The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About1b CM Attachment - Alternative Recycling Proposal FINALV1The attached proposal was put together by people who want to work with their elected officials in creating the most successful recycling program possible for our county. This group took field trips to the Council recycling center and met with an Adams County commissioner as well as the Adams County Solid Waste Supervisor. We asked for facts and figures from both Adams County and Valley County employees; all were very helpful in providing information that formed the basis for our proposal. We will be presenting this proposal to the Valley County Commissioners. Barb Dixon Joey Pietri Jeff Canfield Geoff Burns Kelly Martin Paul Hefner Marilyn Olson Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Page 1 of 9 An Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Page 2 of 9 Valley County is presently moving toward closing its recycling collection sites in McCall, Donnelly and Cascade and consolidating recycling to the county owned site on East Lake Fork Road approximately 1 mile east of Lake Fork. It is presumed that recycling will be centralized at Lake Fork for all of Valley County because that is where the baler is located. The intent is to control the quality of recycling to assure that Valley County's recycled materials are marketable. The preliminary scope of the move will be to fence in an uncovered area where the bins will be out in the open, exposed to the weather. We anticipate that the site will be just as user unfriendly as the present McCall site. We would also note that the cardboard bins will be fully exposed to the weather which will result in unmarketable product during inclement weather. This move to Lake Fork will result in an extra 7-mile drive for McCall recyclers, 8- mile drive for Donnelly recyclers, and 25-mile drive for Cascade recyclers. Scott Carnes, Lakeshore's manager, has said that based on his company's experience he anticipates at least a 50% reduction in recycling. While we cannot quantify the exact impact on recycling of closing the three satellite collection sites and replacing them with one site in Lake Fork, we think it is self-evident that there will be a substantial reduction in recycling by Valley County residents and businesses. We also see the possibility, one or two years down the road, that the county will cease recycling altogether. Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Page 3 of 9 According to Lakeshore Disposal billing records, in the last fiscal year 736 loads were hauled from McCall to Lake Fork, 115 loads were hauled from Donnelly to Lake Fork, and 145 loads were hauled from Cascade to Lake Fork. Therefore, we can determine that 74% of recycling in Valley County is generated in McCall, 11.5% in Donnelly and 14.5% in Cascade. 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2019 Lakeshore Disposal Billing Records Billable loads • McCall • Donnelly • Cascade Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Page 4 of 9 We have an alternative proposal that would maintain, perhaps even increase, recycling in Valley county and assure the highest quality of recycling material. Instead of moving the collection site to the baler, move the baler to the major collection site. The images below show the footprint of a building 45 ft X 125 ft, the size of the recycling facility in Council superimposed on the current drop-off site in McCall. The first image is a survey drawing showing the building dimensions on the proposed site. The second is a satellite image. The blue rectangle shows the building dimensions superimposed over the existing facility. ry VALLEY COUNTY ACCESS MITI', DRAINAGE AND AA INWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT INST. /592697 4OOJ9'02"W 277.61 I VALLEY COUNTY RECYCLING li AREA liCS7 OF ET AMIEN UV, AC. '-S� 6)2$ iL' na24' INC SPRINGS A ARARDAENTS i d Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Page 5 of 9 The following pictures are from the Adams County Recycling Center in Council. This facility was designed to be user friendly and efficient. Users are protected from the weather and they can park next to well labeled bins. These open top bins make it easy to dump large containers full of presorted materials. The bins are easily dumped into the baler using a forklift that can turn the bin on its side to dump. These open top bins also make it easy for an employee to inspect and resort the material as needed. Making the facility user friendly encourages people to recycle and helps them sort materials correctly. Adams County uses seed bins to collect recyclables. They measure 4'x4'x4' and cost $183/ea. It takes about 3 bins of tin cans to make a bale, 7 bins of aluminum, 8 to 10 bins of cardboard and 1 1/2 bins of paper. Council's facility is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A county employee works at the site just 3 hours each day keeping the facility and bins clean and running the baler. Their recycled material is so clean that it brings premium prices. For the past 20 years Adams County made a profit on their recycling program. After prices for recycled materials dropped several years ago, Adams County was still able to come close to breaking even on recycling. And even at the breakeven point they are saving space in their landfill and reusing, rather than wasting these materials. Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Page 7 of 9 We propose that the county retain and improve the recycling facility in McCall and move the baler to McCall. The collection site in Donnelly could be closed with minimal negative affect. Only 11% of recycling is presently generated in Donnelly. Because residents of Donnelly must shop for groceries and pharmaceuticals in McCall, we think that the McCall site, which is within two blocks of Ridley's Market and Rite Aid Pharmacy, will be convenient for them. The county could maintain a site in Cascade. Idaho County has four drop off sites, three of which (Cottonwood, Grangeville and Kooskia) are open just two hours a week. We think that something similar would be adequate for Cascade. The site should be enclosed and attended; this could be done by volunteers, as it has been done in Idaho County for the past ten years. Our proposal includes both an operating budget and a capital expenditure budget. The capital expenditure budget encompasses the cost of building a facility in McCall. The operating budget includes a full time (40 hours/week) attendant in McCall and the cost of hauling from Cascade to McCall. While the operating cost of our plan is slightly higher than the operating budget for the Lake Fork site, we think the obvious benefit is a greatly enhanced user experience and much greater participation in recycling. OPERATING BUDGET Flat Fee $138,979* Est Hauling from Cascade $31,581** TOTAL $170,560 *Lakeshore bid $11,581.60/mo; This is Lakeshore's bid to operate the facility if it is at Lake Fork; cost should be the same **Extrapolated 145 Trips x $217.80/ea; based on present cost of $178.90 per load to haul from Cascade to Lake Fork Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Page 8 of 9 CAPITAL BUDGET** Site work $30,000 estimate Structure $180,000 West Central Const Concrete slab $14,256 Brad Dyrud Electrical $14,297 Propel Electric Idaho Power $7,500 estimate Move Baler $12,000 estimate TOTAL $258,053 **The capital budget is an approximate cost to build a facility similar to Council's. It is meant only as a general guideline. We do not assert that this facility would be suitable for McCall. We do believe that the parcel that the McCall recycling Center sits on is large enough to accommodate a facility adequate for Valley County's needs. CONCLUSION Regarding the capital expenditure, the county has said that if the Lake Fork site is successful, and we take "Successful" to mean that if the public embraces the Lake Fork site and continues recycling at a high rate, they intend to build a permanent facility there. But what will happen if Scott Carnes is right and there is a drastic reduction in recycling? Will the county continue recycling at Lake Fork without building a facility, or will they discontinue recycling and cite low community participation/interest as the reason? We think that our proposal guarantees a successful recycling experience in Valley county. So why spend money on a "plan" with a high probability of failure? Why not invest in a plan that guarantees success? Alternate Proposal for Valley County Recycling Page 9 of 9