Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Citizens Utility Advisory Commission - Meeting Date: 4/3/2019MINUTES CITIZENS UTILITY ADVISORY COMMISSION OASIS WATER CAMPUS 7070 NORTHERN AVE. GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85303 APRIL 3, 2019 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chair Liebman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Liebman, Vice Chair Short, and Commissioners Amber Ford, Larry Flatau, Robert Gehl, Robin Berryhill, and David McGrew Absent: None Also Present: Michelle Woytenko, Director — Field Operations; Chris Young, Principle Engineer — Field Operations; Amy Moreno, Solid Waste Superintendent; Billie LeBlanc, Account Specialist — Field Operations 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS If citizens wish to speak on a matter concerning the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission that is not on the printed agenda, please complete a yellow Citizen Comments Card. If citizens wish to speak on a matter that is on the agenda, please complete a green Citizen Comments Card. Provide the card(s) to the designated staff person prior to the beginning of the meeting. Once your name is called by the Chairperson, please proceed to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes or less for items not on the agenda and five minutes or less for items on the agenda. No comments. 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES a. Citizen Utility Advisory Commission Minutes of March 7, 2019. Motion by Commissioner Gehl, second by Commissioner McGrew, to approve the March 7, 2019 meeting minutes as written. Motion carried 7 —0. 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT a. This report allows the Directors' of Field Operations and/or Water Services to update the Commission. The Commission is prohibited from discussing or acting on any of the items presented by the Staff since they are not itemized on the Citizen's Utility Advisory Commission Agenda. Update provided by Michelle Woytenko, Director, Field Operations Ms. Woytenko, Field Operations Director, gave a report which included the following: • Blue Barrel Pilot Program Update: • This initiative was put in place because the program was suffering from extensive contamination. • The first pilot program went well and therefore, a second pilot program was implemented. Results for the first three months are as follows: • Cholla District Contamination: January 29.5% and March 14.7% • Yucca District Contamination: January 32.8% and March 22.4% • Both areas resulted in decreased contamination using the Blue Barrels. • Ms. Amy Moreno is the new Solid Waste Superintendent. Mr. Torrence McDonald is no longer with the City of Glendale. Ms. Woytenko shared a brief background on Ms. Moreno. 6. Materials Recovery Facility Update Presented by: Michelle Woytenko, Director, Field Operations and Christopher Young, Principal Engineer, Field Operations Mr. Young gave an update on the Materials Recovery Facility, which included the following information: • Aerial Map displayed: Located at Glendale and 114th Avenue; 55,000 sq. ft. facility (approximately) • Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) • Processes 15,000 tons/year • 12,400 tons — curbside collection • Revenue from commodity sales (such as water bottles, cardboard, print newspaper, high-density aluminum) • 2 FTE's currently • There are 4 authorized positions • 2 are filled • 2 are vacant however, there 8 very promising applications are in review • 29 Temporary Employees (mainly perform manual sorting) • MRF Plant and Processes • Plant opened in 2000 • Single stream plant • Conveyors aid intake, transfers, and sorting • Disc screens (sorts paper, cardboard), eddy current separator (separates metals from other products), hand -sorting stations (such as for grocery bags), baler • Heavily reliant on manual sorting • Unable to process glass and small pieces of paper/cardboard • No significant upgrades since 2000 • Recyclables • Clean Paper, Cardboard, Plastic, Cans • No Lined Boxes, Styrofoam, Coat Hangers, Plastic Bags, Compostable Bags • Recycling Division • Outreach and Education • Inspection of Containers • Special Programs ("Blue Barrel") • Contamination Determination • Container Maintenance and Replacement • 7 Full -Time Employees • Glendale Trends: Then (2000) vs. Now (2018) • Newsprint Tonnage Down 75% • HDPE (Good) is decreasing versus Off -spec PET (Limited) • Water Bottles: Almost two times the transactions • MRF Cardboard Tonnage Down 40% • These match national trends (per Ms. Woytenko) • Recycling Costs: Then and Now Revenue/Expense per ton and Cost/Month were displayed for 2011 and 2018. • Calculations are not exact and should be considered for trending, not exact amounts. • Trending is that contamination is up and commodity rate is down. • There is a lot more glass in the system and glass is not processed unless it is dropped off in the specific glass bins located at the MRF. • MRF's Challenges • Market Volatility • Commodity prices are extremely volatile • Tonnage of marketable materials down significantly • Blended rate down significantly • $220/ton in 2011 versus $80/ton in 2018 • China Market • Has become very strict in items they will take. • If over .5% contamination rate, China will not take it. • Competing with large recycling companies/brokers • Marketing Plastics • Plastic materials designations: #1 through #7 • #1 (PET): Have market value (tend to be clear, such as water bottles) • #2 (HDPE): Have market value • #3 through #7: PVC, LDPE, PP, PS — Little or no value • $60/ton to process #3 through #7 • Glass Recycling • 7% of recycling stream • MRF cannot process glass • Cost of technology is expensive/prohibitive • Reduces equipment life • Residual glass is sent to the landfill • Takes up "air space" • Residents requested glass be accepted • Outreach was done during the rate adjustment study and residents ask about glass. • Operational Challenges • No upgrades since built in 2000 • Technology not competitive • Seeing increased residual percentage • Can't handle glass (will end up in landfill) • Small paper/cardboard (falls through the disc screens and into the waste) • Financial Challenges • Commodities market trending sharply downward • Recycling costs (increased labor, operating, and repair costs) • Extremely volatile commodities market • Revenues not covering expenses • MRF Revenue vs. Expense • Displayed for FY16 though FY24 (estimates for FY19 through FY24 at this time) • Feasibility Study and Options • Minimal Improvements to MRF: $1.5 million • Includes new screen, glass busters, metering drum • Full Replacement of the MRF: $8 million to $12 million • Contracting out MRF Operations: • Would require substantial upgrades to MRF • Significant capital or amortized expense to the City • Staff went out for RFP to operate the MRF as it is today. Three or four submittals were received and all required the MRF to be upgraded. • Send Recyclables to Third -Party MRF (Recommended Option) • The City of Phoenix has large facilities in the north and south of the city and a private company has a large facility, in Surprise. • What We Have Done and What We Are Doing • Request for Proposals • Pursuing partnerships with other entities • Future possibility processing facility to convert some plastics into diesel fuel • Ramping up public outreach and education • Blue Barrel program: Goal of reducing residual percentages Commissioner questions were addressed during and after the presentation, which included the items below. Commissioner McGrew asked if any other cities recycle glass. Mr. Young replied in the positive, citing that Phoenix has two facilities that do and Peoria sends glass to one of these locations. Ms. Woytenko stated that the MRF was not set up to accept glass and there is a cost to make this happen. Commissioner Flatau inquired about the financial costs of not recycling at all. Ms. Woytenko relayed that residents are calling for recycling. Commissioner Flatau requested clarification of the slide regarding Revenues versus Expenses, which was provided. Ms. Woytenko added that the cost of recycling collection is borne by solid waste, therefore, some of the figures on the slide do not exactly tie out and are still rough. Commissioner Flatau wondered if some residents would still call for recycling if they knew the costs. Ms. Woytenko announced that the MRF is losing $1 million this year, but the landfill revenue will cover this loss. Commissioner Flatau commented that a cost -benefit analysis of the recycling program should be conducted. Commissioner Flatau asked if staff has looked at the Return on Investment for the options proposed in the Feasibility Study. Mr. Young replied that as far as the Minimal Improvements Option, there is a point at which the MRF might break even, however, unless the City continues to run the MRF, this Option would not be recommended. The City went out for RFP to operate the MRF and all respondent said the MRF must be upgraded. Commissioner McGrew asked if the City would still pick up recyclables if the use of a third -party MRF was chosen. Mr. Young explained that the City would still pick up the recyclables, but items from the northern routes would be taken to the North Phoenix MRF and items from the south would be taken to a southern MRF. Mr. Young noted that the City of Phoenix cannot take any of Glendale's material until the end of 2019 or the first part of 2020. Commissioner McGrew wondered if there were any federal regulations on plastics #3 through V. Ms. Woytenko replied that there are no such controls in Arizona, but noted that there are controls to protect the manufacturing process. Ms. Woytenko stated that the recycling markets are not keeping up with the changes in packaging implemented by the manufacturers. Chair Liebman shared that there was a lively discussion between the Council Members at a recent meeting regarding Blue Barrels. Ms. Woytenko commented that staff is working on the challenges with the Blue Barrels and have an agreement with Council to finish the pilot programs at Cholla and Yucca and then provide a report to the Council. Chair Liebman asked if staff had any cost models. Ms. Woytenko replied that staff is in the process of modeling. Ms. Woytenko stated that no matter which MRF option is chosen, cleaning up and decontaminating the recyclables is still good for the program. Chair Liebman inquired about the costs for a third party to pick up the recyclables. Ms. Woytenko replied that the cost is substantially higher than if the City picked up the recyclables, but will review and follow up with the Commission. Commissioner McGrew asked if staff had a number in mind as far as an acceptable household cost for recycling. Mr. Young replied in the negative and added that people should be made aware that there is a cost to recycling and the landfill is supplementing the MRF. Commissioner Gehl wondered if the City of Phoenix would take Glendale's glass if it takes over recyclables. Mr. Young replied in the positive, but noted that there is a huge cost involved. Commissioner Gehl asked if Phoenix's rates are higher than Glendale's. Ms. Woytenko replied in the positive and added that Phoenix is in the midst of a rate study. Commissioner Gehl wondered why the City says it will take items that it cannot recycle. Ms. Woytenko stated that in past outreach, items were noted as being acceptable and a change is confusing to residents. Vice Chair Short reported that he read an article which indicated that the City of Tucson is having a serious problem with recycling and the tone of the article was that Tucson may shut down the entire recycling program. Mr. Young commented that if recycling is discontinued, space at the landfill will be lost and it will shorten the life span of the landfill. Mr. Young stated that this modeling will be analyzed. Vice Chair Short asked if any of the Option were in the Five or Ten Year CIP. Mr. Young replied that, Option 1, the Minimal Improvements of $1.5 million was in the last Five Year CIP. Chair Liebman inquired as to what staff needs from the Commission. Ms. Woytenko asked for the Commission's recommendation on the following: an intent to pursue an avenue for recycling glass or to defer glass recycling and if the staff should continue to pursue recycling opportunities with a third party. Chair Liebman felt that more of a cost analysis would be needed to make a recommendation. Commissioner Berryhill expressed concern about the impact on the environment and the landfill if recycling was stopped and wondered if this would create a larger problem for future generations. Commissioner Berryhill stated that there are a lot of costs that the City does not recover and further study is needed. Vice Chair Short commented that he was in agreement with Option 4, sending recyclables to a third party MRF and an agreement should be worked out with the City of Phoenix. Commissioner Gehl stated that he was inclined to agree on Option 4, which is staff's recommendation. Commissioner Gehl commented that abandoning recycling is a political decision. Commissioner Ford wondered if there was an opportunity to allow the City of Phoenix or a private recycling company to use Glendale's MRF if Option 2 was chosen, thereby having partners to share in the cost of the $8 to $12 million upgrade. Commissioner Ford wondered if the manufacturers have any responsibility to buy into recycling. Mr. Young relayed that some states have mandates, such as California's ban on plastic grocery bags, but Arizona does not have any mandates. Mr. Young explained that more recyclable packaging is a cost decision for manufacturers. Commissioner Ford stated that she would like to have additional information in order to make a recommendation on the presented options. Commissioner Flatau agreed, adding that more information is needed on impacts from program elimination and also if the public wants to keep the recycling program. Commissioner McGrew surmised that the only option that resolves the issues at hand and in consideration of the financials presented, is Option 4. Commissioner Berryhill inquired as to how long the contract under Option 4 would be with the City of Phoenix and what would happen if it ended. Ms. Woytenko announced that staff will tighten up the analysis and bring the Commission more information. Chair Liebman asked for more detailed information on baseline costs, financial details for all of the Options, and the environmental and financial impacts of stopping the recycling program. Motion by Vice Chair Short, second by Commissioner Gehl, for staff to move forward with more analysis of the recycling program in regards to financials of a baseline and all four options, and the environmental impacts and costs if the recycling program was ended. Motion carried 7 —0. 7. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS 8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Commissioners may suggest items for placement on future meeting agendas. May 2019: • Current Fiscal Year Financial Update (Water and Sewage) • MRF Analysis Update • Discussion of Vacating the June and July 2019 Commission Meetings 9. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission will be held on May 1, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., at the Oasis Water Campus, 7070 W. Northern Ave., Glendale, Arizona, 85303. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Gehl, second by Commissioner Berryhill, to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Motion carried 7 — 0. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS For special accommodations, please contact Miriam O'Neal at (623) 930-4103 at least three (3) business days prior to the meeting. Hearing impaired persons may use the Arizona Relay Service by dialing 711. Pursuant to A. R.S. 38-431(4), one or more members of the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission may be unable to attend the meeting in person and may participate telephonically Respectfully submitted, Denise Kazmierczak