HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1988.12.15 - 17730Miscellaneous Resolution 88348 December 15, 1988
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE -
ANNE M. HOBART, CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - OAKLAND COUNTY
Solid Waste Program - Request for Qualification (RFQ)
Recycling Program
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the Solid Waste Planning Committee, the Solid Waste
Task Force, the County Executive and the Board of Commissioners
support the concept of recycling of non-hazardous materials; and
WHEREAS the Planning and Building Committee has reviewed the
attached memorandum regarding an RFQ for the implementation of
the recycling program; and
WHEREAS the County of Oakland has contracts with Bishop,
Cook, Purcell & Reynolds, Camp Dresser & McKee and Public
Financial Management for the purpose of implementing the Oakland
County Solid Waste Program; and
WHEREAS the Planning & Building Committee recommends the
solicitation of qualification for the implementing of a recycling
program.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board
of Commissioners approves the Request for Qualification, per
attached memorandum.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the firms of Bishop, Cook,
Purcell & Reynolds, Camp Dresser & McKee and Public Financial
Management be authorized to prepare the necessary documents and
take the necessary steps, including consulting with
representatives from interested groups within the County, for the
purpose of implementing a recycling program.
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Planning and Building
Committee, I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution.
"
PLANNING & BUILDING COMMITTEE
Anne M. Hobart, Chairperson
HE,RERY APPROVE THE FO1Er-10ING RESOLUTION
Dazu
wRITER' DIRECT DIAL
LAM OFF=51
BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS
400 L STREET, NW.
WA51INGT3N, D.C. 20005-3502 •
(02) 371-5700
NZMORAUDUM 44057,1 NI' LAW
-rE:.:-.CX (.102) 37i.59430
TO: Planning & Building Committee
FROM: Negotiating Team
DATE: December 5, 1988
RE: Recycling
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION
Attention: Anne Hobart, Chairperson
Bacicground
1. The County Executive and the County Board of commissioners
previously decided that in the implementation of the 641 Plans,
recycling must be emphasized. Accordingly, the Team accepted the
State goal of 20% of the Waste Stream within five years and
established a 30% target within ten years.
2. The Solid Waste Planning Committee's Recycling Subcommittee
and the Solid Waste Planning Committee in conjunction with the
County's Consultant, Resource Recycling . System, Inc., has filed a
preliminary report with the Planning and Building Committee with
recommendations for ultimate adoption by the County Board.
3. The Negotiating Team has net with Alice Tamboulian and Jim
Frye, among others.
4. The Negotiating Team also has met with Dan Murphy, Roy
Rewold and Nancy McConnell to discuss its findings and outline
certain options available to the County.
5. The Team anticipates further meetings within and without the
County prior to the promulgation of the RFQ in 1989.
-2-
1. The previously developed schedule calling for an RFQ to be
issued in January 1989 is attainable.
2. The 20/30% goals within the five and ten-year periods,
respectively, is practical provided the citizens of Oakland
County cooperate. The facilities will be designed for expansion
as soon as the collection system shows that expansion is
warranted.
3. The principal hurdle for implementation is to establish an
efficient system without undue complications.
4. Oakland County's plan to issue an RFQ and have competitive
negotiations appears to be unique, i.e., few communities have
focused on efficiency (t of recovery) and quality standards, but
rather have emphasized having a recycling system in place.
5. For recycling to be effective
a. A new collection system within the County must be in
place.
b. The municipalities will have to have an enforcement
system, i.e., mandatory recycling program for all waste
generators.
(i) Non competition
(ii) License
(iii) Penalty
c. The per ton charge will have tobe less than that for
RR F or Landfill.
6. If there is no market for noncombustibles, they can be
stored." The cost of storing combustibles (with the possible
exception of plastic) may he prohibitive and, therefore, likely
will be delivered to a RRF.
7. Prior to promulgation of the RFQ, the Team must develop
certain efficiency standards. However, a portion of the contract
will be developed during the negotiation process.
, 1 2U%commendatlor,
1. 1500 tpd, divided among four facilities, each of which is
dosiuned to be flexiblo cnoLzgh to ewpand in capacity Ld.L
the percentage of material handled.
a. Composting --
(1) 300 tpd
(ii) Yard and wood wastes, leaves and lake weeds.
b. Three plants each able to recycle 400 tpd.
(i) Paper products (newspaper, office and
computer paper, cardboard).
(ii) Ferrous metal
(iii) Aluminum
(iv) Glass
(v) Plastic
(vi) White goods
(vii) Oil waste
(viii) Batteries
2. Materials accepted at recycling centers
a. Residential; comingled
b. Commercial/Industrial; segregated
County's role
a. Ownership
b. Immediate implementation
c. Open to anyone who wants tn use
d. Establish tip fee first (no charge if brought
Individually.
e. Pay shortfall, if any, until tip fee is increased.
4. Tern of operation agreement
a. Ten years
lJ In a separate document and at a later time, we will discuss a
household hazardous waste pick-up and disposal system.
-4-
b. Two five-year renewal options
Assuming all facilities operate five days per week for fifty
weeks with an average of 1,000 tpd, anrough" estimate is that a
charge varying from $30 to $40 per ton will be necessary to
insure no shortfall of revenues (difference between coats of
operating, and landfill disposal debt amortization and revenues
generated). Note, the spread across the County is $16.50 to $125
per ton in Canada.
5. Operator to be responsible for marketing of recovered
materials
(a) Receive a I of net revenues
(b) Also to be paid O&M.
RESOLUTION # 88348 December 15, 1988
Moved by Hobart supported by Crake the resolution be adopted.
AYES: S. Kuhn, Lanni, Law, McConnell, McDonald, R. McPherson, Moffitt,
Oaks, Page, Pernick, Price, Skarritt, Wilcox, Caddell, Calandro, Crake, Gosling,
Hobart, R. Kuhn. (19)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution w .Es adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal, do
hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of the attached resolution,
adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners at their regular meeting
held on npc , l9_831 with the original record thereof now remaining
on file 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 this 15th day of,"December -1
LYA D. ALLEN, County Clerk
Register of Deeds
Deputy Clerk