 45 days of resubmiltal 2 disapproves application recommends approval 4 prOpOWA1 to the County Executive. CRC evaluates elf data within 45 days of resubmiltal and disapproves application or recommends approval of proposal to the County Executive. SWPC MEETING CRC established end membership set. Public hearing data Is published. CRC PUBLIC HEARING Public hearing is held by CRC to hear concerns of interested parties. FIRST CRC MEETING CRC meeting is scheduled within 30 days of public hearing to respond to concerns of affected and adjacent communities, applicant and CRC. REVISED APPLICATION Applicant submits revised PSD within 30 days of CRC meeting. NOTES: SWPC Solid Waste Planning Committee • SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan CRC County Review Committee PSD Project Submittal Documents (Preliminary Ern,irenmentel Assessment & CRC EvaluaVon Parameter Discussion Documeil Oakland County Board of Commissioners June 19, 1990 Page #2 2. Value Assurance Program - Board Objection: A property value protection program should be conceptuAlly discussed in the Plan, along with criteria for specific usage. The SWPC concurs with the Board that such a program would be valuable. However, because of the complexity of the issue, the basic policy issues involved, and the significant economic impact such a program will have on any given siting proposal, the development of such a program tailored to Oakland County's needs would require the application of considerable resources and time as well as much interaction with the Board on policy and economic issues. Given the time constraints of Act 641 in the preparation of the SWPC response to the Board (by June 30, 1990), the SWPC made the following recommendation. The SWPC supports the concept of a value assurance program for new or expanded facilities and believes that specific application details and economic evaluations should be conducted as a separate implementation policy by the County. 3. CRC Representation by Local Agencies - Board objection: Section 8.5.4 should be amended to provide that the County Executive will appoint representatives from affected and adjacent communities "with the consent of the Board of Commissioners." The SWPC concurs with the Board and recommends the following Update Plan changes. Section 8.5.4 be amended to include the provision that when the County Executive appoints representatives from the affected and adjacent community(ies) that the appointment be done only "with the consent of the Board of Commissioners." Section 8.5.6 wording be changed to "...the notice of a public hearing will not be issued for at least GO calendar days after receipt of the preliminary environmental assessment..." Figure 8.5.1 be adjusted to accurately reflect the final interim siting process. 4. System Financing - Board objection: Section 8.8.1 should be amended to delete reference to "...for bonds issued to finance the facilities, the County shall pledge its full faith and credit." and insert in place thereof, "The System will be self supporting through revenues generated by waste delivered to the various system components to pay bondholders for any bonds issued to finance the facilities." Oakland County Board of Commissioners June 19, 1990 Page #3 The SWPC concurs with the Board and recommends the following Update Plan change. Section 8.8.1 should be amended to delete reference to "...for bonds issued to finance the facilities, the County shall pledge its full faith and credit." and insert in place thereof, "The System will be self supporting through revenues generated by waste delivered to the various system components to pay bondholders for any bonds issued to finance the facilities." 5. Interim Siting Criteria - Board objection: The interim siting criteria in Chapter 8.5 should be re-examined to be more specific. The SWPC reconsidered the entire issue of interim siting criteria, the five year needs determination that must be conducted when a siting proposal is submitted and considered the probability of siting proposals that might be submitted (ranging from transfer stations, MRFs, WTEs to landfills). Considering the best interests of the County and the time period over which these interim siting criteria will be in use, it is recommended that the original criteria be retained. However, the SWPC recommends that the Interim Siting Criteria should be adjusted to reflect additional detailed review of landfill proposals by the Michigan Aeronautics Commission bY adding the language below to 8.5.10 (new language underlined). Identify any airports within 10,000 feet of the site. For landfill siting proposals, written evidence of contact with the Michigan Aeronautics Commission must be provided, regardless of the site proximity to the airport(s). 6. Board of Commissioners Approval Process - Board objection: Chapter 8.5.12 should be strengthened to provide for affirmative action by the Board of Commissioners. The SWPC concurs with the Board. 7- Board of Commissioners Approval Process - Board Objection: Chapters 8.5.11 and 8.5.12 shonld be strengthened to provide "...clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt..." Oakland County Board of Commissioners June 19, 1990 Page 44 Based upon advice from the County's Act 641 legal counsel indicating that the language requested is generally used only in criminal proceedings, the SWPC recommends that the original language in 8.5.11 and 8.5.12 be utilized. 8. SOCRRA Landfill Expansion - Board objection: The proposed SOCRRA landfill expansion should be removed from the Plan. The SWPC recommends that the SOCRRA landfill expansion remain in the Update Plan, with stipulations, as follows. This expansion is included only as a covered ash monofill- for waste-to-energy residue. 9. BFI/Rose Township Landfill - Board Objection: BFI/Marlowe landfill site shall be removed from the Plan. The SWPC recommends that the BPI/Marlowe landfill site be retained in the Update Plan. The Solid Waste Planning Committee is pleased to have been of service to Oakland County in the development of the Act 641 Update Plan. Each of the SWPC members has devoted considerable time and effort in developing this document during the past three years and we believe that the County will be well served by the solid waste management system proposed in the Act 641 Update Plan. Respectfully submitted, James G. Meenahan, Chairman ',P 1 Oakland County Solid Waste Planning Cohwittee JGM/mp cc: Daniel T. Murphy, County Executive Solid Waste Planning Committee Attachments: SWPC Roll Call Vote on Board Objections Staff Background Package MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON HOST COMMUNITY FEES It was moved by JoAnn Van Tassel, supported by Ted Starbuck to approve the staff recommendation on Host Community Fees to include the statement below within the final wording of section 8.5.10. As compensation for the various impacts associated or perceived to be associated with a solid waste facility, this plan endorses the concept of payment, by the facility owner, to the community in which the facility is located, of a "host community fee." The two parties involved (the facility owner and the community within which the facility is located) shall have the responsibility of negotiating a mutually acceptable host community fee. For new or expanded facilities, the existence of a mutually agreed-upon host community fee, or the lack thereof, may be taken into account in the evaluation, recommendation, and decision to include or deny inclusion of the proposed facility in this Plan. MOTION TO AMEND MOTION ON HOST COMMUNITY FEES It was moved by Amber, seconded by Tom Waffen to amend Host Community Fee motion by changing word "endorses" in first paragraph to "acknowledges" and adding words "if any" to end of second paragraph. Roll Call Vote on Amendment to Motion: Yeas: Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, Nick Madias, Lerry Pernick, Thomas Waffen Nays: Jim Meenahan, John King, Lenora Jadun, Mary Shaw Moore, Bob Seccombe, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel Motion to amend failed. ROT,T% CALL VOTE ON ORIGINAL HOST COMMUNITY FEE MOTION: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Ron Baker, John King, Lenora Jadun, Mary Shaw Moore, Larry Pernick, Bob Seccombe, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel, Thomas Waffen Nays: Jerome Amber, Nick Madias Motion passed. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON VALUE ASSURANCE PROGRAM It was moved by Larry Pernick, supported by JoAnn Van Tassel to approve the Staff recommendation on Value Assurance Program, striking word "should", as follows: - 1 - The SWPC supports the concept of_a value assurance program for new or expanded facilities and believes that specific application details and economic evaluations should be conducted as a separate implementation policy by the County. Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, John King, Nick Madias, Mary Shaw Moore, Larry Pernick, Bob Secconhe, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel, Thomas Waffen Nays: Lenora Jadun Motion passed. MOTION TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF ON CRC REPRESENTATION BY LOCAL AGENCIES It was moved by Larry Pernick, supported by JoAnn Van Tassel, to approve staff recommendation on CRC representation by local agencies, as follows: Section 8.5.4 be amended to include the provsion that when the County Executive appoints representatives from the affected and adjacent community(ies) that the appointment be done only "with the consent of the Board of Commissioners." Section 8.5.6 wording be changed to "...the notice of a public hearing will not be issued for at least 60 calendar days after receipt of the preliminary environmental assessment..." Figure 8.5.1 be adjusted to accurately reflect the final interim siting process. Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, John King, Lenora Jadun, Nick Madias, Mary Shaw Moore, Larry Pernick, Bob Seccombe, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel, Thomas Waffen Nays: None Motion passed. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON SYSTEM FINANCING It was moved by Larry Pernick, supported by JoAnn Van Tassel, to approve staff recommendation regarding system financing, as follows: 2 Section 8.3.1 should be amended to delete reference to for bonds issued to finance the facilities, the County shall pledge its full faith and credit." and insert in place thereof, "The System will be self supporting through revenues generated by waste delivered to the various system components to pay bondholders for any bonds issued to finance the facilities." Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, John King, Lenora Jadun, Mary Shaw Moore, Larry Pernick, Bob Seccombe, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel, Thomas Waffen Nays: Nick Madias Motion passed. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON INTERIM SITING CRITERIA IN CHAPTER 8.5 It was moved by Larry Pernick, supported by Ted Starbuck, to approve staff recommendation (with addition of "written" before word "evidence") to add the following language to 8.5.20, new language underlined. Identify any airports within 10,000 feet of the site. For landfill siting proposals, written evidence of contact with the Michigan Aeronautics Commission must be provided, regardless of the site proximity to the airport(s). Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, John King, Lenora Jadun, Nick Madias, Mary Shaw Moore, Larry Pernick, Bob Seccombe, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel, Thomas Waffen Nays: None Motion passed. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BOARD REQUEST TO STRENGTHEN WORDING IN SECTION 8.5.12 It was moved by John King, supported by JoAnn Van Tassel, to approve staff recommendation concurring with Plan change requested by Board of Commissioners on Section 8.5.12, as follows: This section of the Plan provides for final approval or denial of a siting request by the Board of Commissioners. The Board requested that approval or denial action be by affirmative action of the Board. This is interpreted to mean that any such approval or denial request cannot be allowed to be tabled or killed in Committee, requiring action by the full Board of Commissioners. Language to be adjusted accordingly. Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, John King, Lenora Jadun, Nick Medias, Mary Shaw Moore, Larry Pernick, Bob Seccombe, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel, Thomas Waffen Nays: None Motion passed. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON SECTION 8.5.11 AND 8.5-12 It was moved by JoAnn Van Tassel, supported by Ted Starbuck, to approve staff recommendation to delete language added by Board of Commissioners and use original language, as follows: These sections of the interim siting process provide for approval or denial by the County Executive of a positive siting recommendation by the CRC and for approval or denial by the Board of Commissioners of a positive siting recommendation by the County Executive. The Board recommended that in both cases, a denial of the received positive siting recommendation could be made "...only if there is clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a proposed site does not meet the goals and objectives of the Plan." (Underlined words recommended by the Board.) Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, John King, Lenora Jadun, Nick Madias, Mary Shaw Moore, Bob Seccombe, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel, Thomas Waffen Nays: None Motion passed with Pernick absent during vote. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON REVOVING SOMEIA LANDFIT,T, FROM PLAN It was moved by Ted Starbuck, supported by John King, to approve staff recommendation to retain SOCRRA expansion in Update Plan with limitation that SCCRRA landfill is to be solely used as a covered ash monofill. - 4 - Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, Lenora Jadun, Nick Madias, Larry Pernick, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, Thomas Waffen Nays: Mary Shaw Moore, Bob Seccombe, JoAnn Van Tassel Motion passed with John King absent during vote. MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE EFI/MARLOWE LANDFILL SITE ,FR01 TEE PLAN It was moved by JoAnn Van Tassel, seconded by David Stinson, to approve staff recommendation and concur with Board of Commissioners' position to remove BFI/Marlowe landfill site from the Update Plan. Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jim Meenahan, Mary Shaw Moore, Larry Pernick, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel Nays: Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, John King, Lenora Jadun, Nick Madias, Bob Seccombe,Thomas Waffen Motion failed. MOTION TO RETAIN PFI/MARLOWE SITE IN UPDATE PLAN. It was moved by Jerome Amber, supported by Lenora Jadun, that the BFI/Marlowe landfill site be retained in the Update Plan. Roll Call Vote: Yeas: Jerome Amber, Ron Baker, John King, Lenora Jadun, Nick Madias, Bob Seccombe, Thomas Waffen Nays: Jim Meenahan, Mary Shaw Moore, Larry Pernick, Ted Starbuck, David Stinson, JoAnn Van Tassel Motion passed. 5 DRAFT 6-12-90 On Thursday, May 31, 1990, the Board of Commissioners reviewed the Draft Act 641 Update Plan issued by the Solid Waste Planning Committee (SWPC) on May 10, 1990. At the end of a six-hour session, the Board adopted a resolution which contained nine (9) objections to the Plan issued by the SWPC. As required by Act 641, the Board requested that the SWPC review, comment and recommend back to the Board on each of the objections within 30 days (by June 30, 1990). If it is convenient, the Board would prefer that the SWPC's work be completed in a somewhat shorter time so that the matter could again be reviewed by the full Board at its regularly scheduled meeting of June 28, 1990. At that time, the document, if approved by the Board, would be distributed for local agency approval. The objections raised by the Board of Commissioners can be grouped into several categories as shown below. A. Too much landfill capacity designated: 1. Delete BFI/Rose Township 2. Delete SOCRRA expansion B. Interim siting process 1. Siting criteria should be more specific 2. CRC local representation should be appointed only with the consent of the Board of Commissioners 3. Positive recommendations to site new facilities will be rejected by the County Executive and the Board only if there is clear and convincing evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt.". 4. Final Board action on a positive recommendation to site a new facility must be by "affirmative action" of the Board. C. System financing: 1, Do not indicate a specific funding mechanism. The exact type of bonds to be issued will be determined by the Board. Insert language indicating bond payment revenues to be ultimately received through tip fees. Host Community Fees 1. Conceptual discussion and application consideration requested. E. Value Assurance Program 1. Conceptual discussion and application consideration requested. Designated Landfill Capacity Act 641 requires that sufficient landfill capacity be designated for at least the 5-year planning period and that through an interim siting process, that a mechanism be made available to site additional facilities should a need be shown. The directions taken by Oakland County for the provision of landfill capacity have shifted dramatically over the past 18 months. Initially, it was determined that county ownership of a 40-year capacity landfill (with full achievement of the County's volume reduction goals) for municipal solid waste and WTE ash would be provided. Additional county-owned landfill capacity would be provided in the future for construction and demolition debris and for industrial special wastes if the export of this material no longer was feasible or if the supplemental in-county private sector landfills could not handle this material. Simultaneous events served to change the original course. First, announcement of candidate sites for the proposed 40-year facility caused a re-examination of siting criteria. Rather than a focus on pure environmental issues (geologic and hydrogeologic conditions) favoring "natural" landfill sites, a shift towards properly engineered sites having the least physical and social impacts along with an emphasis on system and transportation economics developed. Second, state policy developments occurred which indicated that designated capacity in a county beyond that county's 20-year needs might well be 'claimed" for other Michigan counties, since the state as a whole has a severe landfill shortage. This resulted in a shift towards a County .policy which would provide no more than 20 years of landfill capacity for all wastes generated, private sector and public sector combined. Third, a realization developed that if bonds were to be sold and the system implemented in a reasonably short period of time (fall of 1990), that landfill capacity under control of the County must exist at the time of bond sale. Not having candidate sites which meet the guidelines contained in the previous paragraphs and recognizing the time it would take to site, designate and permit a new county owned landfill(s), an additional policy shift occurred to include initial system implementation with sufficient contracts with the private sector for landfill capacity to Meet the requirements of the bond market while still receiving favorable bond interest rates. Finally, several economic and environmental reasons for ultimate county ownership of landfills remain. It is generally accepted that the County should be in control of exactly what goes into the landfill, how it is constructed and managed, and how post closure responsibilities are handled -- basically stewardship issues. Additionally, it is generally accepted that County ownership would produce the least costly tip fees (over the long run). Therefore, the Board has directed that the contracted interim period private sector landfill capacity be kept to as small a value as possible (while still meeting bonding requirements) so that county-owned landfills could be implemented immediately thereafter. These several factors have resulted in a recommendation by the Board of Commissioners that private sector landfill capacity in Oakland County be limited for the short term and that the following landfills recommended for Act 641 designated by the SWPC be deleted from the Update Plan. 1. BFI - Rose Township 2. SOCRRA expansion - Rochester Hills As shown in Exhibit I, the remaining landfills in the Draft 641 Update Plan do provide for more than 5 years of designated capacity (given a net zero import/export policy and successful compliance to that policy over the long-run). The remaining landfills include the following. 1. Lyon Development 2. Waterford Hills 3. Wayne Disposal-Oakland 4. Pontiac (Collier Road) 5. Eagle Valley 6. Eagle Valley Expansion 7. SOCRRA It should be noted that both landfills proposed for deletion are presently in the existing Act 641 Plan. BEI has an active site permit application under consideration by MDNR, and SO2RRT5 could submit or re-submit under the existing Act 641 designation. MDNR has long taken the stance that only the approved Act 641 Plan will be considered in their deliberations and that it will continue to process permit applications on that basis until a Plan Amendment or new Update Plan is approved., The specific example of this stance is the Board's request of mid-1989 that the BFI/Rose Township permit application be denied. Considering the length of time it will take to gain the required 67% local agency approval of the proposed Update Plan (it took in excess of seven months to gain 67% approval for the Auburn Hills waste-to-energy site Plan Amendment after the Amendment was approved by the Board of Commissioners) and the length of time allowed for MDNR final approval thereafter ( a maximum of 6 Months according to Act 641), the proposed Update Plan will probably not be in place until mid-1991 or later. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 (1) 0. C - 0 C fj 24 14 20 16 18 2? 26 28 30 tA)r74-t ZGLE ukr,t Lic 20-2. 9-isLt1ol4 l'AILL1w 1? 6 1 6 — PLL tvl%Luol_l rfl • jPA1 E 0 1990 2000 Oakland County 's Land fill Needs Without SOCR RA Ash & Pan Jac MSW 0 System Bypass A Plus 1SW Year Plus WTE Ash <> Plus C: DO V Without VR Coals OCDPW-SH June 13, -19'96 Lyon Development Waterford Hills Eagle Valley Wayne Disposal 4,463,500 4,265,000 (199,500) 3,700,000 1,955,000 4,260,000 925,000 3,700,000 LANDFILL CAPACITY PROJECTIONS (All Data Expressed as In-Place Cubic Yards) Landfill 6-12-90 Update Plan BEI Data Extrapolated To Extrapolated To 1-1-90 1-1-90 Sub Total Existing 12,229,000 10,840,000 Eagle Valley Expansion 8,000,000 8,000,000 Update Plan Grand Total 20,229,000 18,840,000 Other Landfill Proposals Considered as Part of Update Process EFT/Rose Township 7,000,000 Holly Disposal 6,450,000 u.) tO 3 E = N \k\ \\ Yr? c- • , T1 5 \ Curnmuictiv Cubic Yards (Midions) Ni NO LA CO 0 NO 4-%. G.) CO 0 NO 0) CO 0 EB to L7) L.0 N) LO to 1-0 LO < ct, t.0 c _ Lyi fr; 7- to to to Lc to ET:= LfD to C) >D N IND Ci 71'7 iii -\2_1 7 'E- 4k •, ,-, ‘, .2 4 \\ \ N ,,.._ \ \ ..„...,,... r l'.. \ • 31 1 \ \\ ,.. \ \ 1 \ _\ . , \ \ \? i • 11) -,1)- .17-- *. \ \ \ 1 I C\ \ \ \ 1 '"''' Sn.) 1/4:i - \ \ \ [ \ \ ''' 0 a r- 1.)) 0 0 > > cri P? F- a n L') a cf] Therefore, it is problematic whether or not the BFI/Rose Township and SOCRRA expansion landfills will be permitted and opened for operation under the existing Act 641 Plan. SOCRRA - Other Considerations The 14 SOCRRA member municipalities have proposed to continue their 30+ year solid waste management system by rehabilitating/reconstructing the Madison Heights incinerator as a 600 tpd WTE facility and have proposed to construct an ash monof ill on the proposed landfill expansion in Rochester Hills. This site has been owned by SOCRRA for a considerable length of time (since 1958), has suitable geology (a minimum of 30 to 40 feet of clay having an impeLilliability of at least 10-8 cm/sec. and the site is located in a groundwater discharge zone) and would provide for economical ash haul and disposal. SOCRRA has proposed rather unique site management practices for this facility including an air-supported structure over the monofill which will eliminate many of the objectionable aspects of landfills, primary among which are the virtual elimination of leachate during the operating period. Removal of this site from the Update Plan would require that ash disposal be sought from the private sector (unless the site is permitted under the existing Act 641 Plan), bringing an economic penalty to the Authority. Additionally, the stewardship issues previously discussed at the County level seem to be adequately resolved with the inclusion of the SOCRRA expansion in the Update Plan. Staff recommendations to SWPC 1. BFI/Rose Township - concur with Board position 2. SOCRRA Expansion - retain in Update Plan. Interim Siting Process In response to a SWPC request that the Board consider adding material from the St. Clair County Update Plan as an appendix to the Oakland County Update Plan, the Board requested instead that the siting criteria in Chapter 8 be made more specific. Staff had recommended to the Board that the appendix not be added since the St. Clair County material was nothing more than a re-statement of the SWPC criteria. Prior to re-drafting criteria that are simply more specific, it iS deemed most appropriate to revisit the proposed usage of the criteria and the philosophy behind the SWPC criteria contained in the Draft Update Plan. Act 641 as it presently exists requires that the following facilities must be designated in an approved 641 Plan prior to permit issuance. 1. Transfer stations 2. Mixed waste processing facilities 3. Incinerators or waste-to-energy facilities 4. Landfills Type II sanitary landfills Type III landfills Conversely, many facilities which commonly receive or process some forms of municipal solid waste do not at present require Act 641 designation. They include: 1. Compost sites handling yard wastes 2. Transfer stations handling less than 60 tons per month 3. Recycling drop-off centers 4. Source separated processing facilities Oakland County's proposed Update Plan designates several landfills, three waste-to-energy facilities, several MRF's (material recovery facilities) although most are not scheduled to received mixed waste initially and several transfer stations. The proposed plan is weak in its identification of transfer facilities since a transfer system has not been developed pending location of the landfill(s) which will initially serve the first 5-10 years of system operation. Additionally, many private sector interests are developing scenarios and plans for various types of processing facilities and transfer systems which may well require ultimate 641 designation. The Interim Siting Criteria are intended to serve as guidelines for siting additional facilities between the time of the Update Plan approval (early to mid 1991) and the time of a subsequent Update Plan (mid 1996 at least). The siting process contains a "need" provision that indicates that if need cannot be shown for that period within 5 years from date of application, the application will be summarily dismissed. Therefore, considering the facilities proposed in the Update Plan, logic would indicate that the following facilities will be presented for interim period siting, listed in order of probability of submission. Facility Type Probability of Submission 1. Transfer facilities high 2. Mixed waste processing facilities medium 3. Waste-to-energy facilities low* • 4. Landfills none to low** Debate is currently on-going regarding medical waste incinerators and the applicability of Act 641 to these proposals. ** As the Update Plan planning period nears completion, it becomes more probable that need could be demonstrated within a five-year period. The County would then be forced with locating its own future landfill if the 20 year maximum capacity issue becomes a factor or permitting additional private sector facilities to'be sited. One additional consideration must be made with regard to the interim siting criteria. If the agency (public or private) uses the criteria when it initially starts to locate potential sites, the criteria will help differentiate between several candidate sites. If the CRC (Citizens Review Committee) is using the criteria to judge a single site which has been applied for, the criteria become a guideline against which mitigating measures can be judged. Considering that the private sector does not have condemnation power, 'the search for a "perfect site" (as defined by any criteria set), is extremely limited -- generally to where a willing seller exists (it may be argued that given enough money, almost anyone can be a willing seller) and to where host community fees and value assurance programs can be economically put into place. The philosophy employed by the SWPC in developing the siting criteria recommended in the Update Plan was one of outlining broad areas of concern and insuring that all socioeconomic and environmental concerns are considered. This ap-proach is designed to produce properly mitigated sites acceptable to the CRC, the County Executive and the Board. This approach recognizes the highly detailed review and approval process of the MDNR which insures that proper environmental protection (beyond that required through the CRC process) is designed, constructed and maintained through operational and post closure periods for any permitted site. Staff Recommendation: Criteria should be promulgated as proposed by the SWPC on May 10, 1990 with the following technical adjustment to meet late breaking recommendations of the Oakland County Manager of Aviation. These recommendations (see attached) relate to prohibited siting within 10,000 feet of a regulated airport, maximum heights within approach and departure corridors, and maximum heights within regulated air space fully enclosing the airport including the contained approach and departure corridors. It is recommended that the following language be added to 8.5.10, new language underlined. Identify any airports within 10,000 feet of the site. For landfill siting proposals, evidence of contact with the Michigan Aeronautics Commission must be provided, regardless of the site proximity to the airport(s). CRC Representation by Local Agencies The Board of Commissioners recommended that Section 8.5.4 be amended to include the provision that when the County Executive appoints representatives from the affected and adjacent community(ies) that the appointment be done only "with the consent of the Board of Commissioners." The present provisions of the Update Plan require that the involved community(ies) must recommend representation to the County Executive within 30 calendar days of notification of a proposed facility siting. Additionally, the County Executive is required to .review the proposed appointment with Staff and the CRC Chairperson. While a multi-level system of checks and balances is important in the appointment process, the time required to complete the appointment may begin to work to the disadvantage of the review and approval/denial system. Analysis of the procedures recommended by the SWPC reveals that a timing problem may occur in 8.5.6. This section requires that "... the notice of a public hearing will be issued 60 calendar days after receipt of the preliminary environmental assessment..." if the local agency decides to conduct an independent review. Considering the other activities that must take place during that same time period, some slackening of the schedule must be made if Board confirmation of the local agency representative is to occur, inasmuch as the required SWPC meeting cannot be scheduled until after the local appointments are made. It is recommended that this wording be changed to "...the notice of a public hearing will not be issued for at least 60 calendar days after receipt of the preliminary environmental assessment..." This adjustment will allow sufficient time for completion of the local agency independent review and be flexible enough to fit normally scheduled Board meetings where confirmation can take place and the SWPC meeting scheduled thereafter. Additionally, it is recommended that Figure 8.5.1 be adjusted to accurately reflect the final interim siting process. Staff recommendation: Add Board of Commissioners confirmation Adjust language of 8.5.6 Adjust figure 8.5.1 Sections 8.5.11 and 8.15.12 These sections of the interim siting process provide for approval or denial by the County Executive of a positive siting recommendation by the CRC and for approval or denial by the Board of Commissioners of a positive siting recommendation by the County Executive. The Board recommended that in both cases, a denial of the received positive siting recommendation could be made "...only if there is clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a proposed site does not meet the goals and objectives of the Plan." [Underlined words recommended by the Board.] The Board clearly intends that a positive recommendation either from the CRC to the County Executive or from the County Executive to the Board will be denied only upon a substantive finding of deviation from the Plan's goals and objectives. However, there appears to be convincing legal arguments against adding such language to the approval process as will be explained to the SWPC by Act 641 Counsel. Staff Recommendation: Use original language. Section 8.5.12 . This section of the Plan provides for final approval or denial of a siting request by the Board of Commissioners_ The Board requested that approval or denial action be by affirmative action of the Board. This is interpreted to mean that any such approval or denial request cannot be allowed to be tabled or killed in Committee, requiring action by the full Board of Commissioners. Staff recommendation: Concur with Plan change. Section 8.8.1 The Board objected to inclusion of specific bonding options to cover system financing and recommended instead that alternate language be included as follows. "The system will be self supporting through revenues generated by waste delivered to the various system components to pay bondholders for any bonds issued to finance the facilities. Staff recommendation: Concur with Plan change. Host Community Fees The Board indicated that Host community Fees should be conceptually discussed in the Plan outlining considerations which would form the basis for such fees. Host community fees may generally be described as compensation by the solid waste facility owner to the municipality in which the facility is located. This compensation could be paid (1) in recognition of special municipal services required because of the existence of the facility which cost more than the facility contributes directly in the form of taxes (land value and improvement value) less the value of normal municipal service; (2) in recognition of special capital facilities which need to be constructed and maintained solely because of the facility; or (3) in recognition of the various negative impacts (real or perceived) associated with the facility. Host cmmunity fees could take numerous forms ranging from cash contributions at the time of facility siting, a payment based upon the amount of waste processed or disposed of annually, the provision of free services to the host municipality, the selection of an end use (landfill) directed towards a municipality's needs, or a combination of these several approach Oakland County has adopted a policy stance against the provision of free services as a part of host community fees at system facilities. This stance was taken in that future waste streams are directly dependent upon future land uses and upon the commitment of the municipality's citizens and business community to achieving the County's aggressive volume reduction goals. Should a system community choose not to meet the high volume reduction goals, it would pay an economic penalty since most of its waste would be delivered to the system's most expensive facilities (WTE and landfills). Each user of each facility will pay a uniform tipping fee based upon the total waste delivered to that facility. Host community fees were negotiated with the City of Auburn Hills for the proposed waste-to-energy facility (cash contribution and a per ton surcharge) and for the proposed material recovery facility (per ton surcharge). It is difficult if not impossible to compare host fees between various facilities because of the widely varying facility impact, the type of waste processed, and the annual waste stream. However, the concepts employed remain constant. It is contemplated that non-tax paying governmental facilities would pay different host community fees than would similar private sector facilities. It is additionally suggested that waste-to-energy, landfill and large scale material processing facilities would be likely candidate facilities for host community fees while small scale compost or transfer facilities would not. Staff recommendation: Include the statement below within the final wording of section 8,5.10. A5 compensation for the various impacts associated or perceived to be associated with a solid waste facility, this plan endorses the concept of payment, by the facility owner, to the community in which the facility is located, of a "host community fee." The two parties involved (the facility owner and the community within which the facility is located) shall have the responsibility of negotiating a mutually acceptable host community fee. For new or expanded facilities, the existence of a mutually agreed-upon host community fee,, or the lack thereof, may be taken into account in the evaluation, recoumendation, and decision to include or deny inclusion of the proposed facility in this Plan. Value Assurance Program The concept of a value assurance program is to protect property values from being negatively impacted by the siting of a solid waste facility. This is a complex issue that can have significant economic impact on any given siting proposal. Within the time frame allowed by Act 641 for the SWPC to respond to the Board of Commissioners (30 days maximum), such a program cannot adequately be analyzed and a specific program developed. Attached, for example, is a specific program utilized elsewhere for landfills. This document clearly shows the complexity and the policy issues involved therein. Staff Recommendation: The SWPC should support the concept of a value assurance program for new or expanded facilities and believes that specific application details and economic evaluations should be conducted as a separate implementation policy by the County. 6500 Highland Road Oakland/Pontiac Airport Pontiac, Michigan 48054 Phone 313/656-3000 May 30, 1990 Mr. *Roger J. Smith, P.E. Deputy D.P.W. Director - Solid Waste 1 Public Works Drive Pontiac, MI 48054 Dear Mr. Smith: SUBJECT: Oakland County Solid Waste Plan -- Airports This will confirm our recent discussion of the county's solid waste plan as it relates to Oakland County airporLs and the safety of their operations. The three following provisions in the solid waste plan would assure compatibility with the county's airports: 1. Sanitary landfills shall not be located contrary to Federal Aviation Administration Order 5200.5. 2. Sanitary landfills and their operations shall not penetrate approach and departure corridors of Oakland County airports. 3. Sanitary landfills shall not exceed Federal Air Regulation Part 77 standards. Item 1 refers to location (within 10,000 feet of an airport) and items 2 and 3 refer to heights. The surfaces and approaches included in the Federal Air Regulation Part 77 are encompassed in the County's Master Plan for development of its airports and depicted on the enclosed maps for the Oakland/Pontiac and Oakland/Troy airports. Thank you for your support in protecting the safety of our air transportation system. J. David VanderVeen, A.A.E Manager of Aviation Enclosnres cc: Larry Crake -Nancy McConnell Lillian Oaks Fc.1 H.) fD up p) 0 0 ri-- p-,. F. 0 0 P• 0, . H , 1-'1 LI a 0 0 lu.` 0 0:1 til V) 11 rt ripm pihilm 0- -t,. li il (f) 0 0 0 N 1.,:r H. 0 it' 1-i) ilt t.-1 ;.i 0 ii) 1-.T.I t--1 o ID II) 11 /1) •. ri p 0 4 17-,,ni< , (--).-. 0 cii0 clivin) fa, Lo rt- It '0 id uct 1:-1 ru r,--.11 ITJ ti CD p Fu ft H ft 0 0 1~-1.17'00t1001-•{H •fi 0' 0 fi), a) WFII cri• P '11.',i. (j)) w 1-1) 1-1.14 0 H O if)„1-i H P I:0 co h 9 Et; 1.0d p.,, rS H N (1), pi Hi 1-1). 0 1.1._ tcl, 4. 1 r ,,q- l-ri , ')Ps 0 I:1- if,, IT ' 1-' w 11 0 0 P- LA p., 0 1---' P. 0 t-' rt H ..9 1- cr) 0 h-h 1-1 . k • 0 D -I 0 0 ,=5 0 P. 0 F D In it Hi rt- rt-., --hid 14i 1- • Hip ,,,j 'f1)1 ,.d H 10." . ID oiD fonn ,- it, =,--i O 0 ti ri. li 0 -t it 1-i 0 Fi ft) ID i 11 " t\j t.d 0) m N , 0 H 't.uf H. 0 fii Ft ,i [I, tn (1) 0 .-1 1. Hi rt 0, 0 0 0 p rt 0 ri-- 00 0 20 -i' 000 0) 0 1--":0 1EJ 1,4 (-D ri 10 ri- it. 1-J. , H 1-ji Lt: j1s 1.9 r t 0 :41.. i_h . 1--; t.n it 0 HI ri- o 0 et ft <I " P -j ` o 10 '1'12 ,'Jj IT' 1,-)i) (- -4.' rf H m 1Y 1-0 ft (r, ,:r p P. 0 0 0-1 N 0 (A 3-J , IJ'A. li O '4 it 0 )--b 0 1.-.- pi .,, Ft (D ,-I. OH 0 <1 H. 0 0 0 71) 0 ---' . 4 [III' ic:7, LI. g 11--ID. C-il p:;), 5,,ffi ,_,'A' ',,(0 ,,,,,j' cdrA j,0-:., 'cu").}.j 1"' fyiN zi, ,, i,9.- 1., mti 1:11-1 N 12!4 '•-4 • • f., .1 h-1 t1)) H '3 --1. ii) ' II) 0, 0 Hi. rl: hi . ,• . p . _..., li H o0 00chliN r1-0-t-tri. ii-j-i; 'A 0'1 q P' 1 0 0 0 1•I'1 II 0 f..., tri 0 0 0 ch o H ---. 0 H. 1--h 0 0 u' q rJ' ti i..i. f ft 'd a) `6 0 1 0 H V.f ti 0 fl•f0 0 H. I N ,--.. (D i---1kti 4 .e.iril' r-1,11-1 r., -_,J. ri,t rt'i' ID '.i fn (6)) --).,, 1-..., ri ' rt M ill- q t-rj -c-:11) i-t H ID 0 e ,D I. la' ;ri l H 0 h , ,A 1 `1) ft 0 0 0 p-1 fD t.F.., p .40 .0, (D. 0.. --c)•P' H 1. 'ft. 0' il. 0' 0..... u'. 0... Y0 1-,... .1-.1 .!0_,.N i 0.. 9, 1, .. . C, .. .0 .. d. 0 (0 .ci. c . H.,. ... (I. O 0 ti 0 iti • al 4 IcL-:'41:4 H. -;'f (0 -1.. I-. 0 r 1 n Sl./ (0 [0 1_,. I-3 fl 1 <i I-h it. P. -ci '.‹ 1\•1 714 H. 0 0 i 5-1 0 1 . T. it f-t- 0 P' ' • rj: CI 9i, p fl H 0 0 0 0 (5 )--1 0.. , til . -H H 1-ti 0, 13 1D' 0 .i.y, , 1.•1:1, - • 1)11 fr.,-1* rtyl 0 0 H la' 9. rul)) a p r, co, r-i? fi n II (0 in (.)., VI r3,1..c.i ii..., '1, P. 0 cp 0 , ---5 r,71 [1: 1-1. ii. r_.1 . tzt R Y) (T) H , 1--,- 0-' I H., 0 .i-t . -I; 0 ri. 1-h 0, 0 h--' 1-1) Pr rt H 3 0 rt. H ID rh 0 . N cu._(1)_,...._,1,d,.i-h _p_..ii...m..i-.h.N._m_wt..td,..(11,..N.____....,,,,..p)....,,....[0..,„ _...__....m....i -a).-.0 ..----(1)-1,1,- 0.------- -- p,- a).-----H•-•--,"-`:-"'. ---.- B -------Pd . ro, H r) `D ft 0 rt, pi_ ._ ir: j. _, 1-c; I-, -,_1 1.1 0 : 0 0) n. fp A p, (OHcfloke dp N. (D • 1.i.. (1) 0 ... ii -1. ..-.1 i P Pi U) H. 0 f- p H (A ,11 L • - (1) - til • (t) - - - • • ' . ,-3' P" -' • (1)- p _,:i 0 01 it » 11 0 H 113 i-t,19 ci •.-t,. - --i- 6..o.'b . Pt - - , ri, co .11 . - - .. • • ... ..„ 111 .. . :F., _ H'd .11`1 t-i-•4's-cj: Pi ‘1 ' • t.,9 -t-EF;.9(1, 'p AiP .• . N. .., . fi)..... 1,-,.. o 0 fo H.... .-.-.' — r. .. it ID ,1` _ . . hi rh 1:1)i3 2 -rile 7.il f?" "cl 0 0 . f3'.i-1 J ,0 0 0 -, ri ul fo -J 0 Hi f-ii D4 d !Ai id Li--.1• rt ::.f• :1 • i'D Ai rt hf H, -, (D rl: 1-6 10 xl t-tlifq Pi, g P Cil 1--,. 0 0 ' -1 )0 ' t pi .cri t --.. - ii) ,I*1 ' • 0 ri. ...) --h N . . N ' 0 0 H b.' o Z:14 P Ai 0 p ai. 12, 04 I-1 N 8, [11; 'il))1-`1. Fi'of i'l) ri. ?I -cy 0 fp pq. t. id, I 1 --1 .(.. ri u' 1--, •c. 1---i 0 k_ (n 0 , P. rt iWt1 ' Er) 10 eD- (-1- t-ti -21 0i. 0 -1 , T.-..t. P, 1 [I 1....--h, it `i.oirl j,--1. IH-1,- _ . 11) P j0' (1). •H t• 1_,,Ifil• N (D 'F4 itY) f'., '0-' ', -. 0 ri 0 Pi 11:-' 11.-h i'' 14. (1) ;'? N Fi. ' 1--od i4; -c- ,,Yi (11 ri, p ri ,--J. 1 p ,1 c,-:), r-cl or 1 1:i 11 )tj p19,1, p r.-_-; ul !-.Y H.. 0 piii ril 'cl pr < ft I ri• n o rt '0 1. pi ft ii kil ri; P° . ' 1}'71 iD 0 0 0 in ,.., p) Hi pi _ H. 0 H.) 11- • 1 r ri -,,,r1- 4(0 ,--, i,.; r 13-itl N " 1'3 r--,' i'/)- p.0 ': O. F. n 11 H. N ;;1 't-1.1-q H (-g 0 cl 1'1 8 d tj 0 0, 1-iii . tr L-- P. H 1 -' H H Hi [J, JD H 0, t•D 0 0 it, i•--i, hi) Eli 8, i(.il) `,T .1-1 _f. a2, 0 0 --r. 7.., 1 , O. 0 . -i ,ri 0 it: _, , rf <1 (D -1 '1? i-- r--,1-0 'D 1-4 '111 f) 10 fiv `Iti rt ul cr t.fl ...1 0 (I), k, 0 ).. 1_, , ';'' co o 1-4 7 0 P, '" b4 0 h `,3 p,J I-1 (p il (0 0 ri:1-(& g; (I) )5_,Id 'rji, o 8 'f':' i Cl' N 0 . ull 1--, u} 0 [-i. 0 ri; 1 [J-1. u) " . 4/4 '1- I(-1 0 R m n (( [0] 1 I f il- " 17 )) 1 ' ' - 3 0 I 1 i ' C IL. (1. '1 01 "1),Id 71 (0 p el. . 11)tr4 r-, il 2 1)4 ri; i.-4 n kf",-i IP, if, it.f r.:,,,, 16, F. 0 1-q) ai 1(1' -1J 1=-1, rt , r t (I; 1 0 ri- (D 1-4 H cl. I-.. o 1 •-c4.P' H to r-i NI 1-_-._, 1-6 0 0 11; :iri 0, ri. 0 Oa . [1: J 0 f it,. 0 Ft r-ii o• P' (2,, 11.).; P- t-, P' (D o • -.1 tn I-, fo, ID H 0) H. H ID 0 r o -31 0 €--, H ti) ri• - p .--, h i--, 0 i-,. - O H) H' ,---, 0 ---1 1 o (0 rli FA • 0 lo ' 1 . 0 0 ID i id rD p p 10 I- 1 0) (I) it V O 0 0 (» 10 0 Ln it w ---< n' p!, r.• [75 (D M 0 0 Fh ft' 0 (1) 1.-.4 H. cn o Cl 1-i A 0 11 )_,• ch it 0 fli 0" 0, ct. ft rt. n --,. rt ti• (i' VI II it 0 (l) ti 0 -t 0 (I) 0 1:1' (4' rl- 'd f0 ID (0 fD 0 H. 0 Cr 10UOJ'H Ft ID 0J (D fn irl 0, A NO O 0 H. v hh eD r.-1- 1-1) P. tn R,'..,1 P --i 1--, 1.-f.k o 1.111 0 __I fl) H.. 01 0 it 0 id 0-) 01 I ct 0) 1-; 0 co f-i . I-' •11" ft 0 -.-) P. 1-1 rt 05 H " 1.---' p H. 0 LJ ri' 0 n J' LI' r rl w 0 ,J 0. 0- (If CD (1) H 0100 0 11 0 H.- 0 HO t1 il 10 t.L.0 7= The Carrty may estahlisa a ca=mittee to aci ,ninister the Prog=-7-1 7 deteriTdna the rangei,of.accentable purchase offers for properties within the Prote7,ed:area and autho -r-ize the differential payments by the County.. The 124=T:Ibers of the cormilittee wol)ld be ap -Ocir.ted by the Board of Co -o-missioners and would rePresent the Ceurty,!the'host community and 1)--opertv owners within the prctectedarea, Off-Site Well ITOnitcrino- and Water Quality Ast-ranc ,", - To assure residetsii7b.i .1-1 the protected a--P= of tihe . continued quality of their Water supply, the celInty may survey, permission of the owners) in tae vicinity of the Proposed landfill prior to landfill construction to deter7ine the (pre- landf5.1 .l) _.at-us of the water system . The distal-lee from tba landfill laav be daterminedy the solid Waste 3cad. upon advice of the county E e lth DeDa-,._4e7Lc, the.Dep -rtment of Solid Waste and Board of Cv7117issicners.i The cost may be c_hared to the landfill construction-costs B. The County Health betFrtmemt T-TPy continue to test wells in the area under its normal Procedures whether pr=rvieusly inspected prior to the censtruCtion or not_ . C. The County may-ohereaf7Ler conside/- tPting wells or surface water if racdested by '-o--zze- Solid -Waste Eeard and upon -recommendation of the County EeF-Ith DepP-rtment. D. The ampropri'ateparpmeters of water pollution nast he agreed to early, since the :D-rog-ram cannot be a.-Kpacted to protect -Private wells from all forMs Of pollution, but only those. caused _ by leachate from the Coll -htyl ' Ideal l y, private wells s 's11012:Ld be found. which F7-a rep-resentative of each cuadrern sur,-ounding fhe County landfill, which is the reason why the. radius should be extended farther as necessary. Initial tests.wallProvide backround levels to comp -r-e. with those to be taan:during the cPeration of the County la ndfill . The advaritage of having a nul'ee-r- of 7,,;ells is that tbev will be corroborative if a problem occurs and contamination, due to errors 14 sampling, shows up_ Thus, at a niurna, the 5nitial private -We.1-1 monitoring for backynommd condition S should cover at leasl, all four seasons. Since initial construction will a-2.Land over at least 10-12 months, this is not pantic4lly onerous, although it aces regaire advance plannthg.. The ai71. is to eslhlish a sufficient number of tests to identit y within a broad range, the ey_ltent to which each of he coat'Amination,indicato-r parameters will vary ieachate contamination 'occur, homeowliers with private, pothle water supplY 7:7ells can be compensated in a number of ways. The:first;option, if the level of contamination 1 - 3 is low, is to -return the c:J_E_LndWater_suP017 to it original condition. This che achieved by plaf,--ing a barr4 P7- between the source of pollution'a'rldlithe:1 ,zellor wells ,-,-Iternativalv, a deeper well can he drilled IfaiO4 would he capable of sulDPiving water to a nurober of private citizens wit-hi -n. a li177 -Tted area_ Comuection to te. Dublic water sa:oply is a trd alternative. . Trl situations whP-re'prayate :weA 7 s are sase_d for aTf iclaitai -rs, tha dbligation to return coñtinated water to its o-r-4 ginal condition still applies. . - This type of compensati6n can be costly, but it Should be rP .TLehered that a modern faality is etremely Pnlikely to cause the problem in the first piaca: We -a -re dealtng wirhu'ef7-,at if concerns_ • The pr-7 vate oitize7 not only needs assurance that the worst will not happen, hut assurIce_ that if it does ha'open, a prograill for compensation in place which gaarantees correction..