HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1987.10.08 - 18075October 8, 1987
Miscellaneous Resolution 87263
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE - Anne M. Hobart, Chairperson
IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 641 GRANT FOR
FIVE YEAR UPDATE TO COUNTY PLAN - FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 AND CONSULTING
ENGINEERING CONTRACT
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the Oakland County Solid Waste Management Plan was approved
locally and by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources on July 28, 1983;
and
WHEREAS Act 641, Public Acts of 1978, requires five year updates to
county plans; and
WHEREAS the Michigan Department of Natural Resources requires the five
year update to be approved locally and submitted to them by January 6, 1989; and
WHEREAS Act 641 provides for eighty percent (80%) state matching payments
for plan preparation for the five year update to the extent state funding is
available; and
WHEREAS approximately $49,988 in state funds is available to Oakland
County for fiscal year 1987-88; and
WHEREAS it is anticipated that a like amount of state funds will be
available to Oakland County for fiscal year 1988-89; and
WHEREAS the County of Oakland, in the process of preparing the five year
update to the plan, needs certain consulting engineering services as outlined in
the attached Agreement with Camp, Dresser and McKee; and
WHEREAS the schedule, work scope, tasks and fee in this Agreement have
been reviewed and approved by the Act 641 citizens' Solid Waste Planning
Committee; and
WHEREAS the County of Oakland need to supplement the fiscal year 1987-88
state grant in the contract with twenty percent (20%) ($12,497) in local funds
will be more than offset by county staff salaries and fringes; and
WHEREAS although the offered state grant for fiscal year 1987-88 of
$49,988 and a similar sized state grant anticipated for fiscal year 1988-89
falls short of an eighty percent (80%) match ($153,560) of the estimated
$191,950 necessary to prepare a five year plan update, this Board of
Commissioners recognizing the importance and complexity of a thoroughly prepared
plan wishes to proceed with this update.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of
commissioners hereby authorizes the Chairperson of the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners and the County Executive to execute the necessary standard
contract between the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the County of
Oakland to receive fiscal year 1987-88 grant funds as provided in the Solid
Waste Management Act 641 of the Public Acts of 1978 for the five year update of
the Solid Waste Plan..
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Executive is further authorized to
make reasonable changes to the contract during the course of the five year
update or if required for state approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon state approval of the contract between
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the County of Oakland and
acceptance of the work program, the Chairperson of the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners and the County Executive are hereby authorized and directed to
execute the attached Agreement for consulting engineering services by and
between the County of Oakland and Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the maximum fee for these consulting
engineering services shall not exceed $111,950. --
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Planning and Building Committee, I move
the adoption of the foregoing resolution.
FISCAL NOTE
BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE, DR. G. WILLIAM CADDELL, CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT 641 GRANT
FOR FIVE YEAR UPDATE TO COUNTY PLAN - FISCAL YEAR 1987 - 1988 AND
CONSULTING ENGINEERING CONTRACT - MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #87263
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Rule XT-G of this Board, the Finance Comnittee has
reviewed Miscellaneous Resolution #87263 and finds:
1) Act 641 of Public Acts of 1978 requires a five year update;
2) . Miscellaneous Resolution #87244 of this Board indicated an intent
to prepare an update;
3) The State funding in their fiscal year 1987 - 1988 is $49,988 and
like funding is anticipated in 1988 - 1989 pending agreement
between Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the County;
4) Miscellaneous Resolution #85234 of this Board agreed to pay for
the original Act 641 plan and other solid waste management cost
and this Resolution also set forward and intergovernmental
agreement specifying the costs that are recoverable from the
Municipal Solid Waste Board and this plan update does not qualify
(see attachments);
5) This plan update will require engineering' services from Camp,
Dresser, and McKee at a total contract cost not to exceed
$111,950;
5) Funds are available and recommended, not to exceed $111,950, to
pay Camp, Dresser, and McKee for plan update consulting, from the
Solid Waste budget, Professional Services line item
(4-10100-142-15-00-3128).
FINANCE COMMITTEE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
OWNER AND ENGINEER
FOR
ASSISTANCE TO THE
OAKLAND COUNT DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS
FOR UPDATING THE
ACT 641 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made as of the day of in
the year Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Seven by and between the County of
Oakland, Michigan (hereinafter called OWNER) and Camp Dresser & McKee,
Detroit, Michigan, a Michigan Partnership (hereinafter called ENGINEER).
OWNER wishes ENGINEER to perform professional engineering services, to
serve as OWNER'S professional engineering representative, and to provide
professional engineering consultation and advice for a professional fee
(as set forth below) in connection with updating of the Act 641 Solid
Waste Management Plan for Oakland County (the "Assignment").
SECTION 1. BASIC SERVICES OF ENGINEER
1.1 ENGINEER shall perform the following professional services:
1.1.1 Consult with OWNER to clarify and define OWNER'S require-
ments relative to the Assignment and review available data.
1.1.2 Advise OWNER as to the necessity of OWNER'S providing or
obtaining from others special services and data required in
connection with the Assignment (which services and data
ENGINEER is not to provide hereunder but on which ENGINEER
may rely in performing services hereunder), and act as
OWNER's representative in connection with any such services
of others.
1.1.3 Prepare a letter report of ENGINEER's findings and recom-
mendations, furnish 100 copies to OWNER and present it in
person and review it with OWNER.
OAK4.22 Page 1 of 5
1.2 The duties and responsibilities of ENGINEER described above are
supplemented and amended as indicated in Paragraph 1 of Exhibit A
"Further Description of Basic Services. Duties of Owner, Method of
Payment and Related Services," which is attached to and made a part
of this Agreement.
1.3 Additional professional services (Special Services) related to the
Assignment will be performed by ENGINEER on request of OWNER for an
additional professional fee as the parties may subsequently agree.
1.4 The ENGINEER shall maintain books, records, computer records, docu-
ments and other evidence directly pertinent to performance of work
under this contract in accordance with generally accepted account-
ing principles and practices. The ENGINEER shall also maintain the
financial information and data used by the ENGINEER in the prepara-
tion or support of the cost submission. The State or any of their
duly authorized representatives shall have access to such books,
records, documents and other evidence for the purpose of inspec-
tion, audit and copying. The ENGINEER will provide proper facil-
ities for such access and inspection. All records shall be main-
tained for a minimum of five (5) years after agreement termination
or completion.
The ENGINEER shall have access to all State records pertinent to
the program identified in the Agreement, as provided by law.
1.5 ENGINEER agrees not to discriminate against any employee or
applicant with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, or a matter directly or indirectly
related to employment, because of race, color, religion, national
origin, age, sex, height, weight, marital status, or because of a
handicap that is unrelated to the person's ability to perform the
duties of a particular job or position. A breach of this covenant
shall be regarded as a material breach of this Agreement.
1.6 In accordance with State policy, the ENGINEER agrees that qualified
small and/or minority business enterprises shall have the maximum
practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of this
contract.
1.7 If this Agreement involves research, developmental, experimental,
or demonstration work and any discovery or invention arises or is
developed in the course of or under this Agreement, the State shall
retain sole authority to patent or license.
1.8 The ENGINEER agrees that any plans, drawings, specifications,
computer programs, technical reports, operating manuals, and other
work submitted or which are specified to be delivered under this
Agreement or which are developed or produced and paid for under
this Agreement are subject to the rights of the State of Michigan
and the State shall retain an irrevocable license to reproduce,
publish and use in whole or in part and to authorize others to do
so.
OAK4.22 Page 2 of 5
1.9 The OWNER may cancel this Agreement if the ENGINEER or any subcon-
tractor, manufacturer, or supplier of the ENGINEER appears in the
register compiled by the Michigan Department of Labor pursuant to
Public Act No. 278 of 1980.
SECTION 2. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
OWNER shall:
2.1 Provide all criteria and full information as to OWNER's require-
ments and designate a person with authority to act on OWNER's
behalf on all matters concerning the Assignment.
2.2 Furnish to ENGINEER all existing studies, reports and other avail-
able data and services of others pertinent to the Assignment, and
obtain additional reports and data as required; and ENGINEER shall
be entitled to rely upon all such information and services in
performing services hereunder.
2.3 Arrange for access to and make all provisions for ENGINEER to enter
upon public and private property as required for ENGINEER to per-
form services hereunder.
2.4 Perform such other functions as are indicated in Paragraph 2 of
Exhibit A "Further Description of Basic Services, Duties of Owner,
Method of Payment and Related Services."
SECTION 3. PERIOD OF SERVICE
ENGINEER shall start performing services hereunder upon execution
of this Agreement and will submit a report by four (4) months after
written Notice to Proceed. The period of service extends to
December, 1988. Additional requirements as to the timing of
ENGINEER's services in relation to the services of others or the
happening of events beyond ENGINEER'S control are set forth in
Paragraph 3 of Exhibit A "Further Description of Basic Services,
Duties of Owner, Method of Payment and Related Services."
SECTION 4. PAYMENT
4.1 OWNER shall pay ENGINEER for services rendered hereunder as indi-
cated in Paragraph 4 of Exhibit A "Further Description of Basic
Services, Duties of Owner, Method of Payment and Related Services."
4.2 ENGINEER shall submit monthly statements. The OWNER shall make
monthly payments in response to ENGINEER's monthly statement within
thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice.
4.3 ENGINEER's above charges are on the basis of prompt payment of
bills rendered and continuous progress of the work on the Assign-
ment until submission of the letter report.
OAK4.22 Page 3 of 5
SECTION 5. COST CONTROL
5.1 OWNER's budgetary requirements and considerations in respect of the
Assignment are set forth in Paragraph 5 of Exhibit A "Further
Description of Basic Services, Duties of Owner, Method of Payment
and Related Services."
5.2 Opinions of probable construction cost, financial evaluations,
feasibility studies, economic analyses of alternate solutions and
utilitarian considerations of operations and maintenance cost
prepared by ENGINEER hereunder will be made on the basis of
ENGINEER's experience and qualifications and represent ENGINEER's
best judgment as an experienced and qualified design professional.
It is recognized, however, that ENGINEER does not have control over
the cost of labor, material, equipment or services furnished by
others or over market conditions or contractors' methods of deter-
mining their prices, and that any utilitarian evaluation of any
facility to be constructed or work to be performed on the basis of
the letter report must of necessity be speculative until completion
of its detailed design. Accordingly, ENGINEER does not guarantee
that proposals, bids or actual costs will not vary from opinions,
evaluations or studies submitted by ENGINEER to OWNER hereunder.
SECTION 6. MISCELLANEOUS
6.1 All documents prepared by ENGINEER pursuant to this Agreement are
instruments of service in respect of the facility that is to be
constructed. They are not intended or represented to be suitable
for reuse by OWNER or others in extensions of the facility beyond
that now contemplated or on any other facility. Any reuse by OWNER
without written verification or adaption by ENGINEER for the speci-
fic purpose intended will be at OWNER'S sole risk and without
liability or legal exposure to ENGINEER.
6.2 The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may
be terminated (a) by OWNER with or without cause upon ten (10)
days' written notice to ENGINEER and (b) by ENGINEER for cause upon
ten (10) days' written notice to OWNER. In the event of any term-
ination, ENGINEER will be paid for all services rendered to the
date of termination, all reimbursable expenses and termination
expenses.
6.3 OWNER and ENGINEER and the respective partners, successors, execu-
tors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of each are
bound by this Agreement to the other party to this Agreement and to
the partners, successors, administrators, assigns and legal repre-
sentatives of such other party in respect of all covenants, agree-
ments and obligations of this Agreement.
6.4 The OWNER reserves the right of final approval over the selection
of the ENGINEER's subconsultant(s).
OAK4.22 Page 4 of 5
Roy Rewold
Chairperson, Board of
Commissioners
A. B. Seymour, P.E., P.L.S.
Associate
Detroit Office Manager
Daniel T. Murphy
County Executive
John W. Hawthorne
Senior Vice President
Date:
6.5 Nothing herein shall be construed to give any right or benefits
hereunder to anyone other than OWNER and ENGINEER.
6.6 This Agreement is to be governed by the law of the State of
Michigan.
6.7 This Agreement (consisting of 5 pages) and Exhibits A and B
(consisting of 7 pages) constitute the entire Agreement between
OWNER and ENGINEER and supersede all prior written or oral under-
standings between them in respect of the subject matter covered
hereby. This Agreement and said Exhibits A and B may only be
amended, supplemented, modified or cancelled by a duly executed,
written instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
OWNER ENGINEER
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gordon R. Wyllie
Assistant Corporate Counsel
Date:
OAK4.22 Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
OWNER AND ENGINEER
FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR ASSISTANCE TO THE
OAKLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS
WITH UPDATING THE
ACT 641 SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF BASIC SERVICES, DUTIES OF OWNER,
METHOD OF PAYMENT AND RELATED SERVICES
This is an exhibit attached to and made a part of the Agreement dated
between the County of Oakland, Michigan (OWNER) and
Camp Dresser & McKee, Detroit, Michigan, a Michigan Partnership
(ENGINEER) for study and report professional services.
1. The Basic Services of ENGINEER as described in Section 1 of said
Agreement are amended and supplemented as follows:
The detailed scope of basic and special services is indicated in
Exhibit B.
2. The responsibility of OWNER as described in Section 2 of said
Agreement is amended and supplemented as follows:
a. Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifica-
tions, proposals and other documents presented by ENGINEER.
b. Furnish approvals and permits from all governmental authorities
having jurisdiction over the Project and such approvals and
consents from others as may be necessary for completion of the
Project.
3. The time periods for the performance of ENGINEERS's services as set
forth in Section 4 of said Agreement are amended and supplemented as
follows:
The OWNER may extend the ENGINEER's time of service provided that
the cost upper limit is not exceeded. The ENGINEER shall not be
required to perform services beyond the cost upper limit.
Page 1 of 2
4. The method of payment for services rendered by ENGINEER shall be as
set forth below:
For the Services performed under Section 1, the OWNER agrees to pay
the ENGINEER as follows:
a. For work done by the ENGINEER, at the direct labor cost plus 159
percent of the direct salary cost for indirect labor costs and
overhead. Additionally, a fee will be paid based on 14 percent
of the direct labor, indirect labor, and overhead cost.
b. Direct expenses are defined as those expense costs other than
salary costs that are incurred during the progress of the work.
The actual out-of-pocket expense costs include: air fare,
automobile rental if required, mileage charges, parking, tolls,
taxi, meals, lodging, telephone, printing and reproduction
costs, and other miscellaneous costs incurred specifically for
this project.
c. For work done by others, at the actual cost to the ENGINEER of
such services plus 8 percent fee.
The total cost of all Services under Section 1 shall not exceed
$ 111,950.
5. OWNER has approved the following budget for the project:
Direct Labor $36,360
Overhead and Indirect Costs 57,810
Other Direct Costs 4,600
Fee 13,180
TOTAL $111,950
By mutual agreement, the line items in the budget may be adjusted to
suit the actual conduct of the work without changing the total project
cost.
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B TO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
OWNER AND ENGINEER
FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR ASSISTANCE TO THE
OAKLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS
WITH UPDATING THE
ACT 641 SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
SCOPE OF SERVICES, COST AND SCHEDULE
This is an exhibit attached to and made a part of the Agreement dated
between the County of Oakland, Michigan (OWNER) and Camp
Dresser & McKee, Detroit, Michigan, a Michigan Partnership (ENGINEER)
for study and report professional services.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Workscope is to describe the efforts by Camp Dresser
& McKee to assist the Oakland County Department of Public Works with
updating the Act 641 Solid Waste Management Plan. According to the Act,
Oakland County is responsible for assuring the safe disposal of solid
waste within the County boundaries. Oakland County submitted its
original Act 641 Solid Waste Management Plan to the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources in mid-1983. The Act requires each plan to be
updated at 5-year intervals. Oakland County now desires to prepare its
first update of the original Solid Waste Management Plan.
Camp Dresser & McKee has prepared its workscope consistent with a
tentative outline of the revised Solid Waste Management Plan Update.
Each task in Camp Dresser & McKee's Workscope coincides with a similar
section or subsection of the Solid Waste Management Plan. Following
this Workscope we have identified the primary responsible party for each
OAK4.25 Page 1 of 5
task or subtask, Camp Dresser & McKee's estimated level of man-hours for
each task or subtask, and the approximate schedule time for each of the
major task.
Following are the task descriptions.
TASK 1.0 - SUMMARY
Camp Dresser & McKee would assist in the preparation of the Solid Waste
Management Plan Summary.
TASK 2.0 - INTRODUCTION
Camp Dresser & McKee would assist the Oakland County Department of
Public Works with an introduction for the Solid Waste Management Plan
Update.
TASK 3.0 - DATABASE
Existing waste generation would be determined based on an estimate of
the population of Oakland County according to the Planning Division
records. The population figures times a waste generation rate per
capita would be used to determine what the existing waste generation
rate is. This waste generation rate would be verified by determining if
the Unit Assignment Method developed by Camp Dresser & McKee and Oakland
County and other per capita waste generation rate methods can be used to
determine the existing waste generation rate. In addition, phone
calls/site visits would be made to landfill disposal facilities in and
adjacent to Oakland County to determine if the amount of waste received
at these facilities from Oakland County is consistent with projected
waste generation. In addition, the future waste generation figures
would be developed based on population and land use projections by the
Oakland County Planning Division. The land use patterns and solid waste
generation centers identified by the Planning Division would also help
identify concentrations of waste generation.
The existing disposal resources, consisting of landfills and resource
recovery facilities in Oakland County, would be identified and
described. Each disposal facility would be described regarding its
OAK4.25 Page 2 of 5
method of disposal and the type and amount of waste received. A
description of the environmental constraints on the facility or site,
retrieved from the existing environmental permits, would be explained.
In addition, there would be a listing of any problems known regarding
the site and any active or potential lawsuits that may be developed
regarding the facility. Based upon the permitted or available volume of
the facility, and an estimate of the current disposal quantity per day,
the remaining life of each facility would be identified.
Based upon the amount of waste to be generated at current rates and as
projected in the future, and accounting for any inter-County solid waste
practices, CDM would estimate the available life of the existing
facilities in the County. The estimate would be in terms of the number
of years remaining with the existing system operating similar to current
conditions.
TASK 4.0 - AVAILABLE WASTE REDUCTION/DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
This section by Camp Dresser & McKee would describe all of the available
waste reduction and disposal alternatives available to Oakland County.
The major methods of reduction and disposal are source separation, which
is a form of recycling, centralized recycling, sanitary landfills,
resource recovery and co-disposal with sewage sludge. Each of these
waste reduction and disposal alternatives would be discussed in terms of
the reliability of the systems available, the impact on the environment,
the general cost relationship between the alternatives, the benefit to
the overall system by incorporation of one of these alternatives and the
political acceptability of these alternatives.
TASK 5.0 - MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS
This section would relate to how different geographical and political
boundaries would require that solid waste disposal be treated uniquely
in several areas. Currently there are at least four subsystems to the
overall County system. They are the Southeast Oakland County Incinera-
tor Authority, the City of Pontiac, the Municipal Solid Waste Board, and
all remaining communities within the County. Each of these subsystems
would be described with regard to the number of municipalities that are
participating, the amount and type of waste generated, unique aspects
OAK4.25 Page 3 of 5
regarding the systems such as its geographical location to other
counties and other disposal areas, and how their waste is disposed of
now and how they plan to dispose of it in the future.
TASK 6.0 - ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
This major section and task will identify the management alternatives
available to each of the subsystems identified above. Each alternative
will be described and a cost estimate provided to estimate the cost for
disposal using the proposed facilities for each subsystem. Subsystem
and management alternative will have the environmental aspects
investigated to determine what impact there would be on the environment.
The Oakland County Department of Public Works would be asked to assist
in identifying any political considerations that should be included in
the alternatives. Ultimately a comparison of the alternatives will be
made with participation and input from many outside sources.
TASK 7.0 - DEVELOPMENT OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
The selected alternative identified in Task 6 will be described in
detail. It is inevitable that there be several disposal methods for
each of the different solid waste subsystems in the County. Each of
these subsystems must have identified the disposal sites for the next
five years and either of the sites identified for the next twenty years,
or a method of siting new facilities including landfills. In addition
resource recovery facilities, if a part of the alternatives selected for
those solid waste subsystems, will be described.
In addition, Oakland County's Solid Waste Management Plan will be
coordinated with those plans and requirements of other counties. A
policy decision must be made by Oakland County regarding the importation
or exportation of solid waste before the relationship of several County
plans can be made.
Implementation activities for the selected alternative will be
explained. If any immediate actions are required they will be
identified and described. An analysis of financing will indicate how
new facilities or sites would be financed within the County. A very
important decision throughout this whole plan update will be identi-
OAK4.25 Page 4 of 5
fication of responsibilities. Responsibilities for implementation, cost
and liabilities for all facilities must be divided among the County,
County subsystems (SOCIA, MSWB, etc.) and local municipalities. All
policy decisions must be identified and resolved. Ultimately a
implementation schedule to implement all recommended facilities must be
prepared.
TASK 8.0 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
Camp Dresser & McKee will assist the County in conducting a public
participation program to assure the desires and comments from the
municipalities and the public are incorporated in the final formation of
the Oakland County Solid Waste Management Plan Update. The public
participation program is assumed to consist of several meetings with the
public to explain the components of the project. It is the ultimate
goal that the Solid Waste Management Plan Update is approved by a
two-thirds majority of all municipalities in the County, approved by the
Board of Commissioners, and the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.
CDM will provide draft copies of each Task section during the conduct of
the study. The final report will follow the outline shown on the
following page. The final delivered product will be camera ready copies
of all the above described sections for reproduction by Oakland County.
Estimated costs and a tentative schedule are shown on the following
pages.
OAK4.25 Page 5 of 5
Prime
Responsibility
OC-DPW
OC-DPW
CDM
Man-Hrs Schedule Time
16 Nov. '87
16 Nov. '87
Nov. '87 - Jan. '88
76
1.0 SUMMARY
2.0 INTRODUCTION
3.0 DATABASE
3.1 Waste Generation
0C-Plan. Div.
DC-Plan. Div.
DC-Plan. Div.
CC-DPW 0
OAKLAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
TENTATIVE REPORT OUTLINE
3.1.1 Existing Waste Generation
3.1.1.1 Based on Population CDM
3.1.1.2 Verification CDM
3.1.2 Future Waste Generation
3.1.2.1 Population Projections
3.1.2.2 Land Use Patterns
3.1.2.3 Solid Waste Generation Centers
3.2 Waste Collection and Hauling Practice
3.3 Existing Disposal Resources 180
3.3.1 Landfill A
3.3.1.1 Description of Waste Received CDM
3.3.1.2 Environmental Constraints/ CDM
Problems
3.3.1.3 Remaining Life CDM
3.3.2 Landfill B
3.3.2.1 Description of Waste Received CDM
3.3.2.2 Environmental Constraints/ CDM
Problems
3.3.2.3 Remaining Life CDM
etc.
CDM
Man-Hrs Schedule Time
112
Nov. - Dec. '87
5.0 MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS Dec. '87 - Jan. '88
26
42
OAKLAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
TENTATIVE REPORT OUTLINE
(CONTINUED)
Prime
Responsibility
3.4 Inter-County Waste Disposal
DC-DPW
DC-DPW
CDM
86 3.4.1 Identify Waste Entering and Leaving
County
3.4.2 Determine County Policy and Inter-
County Waste
3.5 Determine Required Disposal Capacity
4.0 AVAILABLE WASTE REDUCTION/DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Source Separation (recycling) CDM 28
4.2 Centralized Recycling CDM 26
4.3 Sanitary Landfill CDM 24
4.4 Resource Recovery/Volume Reduction CDM 32
4.5 Co-disposal with Sludge CDM 26
5.1 County Solid Waste Subsystems
5.1.1 SOCIA CDM
5.1.2 Pontiac CDM
S.1.3 MSWB CDM
5.1.4 Others CDM
5.2 Problems and Policy Issues DC-DPW
6.0 ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Jan. '88 - Feb. '88
6.1 Description of Alternatives CDM 56
6.2 Cost Considerations CDM 114
6.3 Environmental Considerations CDM 158
6.4 Implementation (Political) Considerations QC-DPW 94
6.5 Comparison of Alternatives CDM 116
7.2 Coordination with Other County Plans 50 OC-DPW
96
OC-DPW
OC-PFM
0C-DPW 108 Nov. '87 - Dec. '88
OAKLAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
TENTATIVE REPORT OUTLINE
(CONTINUED)
Prime
Responsibility
CDM
Man-Firs Schedule Time
7.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
7.1 Description of Selected Alternative
7.1.1 Identify Landfill Sites for Next 5 years
7.1.2 Identify Landfill Sites for 20 year
Plan or Method for Siting New Landfill
7.1.3 Identify Resource Recovery Facilities
7.1.4 Identify Recycling Program
Feb. - Mar. '88
94
DC-DPW
OC-DPW
CDM
OC-DPW (Frey)
7.3 Implementation Activities
7.3.1 Emergency Actions
7.3.2 Project Financing
7.3.3 Assignment of Responsibilities
7.3.4 Policy Decisions
7.3.5 Implementation Schedule
8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
1,574 man hrs
4
0
2
PROJECT : Oakland County Act 641 Plan Update
CLIENT : Oakland County, MI
DATE 21-Sep-87
EST BY : RF6 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
TASK
! Office Project Tech Rev Proj Eng/ Technician Geotech- Clerical/ !
: Manager Manager Committee Planner Engineer nical Tech Writer!
1 B Seymour R Battey J Bona/ C Byrd T Cullen T OTALS
Cost/hr --> : $35.05 $32.00 $31.25 $25.00 $16.50 $25.25 $10.00 Manhrs Cost
1 1.0 SUMMARY
1.0 Assist/Update Summary 2 4 2 4 0 0 4 16 $400
1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ,
2.0 Assist/Introduction 2 4 2 2 o 0 6 16 $370 ' .
3.0 DATABASE
3.1 Waste Generation
3.2 Waste Collection & Hauling
3.3 Existing Disposal
3.4 Inter-County Disposal
3.5 Estimate Disposal Capacity
4.0 WASTE REDUCTION/DISPOSAL
4.1 Source Separation
4.2 Centralized Recycling
4.3 Sanitary Landfill
4.4 Res Recovery/Vol Reduction
4.5 Codisposal w/Sludge
5.0 MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS
5.1 Solid Waste Subsystems
5.2 Problems/Policy Issues
6.0 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Alternatives
6.? Cost Considerations
6.3 Envirnomental Concerns
6.4 Political Concerns
6.5 Comparison of Alternatives
4 12 8 16 16 8 12 76 $1,760
o o o o o o o o $0
8 32 16 24 60 8 32 180 $3,920
2 24 a 4 20 4 24 86 $1,860
2 24 a 6 24 24 24 112 $2,480
2 12 2 2 2 4 4 28 $740
2 12 2 4 2 o 4 26 $690
o 12 o 2 2 4 4 24 $610
2 16 2 2 2 4 4 32 $870
2 8 4 2 2 4 4 26 $680
4 8 4 4 o o 6 26 $680
4 8 4 16 o o 8 40 $1,000
2 24 4 16 o o 10 56 $1.460
2 a o 8 80 8 8 114 $2.130
2 24 4 16 60 40 12 158 $3,460
8 24 12 24 10 o 16 94 $2,350
8 24 4 32 24 8 16 1 116 $2,730
7.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Description
7.2 Coord w/Other County Plans
7.3 Implementation Alternative
6 24 8 16 20
4 16 6 8 8
6 32 8 16 16
16 94 $2,220
a 50 $1,250
16 96 $2,360
, 8.0 PUBLIC PROGRAM .
8.0 Assist as Reauired 16 16 4 8 24 8 32 108 $2.370 1 ,
T OTAl 90 368 112 232 372 130 270 1,574 $36,360
Overhead @ 1591.
Fee (a 14%
Other Direct Costs
$57.810
$13,180
$4,600
"" R Hurdle. R Hauser
TOTAL COST $111.950
1
2/88 3/88 4/88 12/88 :
1********I***.****1******MNIM******.1********I********1 *A* .... ...... t I I I t I
I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I
1 Month
! 11/87 12/87 1/88
F
1
:**o..***! I ,
I I I I
1******** , i
I I
I
I I I I I I I I I
I I i I
I I I I I t I I I I
I I
I I I I I I 1 I
MINNO***** I I
PROJECT : Oakland County Act 641 Plan Update
CLIENT : Oakland County, MI
DATE : 21-Sep-87
BY RFB TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
! Task
! 1.0 Summary
! 2.0 Introduction
1 3.0 Database
1 4.0 Waste Reduction/Disposal
! 5.0 Manaoement Components
1
1 6.0 Management Alternatives
! 7.0 Selected Alternatives
1 8.0 Public Program
Final Report Due 3/1/88 t
RESOLUTION # 87263
November 5, 1987
Moved by Hobart supported by Crake the resolution, with a positive
Fiscal Note attached, be adopted.
AYES: McDonald, Ruel McPherson, Moffitt, Page, Price, Rowland,
Skarritt, Wilcox, Aaron, Calandro, Crake, Doyon, Gosling, Hobart, Jensen,
Richard Kuhn, Susan Kuhn, Lanni, McConnell. (19)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution, with a
positive Fiscal Note attached, was 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
this Miscellaneous Resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
at their meeting held on November 5,
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
Board of Commissioners
5th day of 41110 November 1987
kk I "
Coun y Clerk/Register of Deeds
ALLEN
this