The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-06-08 Work SessionASSEMBLY WORK SESSION June 8, 2006 — 7:30 p.m. Borough Conference Room AGENDA CITIZENS' COMMENTS (limited to three minutes per speaker) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION V Presentation from Alaska Pacific Environmental from Bobby Cox Waste Management Study - Request for Proposal Presentation of the Schematic Pool Design by the Architectural Review Board la Planning and Zoning Commission Update Funding to the Kodiak Island Convenjion and Visitor's Bureau Gravel Task Force Interim Report V MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS Abell ON LEAVE June 10 -30 Branson Brafne June 20- 25/26 -30 Jeffrey June 3 -19 Raney June 5 -July 20 Selby June 7 -20 Gifford June 16 -July2 CALENDAR 1 June 2006 8 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting — AC 14 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session — CR 15 Cancelled Assembly Regular Meeting — AC 19 7:00 p.m. School District Regular Meeting — AC 20 Cancelled City Council Work Session — Rescheduled to June 27 21 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting — AC 7:30 p.m. Fire Protection Area No. 1 Board — BFH 23 7:30 p.m. Fire Protection Area No. 1 Board - BFH 29 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR Cancelled City Council Regular Meeting — Rescheduled to June 29 7:30 p.m. City Council Work Session — SD /CR 29 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting — AC July 2006 3 5:30 p.m. Gravel Task Force - CR 4 Holiday Borough Offices will be closed in observance of the July 4th Holiday 6 1:30 p.m. Local Emergency Planning Committee - AC 7:3 p.m. Assembly Regular Meeting - AC Cancelled City Council Work Session 12 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session - CR 13 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR Cancelled City Council Regular meeting 17 7:00 p.m. School District Board work Session — SD /CR 19 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting - AC 20 7:30 p.m. Assembly Regular Meeting - AC 7:30 p.m. City Council Work Session — SD /CR 27 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting - AC 31 7:00 p.m. School District Board Regular Meeting — AC August 2006 3 1:30 p.m. Local Emergency Planning Committee Meeting - AC 7 :30 p.m. Assembly Regular Meeting - AC 5 All -day? Facilities Use Discussion - KFRC 7 5:30 p.m. Gravel Task Force - CR 7:00 p.m. School District Board work Session — SD /CR 9 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session - CR 10 7 :30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR Cancelled City Council Work Session 16 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting - AC 17 7 :30 p Assembly Regular Meeting - AC 21 7:00 p.m. School Board Regular Meeting - AC 24 7 :30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting - AC AC - Assembly Chambers BFH - Bayside Fire Hall CR - Conference Room HC - Hospital Cafeteria SD /CR - School District Conference Room WBFH - Womens Bay Fire Hall AC /CR - Assembly Chambers Conference Room H /BR - Hospital Board Room C /CR - City Conference Room MHGR - Mental Health Group Room D /CR - Hospital Doctors' Conference Room H /DL - Hospital Doctors' Lounge H /PL - Hospital Physicians Library KHS - Kodiak High School Please print your name 1 . (C6 A /� 3 C55 Mk/ 5 4. 1U11/2K I r'nce 5. ' V4 /kr/ 6. %', ,� t 7 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH WORK SESSION MEETING 0.00c0 Work Session Meeting of: d Lou 7, l b w / G}9 y OG (. 6 1-2_ da Y" t 0b (2.1,.-Nv :4 41 G nr\ 3 e4 Kodiaklsland BOROUGH Comprehensive Plan Update Help us prepare the first draft of the Borough's updated Comprehensive Plan. The Kodiak Island Borough will hold four public meetings to present preliminary work on the Borough's updated Comprehensive Plan, which will guide future land use and other Borough decisions and activities. The schedule is as follows: Monday June 12 7 to 9 p.m. Women's Bay Fire Hall Wednesday June 14 7 to 9 p.m. Ouzinkie Community Hall Tuesday June 13 7 to 9 p.m. Chiniak library Thursday June 15 7 to 9 p.m. Kodiak High School Commons Other Borough communities will be included in the next round of public meetings, tentatively scheduled for October, 2006. Borough residents also may view and comment on draft Comprehensive Plan sections at the project Web site: www.idbcompplan.com. if you do not have access to the Internet, you may request materials by calling Mary Ogle at 486 -9360, and send comments via mail or fax to: Matt Hastie, AICP Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC 813 SW Alder Street, Suite 320 Portland, OR 97205 Fax: 503 - 225 -0224 June 8, 2006 Kodiak Island Borough Rick Gifford Borough Manager 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Gifford: Alaska =Waste On behalf of Alaska Waste and our local employees at Kodiak Sanitation, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the administration and the Borough assembly regarding future solid waste management in the Kodiak Island Borough. We are aware that the Borough is contemplating issuing an RFP for consulting services relating to solid waste management practices and looking at cost - effective alternatives for solid waste disposal. We strongly support the Borough's review of alternatives and feel that a comprehensive look at the solid waste management practices is overdue. To provide some assistance in your review, we have attached a copy of a recent solid waste management plan, developed by CH2M Hill for the Matanuska- Susitna Borough which we provided input to and which is available on the Mat -Su Borough's web site. This plan is extremely well done and covers all the issues that your staff should be looking at to insure cost - effective future operations. It should be noted, however, that most of the analysis and the development of alternatives are derived from interviews, data and information provided by industry participants such as ourselves. While the conclusions and recommendations in this report have been developed accurately and appropriately, it is our feeling that pursuing such an effort may not be the most cost - effective approach for the Kodiak Island Borough to pursue at this point. Our organization was recently awarded the interim collection contract to allow for collection services in the Borough during the period while long -term solutions are developed. Given our history and that of our employees in this market and literally in every other major market in Alaska, we feel we bring a unique perspective and significant resources to assist the Borough in the planning process. Our management and employees have been involved in collection and landfill operations in every significant market in Alaska, including contract operation of landfills in Mat -Su and Kenai, operating the incineration and landfill facility in Juneau and operating the transfer station contract in Fairbanks. In addition, we have operated collection services in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat -Su, Kenai, Juneau, Ketchikan, Dutch Harbor, Nome and, of course, Kodiak. Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC dba Alaska Waste 6301 Rosewood St. Anchorage, AK 99518 907 -563 -3717 Fax 907 - 273 -2797 Given our background and resources, we are proposing that the Borough consider the following alternative: Alaska Waste would undertake a comprehensive study and provide the Borough with an unsolicited proposal for future solid waste collection and disposal options, at no cost to the Borough. As a deliverable, the Borough will receive all the supporting information related to the various alternatives identified and will have sufficient information on which to base future decisions. At a minimum, the Borough will receive a plan consistent in scope with the example provided herein without incurring the inherent cost. Alaska Waste will also commit to provide the underlying analysis to the administration and provide support in the form of presentations to the Assembly and other decision - makers, in addition to assisting the administration with any public participation processes to facilitate adoption and/or implementation. Alaska Waste does not expect this to eliminate or replace the need for independent validation of any proposal made or future alternatives identified. Rather, we believe our efforts will provide a blueprint to allow for a focused review and limit the necessary scope of any engagement with an independent consultant in evaluating the Borough's future direction for solid waste. Prior to the initiation of the interim contract RFP, Alaska Waste had intended to provide such a proposal to the Borough during the extension period of the old contract. We had begun work on this proposal and had to defer further work on it until after the RFP for the contract was released and bid. Now that the contract issues have been resolved for an interim period, we felt it was the appropriate time to formally offer such a proposal and continue the process we began earlier. Although we are unsure what the Borough has in mind for a time frame on the issuance of an RFP and a deliverable result, we feel comfortable that we can provide our proposal in a time frame that will be consistent with an expeditious resolution of the future direction and allow sufficient time for review and adoption prior to the next budget year. In summary, we are proposing that the Borough defer the issuance of the consulting RFP until we can deliver a proposal on a turn-key solution to the long -term waste collection and disposal options on the Kodiak Island Borough. Given our resources, both from an operating and financial standpoint, we feel confident that we can provide a cost - effective, environmentally compliant option for the best long -term solution to the community's solid waste handling needs in a timely fashion. Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC dba Alaska Waste 6301 Rosewood St. Anchorage, AK 99518 907 -563 -3717 Fax 907 - 273 -2797 We appreciate your consideration of our proposal and look forward to working with you in this matter. Sincerely, Bobby L. Cox, General Manager, Alaska Waste (Kodiak Sanitation) Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC dba Alaska Waste 6301 Rosewood St. Anchorage, AK 99518 907 -563 -3717 Fax 907 - 273 -2797 KODIAK ISLAND B COMPREH SOLID WAS Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Department June, 2006 1 of 12 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this request for proposal (RFP) is to select a qualified solid waste /engineering consultant to assist Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) in an evaluation of existing solid waste collection and disposal methods to determine if it is the most comprehensive, environmentally sound, and cost effective method of operation for KIB At the same time the Consultant will z ake recommendations that will aid KIB in achieving a program for solid waste cull thhn and disposal that meets the goal stated above. The specific project can berld .� . two 2 '�. Ophases. Background: Municipal Q Munici afro waste dr waste co residentialr; maintained' Phase I — Solid Waste Collection. Consultant evaluating current solid waste collection metho structure; 2) reviewing financial aspects of accounting for waste collection) and dispose landfill); 3) recommending alternative met and revenue model to be used by KI completion of this project; and 4 collection contract based on this e Phase II — Solid Waste Disposal. disposal method (baling) ant efficient and economical ........... Island Borough Lan 2 of 12 assistance in: 1) ste collection rate ing, billing, and directly to the lulling a rate bsequent to olid waste aste more odiak uals can deliver solid of collection is by a solid o' collect solid waste from entities along the regularly y of Kodiak. The general area of services extends C ,the ar Pasagshak, and the Rocket Launch Facility past Pa gshak to th Ko ak I' nd Borough Landfill/Baler Facility. Approximately 3 OOO 1d re dents and erved by the collections contract. (The United States Coast hu rt brio is' n served by this contract.) There are two methods of residen al l ect on:. `) non - mandatory curbside pickup within Kodiak City Limits and 2) numert blic dumpsters inside and outside Kodiak City Limits. The Contractor o; e . ides all dumpsters for residential and commercial use. Once each month b item pick up is available for residential customers. Bulky items include w' er heaters, major appliances, furniture, and similar household items from residences. Only households within the City of Kodiak and the road system between the Landfill and Salonie Creek are eligible for this service. Commercial establishments have three types of services available to them which are based in part on the KIB Code, business type, and location. 1) Commercial home, for those who have a home business; 2) commercial can service for those entities not located within a home, do not require dumpster service, or do not have curbside pick up available to them; and 3) commercial dumpster service. There are varying sizes of dumpsters available to commercial entities which utilize this service. The size of the dumpster determines what MB pays the solid waste collections contractor for rental and tips. Many, but not all, multi - family and commercial customers are billed directly to the management or owners of buildings, apartments, or shopping centers as an arrangement in their property rental/lease. Residents and/or construction contractors are provided dumpsters for construction demolition debris. The co have a vehicle capable of determining the weight the collection truck for billing purposes. Constr of in a separate location within the Landfill. The Contractor hauls and dt construction /demolition debris, and h t1 Facility. The collection contractor's` on the tipping floor, but the Contrac The Contractor is compe during collection activ_i dumpsters. Recycling is coma newspaper, dumpste contractor Threshold recycling. Billing for solid: presently the res to invoice the com Landfill is operated public shall be charg is retained by 3of12 est, commercial ctor is required to r to tipping into ris is disposed e, some fill /Baler W loads er, paperboard, finite number of pays the collection psters are taken to funded by KIB to manage ial and commercial customers are e necessary documentation for KIB sponsibility of the Contractor. The KIB ; and KIB establishes the rates that the and disposal of garbage. A portion of the fees operational and disposal costs at the Landfill. KIB is authorized to oper '$ a public utility as defined by AS 42.05.701 (2)(f) for the purpose of furnishing refuse services under Certificate of Convenience and Necessity No. 222. Municipal Waste Disposal and Landfill History The Kodiak Island Borough Landfill is located off Monashka Bay Road, about six (6) miles by road from the City of Kodiak The KIB Landfill is one of nine active Class I landfills in the State of Alaska, processing approximately 45 tons of municipal solid waste per day (garbage, construction/demolition, sludge, and asbestos). In addition, other regional municipalities and villages occasionally utilize disposal services provided by KIB. Materials that are disposed of in the KIB Landfill include the following: baled garbage refuse, construction and demolition debris, wastewater sludge, and asbestos - containing wastes. Other activities at the Landfill site include collection of lead -acid batteries for recycle, collection of used oil, incineration of medical wastes, confidential documents, euthanized animals and animals for cremation, removal of Freon from refrigeration units, processing of junked vehicles and other scrap metals for recycle, and collection and storage of household hazardous wastes. The Landfill was operated as an open area fill from 1970 t on the natural ground surface, compacted and coveredr=' actions to reduce the quantity of leachate generate the discharge. Most of the fill area of the Landfill; low- permeable clay -like soil material to reduce • In 1987, KIB completed the construction deposited on the tipping floor located on ::t the first floor hopper and baled. Thi the Landfill and placed over the, approved engineer design. Waste demolition debris, are deposited waste is covered regula attraction of wildlife. _... In 1998 -1999 signi included the design installation of - closure o portion The KIB Kodiak's base. The MB Land model, until the existing landfill is provide a long - term;'' agencies within the KO 7. Waste was placed KIB took several fill and to control ith a 3 -foot layer of ility. Waste is pushed into s trucked to sed on an ction and fill. All d the the Landfill. This eatment system, otprint, and final g of 2006, another e Landfill. ge sludge from the City of s the sludge from the USCG nc filling, based on the present bale fill 'rucial phase in landfill development. The and lateral expansion is needed to continue to y for local residents, industries, and federal Borough. II. COMMUNITY P `_' ILE The Kodiak Island Borough is the general government unit for the archipelago known as Kodiak. The Kodiak Island Borough extends over 180 miles by 70 miles with a total land area of approximately 5000 square miles and encompasses approximately 200 islands. In 1989, additional lands were annexed on the Alaska Peninsula from Cape Douglas to Wide Bay. Moderate seasons, cloudy skies, and moderately heavy precipitation characterize climatic conditions. Average yearly rainfall is 70 inches with an average of 77.5 inches of snowfall Wind averages 10 knots with gusts as high as 100 knots. The KIB operates a Class I landfill, serving a population of nearly 13,000. It is approximately the sixth largest landfill in the state of Alaska The MB Landfill 4 of 12 provides disposal and recycling services for residential, commercial, and industrial needs along the road system within the City of Kodiak and in the KIB beyond the city limits, U.S. Coast Guard Base and Port of Kodiak. The KIB Landfill is operated in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations and statutory guidelines. III. SCOPE OF WORK: Phase I: Evaluation of existing solid waste collection RFP development Phase II: Comprehensive study and evaluatio solid waste collection and disposal systems. Phase I. Municipal Solid Waste Cpjlecti Phase I will provide assistance se methods, including the solid aspects of collection (invoicing, disposal rates (material taken di method of refuse collectigt3'mclu by MB as the need t package implement Identify potential`s` their potentiale The sel mode revie service used by K Some of th 1. Conduc methods subdivisio'tz Evaluate tit Provide an es with and with Identify the are 5 of 12 id waste collections nd proposed future reconi'. evenue PL 4) prepa z \collectio &rnatives, d. oposal ste collection ng financial ection) and ternative be used of a bid f selected. and gauge alternative collection y for consideration. The cations of the alternative Develop a revenue model to be ntly after the project is complete. nclude: assess conditions and features of collection view of street maps and existing /proposed 2. ®1 olid waste collection and recycling system. 3. e collection costs and charges to a typical household ng options. 4. in KIB Code which will require amendment for the recommendations of differing models and proposed language changes. 5. Prepare a Draft Summary Report and meet with KIB staff, any review committee, and Assembly to review and discuss the preliminary findings, outline issues and needs, and generally apprise KIB of observations, findings, and assessment of the Project. Phase II: Waste Handling, Processing and Disposal Identify and compare the range of options for handling solid waste at the Landfill This identification and comparison will include solid waste collection and processing, recycling, metal processing, and billing as well as alternative solid waste disposal methods. These would include proven, commercialized solid waste management processes and technologies such as conventional waste -to- energy, landfilling, transportation off - island, and stand -alone materials recovery facilities (MRFs). The alternative services may include franchising com wide or in selected areas, construction of a new was by MB, contracting for transfer station service public /private partnerships to enhance e sustainability objectives. Update of the expenditures, and rate structures based deliverable. A table of possible options for is provided below. EXHIBIT A — Example of Poss Collections 1. Public or P 2. KIB collect Capital outl perso Disposal 1. Bale fi 2. Loose fil 3. Incinerate 4. Shipment o 6 of 12 llection services city nd recovery facility ally other innovative e generation, and view of revenues, P is an essential owned landfill of abandoned effectiveness of MB anaged metal removal vs. Contract with Private company ing 1. Mil Rate Increase (Tax Deduction) 2. Commercial Rate/Residential Rate 3. Contractor vs. MB billing 4. Disposal Costs to Contractor IV. REQUIRED PRt5POSAL FORMAT Proposers are encouraged to submit proposals that exceed the minimum specifications stated herein: The proposal must contain: (1) a Technical section and (2) a Time -Cost section. 1. Technical Proposal In the Technical section, the respondent should include time -lines, projected required personnel, and schedules for completing the project. 2. Time -Cost In the Time -Cost section, the respondent must detail the time and costs that will be required to complete the project. Proposal Format Submit one (1) bound copy and fifteen (15) stapled copies of the proposal as well as an electronic copy in Adobe Acrobat .PDF format, version 7.0. The response must contain a statement of qualifications and a concise narrative which addresses, in the order presented, the evaluation,,;teria set forth in this solicitation. The narrative response shall not exceed f' {15) pages in length, exclusive of appendix, cover page, letter of transmitt of contents. Submit proposals to: Manager's Office Room 125 Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Proposals should be bound and of A. Letter of TransnYitta1 A letter of transmit 1. The pro` 2. Stateme 13. Fee Sell Provide an all -id limited to, incides reports, and meetin least 90 days from ess to perform the es which are required to will be made available by your d contract; rity to bind the proposer; and onsulting engagement that includes but is not el, interview, and data gathering costs, analysis, C. Client Referee Respondents should inc ude the name, address and telephone number of three (3) clients, for whom services similar to those described in this RFP, has been performed. References should be relevant to the personnel described in the Statement of Qualifications. Please provide a brief description of services provided with each reference, as well as the name(s) of team members that provided the service. The Consultant shall submit a list of all contracts that the Consultant has had with MB since June 2002 through June 2006. The list shall include: short description of contract scope, the award date, date completed, and contract value. If the Consultant has had no contract with MB since June 2006, the Consultant shall so state. 7 of 12 V. SCHEDULE: The selection of a firm for award of the contract will be by KIB staff or review committee who will evaluate the responses to this solicitation. Responsive firms will be ranked numerically. Responses will be evaluated on the basis of the advantages and disadvantages to MB using the criteria set forth below. The selection process for this RFP will be a qualifications based selection process where price is not a substantial evaluation criterion. The top ranked firm will be selected for contract negotiations. VI. RFP REVIEW CRITERIA Review of Proposals Evaluation Process A review committee of evaluators will review re following weighted scheme: Firm Qualifications and Experien o °' t 30% Provide detailed information on at o the services requested. 1. Description of your s}aCSSs m prC``' g pq}preEi solid wasw'; ®yes for other governme, 2. Discussion of oth acklsat yott t Iiebmg ;ghat you believe would qualify you 3. Descript tlxttrf#ly ypns�tydbe pare ; "' "#111iet e selected for this 4. Pro Management PIS Weight 30% 1. Discussion table or chl decision autha"ri 2. Discussion of the p ' �r''' approach to the project taken by your firm. The following are d';e`.ga r interest. a. Purpose of th'' ;`± suiting relationship. b. Approach to meeting client objectives. c. Description of your firm's approach to the project; and at a summary level, the steps seen as an integral part of successfully guiding us through this process. d. Description of the roles of the team members and your communication strategy with both the client and your Subconsultants. 8 of 12 lan for this project. Provide a nal structure, chain of supervision, s. e. Discussion of your firm's cost estimating procedures during the evaluation process and how estimates are verified/validated. Proposed Project Team: Weight 25% 1. Provision of the professional qualifications and experie es of the proposed project team members. Discussion of yo nstrated expertise in working as a team on recent projects. 2. A list of at least three (3) references (contact ;g r telephone numbers) numbers) for each person proposed. Workload and Resources: 1. Discussion of both current a contemplating as well as the c of your proposed project team: Price: 1. Though qualification 9; included as a weig Evaluation Factors The evaluation factors an 1. Firm Qu ations +an t e % 2. Man gem 30% 3. Proposed rlect T 25% 4. Workload and`dle p 10% 5. Price 5% �' t Total 100% Interviews Selected proposers may be i Proposers will be notified in location, and amount of time all"c answer period. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE INFO '�' TION 1. Contact Person: Any information required or questions regarding this RFP should be addressed to the project manager: Tracy Mitchell, Environmental Specialist, Project Manager Engineering /Facilities Department Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 -6398 Phone: (907) 486 -9343 9 of 12 with the evaluation committee. interview requirements, date, time, terview /presentation and question and 2. Deadline for Receipt of Proposals: Proposals mqy mailed or hand delivered, as long as (15) copies are physically rec rIB no later than 3:00 p.m., prevailing time (AK), DATE... 'p oposals are not acceptable. Proposals received after the above pr r ?mission deadline will not be considered and will be returned;:::: ' 3. Proposers Review and Substantive review this RFP for errors, questiopa requiring clarification. Propose in writing and submit them questions at least five (5) d allow time for an addendum= recipients of the init 4. Addendum to revise or clari due date of. o 6. Pro withdra proposal: 8. Cost of Pro.osa preparing and su' shall not be cha contract. 9. Delivery of Proposals: transmission, delay, or carriers. Fax: (907) 486 -9394 tmitchell@kib.co.kodiak.ak.us ropoa ionable Y commen 10. Media Announcements: Any and all media announcements pertaining to this RFP require KIB's prior written approval. 11. Binding Contract: This RFP does not obligate KIB or the selected proposer until a contract is signed and approved by all parties. 10 of 12 uld carefully , and items questions e submit s will to all ritten a"' enda to d or shorten the e RFP process if it le for costs incurred oposal may be corrected or for to the deadline for receipt of s and other material submitted become only at KIB's option. n: Any and all costs incurred by proposers in a proposal are the proposer's responsibility and KIB or reflected as an expense of the resulting KIB assumes no responsibility or liability for the delivery of proposals by either public or private VIII Insurance Requirements A. The Consultant shall not commence work under this contract until all the insurance required under this Article has been obtained and such insurance has been approved by KIB, nor shall the Consultant allow any Subconsultant to commence work until the insurance required has been so obtained. The Consultant shall maintain such insurance as will protect it from claims under Worker's Compensation Acts and other employee benefit acts for damages because of bodily injury, including death, to its employ and all others for damages to property, any or all of which may arise, r result from the Consultant's operations under the Contract, whoth perations be by itself or by any Subconsultant or anyone dire ectly employed by either of them. Evidence of the following insurance poli award of the Contract. 1. Worker's Compensation The Cvrtsu�tant s t }toc r e and ka t during the life of this Contract, Wo c C impensat �yrance s wired by applicable State law for all it f emplo e s to a i the y ' # In case of subconsulted work, t � provider ��rker's Compensation InsurarYr 2. Consultant's Li The Consultant, tain, during the life of this Contr ii. ve' above iii Subcons Subconsu amounts as 3. Professional LiablIil e Consultant at their own cost and expense, shall effect and maintain ' all times during the life of the Contract a good and sufficient professional liability insurance policy of not less than $1,000,000, protecting the Consultant against claims of the Kodiak Island Borough for negligence, errors, mistakes, or omissions in the performance of the services to be performed and furnished by the Consultant. Nothing herein contained shall in any manner create any liability against the Kodiak Island Borough on behalf of any claim for labor, services, or materials, and to the fullest extent permitted by the law, the Consultant 11 of 12 to MB prior to The minimum all be in an amount Damage Insurance: nts specified in paragraph 2(i) a61Ii and Property Damage Insurance: The e activities of their employees, types and agraphs 2(i) and 2(ii) above. agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Kodiak Island Borough, its elected officials, employees, and volunteers against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, lawsuits, or losses, including costs and attorney fees incurred in defense thereof, arising out of or in any way connected or associated with this RFP. Nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of the Consultant or his sureties to KIB or to any worltgn or material men upon bond given in connection with this Contract. B. Consultant shall furnish certificates issued owing the type, amount, effective date, and dates of e olicies with the requirements noted below: 1. All policies have been endorsed to ive theier's right of subrogation against KIB 2. Provide KIB with at e z tnn � tll� wnt o f ce of any material change, cane 11 tion r non the ��, during the contract period of nce hall a urrent ACORD 25 -S form, re l en $I) ;`, 'tional iii and certificate ho 3. Consultant' p vide t Settl e of insurance sh® g all required encing w:rk. The successful rlc a F �ti � ca n t be p p e me f y ediately upon selection with 81 t r the ltoc A u e to confirm the objectives d �a5es x� 3� p 1 e expected to update KIB staff nd to facilitate any meetings i fi 'to id' eery' t es e th scope of services. Project staff will preps e � t e and dtstribu mutes of all such meetings through comp l o f t ro cE se Rations o o to four (4) Assembly meetings should be anticit' "_ ,.h= 12 of 12 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Year 2002 Update PREPARED FOR Matanuska- Sustna Borough MAY 2002 CH2MHILL 301 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 601 Anchorage, AK 99503 Final Report Solid Waste Management Plan Year 2002 Update Prepared for Matanuska - Susitna Borough May 2002 CH2MHILL 301 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 601 Anchorage, AK 99503 Contents Acronyms vii 1 Existing Solid Waste Management System 1 -1 1.1 Introduction 1 -1 1.2 Planning Background 1 -1 1.3 Summary of Existing Facilities 1 -2 1.4 Landfills 1 -2 1.4.1 Central Landfill 1 -5 1.4.2 Skwentna Landfill 1 -5 1.4.3 Existing and Planned Capacity 1 -6 1.4.4 Life -Cycle Costs 1 -11 1.5 Transfer Stations 1 -12 1.5.1 Butte Transfer Station 1 -12 1.5.2 Sutton Transfer Station 1 -12 1.5.3 Long Rifle Transfer Station 1 -12 1.5.4 Big Lake Transfer Station 1 -15 1.5.5 Willow Transfer Station 1 -15 1.5.6 Talkeetna Transfer Station 1 -15 1.5.7 Sunshine Transfer Station 1 -15 1.5.8 Trapper Creek Transfer Station 1 -15 1.6 Public Dumpsters 1 -16 1.6.1 Gracious House 1 -16 1.6.2 Igloo 1 -16 1.6.3 Eureka 1 -16 1.6.4 Lake Louise 1 -16 1.7 Collection System 1 -21 1.8 Processing and Disposal 1 -21 1.9 Fees and Financing 1 -23 1.9.1 Disposal Fees 1 -23 1.9.2 Financing 1 -24 2 Wastestream Analysis 2 -1 2.1 Demographics 2 -1 2.2 Waste Generation Rate 2 -2 2.3 Wastestream Analysis 2 -6 2.3.1 Waste Type Categories 2 -6 2.3.2 Waste Composition Breakdown 2 -7 2.3.3 Inert Waste 2 -11 2.3.4 Junk Vehicles 2 -12 3 Waste System Alternatives 3 -1 3.1 Landfill Alternatives 3 -1 3.1.1 Regionalization 3 -1 SEA3100058663.00C1021150012 i0 CONTENTS 3.1.2 Small Remote Landfills 3 -3 3.1.3 Landfill Design Options 3 -4 3.2 Transfer Station Alternatives 3 -6 3.2.1 Suitability of Locations 3 -6 3.3 Collection and Waste Hauling Alternatives 3 -7 3.3.1 Closest Landfill Option 3 -7 3.3.2 Alternative Transfer Containers 3 -10 3.3.3 Transfer Station Consolidation 3 -10 3.4 Waste Reduction Processing Technologies 3 -15 3.4.1 Waste Screening 3 -15 3.4.2 Inert Waste Processing 3 -16 3.4.3 Baling 3 -16 3.4.4 Incineration 3 -17 3.5 Waste Reduction and Recycling 3 -18 3.5.1 Waste Reduction 3 -19 3.5.2 Waste Reuse 3 -21 3.5.3 Product Stewardship 3 -22 3.5.4 Recycling 3 -24 3.5.5 Composting 3 -31 3.5.6 Funding Recycling 3 -33 4 Environmental Protection Programs 4 -1 4.1 Covered Loads and Litter Law Enforcement 4 -1 4.2 Hazardous Waste Screening 4 -2 4.3 Prohibited Waste Diversion Program 4 -2 4.3.1 Hazardous Waste 4 -2 4.3.2 Liquid Wastes 4 -2 4.3.3 Medical Wastes 4 -3 4.4 Monitoring 4 -3 4.4.1 Visual Monitoring 4 -3 4.4.2 Landfill Gas Monitoring 4 -3 4.4.3 Closed Landfill Water Quality Monitoring 4 -4 4.4.4 Central Landfill Water Quality Monitoring 4 -4 4.5 Landfill Cell Closures 4 -4 4.6 Lined Landfill Expansion 4 -4 4.6.1 Liner System 4 -5 4.6.2 Leachate Collection and Management 4 -5 4.6.3 Landfill Gas Management 4 -5 4.7 Waste Flow Control 4 -6 5 Public Participation Program 5 -1 5.1 Introduction 5 -1 5.2 Questionnaire Responses 5 -1 5.3 Response to Survey Results 5 -10 5.3.1 Question 1 5 -11 5.3.2 Question 2 5 -12 5.3.3 Question 3 5 -12 5.3.4 Question 4 5 -12 1 ° SEA3100056663.00C/021150012 5.3.5 Question 5 5 -13 5.3.6 Question 6 5 -13 6 Recommendations 6 -1 7 References 7 -1 Appendices A Landfill Life -Cycle Costs Assessment: Landfill Assessment Program Letter Report for the Central Landfill, Matanuska - Susitna Borough B Matanuska - Susima Borough Code of Ordinances C Net Present Value Evaluation Tables 1 -1 Solid Waste Collection Services in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough 1 -21 1 -2 Solid Waste Collection Service Fees 1 -22 1 -3 Matanuska - Susitna Borough Solid Waste Disposal Fees 1 -23 2 -1 Matanuska - Susitna Borough Year 2000 Census Data 2 -1 2 -2 Solid Waste Generation Quantities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough 2 -5 2 -3 Municipal Solid Waste Composition (Percent by Weight) 2 -8 2 -4 Paper Composition of Municipal Waste (Percent by Weight) 2 -9 2 -5 Metal Composition of Municipal Waste (Percent by Weight) 2 -10 2 -6 Sample Composition of Debris from Residential Construction 2 -11 2 -7 Sample Composition of Nonresidential Demolition Debris 2 -12 2 -8 Residential and Commercial Construction and Demolition Debris in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough 2 -12 2 -9 Registered Vehicles in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough 2 -13 3 -1 Matanuska - Susitna Borough Dump Closures 3 -1 3 -2 Dumpster Haul Distances 3 -8 3 -3 Comparison of Haul Costs (Dollars per Year) 3 -8 3 -4 Transfer Station Usage and Revenue (Year 2000 Dollars) 3 -11 3 -5 Transfer Stations and Dumpsters Revenue Balance Sheet (Year 2000 Dollars) 3 -12 3 -6 Distance From Transfer Stations to Talkeetna -Parks Intersection 3 -13 3 -7 Cost Comparison of Transfer Station Consolidation 3 -13 3 -8 Maximum Practical Recovery Rates of Recyclables 3 -27 3 -9 Estimated Quantities of Municipal Solid Waste Recycled in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Year 2000) 3 -28 3 -10 Volume of Maximum Quantity of Recycled Materials 3 -30 3 -11 Landfill Cell Phasing 3 -30 3 -12 Compost Facility Startup Costs 3 -33 Figures 1 -1 Areawide and Nonareawide Areas in Matanuska - Susitna Borough 1 -3 1 -2 Central Landfill Property Boundaries 1 -7 1 -3 Existing and Future Facilities, Central Landfill 1 -9 1 -4 Location of Solid Waste Facilities 1 -13 1 -5 Big Lake Transfer Site 1 -17 SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 CONTENTS CONTENTS 1 -6 Connex Container for Used Oil, Batteries, and Latex Paint 1 -17 1 -7 Trapper Creek Transfer Station Gate House 1 -19 1 -8 Trapper Creek Site Drop -Off Area 1 -19 2 -1 Census Designated Places in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough 2 -3 2 -2 Solid Waste Growth Rate 2 -5 2 -3 National Breakdown of Municipal Wastestream 2 -9 3 -1 Prescriptive Liner System 3 -5 3 -2 Central Landfill Cell 2B Bottom Liner System 3 -5 3 -3 Transfer Station Consolidation 3 -14 4 -1 Liner System 4 -7 N 5EA3100056663.D0C/021150012 Acronyms AAC Alaska Administrative Code ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADOT Alaska Department of Transportation AFB Air Force Base AME Alaska Materials Exchange BLM U. S. Bureau of Land Management C &D construction and demolition CDP Census Designated Places CESQG conditionally exempt small quantity generator CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm /sec centimeters per second cy cubic yard DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency FML flexible membrane liner GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board GCL geosynthetic clay liner HDPE high- density polyethylene LEL lower explosive limit MRF material recover facility MSW municipal solid waste NPV net present value OCC old corrugated cardboard ONP old newspaper RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act UBC used beverage can VCRS Valley Community for Recycling Solutions 8EA3100056663.DOC/021150012 v6 SECTION 1 Existing Solid Waste Management System 1.1 Introduction The purpose of this solid waste management plan update is to recognize the changes that have occurred since the plan was last revised in 1990 and update future systems to ensure that waste is managed in an environmentally and economically sound manner. The latest solid waste regulations, which were amended through July 11, 1999, require landfill owners to have a current solid waste management plan. These planning regulations include some new requirements that did not exist when the Matanuska - Susitna Borough last updated their solid waste management plan. Also, the solid waste permit for the Central Landfill, which was issued on November 20, 2000, requires the Borough to update the plan. New solid waste planning regulations require the Borough to consider all solid waste management options and develop a plan that is consistent with the hierarchy of waste; source reduction, recycling, treatment, and disposal. Some of the updated planning information was submitted with the renewal application for the Central Landfill. Pertinent portions of this updated information are included in this plan. The Central Landfill permit also requires the Borough to develop a public participation program and incorporate community input into the planning process. In response to this requirement, and in an effort to understand community needs, the Borough issued information brochures and questionnaires at the landfill and transfer stations, held public meetings, held an open house at the Central Landfill, and met with groups interested in solid waste management. Input from the public was incorporated into this updated plan. 1.2 Planning Background The Matanuska - Susitna Borough was formed in 1964 with a manager form of government, governed by an elected mayor and assembly. One of the areawide powers of the Borough is planning and zoning. Areawide services are those services that are provided both within and outside the incorporated cities of the Borough. Nonareawide services, also provided by the Borough, are services provided only outside incorporated cities. Through government authority, the Borough is responsible for ensuring that solid waste is managed properly throughout the Borough. Figure 1 -1 shows the location of incorporated cities within the Borough. As part of their planning responsibility, the Borough completed their first solid waste management plan in 1977. That plan identified solid waste management needs in the Borough and proposed the location of new landfills to meet waste disposal needs. The most significant portion of that plan that was implemented was the development of the Central Landfill and property reserve to serve the solid waste disposal needs of the Borough at least 50 years into the future. SEA3100058663.DOC1021150012 1 -1 SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A significant update to that plan was published in January 1991. That update included an economic evaluation of existing facilities and operations. The report found that the smaller landfills were expensive to operate and that there were environmental concerns at some sites. The report recommended replacing the smaller landfills with transfer stations and hauling the waste to the Central Landfill. The Borough closed the Butte, Big Lake, Talkeetna, and Sunshine Landfills shortly after the plan was published; the City of Houston also closed their landfill a few years later Transfer stations have replaced these landfills at or near where the landfills were located. Another major recommendation of the 1991 update was a proposed user fee system to pay for solid waste services. Several years later, the Borough assembly approved a fee system for solid waste. The implementation of user fees also helped to support a household hazardous waste collection program and has provided an economic incentive for waste reduction and recycling. The next solid waste planning effort was completed in February 1996 and focused on a long - range (20 -year) master plan for the Central Landfill. That plan identified design and operation requirements for future landfill expansions and presented a plan for future landfill cell development. The report also included an analysis of waste processing options, recycling feasibility, and a recreational land use plan for closed and unused portions of the landfill property. Future expansion cells are being developed as planned with a few updated modifications. 1.3 Summary of Existing Facilities The Matanuska - Susitna Borough solid waste system includes the following: • One permitted Class I landfill • One Class III landfill • Seven transfer stations operated by the Matanuska - Susitna Borough • One transfer station operated by a private contractor • Four public use dumpster sites The landfill and eight transfer stations all collect fees for refuse disposal, and the four public use dumpsters are free of charge. 1.4 Landfills The Matanuska - Susitna Borough currently has one main landfill connected by the highway system and one small remote landfill. The main landfill, called the Central Landfill, is located near the core population area of the Borough between Wasilla and Palmer; this landfill is a permitted Class I landfill. The one remaining small rural landfill is called the Skwentna Landfill and is located at the off -road community of Skwentna; this landfill is a Class III landfill. 1 -2 SEA3100058663.D0C1021150012 Matanuska - Susitna Borough r- ;orpOr Med Arcade Figure 1 -1 The Matanuska - Susitna Borough and Incorporated Cities Matanuska - Susitna Borough SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Borough continues to monitor and provide post - closure care at previously permitted landfills that are now closed. The following are these sites: • Big Lake: located off Big Lake Road on Hollywood Road, closed in 1992 • Butte: located at approximately Milepost 12 of the old Glenn Highway, Plumley Road, near Butte Elementary School; closed in 1987 • Sunshine: located at Milepost 102.5 of the George Parks Highway; closed in 1991 • Talkeetna: located at Milepost 13.5 of the Talkeetna Spur Road, near Comsat Road, Talkeetna, Alaska; closed in 1991 Monitoring includes both visual and groundwater sampling and analysis. Post - closure care includes maintenance of the final cover, if necessary, to prevent ponding or erosion. Transfer stations have been built on or adjacent to each of these closed landfills. A brief description of the active landfills follows. 1.4.1 Central Landfill Central Landfill is located at Milepost 3 of the Palmer - Wasilla Highway, adjacent to the community of Palmer, Alaska. The site is located at the southern end of North 49th State Street, accessible from the north by way of the Palmer - Wasilla Highway. The property boundaries of the Central Landfill can be seen in Figure 1 -2. The area designated for waste disposal is 620 acres in size. Approximately 60 acres of the site have been developed by construction of Cell 1 and Cell 2A; Cell 2B is scheduled for construction in 2003. The current landfill is an area -type fill operation. Daily wastes are disposed of by spreading and compacting on the natural surface of the ground, and cover material is spread and compacted over it. Native soils excavated from other portions of the site are used as daily cover materials. Fill operations in the first phase (Cell 1), located in the northwest corner of the site, began in 1984. Use of this phase ended in the summer of 1987, when fill operations began in a second phase (Cell 2A) located immediately east of the original fill area. The next phase has been planned and specifications are written to construct a lined cell immediately adjacent to the second phase (Cell 2B). This will be the first lined cell at the Central Landfill and will comply with all U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) regulations. 1.4.2 Skwentna Landfill The Skwentna Landfill is located at the end of the northbound Airport Road. The following is the legal description of the 12 -acre site: Township 22 North; Range 11 West; Tract C The site is an unattended landfill, however, it had been used during the previous ten years. Reportedly, about eight years ago the site was consolidated and was covered with soil. New materials were, and continue to be placed over the covered areas. SEA3100058683.00C/021150012 15 SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Efforts are being made to cover the active refuse disposal area and establish a designed expansion cell for the landfill. Options that have been discussed include upgrading the facility to meet Class III landfill standards or closing the landfill and replacing it with a transfer station and haul waste to the Central Landfill. Waste can be hauled by snowmobile in the winter and by plane in the summer. 1.4.3 Existing and Planned Capacity A critical element of the planning process is the timing of landfill expansion cells to provide adequate waste disposal capacity. Planning Regulation 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 60.205(c)(3)(A) requires the Borough to calculate the landfill space available for disposal. The development of future cells must be planned in advance because it often takes several years to design, permit, and construct a new landfill cell before it is available to receive waste. Capacity estimates for existing and future landfill areas were estimated by creating a three - dimensional (3 -D) model of the landfill to determine available space and comparing that with the waste generation rate as it equates to in -place volume. The first step in this process included surveying existing landfill topography. The final design was then input into the computer model, and the difference in volume equals the remaining space in the existing cell. The space available in future cells was estimated in a similar manner; however, the cell bottom contours were used instead and compared with the final design elevations to determine total capacity volume. Existing and future waste generation rates were used to determine how much space would be used over time. Waste coming into the landfill is weighed; therefore, the generation rate is known. The population growth rate in the Borough was used to estimate the future growth rate of solid waste. The density of compacted waste in the landfill was estimated by comparing various landfill surveys over time to determine the change in volume and dividing it by the weight of waste received in the same time interval. The percent of cover material consuming space in the landfill was estimated by comparing the volume change in borrow areas of the landfill over time and by visual observation of the active fill area Each year the Borough contracts to have an aerial photograph taken of the landfill and a topographic map produced. Changes in the fill rate and remaining cell capacity are calculated by computer analysis of the topographic changes. Long -range landfill expansion plans in the Borough are identified in the Central Landfill Twenty -Year Operation and Development Master Plan (CH2M HILL, 1996). This plan identifies landfill- phased landfill cell development through 2016. More detailed plans and engineering designs are prepared for each landfill cell as it becomes time to close and open the next cell. The detailed design for each cell expansion may vary in size and location somewhat from the conceptual plan. Figure 1 -3 shows the location of existing and future landfill facilities. 1 -6 SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 Ufi 5 SCAL ;w FEE Figure 1 -2 Central Landfill Property Boundaries Matanuska - Susitna Borough �� L _w� � $ .� a . � y ° ±A � x � e ..,:" s�� . �.m � �� - � �. _ ., . - - '�. - - ,� �- . q . . , . ,��., :.. . a� � � . �' R , �� h � - .. � � 5 �5 rj • � p :. 9 " "�. - t �"�' � � �y , � � �� ` � �� _ . ��. �?.� F � 8 � • �� _• E 4- . ti . 4�. LLi � _s . �4i� , i � � � 8 ^ ' ��V. �� - x �� z, � � � � �� _ .� a+� ' �� ,�.' . � Yi.. v� � ' � •-� � f� , . 3 � h ' # Animal � � Drop-off g s,. °�, { .� F �� t� Shelter Area � + �� $ � • . ° - ,a � . - _ Central Landfill Boundary � - "a , : .,� ea. . . . . �,t�'� °;�� - Scalehouse � �� . �` � - � � ' � - ��'-� - f 3 `�+i' i a u .�� Ce112A _ � .. ,. - � � `.:�-�"h" e (1988 - 2003) . C&D CeII ��: ' � � - ��b� . . . . . � �z000 zoio� , , ,- �. .' � � �� . �° � �'`""��- �� ceu ze . . . - '��'s5"` ° , (2002 - 2010) .. - .�-� - � , �� Cell1 �� ' �"� � � - .-s � , - (1984 - 1988) �._ Cell 2C " �,;,�,.^ �-_..; � , . (2010-2015) �Crevasse . <��`?'- � .� . � � Moreine Trail � - ��'� e.�-'I"� � � System � y AsbestosCell Cell3 .� . �/ °�` (1988 - 2010) . �, (2015 - 2025) : - C � g. _ . �F' � � - . � -. Future Lined Stages � � 1.. ..,..: • ` .. . .. . . .. (2025-2050) . r+' - � � " ` ' . `�, . - . ' Puture � � . � � � � Leachate � � � - � � Lagoon . . � � � � �ar �. �� .. . � . " � . �. . -. ,. , � � �_- . � � � : . . t � ,i� @ctr � ��' - — . . r. i � '�� h� � � �'i� _4 ' '� � �� . -�" � � �pi�� Z°-�? ,a�, . �7. .y ��`��m�a� �` �., . ,. _ � z . � , ?r `_� ��a . �N� �i° ,.y ,;,,.�`�. •. _ t • •� e . � v ? c, r.'!... . a _ �.,�.� SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A detailed analysis of Cell 2A indicates that it will reach design capacity by the summer of 2003. A new expansion cell (Cell 2B) has already been designed and will be constructed before Cell 2A reaches capacity. After Cell 2B reaches the height of Cell 2A, additional waste will be placed over both cells to reach a final elevation of about 340 feet. The combined Cell 2A and 2B is expected to reach final design capacity around 2010. Additional landfill cells are planned to the south of these cells. In addition to municipal waste landfill cells, a new construction and demolition (C &D) waste cell was constructed in 2000. This C &D cell will have enough capacity for about seven to ten years, depending on the amount of C &D waste generated in the Borough. 1.4.4 Life -Cycle Costs Solid Waste Regulation 18 AAC 60.205(c)(3)(B) requires landfill owners to prepare the estimated total life -cycle costs for a proposed new landfill or the estimated remaining life - cycle costs for an existing landfill. The purpose of this requirement is to make landfill owners aware of the total costs of these facilities so they can make informed decisions about the economic viability of an existing landfill or development of a new landfill with regard to other waste disposal alternatives. The Borough has estimated the life -cycle costs of existing and future landfill cells at the Central Landfill. Elements of the life -cycle costs include the following: • Borough assessed land value • Design and permit application costs • Estimated construction costs • Typical operation and maintenance costs • ADEC program support fees • Estimated closure costs • Estimated post - closure costs Landfill life -cycle costs were prepared by Bambard and Associates using the Landfill Assessment Computer Program (Bambard and Associates, 2000). The feasibility of developing a separate inert waste cell and diverting various percentages of waste from the municipal waste cell were evaluated. A copy of this report is attached as Appendix A. The average cost per ton for disposal of waste at the Central Landfill is $36.06 over a 20 -year period with diversion of about six percent of the wastestream to an inert waste cell rather than the lined municipal waste cell. This cost per ton is for the landfill only. Other costs include Boroughwide solid waste management costs such as planning, construction, and operation of transfer stations; waste hauling; and other solid waste management costs. As a result of these costs, the disposal fee is higher than the landfill costs alone. SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1.5 Transfer Stations The Matanuska - Susitna Borough operates a system of transfer stations throughout the Borough. This is common for areas in Alaska, primarily due to the remoteness of many communities. The following are some of the benefits associated with transfer station use: • Less expensive to operate as compared with a landfill at the same site • Better service provided to smaller remote communities because it is usually within an adequate traveling distance for the individual resident The Borough currently has twelve transfer stations: eight of these are managed transfer stations and have attendants to inspect the loads and collect the fees with set hours of operation; and the remaining four unattended dumpster sites offer free disposal and are accessible 24 hours daily Figure 1 -4 shows the current location of transfer stations in the Borough. There have been transfer stations and dumpsters located at other locations in the past; however, current facilities are as shown in the figure. A description of each facility follows. 1.5.1 Butte Transfer Station The Butte Transfer Station is located on an access road to Butte Elementary School, approximately 7.5 miles south of Palmer, Alaska, and 12 miles southeast of Central Landfill. The site was established in the fall of 1988 with the closure of the Butte Landfill and may be accessed via a fenced gate entrance off the access road The transfer station consists of two 120 - cubic -yard (cy) semitrailers situated adjacent to a concrete retaining wall. There is also a 20 -foot Connex container for recycling lead -acid batteries, latex paint, and used oil. An attendant stationed near the refuse containers collects fees, monitors the incoming loads, and keeps track of the refuse containers. Current hours of operation are Thursday through Monday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 1.5.2 Sutton Transfer Station The Sutton Transfer Station is located on the south side of the Glenn Highway at Milepost 61, approximately 16 miles from the Central Landfill. It is a one acre fenced site that consists of four containers with a 40 -cy capacity. This site was established in 1993. There is also a 20- foot Connex trailer for recycling lead -acid batteries, latex paint, and used oil. An attendant stationed immediately inside the gate collects fees, monitors the incoming loads, and keeps track of the refuse containers. Current hours of operation are Friday through Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 1.5.3 Long Rifle Transfer Station The Long Rifle Transfer Station is located at Milepost 102.2 of the Glenn Highway, across the highway from the Long Rifle Lodge, approximately 63 miles east of the Central Landfill. This site was established in 1995 and consists of two 40 -cy containers. There are also three plastic fish totes for the collection of lead -acid batteries, latex paint, and used oil. 1-12 SEA3100058663.DOCIO21150012 'I' _. ,. �EN�U`� ` N � t j xIGN��Y �: � ,�IGLOO , r- � �.�.,. ,' ^ �_ — ° e�� GRACIOUS HOUSE em. w�w.,� e'" "^e. � �,eo / �,o�'a , �` o....��. s�. o s � nc caak I e cn.k �au... r.. � � � e.,. ...a�� o � Q � NL MY � e Tyw+�v^ r� �� e�� nwml 1 Q � . CREE �' `''• ",� � , o �� ALKEETNA "" ° LAKE OUISI SUNSHINE� �' 4, r •`` ¢ ° .pe'�°`� �...... x . EUREKA '° ° U' e /e o r. x , a�� ' d � �,. ,^� LONG RIFLE ' d �y vun w�. p WILLO �^^a- "'�"` GLENN HIGHWAY Bltlo� GFMMeumin ,..A.�,. • t • . 1 � UTTON ��..�. ^"� ' ''° ` � �4 CENTRAL NDFILL ± ° • � ��O it., -� � � � ..._ - �PALMER "` n �" � s y � uwm.w.a�. • � /'^�°� ��/(�/� ,wn",siii.n ; �BUTTE ° � B�V U1f�C u �o. e.w • MC � �bwrwt ��' p w Tw� �p � ■ LANDFILL �� ; , „�,a,.,. • TRANSFER STATION � � DUMPSTER 1" = 17 MILES SECTION 1 EXISTING 5011D WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Long Rifle Lodge collects fees and keeps track of the containers on a management agreement with the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Current hours of operation are Wednesday through Sunday, 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 1.5.4 Big Lake Transfer Station The Big Lake Transfer Station is located at the old Big Lake Landfill site off Big Lake Road on Hollywood Road Established in 1994, this transfer station consists of two 120 -cy semitrailers situated adjacent to a concrete retaining wall and can be seen in Figure 1 -5. There is also a 20 -foot Connex container for recycling lead -acid batteries, latex paint, and used oil. The Connex container can be seen in Figure 1 -6. An attendant stationed near the refuse containers collects fees, monitors the incoming loads, and keeps track of the refuse containers. Current hours of operation are Thursday through Monday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 1.5.5 Willow Transfer Station The Willow Transfer Station is located off the Willow Fishhook Road on Willow Station Road Established in 1993, this site consists of four containers with a 40 -cy capacity. There is also a 20 -foot Connex trailer for recycling lead -acid batteries, latex paint, and used oil. An attendant stationed near the refuse containers collects fees, monitors the incoming loads, and keeps track of the refuse containers. Current hours of operation are Friday through Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 1.5.6 Talkeetna Transfer Station The Talkeetna Transfer Station is located at Milepost 13.5 of the Talkeetna Spur Road. The site was established in 1993 with the closure of the landfill. This site consists of four containers with a 40 -cy capacity. There is also a 20 -foot Connex trailer for recycling lead - acid batteries, latex paint, and used oil. An attendant stationed near the refuse containers collects fees, monitors the incoming loads, and keeps track of the refuse containers. Current hours of operation are Friday through Tuesday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 1.5.7 Sunshine Transfer Station The Sunshine Transfer Station is located at Milepost 102.5 of the George Parks Highway. The site was established in 1993 with the closure of the landfill. This site consists of four containers with a 40 -cy capacity. There is also a 20 -foot Connex trailer for recycling lead - acid batteries, latex paint, and used oil. An attendant stationed near the refuse containers collects fees, monitors the incoming loads, and keeps track of the refuse containers. Current hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Sunday. 1.5.8 Trapper Creek Transfer Station The Trapper Creek Transfer Station is located at Milepost 116.5 of the George Parks Highway. Established in 1993, this site consists of three containers with a 40 -cy capacity in SEA3100055663.D0C/021150012 1 -15 SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM the summer months and two in the winter months. The small office at the entrance can be seen in Figure 1 -7, and the drop -off area with dumpsters can be seen in Figure 1 -8. There is also a 20 -foot Connex container for collecting lead -acid batteries, latex paint, and used oil. An attendant stationed near the refuse containers collects fees, monitors the incoming loads, and keeps track of the refuse containers. Current hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Thursday, Saturday and Monday. 1.6 Public Dumpsters The Matanuska - Susitna Borough currently has four sites in the outlying areas with public dumpsters that are free of charge. These sites do not have any direct supervision but are monitored periodically by local property owners who keep litter picked up and notify the Matanuska - Susitna Borough when the dumpster needs to be emptied. There have been public dumpsters in other locations in the past, but they were removed to save money or relocated to better serve the public. Following are short descriptions of each site. 1.6.1 Gracious House The Gracious House Dumpster is located at Milepost 52 of the Denali Highway in the parking area at the Gracious House Lodge. This facility is primarily used during summer months for tourists and local lodges. The Denali Highway is not maintained during the winter months, making it impassible usually from November to May. This facility consists of a single 40 -cy dumpster and is emptied on an on -call basis. 1.6.2 Igloo The Igloo Dumpster is located at the George Parks Highway Milepost 188.5 in the Igloo Gas Station and General Store parking lot. It is used year -round by tourists, local residents, and businesses, consists of a single 40 -cy dumpster, and is emptied on an on -call basis. 1.6.3 Eureka The Eureka Dumpster is located at Glenn Highway Milepost 126 in the Eureka Roadhouse parking lot. This facility is used year -round by tourists, residents, and local businesses. This facility consists of two 40 -cy dumpsters, which are emptied on an on -call basis. 1.6.4 Lake Louise The Lake Louise Dumpster is located at Milepost 16 of the Lake Louise Road at Dinty Bush Services. This facility consists of two 40 -cy dumpsters located in the parking area adjacent to Dinty Bush Services. The dumpsters are emptied on an on -call basis. Tourists, residents, and local lodges use this facility year- round. 1 -16 5EA3100058663.D0C/021150012 Figure 1 -5 Big Lake Transfer Site Matanuska - Susitna Borough Figure 1 -6 Connex Container for Used Oil, Batteries, and Latex Paint Matanuska - Susitna Borough Figure 1 -7 Trapper Creek Transfer Station Gate House Matanuska - Susitna Borough Figure 1 -8 Trapper Creek Transfer Site Drop -Off Area Matanuska - Susitna Borough 1.7 Collection System As the Matanuska - Susitna Borough population continues to grow, so does its need for refuse collection services. There are currently four privately owned refuse collection companies and one publicly owned collection service within the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Table 1 -1 lists solid waste collection services, customer base, equipment type, and approximate haul quantities. TABLE 1.1 Solid Waste Collection Services in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough Collection Service Type of User (Quantity) Equipment Type City of Palmer Commercial (266) 1 Rear Load Packer Truck Residential (1,170) 1 Front Load Packer Truck 1 Side Load Packer Truck Raven Refuse Residential 1 One ton Box Truck Talkeetna Refuse 1 Rear Load Packer Truck 1 Roll Off Truck Valley Refuse Residential' (2,215) Roll Off 5 Rear Load Packer Trucks Wasilla Refuse Residential' (340) 3 Roll Ott Truck Commercial' (860) 3 Rear Load Packer Industrial' (97) 1 Front Load Packer 1.8 Processing and Disposal SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Haul Volume 1999 to 2000 (Tons) 3,045.59 119.67 470.1 (only accounts for seven months of activity) 4,146.35 12, 608.41 'Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Personal communication with Matanuska - Susitna Borough. 2001. This section describes the waste collection, treatment, and disposal methods used by the Borough for various wastestream components. A general description of the wastestream flow is required by the planning requirements in 18 AAC 60.205(c)(2). The following procedures apply to all waste delivered to the Central Landfill. Most of these companies are located within the core area of the Borough with the exception of Talkeetna Refuse, which serves the northern portions of the Borough. These companies provide residential and commercial service to a significant portion of the Boroughs businesses and residents. Table 1 -2 summarizes solid waste collection service costs. 121 SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1 -22 TABLE 1.2 Solid Waste Collection Service Fees Collection Service Dumpster (Weekly Service) Curbside Collection (Weekly Service) City of Palmer $74.00 per month (3 yard) $17.00 per month Raven Refuse None $26.00 per month Talkeetna Refuse $165.00 per month $33.00 per month Valley Refuse $115 per month (3 yard) $17.62 per month Wasilla Refuse $128.72 per month (3 yard) $28.76 per month Waste in the rest of the Borough is hauled to the Central Landfill as described in Section 1.7. All commercial vehicles are weighed at the entrance scales while residential vehicles are simply counted and charged a flat rate. Commercial vehicles are directed to the active disposal area (working face) of the landfill where the waste is discharged and compacted by a steel - wheeled compactor and track bulldozer. Residential customers discharge their waste into a transfer trailer at a public drop -off area near the entrance. The transfer trailers are hauled to the working face when full and the waste discharged. An area for collecting waste prohibited in the landfill is available near the site entrance. Used oil, batteries, and latex paint are accepted. This waste is either recycled or disposed of properly. The Borough also holds monthly household hazardous waste and conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) waste collection events. An area for collecting some recyclables is also available near the entrance. The materials collected for recycling vary depending on market value. The current landfill contractor has salvage rights for nonferrous metals and has a collection bin near the entrance for copper, brass, and aluminum. This contract provision may change in the future. Smurfit -Stone Container Corporation currently has a container for paper recycling at the Central Landfill. A metal- recycling company currently collects refrigerators and freezers that are set aside at the Central Landfill and hauls them to Anchorage for recycling. These recycling programs are subject to change depending on their economic viability and willingness of recycling companies to take the materials. The Borough has set aside an area outside the entrance of the Central Landfill for the development of a recycling area. The recycling facility will be run by a nonprofit organization called Valley Community for Recycling Solutions (VCRS). They have been organizing One -Stop Recycling events in Wasilla and Talkeetna. During these events, they have collected newspapers, cardboard, magazines, phone books, office paper, plastic bags, aluminum cans, aluminum foil, glass, egg cartons, packing material, and other materials. Establishing a recycling area next to the Central Landfill will allow for a more permanent recycling area than the One -Stop Recycling events, which were often held on privately owned parking lots in front of businesses. A separate disposal cell for inert waste was constructed in 2000. Inert C &D waste is directed to this unlined disposal cell rather than the municipal waste cell because disposal space in an unlined cell is less expensive. Also, large C &D waste interferes with compaction and cover operations in the municipal waste cell. Asbestos containing waste is taken to a SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 TABLE 1-3 Matanuska - Susitna Borough Solid Waste Disposal Fees SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM specially designated cell where the waste is carefully placed and covered to prevent airborne dust. More specific information about waste processing and disposal practices at the Central Landfill are described in the Central Landfill Operating and Maintenance Plan (CH2M HILL, 2000). Separate procedures apply to waste disposed at the Skwentna Landfill. Skwentna is a small rural community off the highway system with a Class III landfill. Individuals haul their waste to the landfill where it is occasionally compacted and covered on an as- needed basis. 1.9 Fees and Financing 1.9.1 Disposal Fees Solid waste disposal fees are collected at the Central Landfill and at Borough Transfer Stations at Sutton, Butte, Big Lake, Willow, Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Sunshine, and Long Rifle Lodge. Fees (Table 1 -3) are based on a volume estimate; however, commercial and large loads are charged by the ton at the Central Landfill. The Borough also charges a penalty fee of $5.00 for unsecured loads. Vehicle or Quantity Type Disposal Rate One household bag (33- gallon maximum) (at all locations $1.00 per bag except the Central Landfill) Passenger vehicles $5.00 per visit Any vehicle up to 1 cubic yard $5.00 per visit Any vehicle 1 to 3 cubic yards $10.00 per visit Additional yards (above 3 cubic yards) $5.00 per cubic yard Over 1,000 pounds (any vehicle) (Central Landfill only) $50.00 per ton The fees collected at the transfer stations roughly equate to about $45 per ton; however, an actual comparison of waste tonnage received from the transfer stations at the Central Landfill scales with revenue receipts indicate the actual amount received ranges from $32 to $46 dollars per ton with the average being $36 per ton. At the Central Landfill, fees may be paid by charge account, Matanuska - Susitna Borough solid waste disposal coupons, cash or check. Commercial charge accounts may be established prior to disposal by arranging accounts with the Matanuska - Susitna Borough Finance Department at the Dorothy Swanda Jones Building at 350 East Dahlia Avenue in Palmer. The Borough no longer sells coupons, but they still accept them at disposal facilities. At the eight transfer stations, disposal fees may be paid by Matanuska - Susitna Borough solid waste disposal coupons, cash, or check. Charge accounts can also be set up at the transfer stations. SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 1 -23 SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Solid waste disposal fees are reviewed and approved by the Borough Assembly. Any changes to the disposal fees must be approved by the Assembly before they are effective. 1.9.2 Financing Financing is necessary to pay for major capital improvements to the solid waste system. Solid waste disposal fees pay for the general daily operation of the landfill and transfer stations, but they are not sufficient to pay for major capital expenditures such as new equipment, buildings, landfill expansion cells, and other major facility improvements. Large capital improvements are often paid for from revenue collected from nonareawide taxes or from state matching grants. In Alaska, it is possible to obtain low - interest loans from the ADEC for landfill improvements. Grants from the same agency may also be available During the 2001 legislative session, the state legislature approved a $1.6 million matching grant for construction of a lined cell at Central Landfill. Grants have also been requested by the Borough from the Economic Development Agency and from the Rural Economic and Community Development Services. Ideally, it would be preferential to charge sufficient fees so that excess amounts could be saved in a dedicated account for solid waste capital expenditures. Unfortunately, this could result in excessively high disposal fees. If fees are too high, the public and Borough assembly will not approve them. Also, excessively high fees could result in more illegal dumping and unsanitary waste accumulation at residences and businesses. One method of financing is bonding. A bond is a loan secured by the full faith and credit of the municipality —in this case the Borough. There are generally two types of municipal bonds, general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds must be approved by the voters of the Borough and become an obligation of the nonareawide fund since solid waste is authorized as a nonareawide service. Revenue bonds are tied specifically to a particular facility, and a portion of the fees collected during the operation of the facility go to pay the bond interest and principal. Presently, solid waste revenues are insufficient to fund revenue bonds. Another method of generating funds for capital projects is through taxes. As stated earlier, solid waste activities are authorized as a nonareawide service (all of the Borough excluding the cities of Houston, Palmer, and Wasilla). The Borough currently levies a nonareawide property tax of 0.35 mils. A portion of this tax could be used to assist in funding solid waste services. It is generally believed that waste generators should bear the burden of solid waste costs rather than property owners. The Borough has attempted to initiate a sales tax several times, but each time it was defeated by the Borough voters. A sales tax initiative authorizing a tax up to two percent was once again presented to the voters on the October 2, 2001 ballot, but it also failed. Some believe that a sales tax would be a preferable tax method to fund solid waste services because there is a correlation between consumption and the generation of solid waste. However, an increase in user fees should be contemplated before creating additional taxes. Many local governments establish an enterprise fund for their publicly owned utilities, such as water, wastewater, power, telephone, solid waste, and other utilities. An enterprise fund is an account whereby revenue generated from a utility is kept in a separate fund and 1 -24 SEA3100056663.D0C/021150012 SECTION 1 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM balanced against expenditures. An advantage of an enterprise fund system is that the utility is run like a separate business within the Borough and the true costs of the operation are known and managed. Also, money collected in the enterprise fund can only be used for solid waste services and facilities. The dedicated fund would protect money held for the closure of future cells from other uses. Under this type of system, solid waste rates would need to be sufficient to pay for the solid waste management system. Accounting for an enterprise fund is usually managed according to guidelines established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Statement 34 of GASB, titled Basic Financial Statements —and Management's Discussion and Analysis -for State and Local Governments, provides specific accounting and reporting guidelines for enterprise funds. Solid waste system accounting should be reviewed by the finance director in accordance with the GASB Statement 34 guidelines. The Borough currently uses an automated accounting system to track disposal fees (also called tipping fees) revenues and expenses. The software program is called Waste Works Software. Scalehouse data from the Central Landfill and fee data from the transfer stations is entered into the program to track weights and revenue. 5EA3100058883.D0C/021150012 - 1 -25 SECTION 2 Wastestream Analysis This chapter includes an update on the estimated sources and quantities of waste generated in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. 2.1 Demographics There is a linear correlation between the number of people and the amount of waste generated in an area; therefore, a review of demographics can help predict where waste will be generated and future trends in the generation rate. Census data divides the Borough into Census Designated Places (CDPs). Year 2000 census data can be seen in Table 2 -1. TABLE 2-1 Matanuska - Susitna Borough Year 2000 Census Data Location Population Big Lake CDP 2,635 Buffalo Soapstone CDP 699 Butte CDP 2,561 Chase CDP 41 Chickaloon CDP 213 Farm Loop CDP 1,067 Fishhook CDP 2,030 Gateway CDP 2,952 Glacier View CDP 249 Houston City 1,202 Knik River CDP 582 Knik- Fairview CDP 7,049 Lake Louise CDP 88 Lakes CDP 6,706 Lazy Mountain CDP 1,158 Meadow Lakes CDP 4,819 Palmer City 4,533 Petersville CDP 27 Point MacKenzie CDP 111 Skwentna CDP 111 5EA3100058863.D0CIO21150012 2 -1 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS TABLE 2-1 Matanuska Susitna Borough Year 2000 Census Data Location Population Susitna CDP 37 Sutton - Alpine CDP 1,080 Talkeetna CDP 772 Tanaina CDP 4,993 Trapper Creek CDP 423 Wasilla City 5,469 Willow CDP 1,658 Y CDP 956 Remainder of Borough 5,101 Total 59,322 Waste generation tends to be highest near populated areas; therefore, transfer stations for waste collection have been established near population centers in areas that do not receive curbside collection of refuse. The Central Landfill is located near the core population area of the Borough. Some of the major CDPs are shown in Figure 2 -1. 2.2 Waste Generation Rate The solid waste generation rate and waste volume estimates were updated to determine landfill capacity needs. The waste generation rate can be correlated with the population rate. According to census data, the Matanuska - Susitna Borough experienced an average growth rate of 3.6 percent per year over the ten -year period from 1990 through 1999. Therefore, a solid waste growth rate of 3.6 percent per year was used for future estimates. The weight of waste entering the Central Landfill is known because all vehicles, except residential are weighed going in and out. The drop -off containers for residential self -haul customers are weighed before the waste is discharged into the landfill. The total weight of waste received in 1999 was 44,895 tons. This number was used as the base year for future estimates. The growth rate is shown in Figure 2 -2. The density of waste after it is compacted and covered in the landfill is estimated to be 1,000 pounds per cy. This density is typical for compacted refuse and correlates well with volume changes observed at the landfill. The cover soil -to -waste ratio is about one part soil to two parts waste (1:2). Therefore, about one -third of the volume in the landfill is estimated to be cover soils. The total in -place landfill volume of soil and compacted waste can be estimated by multiplying the volume of waste by a factor of 1.5. The tonnage and in -place volume of waste and cover is shown in Table 2 -2. 2 -2 SEA3100058683.DOC/021156012 co 3 15, 0 2 —1 3 Zi g - o 8 a- a ro nd e e = CI FIGURE 2.2 Solid Waste Growth Rate 80,000 75,000 70,000 y 65,000 a 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 O o O 0 O O O 8 0 0 r N CI V N N N 0 N 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 (.1 0 Year Weight (Tons) Year TABLE 2.2 Solid Waste Generation Quantities in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS Waste Volume Cover Plus Waste (Cubic Yards) Volume (Cubic Yards) 2001 48,186 96,371 144,557 2002 49,920 99,841 149,761 2003 51,717 103,435 155,152 2004 53,579 107,159 160,738 2005 55,508 111,016 166,524 2006 57,506 115,013 172,519 2007 59,577 119,153 178,730 2008 61,721 123,443 185,164 2009 63,943 127,887 191,830 2010 66,245 132,491 198,736 2011 68,630 137,260 205,890 2012 71,101 142,202 213,303 2013 73,660 147,321 220,981 2014 76,312 152,625 228 937 2015 79,059 158,119 237,178 SEA3100058663.80C/021150012 2 -5 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS The waste generation rate is influenced by many unpredictable factors and may vary from this estimate. The major factors that can affect the generation rate include the following: • Population growth rate changes • Changes in economic development • Weather and natural disasters • Changes in landfill operation techniques • A reduction in the use of cover material or the use of altemative covers • Changes in the quantity and type of materials recycled • Alternative waste disposal options To account for changes in the waste generation rate, the Borough will continue to record the quantity of waste received at the Central Landfill and adjust future cell development schedules as appropriate to ensure that adequate waste disposal capacity is available. 2.3 Wastestream Analysis The purpose of this section is to characterize the primary wastestreams within the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Waste composition data are helpful for determining what types of equipment and processes are necessary to manage the waste and what types of materials are available for recycling. 2.3.1 Waste Type Categories Regulation 18 AAC 60.205(c)(1) requires an estimate of the quantity of each type of waste to be managed. Using definitions of solid waste found in the Alaska solid waste regulations, waste can be categorized into the following groups: • Municipal waste: community generated waste - Household waste: produced by individual households, apartment complexes, hotels, dormitories, and work camps — Commercial waste: generated by a store, office, restaurant, warehouse, or other non manufacturing activity • Industrial waste: generated by a manufacturing or industrial process that is not a hazardous waste, including polluted soil, organic and inorganic chemicals, and manufacturing waste • Inert waste: solid waste that has a low potential to pollute air or water and that does not normally attract wildlife, including coal power plant ash, scrap metal, auto fluff, C &D waste, and pavement rubble • Drilling waste: exploration and production waste from oil, gas, or geothermal well development and maintenance 2 -6 SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS • Biosolids waste: residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage About 80 percent of the waste generated in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough consists of municipal waste and about 15 percent consists of inert waste. Both of these waste categories are accepted at the Central Landfill. The remaining 5 percent consists primarily of biosolids with a minor percentage of industrial and drilling waste. These waste categories are managed by the generator separately from municipal waste. 2.3.2 Waste Composition Breakdown The composition of the solid wastestream can be divided into many waste types. To simplify the classification process, the wastestream is usually divided into major waste groups. The actual wastestream is composed of a large variety of different materials that would be too cumbersome to list individually. For consistency, waste groups commonly listed in the EPA waste characterization reports are used here. Many waste items are composed of a combination of waste types. For example, a shoe may contain leather, rubber, cotton, metal, and small quantities of other material. The categories presented here and in other reports should not be interpreted to represent pure materials, but rather a general estimate of their proportional composition in the municipal wastestream. Solid waste is generated on a continual basis, and the composition can be expected change for a variety of reasons. Economic changes, new products, seasonal variations, and public perceptions can affect the commodities people purchase and the wastes generated. The percentages presented here represent a general annual average and are not meant to be interpreted as an exact or static generation rate. There are two primary methods for conducting a waste characterization study. The first method, often referred to as the direct measurement method, is a source - specific approach in which the individual components of the wastestream are sampled, sorted, and weighed. Direct measurement of the wastestream requires proper sampling and sorting techniques to obtain statistically valid results. Sampling is usually conducted over a period of at least one year to obtain a sufficient sample size to account for seasonal variations. Sorting programs usually divide the waste into anywhere from six to 30 waste classifications. The second method is often called the source estimation method. This method uses average waste composition figures from other studies and applies adjustments to the numbers based on site specific factors unique to a community. The consumption of commodities used in a community is reviewed to assist in the estimation process. A portion of the materials purchased in a community can be estimated to end up as solid waste. The source estimation method was determined to be the most appropriate method to characterize the composition of the Matanuska - Susitna Borough wastestream. A review of a wide variety of waste sort studies that have been performed with adequate quality control indicate that the composition of municipal waste is fairly consistent across the nation. The composition only varies by a few percent in most cases despite a wide variety of differences between communities. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that the composition of waste in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough is similar to the national average, but varies with regard to a few specifics. National average estimates were obtained from the SEA3100050663DOC/021150012 2 -7 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS EPA document titled Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1999 Update. Table 2 -3 presents a breakdown of the national average municipal waste composition with comments regarding how the Matanuska - Susitna Borough municipal wastestream may vary with regard to the national average. Wastes listed in this group do not include sewage sludge, used oil, C &D debris, junk cars and large scrap metal objects, hazardous waste, and other waste not normally disposed of in the municipal wastestream. These wastes are not included in the national waste - characterization study. A pie chart showing the breakdown of the national municipal solid wastestream is shown in Figure 2 -3. TABLE 23 Municipal Solid Waste Composition' (Percent by Weight) Material National Possible Matanuska - Susitna Variations Paper and paperboard 38.2 More shipping containers Glass 5.7 Fewer supplies shipped in glass containers Metals 7.6 Higher due to battery and equipment disposal Plastics 10.2 About the same Rubber and leather 3.1 Higher tire and rubber boot usage Textiles 3.9 Higher usage of clothes in colder climates Wood 5.4 Higher due to shipping crates and pallets Food waste 10.0 Higher due to food storage difficulties in rural areas Yard trimmings 12.6 Lower due to less lawn and garden waste disposal Other 3.3 Includes waste types not listed above Total 100.0 'Generation before materials recovery; this does not include construction and demolition debris, industrial process wastes, sewage sludge, junk vehicles, and hazardous waste. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste 117 the United States. 1999 update (year 1998 data). 1999. Waste categories for paper and metals were divided into more detailed characterization. Table 2 -4 lists a breakdown of paper items with comments regarding possible variations in the Matanuska - Susitna wastestream. Although the total paper percentage is the same as the national average, the composition is probably different. The percentage of newspaper is probably much smaller than the national average. The regional newspaper, The Frontiersman, is smaller than the average municipal newspaper. Some daily papers are delivered to Borough communities from Anchorage and other locations, but the quantity of newsprint is still less than the national average. Telephone directories are also much smaller than the national average. The percentage of cardboard and packing paper is much higher than the national average because of a higher percentage of shipping containers. Office paper waste is about the same as the national average. Other paper waste composition is probably similar to the national average. 2 -8 5EA3100058683.DOC1021150012 FIGURE 2-3 National Breakdown of Municipal Wastestream 2001 Solid Waste Management Plan Update Product Category Yard Trimmings 13% Paper Food Waste 38% 10% Wood 5% Textiles 4% Rubber & Leather 3% Plastics 10% TABLE 2.4 Paper Composition of Municipal Waste' (Percent by Weight) Other 3% Glass Metals 6% 8% Nondurable goods Newspaper 6.2 Smaller and less frequent papers Books 0.5 Same Magazines 1.0 Higher; more catalogs Office papers 3.2 Same Directories 0.3 Smaller directories Standard mail 2.4 Same Commercial printing 3.0 Same Tissue paper and towels 1.4 Same Paper plates and cups 0.4 Same Other nonpacking materials 2.0 Same Subtotal 20.4 Less Containers and packaging Corrugated boxes 13.6 Higher due to more shipping containers Milk cartons 0.2 Same Folding cartons 2.5 Same SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS National' Possible Matanuska - Susitna Variations SEA3100056663.DOCIO21150012 2-9 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS TABLE 2.4 Paper Composition of Municipal Wastel (Percent by Weight) Product Category Other paperboard packaging Bags and sacks Other paper packaging Subtotal Total (all paper) United States Environmental 1999 update (year 1998 data) 2 lncludes tissue in disposable TABLE 2.5 Metal Composition of Municipal Wastel (Percent by Weight) Product Category Durable goods Ferrous Metals Aluminum Lead Other nonferrous Subtotal Nondurable goods Aluminum Containers Steel cans Aluminum beverage cans Subtotal Total Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. . 1999. diapers, paper in games and novelties, cards, etc. Table 2 -5 lists the composition of metals. Lead from batteries is probably higher than the national average because of the shorter life of lead -acid batteries in cold climates and the higher percentage of batteries and large equipment. Metal from food containers, such as aluminum beverage cans and soda cans, is historically higher in Alaskan communities. Steel container usage is probably slightly higher in the Borough due to the higher than average use of 5- gallon steel containers for aviation fuel, gasoline, and motor oil. National' Possible Matanuska - Susltna Variations 4.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 5.3 0.1 National' Possible Matanuska - Susitna Variations 0.1 Higher due to more shipping 0.8 Same 0.6 Higher due to more shipping 17.8 Higher due to more shipping 38.2 Slightly higher Same 1.3 0.9 2.2 7.6 Higher Higher equipment disposal. Higher from boat hull disposal. Battery life shorter in colder climates. Slightly higher copper plumbing. Higher steel fuel can usage Higher consumption of beverages in cans 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 1999 update (year 1998 data). 1999. 2 Ferrous metals in appliances furniture, tires, and miscellaneous durables. 3 Aluminum in appliances, furniture, and miscellaneous durables. ° Lead primarily from lead -acid batteries. 5 Other nonferrous metals in appliances and miscellaneous durables. 2-10 SEA3100058683.00C1021150012 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS 2.3.3 Inert Waste Inert waste makes up about 15 percent by weight of the total waste received at the Central Landfill. This estimate is based on a review of scalehouse data of vehicles and sources of waste. The composition and rate of waste generation for this category of waste can vary significantly depending on the type and number of C &D projects in the Borough. A separate C &D waste cell is permitted to accept inert waste at the Central Landfill Representative generation sources of inert wastes include the following: • Site clearing materials: brush, trees, rocks, and stumps • Excavated materials: peat rocks, boulders, and earth fill • Roadwork materials: asphalt rubble and roto - milled asphalt material, concrete slabs and rubble, bridge timbers, steel beams, and concrete supports • New construction materials: residential, commercial, and industrial project sources • Renovation, remodeling, or repair materials: residential, commercial, and industrial project sources • Demolition materials• buildings and other structures Disaster debris: resulting from fires, floods, storms, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Some of these wastes are managed outside the wastestream or on location. For example, clearing debris is excluded from the Alaska definition of solid waste and is often managed on site or on surplus land. Asphalt paving debris is also frequently recycled on site during road construction projects either as road base fill or in the manufacture of new paving. The Matanuska - Susitna Borough is experiencing the highest growth rate in the state; therefore, a significant portion of inert debris is likely to come from new construction. About 10 to 15 percent of materials used in construction end up as waste. A sample composition of debris from new residential construction is shown in Table 2 -6. TABLE 2 Sample Composition of Debris from Residential Construction) Material Composition of Residential Construction Debris (Percent) Wood 42 Drywall P7 Refuse, sweepings, and aggregate 15 Metals 2 Plastics 2 Roofing 6 Brick 6 ' National Association of Home Builders Research Center. Waste Management Update 2. October 1997 5EA3100058663.D0C/021150012 2 -11 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS A portion of inert waste generated in the Borough is from the demolition of residences, buildings, and other structures. A sample composition of demolition debris from 19 nonresidential projects in the Pacific Northwest is shown in Table 2 -7. Although this table represents the average composition, the percentage of wood ranged from 0.03 percent to 88 percent in the 19 buildings. The actual composition of waste will vary significantly depending on the specific demolition project. A rough estimate of the composition of residential and commercial C &D debris disposed in the Central Landfill is presented in Table 2 -8. TABLE 2.7 Sample Composition of Nonresidential Demolition Debris' Material Composition of Nonresidential Demolition Debris (Percent) Concrete 66 Wood 16 General landfill waste 9 Scrap iron 5 Asphalt 2 Brick 1 Roofing 1 'United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Building- Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. EPA 530 -R -98 -010. June 1999. TABLE 2-8 Residential and Commercial Construction and Demolition Debris in the Matanuska- Susitna Borough Material Composition of Residential and Commercial Construction and Demolition Debris (Percent) Metals: scrap steel, junk equipment, aluminum boats, etc. 10 Plastics 2 Wood: pallets, poles, beams, etc. 37 Landclearing: brush, stumps, logs, rocks, peat, etc. 1 Inerts: concrete rubble, asphalt paving debris, tires, roofing, wallboard, etc. 50 2.3.4 Junk Vehicles Junk vehicles are of special interest in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough because their accumulation in various areas have become a source of public complaints. The Matanuska- 2-12 SEA3100058663D0C1021150012 Susitna Borough Strategic Plan (Matanuska - Susitna Borough, 2002) lists junk car removal as one of the top three solid waste management goals. The Borough does not accept vehicles at the landfill or transfer stations; therefore, the public must dispose of vehicles at auto recycling facilities or scrap yards. Several privately run facilities are available in the Borough and Anchorage that accept junk cars. The Borough has implemented various junk car removal programs in the past to clean up junk from public and private property. These clean -up programs are expected to continue in the future on an as- needed basis. There were 91,764 vehicles registered in the Borough in 2000. Passenger and pick -up truck vehicles made up 74 percent of this total. Table 2 -9 lists the class and number of vehicles registered in the Borough. Military vehicles are not included in the registration numbers; however, these vehicles are usually shipped back to Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) at Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) for disposition rather than local junk yards. Many off -road vehicles and snowmobiles are not registered, so it is difficult to estimate these numbers. Large construction equipment, such as bulldozers, front - loaders, and backhoes, do not require registration and are not included in the list. TABLE 2-9 Registered Vehicles in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough 2000 Department of Motor Vehicle Records Class of Vehicle Quantity Passenger 42,194 Motorcycle 1,683 Commercial trailer 13,220 Commercial truck 2,820 Pick -up truck 25,283 Bus 257 Snowmobile 5,424 Total 91,764 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS Information from other communities in Alaska indicate that about two percent of the number of registered vehicles are junked each year. Applying this estimate to the Matanuska - Susitna Borough would yield about 1,835 junk vehicles per year. About 1,350 of these vehicles are estimated to be cars and pick -up trucks. The average weight of all vehicles is estimated to be about 2,000 pounds per vehicle. Using this information, the total weight of junked vehicles per year is about 3,670,000 pounds (1,835 tons per year). The Borough has developed special programs to remove and recycle junk vehicles. Ordinances for the abatement of abandoned vehicles are codified in Title 10, Chapter 12 of the Borough Code of Ordinances and are attached in Appendix 13. These ordinances authorize the Borough to remove and dispose of vehicles abandoned on public property and public right -of -ways. The code compliance section of the Borough supervised the removal of over 500 vehicles in the year 2000. The Borough also works cooperatively with private land owners who want junk vehicles removed from their property. Various programs in the past SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 2-13 SECTION 2 WASTESTREAM ANALYSIS have subsidized the cost junk vehicle removal, making it less costly for private land owners to remove junk vehicles from their property. 2 -14 SEA3100058683.00CIO21150012 SECTION 3 Waste System Alternatives This section reviews landfill and solid waste transfer station alternatives. In addition, waste reduction and recycling is addressed. 3.1 Landfill Alternatives Although most waste generated in the Borough is disposed in landfills, the number, size, and design of landfills has changed over the last decade. This section summarizes solid waste regionalization efforts to minimize the number of landfills in the Borough and a description of landfill design altematives. 3.1.1 Regionalization The Central Landfill is truly a regional landfill, serving all communities along the highway system in the Borough. In 1984 there were about 14 Landfills in the Borough. All have been closed except for the Skwentna Landfill, which is located off the highway system. The landfills were closed progressively over a ten -year period and have been replaced by transfer stations and public dumpsters. Waste from the former landfill site areas is now hauled to the Central Landfill for disposal. Table 3 -1 lists the closure dates of landfills in the Borough. TABLE 3.1 Matanuska Susitna Borough Landfill Closures Location Closure Date Eureka (Glenn Highway) 1984 Lake Louise (Glenn Highway) 1984 Sutton (Glenn Highway) 1984 Knik (Knik Road) 1984 Willow (George Parks Highway) 1985 Palmer Correction Center (Glenn Highway) 1986 Goose Bay Correction Center (Knik Road) 1986 Butte (Boddenburgh Butte Road) 1987 Gracious House (Denali Highway) 1990 Brushkana (Denali Highway) 1990 Talkeetna (George Parks Highway) 1991 Sunshine (George Parks Highway) 1991 Big Lake (Big Lake) 1992 Houston (George Parks Highway) 1993 5EA3100058663.D0C/021150012 3 -1 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES The closure of landfills met with public opposition in most cases, but environmental compliance problems and the high cost of maintaining a large number of small landfills forced the Borough to implement the closure program. Public opposition was quieted by the provision of suitable solid waste transfer station facilities at or near the former landfill sites. The Matanuska - Susitna Borough Solid Waste Disposal Study (Arctic Engineers, 1977), prepared by Arctic Environmental Engineers, found that the Eureka and Lake Louise Landfills were just as expensive to operate as a transfer station, but necessary landfill improvements and monitoring would make the landfills more expensive to operate in the future. Despite public opposition, the Borough closed these landfills in 1984 to save money and reduce the liability associated with open landfills. Transfer stations were established to replace landfills and have been found to be generally acceptable to the public. The Sutton Landfill was closed during the same time period. The site was difficult to access and had relatively high operational costs compared to the quantity of refuse material accumulated. The landfill was a "gulch fill," the availability of cover material was low, and the close proximity of bedrock and high groundwater table made expansion both difficult and costly. A transfer station located closer to the central population area was found to be more convenient and less costly to operate than the landfill. The Knik and Willow Landfills were closed in 1984 and 1985 due to litter problems, high maintenance costs, and environmental concerns. There was very little opposition to the closure of these landfills, and the current transfer stations appear to be more acceptable to the public. The Knik Landfill site is now a ball field. The state of Alaska closed the Palmer and Goose Bay Correction Center Landfills in 1986 because the cost of operating compliant landfills was too high. The landfills were closed before more costly federal closure requirements went into effect. The Borough closed the Butte Landfill in 1987 because of high operational costs and proximity to a public school. The potential of groundwater contamination was a concern, and the cost of a liner and leachate collection system was prohibitive. The Borough decided that it would be less expensive to close the landfill and replace it with a transfer station. There was a substantial amount of public opposition to the closure, but complaints disappeared soon after a suitable transfer station was installed. In 1990, the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated a program to close illegal dumps on federal land. Six dumps along the Denali Highway were closed; two were in the Matanuska- Susitna Borough (the Gracious House and Brushkana Dumps) and were never sanctioned by the Borough. There was no public opposition to these closures. A dumpster is provided by the Borough at the Gracious Road House during summer months, and the waste is hauled to the Central Landfill. The Talkeetna, Sunshine, and Big Lake Landfills were closed shortly after the Matanuska - Susitna Borough Solid Waste Management Plan Update (CH2M HILL, 1990) was released. The report indicated that operating these landfills was more expensive than operating transfer stations in their place. The landfills were closed before the more stringent federal landfill closure requirements went into effect. 3 -2 SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES The city of Houston was the last area of the Borough to come under the regional solid waste authority of the Borough. Until 1993, the city of Houston maintained its own landfill and was exempt from the Borough solid waste service fee. The two other cities, Palmer and Wasilla, are charged for solid waste services based on a formula that relates each city's valuation to the total assessed valuation in the Borough. Houston found it was financially unable to adequately maintain the landfill and that there were numerous environmental problems at the site. The city was cited several times by the ADEC for solid waste violations, and the landfill was ordered closed by the ADEC in the early 1990s. A transfer station is now provided for the community by the Borough, and the waste is hauled to the Central Landfill. The closure of dumps and landfills in the Borough has reduced the overall operating costs of solid waste management in the Borough and improved the environmental control of waste. Consolidating waste sites to one regional landfill has allowed the Borough to focus its attention and resources on upgrading the Central Landfill to meet current public health and environmental protection standards. 3.1.2 Small Remote Landfills Although the Borough has effectively reduced the number of landfills, new regulations now allow the development of small landfills in remote locations. In 1998, the state of Alaska developed three classes of landfills. Landfill receiving more than 20 tons per day of municipal waste on an annual average are categorized as Class I landfills. Smaller, remote landfills are classified as either Class II or Class III. To qualify as a Class II landfill, the facility must meet the following conditions: • Receive less than 20 tons daily of municipal solid waste (MSW) based on an annual average; and Be more than 50 miles from a Class I landfill if connected by road; and • Have interrupted surface access to a Class I landfill for at least three months per year; or • Receive 25 inches or less precipitation per year and have no practicable waste management alternative. To qualify as a Class III landfill, the facility must meet the following conditions: • Incinerate municipal waste and produce less than one ton of ash daily on an annual average; or • Receive less than five tons daily of municipal waste on an annual average; and • Is not located in a place where access is restricted, including restrictions on the right to move to the place and reside there or that is provided by an employer and that is populated totally by persons who are required to reside there as a condition of employment and who do not consider the place to be their permanent residence. Considering these criteria, a Class II landfill could be sited north of the Talkeetna turn-off along the George Parks Highway and west of the Matanuska Glacier along the Glenn SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 3 -3 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Highway. The population in these areas is small enough to fall under the waste generation limits. Small landfills located in these areas were closed by the Borough in the 1980s because they were difficult to control and expensive to operate. The Class II landfill regulations relax some of the design requirements but still require the landfills to be designed and operated in a manner that prevents groundwater pollution. Any new Class II landfill would have to be sited and designed to minimize the potential of groundwater contamination. The regulations also require establishing groundwater monitoring wells and routine monitoring. In addition, it is preferable to have an attendant on duty during operating hours to provide the level of control necessary to prevent pollution problems. The cost of providing this level of design, control, and monitoring is generally higher than locating a public dumpster at the site and hauling the waste to the Central Landfill. Because of higher pollution risks and higher costs, no new Class II landfills are recommended at this time. Smaller Class III landfills could be sited at more remote locations in the Borough. Class III landfills are most commonly associated with small villages, remote lodges, and camps. These remote landfills are most likely to be beyond the Borough's current solid waste collection and management system. The Skwentna Landfill is an example of a Class III landfill. The Borough should review all Class III landfill applications for consistency with the comprehensive solid waste management plan before granting approval. The Borough has the authority to review any Class III landfill application that fails to meet Borough requirements and ordinances. Although the ADEC is the permitting authority, they will not permit a landfill if it violates a local government ordinance or solid waste management plan. 3.1.3 Landfill Design Options Current federal and state regulations require sanitary landfills to be designed and operated in a manner that minimizes health threats and environmental pollution. To accomplish this goal, the regulations define siting restrictions, operational requirements, and design standards State regulations specify landfill design standards but also allow alternative designs if it can be demonstrated that the alternative design is capable of performing as well or better than the prescriptive design. The landfill design standards apply to all Class I landfills and may be applied to Class II and Class III landfills if there is sufficient potential that the landfill would pollute the groundwater or surface water without a liner system. The prescriptive liner system consists of a composite liner with a leachate collection system designed to keep the leachate head from exceeding 12 inches over the liner. The prescriptive composite liner consists of a flexible membrane liner (FML) installed on top of a compacted clay layer. The liner must be at least 30 mils thick unless it is made of high- density polyethylene (HDPE), which must be at least 60 mils thick. The compacted soil component layer must be at least two feet thick and must have a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x 10 -7 centimeters per second. Figure 3 -1 shows a cross - section of this liner system. 3 -4 SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 1 it Drainage Layer 2 -ft Compacted Clay Layer (permeability <_ 1x10 -5 cm/sec) Figure 3 -1 Prescriptive Liner System Matanuska - Susitna Borough vy> Leachate Collection Pipe Q oo ? !t Q '.: Leachate Collection Gravel 2 -ft Granular Drainage Material 80 -mil HDPE Liner Geosynthetic Clay Liner 6 -In Sand Leveling Course Prepared Subgrade Figure 3 -2 Central Landfill Cell 2B Bottom Liner System Matanuska - Susitna Borough SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES All future waste disposal cells at the Central Landfill must be constructed to these design standards; however, an alternative liner design was selected and approved for the first lined cell because the clay material required for the prescriptive liner system is not available. Instead of using the prescriptive two foot clay layer, a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) was selected. This GCL is only about one - quarter -inch thick but contains highly purified bentonite clay with a permeability much lower than the prescriptive clay. The permeability of the clay in the GCL is around 1 x 10 centimeters per second (cm /sec) as compared to 1 x 10 -7 cm /sec in the prescriptive clay layer. In addition, the FML selected for the Central Landfill consists of an 80 -mil, HDPE membrane, whereas the prescriptive liner requires a 60 -mil, HDPE liner. The Central Landfill liner system was demonstrated to be capable of performing better than the prescriptive liner system and was approved by the ADEC. Figure 3 -2 shows a cross - section of the selected liner for the Central Landfill. Another major design consideration for landfills is whether to operate it as a dry tomb or as a bioreactor. The prescriptive design is based on the dry-tomb concept whereby waste is sealed off from the environment in perpetuity. The concern with this concept is because it is designed to be a permanent design, the final cover and bottom liner may eventually leak. The other type of landfill design that is gaining popularity is the bioreactor landfill. A bioreactor landfill is operated to transform and stabilize the moderately decomposable waste within a time period of five to ten years. Although the bioreactor landfill is usually more expensive to construct and operate, there is less concern at closure because the waste has been stabilized so that it is less likely to cause a problem if the final cover or bottom liner leaks. In a bioreactor landfill, the natural biodegradation processes within the landfill are accelerated by recirculating the leachate back into the landfill. Leachate recirculation increases the moisture and nutrient content of the waste, which promotes anaerobic degradation. The organic degradation process produces methane gas, which can be recovered and used as a fuel for heating or power generation. The organic and inorganic content of the leachate is also lowered over time as organic component is transformed into methane and soluble inorganic compounds are precipitated into less soluble compounds. The end result is a stabilized waste mass that no longer produces explosive gas or highly contaminated leachate. Leachate recirculation is prohibited at unlined landfills; therefore, recirculation is not an option for previously unlined cells at the Central Landfill or other closed landfills in the Borough. Leachate recirculation is an option for future lined cells at the Central Landfill and is being contemplated as a viable option for landfill management in the future. 3.2 Transfer Station Alternatives This section evaluates the suitability of existing transfer station designs and locations and provides alternatives to consider. Public input concerning the suitability of existing facilities was factored into the evaluation. 3.2.1 Suitability of Locations Most Borough residents feel the location of existing transfer stations and public dumpsters is adequate. These facilities have evolved to their current locations in response to public 3-6 SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 3.3 Collection and Waste Hauling Alternatives SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES demand. The Borough has attempted to balance the cost of operation with convenience regarding the location and number of these facilities. Most transfer stations are located near population centers. Eight facilities are located at or near closed landfills. The former landfills were originally developed by the public in response to their disposal needs. An alternative disposal option was required when the landfills were closed. Placing transfer stations and public dumpsters have met that need. All four public dumpster sites (Gracious House, Igloo, Eureka, and Lake Louise) are located next to public establishments. This arrangement has worked well because staff at the businesses can keep a watch on the dumpsters and notify the Borough when they need to be emptied or maintained. Also, the dumpsters are good for the local business because users often stop in after dropping off their refuse at the dumpsters. Despite general public satisfaction with the current transfer station locations, the facilities are expensive to operate, and an evaluation of options to reduce costs is warranted. The following sections explore options to reduce costs and improve efficiency. This section addresses the feasibility of changing the existing collection and waste -haul system. The first option reviews the feasibility of hauling waste to the landfill closest from a transfer station. The second option evaluates the feasibility of using different transfer containers for the collection and hauling of waste. And the third option evaluates the feasibility of consolidating some of the existing transfer stations. 3.3.1 Closest Landfill Option The feasibility of hauling dumpsters located on the periphery of the Borough to closer landfills was evaluated. Table 3 -2 shows the hauling distance between the dumpster stations and Central Landfill as compared to the next closest landfill. This table shows that the Gracious House and Igloo Dumpster Stations are much closer to the Denali Borough Landfill than the Central Landfill. Likewise, the Lake Louise and Eureka Dumpster Stations are closer to the Glennallen Landfill. It is logical to assume that the cost would be less to haul the waste the shortest distance; however, this assumption was not found to be true. There are several factors that affect cost other than the haul distance. Higher hauling and disposal costs can make the shorter distance alternative more expensive. The Borough uses 40 -cy containers, whereas, adjacent haulers are only equipped to haul a maximum of 30 -cy containers. Using smaller containers requires more trips to the landfill, thereby increasing costs. Also, landfills outside of the Borough can charge an additional fee to accept waste outside their service area. This additional amount is commonly called a host fee and is often around five dollars per ton but can vary depending on the negotiated agreement between the Borough and the landfill owner. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that no host fee would be charged. Table 3 -3 compares costs to haul the waste to various landfills. Costs include both hauling and landfill disposal fees on an annual basis using year 2001 costs. SEA3100058663.DOC /021150012 3-T SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES TABLE 3.2 Dumpster Haul Distances Igloo Eureka Facility Facility TABLE 3.3 Comparison of Haul Costs (Dollars per Year) Gracious House Lake Louise Originating Site Originating Site To Central Landfill To Denali Borough Ton Per Year (Mlles) Landfill (Mlles) (Year 2000) Gracious House 228.3 125.9 Igloo 155.2 95.0 Trapper Creek 82.7 166.4 Sunshine 69.1 180.0 18 35 180 168 To Central Landfill To Glennallen Ton Per Year (Miles) Landfill (Miles) (Year 2000) $5,400 $9,000 $4,500 $11,000 $10,800 $14,000 $13,000 $15,000 Trips Per Year 9 18 50 51 Trips Per Year Lake Louise 132.9 47.6 102 29 Eureka 89.8 67.5 129 50 Long Rifle 63.7 93.6 83 29 Haul Costs to Central Landfill Haul Costs to Denali Landfill Haul Costs to Glennallen Haul Costs to Central Landfill Landfill There are factors, listed below, other than cost involved in hauling waste to other landfills that should also be considered: • Environmental protection • Liability • Host landfill capacity • Hauler licensing • Politics Hauling waste to smaller landfills outside the Matanuska - Susitna Borough may not provide the same level of environmental protection as provided by the Central Landfill. The Central 3 -8 SEA3100058663.00C1021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Landfill is a well - maintained facility with several environmental protection controls. Future expansion areas of the Central Landfill will have a liner and leachate collection system. Both the Denali and Glennallen landfills are unlined landfills; however, they are permitted and have an acceptable environmental compliance record. Taking waste to another landfill increases the liability to the Borough. If environmental problems were to occur at either the Denali or Glennallen landfills, the Matanuska - Susitna Borough could be partially liable for clean-up costs if these landfills contain waste from the Borough. The level of liability is usually limited by the proportional amount of waste contributed by Borough. The quantity of waste from the Borough would only contribute a few percent of the landfill total waste quantity at the Denali or Glennallen landfills; therefore, liability may be limited. Host landfills would need to evaluate the impact of receiving additional waste on their overall capacity. The Denali Borough Landfill is a Class II facility and is limited to accepting less than 20 tons per day on an annual average. The Glennallen Landfill is a Class III facility and is limited to accepting 5 tons per day or less on an annual average. Exceeding these limits would require the facility to be upgraded to meet Class I or Class II standards, respectively. An upgrade would be costly and likely result in higher tipping fees. The haulers in the Denali Borough and Glennalien area are currently not licensed to collect waste in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Hauling certificates were issued by the Alaska Public Utility Commission (this agency was eliminated in 1999 and has been replaced by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska). Commission staff indicated that certificates could be revised to include the satellite dumpsters if desired by the Borough and if such a change would be in the best interest of the public. Also, if the haulers were contracted by the Borough, then it may not be necessary to revise the haul certificates. There are also political issues related to hauling waste to landfills outside of the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Some Borough residents have complained that the dumpster is the only tangible service in their area provided by the Borough. There have been some attempts by local residents to secede from the Borough. Hauling waste to a closer landfill could align local residents to that community rather than the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. However, it should be kept in mind that the Matanuska - Susitna Borough would still be providing the solid waste service and paying the costs. The Denali Borough does not provide public dumpsters in the Broad Pass or Denali Highway corridor; therefore, redistricting the Denali Borough to include Igloo or Gracious House would leave the area without solid waste services. The Glennallen area is outside a Borough and no solid waste services are provided by local government. In summary, although the haul distance from the Lake Louise and Eureka Dumpster Stations to the Glennallen Landfill is shorter than to the Central Landfill, the costs are higher. Also, hauling the waste to the Central Landfill may be a better environmental altemative than taking the waste to the Glennalien Landfill. Likewise, it is less expensive to haul waste in 40 -cy containers to the Central Landfill from Igloo and Gracious House than in the smaller 30 -cy containers to the Denali Borough Landfill. SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 3 -9 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 3.3.2 Alternative Transfer Containers Using different transfer containers affects the operating cost at the transfer stations. The largest cost associated with transfer facilities is the cost to haul the waste to the landfill. Compacting waste into the containers or using larger containers can reduce the haul frequency, which in turn reduces costs. The cost of modifying the receiving stations and ease of use to the public must be considered when evaluating these options. Dumpster compactor units are currently available that cost around $20,000. To install these units, it would be necessary to redesign the transfer station so that customers could drop waste into a hopper that would direct the waste into the compaction chamber. Site work and power hookup is estimated to cost an additional $10,000. Annual maintenance costs are anticipated to be about $1,000 per year. This option has both advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that almost twice as much waste can be compacted into a dumpster, thereby reducing the number of haul trips in half. However, there are several disadvantages. Compacted waste tends to freeze to the containers in winter months and may be difficult to empty at the landfill. The problem with stuck waste has been a particular problem with restaurants in Anchorage, and many of them have moved their compactor dumpsters inside a heated portion of their buildings. The stuck -waste problem is not as prevalent with department stores because the waste is drier than that generated at restaurants. Most waste received at the transfer stations is relatively dry; however, there is no way to predict or prevent high- moisture waste from being received at the transfer stations. Another problem with waste compaction is that it could cause the containers to exceed the road weight limit. There are no scales at the transfer stations; therefore, there is currently no way to monitor the weight of the containers. Adding a compactor unit also increases the complexity and expense of operating the transfer stations. Currently, the sites are very basic with very little to go wrong. A breakdown in the compactor could render the facility inoperable. Based on the above discussion, compactor units are not recommended at the existing transfer stations at this time. Potential problems outweigh the advantages of compactor systems. Using larger containers, such as 120 -cy, walking -floor transfer trailers, can save hauling costs by reducing the number of trips. However, there must be a sufficient quantity of waste such that the containers are emptied weekly. Odor and wildlife attraction can become a problem if the waste accumulates more than a week. For this reason, the larger 120 -cy containers are not recommended for sites that receive less than 1,000 tons per year. The Big Lake and Butte facilities are the only facilities that receive more than 1,000 tons per year; however, consolidation of other transfer sites could yield enough waste to justify the larger collection trailers. 3.3.3 Transfer Station Consolidation The economics of the existing transfer stations and public use patterns were evaluated to determine the feasibility of consolidating some of the existing transfer stations. Table 3 -4 shows the number of customers, amount of revenue collected from customers, the number of container haul trips, total weight of waste delivered to the Central Landfill from the transfer station, and the dollar per ton equivalent for the facility. Although the same amount is charged per customer at each transfer station, the amount per ton works out different for 3 -10 SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES each site. This discrepancy is because customers are charged per vehicle load rather than by weight. The transfer stations do not have scales; therefore, it is not possible to charge by weight. The dollars per ton rate was calculated by dividing the revenue by the total tonnage. No fee is collected at the public dumpster stations; therefore, the revenue is zero for these facilities. The Long Rifle Dumpster Station is run differently than the other dumpsters. The Borough pays the landowner where the dumpster is located $200 per month and 15 percent of the revenue collected for use of their property and operational services. TABLE 3.4 Transfer Station Usage and Revenue (Year 2000 Dollars) Effective Site Customer Count Revenue Container Hauls Weight (Tons) Revenue ($ per ton) Big Lake 26,764 $176,622.00 461 4,884.26 $36.16 Butte 7,923 $56,933.00 141 1,541.13 $36.94 Eureka No Count $0 50 129.27 $0.00 Gracious House No Count $0 9 17.98 $0.00 Igloo No Count $0 18 35.47 $0.00 Lake Louise No Count $0 29 102.00 $0.00 Long Rifle No Count $3,000.00 29 82.91 $36.18 Sunshine 859 $7,626.00 51 168.32 $45.31 Sutton 2,609 $15,142.00 145 467.74 $32.37 Talkeetna 4,027 $28,888.00 197 621.22 $46.50 Trapper Creek 1,036 $7,965.00 50 179.84 $44.29 Willow 4,336 $30,933.00 241 790.04 $39.15 Total 47,554 $324,109.00 1,421 9,020.18 $35.93 Central Landfill 87,791 $1,710,369.18 1,258 37,513.49 $45.59 Total 135,345 $2,034,478.18 2,679 46,533.67 $43.72 The revenue objective of the solid waste management program is to collect $50 per ton of waste to pay for solid waste services. Based on a comparison of revenue versus tonnage, it is apparent that this objective is not being met. Furthermore, when the costs associated with running the transfer stations and public dumpsters is factored in, they provide less than half the revenue needed to pay for themselves. Table 3 -5 shows the costs associated with running the transfer stations and dumpsters. Raising fees to cover costs is not likely to achieve the desired goal of providing adequate waste management facilities. Fees would be rather high and may not be accepted by the public. High fees could lead to increased illegal dumping and unsanitary storage of waste. There is no practical way to charge for disposal at the public dumpsters. It often costs more SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 3 -11 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES to serve the outer areas of a utility service district. To address this situation, many utility providers equalize costs by subsidizing higher cost areas with revenue generated by core area users. The Alaska Power Cost Equalization Program is an example where municipal rate payers are charged a fee that is used to lower rural power costs to an acceptable level. It is recommended that the core population areas of the Borough continue to subsidize the costs of rural waste collection so that affordable service is provided. TABLE 3.5 Transfer Stations and Dumpsters Revenue Balance Sheet (Year 2000 Dollars) Site Big Lake Butte Eureka Gracious House Igloo Lake Louise Long Rifle Sunshine Sutton Talkeetna Trapper Creek Willow Total Revenue Per Year $176,622 $56,933 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $7,626 $15,142 $28,888 $7,965 $30,933 $327,109 Hauling Costs (Cost Per Year) $60,004 $13,764 $12,900 $5,400 $4,500 $10,756 $5,612 $5,513 $14,631 $38,783 $12,203 $47,053 $231,118 Labor (Cost Per Year) $58,240 $41,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,960 $24,960 $41,600 $24,960 $41,600 $257,920 Utilities, Lease and Maintenance $6,000 $6,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $2,850 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $9,000 $6,000 $60,850 Disposal Cost Total Net ($17 Per Ton) Revenue 83,032 26,199 2,198 306 603 1,734 1,409 2,861 7,952 10,561 3,057 13,431 153,343 - $30,654 - $30,631 - $17,098 - $7,706 - $7,103 - $16,490 -$6,571 - $31,709 - $38,400 - $68,056 - $41,255 - $77,151 4373,122 Consolidation is the most economical way of reducing costs while still providing adequate collection service. Removing dumpsters in the fringe areas is likely to leave large gaps in collection service and is not recommended. However, transfer stations in the Sunshine, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek area are relatively close together and could be consolidated. The Borough owns some property near the intersection of the George Parks Highway and the Talkeetna Spur Road. Various locations are available for a consolidated site. Figure 3 -3 shows the approximate location of existing transfer stations and a potential location for a consolidated transfer station. The consolidated site would be within reasonable distance of all three current facilities. Table 3 -6 shows the distance from each transfer station to the intersection. By consolidating the three transfer stations, the Borough could switch from the smaller 40 -cy containers to the larger 120 -cy walking floor transfer trailers that are currently used at Butte and Big Lake. Using the larger containers reduces hauling costs because one truck driver can haul three times as much waste in the same amount of time it takes to haul a 40 -cy container. Assuming that about 100 round trips would be required per year based on the quantity of waste, at a cost of $150 per trip, the annual hauling cost would be $15,000. Current hauling costs for the three facilities is $56,500 per year. Less labor and maintenance would be required to run one transfer station compared to three. Table 3 -7 shows the costs 3-12 SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 TABLE 3.6 Distance From Transfer Stations to Talkeetna -Parks Intersection Trapper Creek Talkeetna Sunshine Transfer Station TABLE 3.7 Comparison of Transfer Station Operation and Maintenance Costs SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES of operating the three transfer stations compared with operating one station five days per week for eight hours per day. Distance to Talkeetna -Parks Highway Intersection (Miles) 18.0 13.5 4.0 Site Hauling Costs Labor Utilities and Disposal Cost Total Cost (Cost Per Year) (Cost Per Year) Maintenance ($17 Per Ton) Sunshine $5,513 $24,960 $6,000 2,861 39,355 Talkeetna $38,783 $41,600 $6,000 7,952 94,335 Trapper Creek $12,203 $24,960 $9,000 10,561 56,724 Total Transfer Station $56,499 $91,520 $21,000 21,374 190,393 O &M Costs Total Consolidated $15,000 $41,600 $9,000 21,374 86,974 Facility O &M Costs Operation and maintenance costs can be reduced by about $100,000 per year by consolidating the Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, and Sunshine Transfer Stations into one facility located near the intersection of the Talkeetna Junction. Although it is recognized that this will inconvenience some, it will save a substantial amount of money and still provide a disposal facility within a reasonable travel distance to most customers. The capital costs of constructing a new transfer station the size of Big Lake or Butte is estimated to be about $150,000 in year 2001 dollars. The estimated life of the facility is about 15 to 20 years. The annual amortized cost at 3 percent annual interest rate for 15 years is $12,565. The cost of a new 120 -cy transfer trailer is $60,000 in year 2001 dollars. Assuming that two trailers would be needed and their life is seven years, the annual amortized cost would be $19,261. The combined capital cost amortized over the life of the facility is about $31,800. In addition, there would be salvage value for the dumpsters, fencing, and operator sheds at the transfer stations that would close. To simplify this estimate, the salvage value can be estimated to be approximately the cost of closing the transfer stations. The amortized cost of constructing a new transfer station is substantially less than the operations and maintenance cost savings of consolidating the three transfer stations. Therefore, even considering capital construction costs, the consolidation of the Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, and Sunshine transfer stations will save the borough money. 8EA3100058663.DOCIO21150012 3 -13 Pel Trapper Creek trnnsfersites 13 -1 Awn -0 - N Potentia ei Consolidated Transfer Statio Talkeetna • Talkeetna Transfer Station 1" = 2 MILES (go Montana Figure 3 -3 Transfer Station Consolidation Matanuska - Susitna Borough SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Other cost savings could be achieved by closing the Butte and Big Lake Transfer Stations. Butte is only ten miles to the Central Landfill, and Big Lake Transfer Station is about 18.2 miles to the Central Landfill. However, these facilities have a much larger customer base than the Talkeetna area facilities, and closing them would affect waste receiving facilities at the Central Landfill. The Big Lake Transfer Station received over 26,000 customers, and the Butte Transfer Station received almost 8,000 customers in the year 2000, compared to less than 6,000 customers from Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and Sunshine Transfer Stations combined. Waste- receiving facilities at the Central Landfill would have to accommodate over 35,000 additional customers per year if the Big Lake and Butte Transfer Stations were closed. The Central Landfill currently receives about 88,000 customers per year. Adding almost half again as many customers without modifying the existing receiving facilities could cause delays at the scalehouse and increase traffic congestion at the drop -off area. Another factor to consider in consolidating transfer stations is the political and environmental impacts on the community. Many residents complained strongly when the Big Lake and Butte Landfills were closed. The Borough established transfer stations at these locations in response to public demands. In addition, these sites have played an important role in providing convenient disposal facilities that have been instrumental in public efforts to clean up neighborhood areas. For these reasons, closing the Big Lake and Butte Transfer Stations is not recommended at this time. The Borough could encourage customers with large loads to haul their waste directly to the Central Landfill by charging a higher fee at the transfer stations. Increasing the fee from $5 per yard to $8 per yard would more closely match actual transfer station costs. This price increase would also encourage customers with large loads to haul their waste directly to the Central Landfill where gate fees would be less. In addition, this price differential would encourage commercial haulers to deliver their loads to the Central Landfill rather than the transfer stations. The minimal fees of $1 per bag and $5 per passenger car (with less than one cy of waste) could remain the same to provide household customers with reasonably low cost service. 3.4 Waste Reduction Processing Technologies Waste processing before disposal takes time, costs money, and is usually kept to a minimum unless there are clear environmental or economic benefits. Waste processing is commonly performed for the following reasons: • Prevent hazardous wastes from entering the landfill • Divert wastes for recycling • Separate large bulky items from the municipal wastestream for more efficient processing • Reduce the volume of waste (incineration or baling) 3.4.1 Waste Screening The Borough already inspects incoming loads for hazardous and prohibited items and provides alternative disposal options for some prohibited wastes. Prohibited items, if observed by staff, are not accepted for disposal in the landfill. Additional waste sorting to SEA3100058663.00C1021150012 3 -15 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES remove prohibited items is not cost - effective and presents safety hazards. The Borough will continue to focus on preventing prohibited items from entering the wastestream rather than processing the waste to remove them. Hazardous waste screening at the transfer stations and Central Landfill will continue to minimize the amount of prohibited items entering the landfill. Also, hazardous waste screening is a permit requirement and is performed to minimize environmental problems associated with improper disposal of hazardous waste. Removing materials from the wastestream for recycling is a form of waste processing. The relatively high cost and inherent dangers involved in sifting through mixed municipal waste makes this form of processing undesirable. It is much more efficient to separate recyclables out at their source rather than try to recover them from the mixed waste. Recycling options are discussed in more detail in the following section. 3.4.2 Inert Waste Processing The Borough has established a separate disposal cell for relatively inert bulky C &D debris. Keeping this material separate from the municipal wastestream saves space in the municipal waste cell and improves the efficiency of landfill operations. Procedures for operating the different cells are described in the Central Landfill Operating and Maintenance Plan (CH2M HILL 2000). Customers are encouraged to source separate Large bulky items from municipal waste. Only limited waste processing, when practical and economical, will occur at the transfer stations and landfill to separate materials for the different disposal cells. The Borough will rely on source separation as the primary method of keeping the two wastestreams separate. Economic incentives, such as lower tipping fees for inert waste, will encourage the public to separate waste types at their source. 3.4.3 Baling Compacting waste into bales is a common waste - processing method used to reduce the waste volume. The option of baling waste was addressed in detail in the Central Landfill Twenty -Year Operation and Development Master Plan (CH2M HILL, 1996). The evaluation indicated that the capital costs of building a baler facility was $2 to $3 million higher than constructing facilities for a conventional landfill; however, these higher costs were eventually balanced out by saving landfill space through better compaction and less cover material usage with bales. Measurements taken at the Fairbanks North Star Borough in the late 1990s found that baled waste expanded within a day after placement in the Fairbanks Landfill and the waste was no more compact than could be achieved with a steel wheel compactor. Based on this information, there may be no significant space savings due to baling other than less cover material is required than open area fill methods. Without the space savings, a baler facility is likely to be more expensive in the long run than a conventional area fill method. The advantages of a baler facility is that it could reduce the amount of wind blown litter and could also be used to sort and bale recyclables. There are currently twelve communities in Alaska that bale waste; most of these communities are relatively small (under 8,000 people). In addition, most of these communities are located in areas where the weather makes it difficult to operate efficiently outdoors. At these small communities, better waste control and compaction is achieved by processing the waste inside a building with a baler than attempting to compact with waste outside with a compactor vehicle. Also, a small baler is less expensive than a steel - wheeled 3 -16 5EA3100058663.D0C/021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES compactor. The advantages of baling diminish as the amount of waste increases because it is time consuming to process Large volumes of waste through a baler. The Fairbanks North Star Borough operated a baler through the 1980s, but discontinued its use in the late 1990s because greater operational efficiency was achieved by compacting waste in the open face of the landfill with a steel wheeled compactor. The population of the Fairbanks North Star Borough is around 84,000 and generates too much waste to process efficiently through a baler. The largest facility processing waste with a baler in Alaska is the Central Peninsula Baling Facility that serves the communities of Soldotna, Kenai, Seward, and the areas between; this facility serves a population of about 46,000. Although this facility works well, it is questionable whether it would be feasible to operate at a significantly higher throughput. The baler at this facility requires more maintenance than other smaller facilities due to its higher throughput. The Kenai Peninsula Borough plans to stop baling municipal waste when a new lined cell is constructed in 2004. The population served by the Central Landfill is about 60,000; therefore, a baler larger than the one used at the Central Peninsula Baling Facility would be needed at the Central Landfill. Another alternative would be to install two balers. Using a larger baler or installing two balers would make this option more expensive than the current operation. The most significant benefit of the baler option is that it could help minimize windblown litter and could reduce the amount of cover material used. However, due to the disadvantages discussed above, a baler is not recommended for municipal waste processing. 3.4.4 Incineration Incineration is another method of waste processing to reduce waste volume. Several small communities and a few large communities incinerate waste in Alaska. Small incinerators with a rated capacity at less than 1,000 pounds per hour capacity are exempt from many of the emission monitoring requirements. The lack of tight emission controls makes small incinerators a feasible option for communities that generate less than a few tons of waste per day. However, larger facilities must meet more stringent emission requirements, which significantly increase operation costs. In addition, the capital cost of building a large incinerator with pollution controls is in the millions of dollars. For these reasons, it is usually not economical to incinerate municipal waste at medium -sized communities (more than 1,000 people) unless landfill space is extremely limited. Incineration can be economically viable at very large communities (over one million in population) due to the economies of scale. Incineration has been a viable option in Southeast Alaska where landfill space is extremely limited. Juneau, Sitka, and Skagway currently incinerate their waste. Their tipping fees are also some of the highest in the state. For example, the tipping fee in Juneau is $140 per ton compared to $50 per ton at the Central Landfill. In addition to high costs, large incinerators must also go through a lengthy permitting process. It took the North Slope Borough over three years to get the Barrow incinerator permitted after construction was completed. Other communities have experienced similar delays. Costly air emission monitoring is also required. Large municipal waste incinerators are required to install continuous emission monitors for various parameters. This monitoring adds substantially to the cost of the operation. Air monitoring costs are typically over $30,000 per year. SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 3-17 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES The operation of an incinerator also requires trained staff and routine maintenance. The level of training is usually higher than that required for regular landfill operation. Maintenance costs vary, but are usually significantly higher than routine maintenance of landfill equipment. It is estimated that incineration cost will greatly exceed the value of landfill space saved at the Central Landfill; therefore, incineration is not recommended at this time. Although incineration can reduce the volume of waste by about 70 percent of the total wastestream, the landfill space savings at the Central Landfill will not be great enough to balance the high cost of incineration. However, a small (under 1,000 pounds per hour capacity) incinerator suitable for animal cremation is recommended. Incineration is the preferred method of destruction of diseased animals and pathogenic material from the adjacent animal shelter. Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 animals are dispatched each year. Currently, staff must hand - place the animals in a designated cell, and the landfill operators must cover the carcasses immediately. Although this is an acceptable method of disposal, incineration could save staff time and provide better protection against the spread of animal diseases. A unit such as the Therm-Tec G -6 -P with a batch load capacity of 800 pounds is recommended. A unit of this size costs about $30,000, and shipping and start-up would cost another $5,000. Service and operator training is available through Combustion and Control, Inc. out of Anchorage. A concrete slab and building extension for the unit is estimated to be an additional $15,000. Total costs for an installed unit is around $50,000. Natural gas usage is estimated to be about $10 per operating day. Annual maintenance is estimated to be about $3,000 to $4,000 per year. Labor to run the incinerator is estimated to be the same or less than is currently spent disposing the animal carcasses in the landfill. A small incinerator was recently installed at the Animal Control Facility adjacent to the Central Landfill. The incinerator is expected to be operational by May 2002. An additional benefit to incineration is that the Borough could provide pet cremation services to the public. Borough staff at the animal shelter receive numerous requests to cremate pets each year, but that service currently is unavailable in the Borough. Typical service fees in the continental United States for private cremations range from $50 to $175 per pet and usually vary depending on the size of the animal. Cremation services are available in Anchorage at Harthaven for similar fees. The collection of fees for private pet cremations at the Animal Shelter could help offset operating costs and provide the public with a needed service. 3.5 Waste Reduction and Recycling Encouraging the public to reduce and recycle waste is an integral component of the Borough's solid waste management plan. Alaska Statute 46.06.021 directs the ADEC to minimize present and future threats to human health and the environment by promoting solid -waste management practices in the following order of priority: 1. Waste source reduction. Reduce the amount of waste produced. 2. Waste recycling. Reuse, separate, and recover materials and energy from waste. 318 SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 3. Waste treatment process. Treat the waste to reduce harmful characteristics or the volume of the waste. 4. Waste disposal. Dispose of waste following state and federal regulations designed to protect public health and the environment. In keeping with this waste management strategy, the solid waste renewal permit for the Central Landfill requires the Borough to incorporate this strategy in the Boroughwide solid waste management plan. 3.5.1 Waste Reduction Local government can play a role in waste reduction by providing an economic incentive to reduce waste. The Borough started charging a disposal ( "tipping ") fee at the Central Landfill and transfer stations in 1993. Waste generation records show a sudden decrease in the waste generation rate shortly after the tipping fee was instituted. Charging customers on a weight basis encourages waste reduction. Commercial haulers are weighed -in at the Central Landfill and are charged on a weight basis. Also, businesses and residents are charged for the size and number of dumpsters and garbage cans. Cost savings can be realized if the number and size of refuse containers needed can be reduced. Charging all customers on a weight basis would generate more revenue and provide customers with additional incentives to reduce waste. Currently, residential customers in cars and pick -up trucks are charged a flat fee. Loads over 1,000 pounds are charged by the per ton rate at the Central Landfill. Loads over one cy are charged on a volume basis at the transfer stations, but volumes are just estimated rather than measured. Although this is a fair method of charging most customers, some people take advantage of this situation and haul in very heavy loads in their personal vehicles and are only charged by the per vehicle rate. Charging residential customers by weight rather than a flat fee or volume estimate could provide an additional incentive for residents to reduce waste. Many landfill owners in other states weigh all vehicles coming and going through the gate and charge by the per ton rate. In King County, Washington, a bar code card is issued to each customer with the gross weight coded on the card. The customer hands the card back to the scalehouse attendant when leaving, and the net weight along with the amount owed is calculated by the scale system computer almost instantly. This system works reasonably well with minimal delays. Installing scales at the larger transfer stations (Big Lake and Butte) would be economical. For example, the effective rate charged at the Big Lake Transfer Station is $36 per ton, as determined by dividing the total revenue collected by the total tonnage. If the Borough had charged the full $50 per ton rate, they would have collected an additional $68,376 at Big Lake in the year 2000. The cost of installing a 30- foot -long scale is about $40,000 to $50,000; therefore, installing a scale at Big Lake would pay for itself in less than a year. Installing a scale at Butte would generate an additional $20,000 per year based on a fee of $50 per ton, and would pay for itself within about two years. Charging all customers by weight may be considered a rate hike by some. However, this system is fair because it treats all customers equally. Also, it eliminates the ambiguity of SEA3100058663.DOCIO21150012 3 -19 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES attempting to estimate volumes. Any rate change will require approval by the Borough assembly. Increasing disposal fees can encourage more waste reduction; however, if fees are too high it may also encourage illegal dumping and unsanitary accumulation of waste on private property. Cities with high waste reduction and recycling rates typically have high disposal rates. For example, the disposal fee in Seattle is about $96 per ton. Over half this fee supports nondisposal activities, such as composting, recycling, and hazardous waste management. This fee system works well in a large city because there are few places to hide waste and a strong enforcement program exists to prohibit illegal dumping. An elevated disposal fee system is not likely to work as well in the Borough because there are many places to illegally dump waste and an effective enforcement program to apprehend and prosecute persons involved in unlawful dumping would be difficult and expensive to maintain. Therefore, using high disposal fees as an incentive to reduce waste and encourage recycling must be exercised with caution in the Borough. There are several factors other than cost that affect the rate of waste generation. The following are three types of waste reduction identified by the National Recycling Coalition: • Incidental waste reduction • Prediscard recycling systems • Source reduction Incidental waste reduction occurs as a result of environmental conditions or economic trends. For example, a decline in the economy results in lower consumption of consumer goods because of less available income. Incidental reduction caused by weather includes mild winters that result in fewer waste products related to storm damage and fewer by- products of power and heat generation. Clearly, incidental waste reduction factors are just as likely to create waste as to reduce them and are beyond the control of waste managers. Prediscard recycling captures materials before they enter the wastestream. For example, return- for - deposit systems promote repeated use of glass, barrels, and other containers. Salvage yards in the Borough accept junk vehicles and resell used automobile parts, keeping them out of the wastestream Many grocery and department stores bale their cardboard and ship it back through their distribution system rather than discharging it into the wastestream. Source reduction is any action that avoids creation of waste by reducing waste at its source. National Recycling Coalition breaks this concept down into two smaller categories: • Waste exchange • Reduced material use A waste exchange is a situation in which one person's trash becomes another person's resource. Information about waste exchange options is discussed in the following section on waste reuse. Reduced material use may be accomplished in many ways. Examples include making bottles from thinner glass, substituting durable items for single -use items, and purchasing 3 -20 5EA3100058663.00C/021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES easily repairable appliances. The following are ways in which consumers can reduce the amount of waste produced: • Purchase items in bulk that require less packaging or select products that come with less packaging • Purchase more durable items that require less frequent replacement • Repair items when possible, rather than replace them • Change work processes, equipment, or procedures to produce less waste Another practice that falls under the description of source reduction is product substitution that results in the production of fewer hazardous waste products. The use of less toxic cleaners is a good example of this practice. Hazardous waste reduction can reduce waste management costs by reducing special waste - handling needs and special containment requirements. Environmental clean -up of hazardous waste is often a waste - generating activity because the spread of contamination increases the volume of waste material; therefore, minimizing hazardous waste may reduce secondary waste production. 3.5.2 Waste Reuse Encouraging people to reuse materials rather than dispose of them in the landfill can also extend the life of the landfill. Waste materials can either be reused for their original purpose or consumed for another purpose. For example, pallets can be collected and redistributed to shippers needing pallets. An example of a waste product being used for another purpose includes the reuse of used oil from a collection center as a fuel for heating buildings. Waste exchanges may be formally set up by the Borough or citizens' groups, or they may be informal agreements between individuals or companies. Businesses and residents may utilize the Alaska Materials Exchange (AME) program to locate users of some wastestream materials. The AME publishes a catalog and lists materials that are available or wanted. This service lists materials at no charge to the generator. To list a material in the AME catalog, write or call: The Alaska Materials Exchange Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Compliance Assistance Office 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269 -7586 (telephone) (907) 269 -7600 (facsimile) An on -line version of the AME catalog can be accessed through the ADEC Compliance Assistance Program Environmental Assistance Center web page at http: / /www.state.ak.us /dec /dsps /. Large - quantity wastes are some of the most obvious targets for waste source reduction and reuse. These wastes include C &D wastes, paper products, brush and yard waste, and scrap metal. Waste types produced in smaller quantities can also be targeted for waste reuse, but the overall reduction in waste going to the landfill will be less. SEA3100058663D0C/021150012 3 -21 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Wood waste is prime wastestream that can be targeted for reduction and reuse. Wood waste is estimated to constitute about eight percent by weight and volume of the total wastestream. Several programs could be developed to help divert wood waste from the landfill. For example, a wood salvage area near the landfill could be used to stockpile reusable wood. Also, a wood pallet exchange would allow shippers that end up with more pallets than they need to give them to businesses that need pallets. The Borough is currently considering developing a reuse area at the C &D cell. The Borough does not accept junk vehicles at the landfill and encourages private businesses to recycle automobile parts and ship out scrap metal for recycling. The resale of used automobile parts is practiced by several businesses in the Borough. Developing waste exchange centers at the transfer stations and landfills is also a viable option that several residents have indicated they would like to see. Many people miss the days when they could pick through the landfills that are currently closed. A waste exchange center is a controlled operation that accepts usable waste items from the public before they are mixed with the waste Each item is usually tagged with the date it is received and held for a limited time, usually less than three months. If the item is not taken within the specified time period, it is disposed of. Items can either be sold or given away. These centers are particularly economical for the re- distribution of household hazardous waste items, such as household cleaners, paints, pesticides, solvents, and other wastes that are expensive for the Borough to dispose of. These facilities must be limited and carefully managed to prevent a junk yard appearance and uncontrolled scavenging. Discussions with operators at the Denali Borough and Fairbanks North Star Borough Transfer Stations indicate that the waste exchange programs have worked well. The operators soon develop a sense for things people want and avoid collecting items people rarely reuse. The Matanuska - Susitna Borough is planning to develop a reuse center at the Central Landfill in the future. The reuse center will initially focus on household hazardous waste, but may be expanded to include other waste if successful. 3.5.3 Product Stewardship As a general concept, product stewardship is defined as a product- centered approach to environmental protection that calls on all those in the product life cycle, such as designers, manufacturers, retailers, users, and waste managers, to share in the responsibility and costs for reducing the adverse environmental impacts of products. The following recommendations regarding product stewardship are adapted from a policy paper developed by the Solid Waste Association of North America. Product stewardship calls on product manufacturers to take on new responsibilities to reduce the adverse impact of their products and to include the costs of reuse, recycling or disposal in the price of the product. However, all participants in a product life cycle including retailers, consumers and waste managers have important roles to play working in cooperation with product manufacturers to develop the most workable and cost - effective solutions. Government legislators and regulators have the important role of establishing policies and programs to encourage product stewardship. It is in the best interest of federal, state, and local governments, industries, environmental groups, and consumers to reduce the adverse impacts of consumer products. To achieve this 3 -22 SEA3100058683.D0C/021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES result, product stewardship efforts aim to encourage manufacturers to take increasing responsibility to reduce the entire life -cycle impacts of a product and its packaging — energy and materials consumption, air and water emissions, the amount of potential pollutants in the product, worker safety, and waste disposal —in product design and in the end -of -life management of the products they produce. The responsibility for reducing product impacts should be shared among industry (designers, manufacturers, and retailers of products or product components), government, and consumers. The greater the ability an entity or person has to minimize a product's life - cycle impacts, the greater is its degree of responsibility, and opportunity, for addressing those impacts. Under an all encompassing product stewardship approach, all product lifecycle costs – from using resources, to reducing health and environmental impacts throughout the production process, to managing products at the end of life – would be included in the total product cost. Policies that promote and implement product stewardship principles should create incentives for the manufacturer to design and produce products that are made using less energy, materials, and potential pollutants, and which result in less waste (through reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting) and use less energy to operate. These policies should also create incentives for the development of a sustainable and environmentally - sound system to collect, reuse, and recycle or dispose of products at the end of their lives. There are several examples of manufacturers and retailers practicing product stewardship. Several automotive retailers will take -back used batteries and various auto parts when purchasing new items. The used batteries and parts are sent back to manufacturers and used to make new products. Another example of product stewardship includes paint retailers that take -back left over paint and recondition it for reuse. Those that are responsible for reducing the impacts of products should have flexibility in determining how to most effectively address those impacts. The performance of responsible parties shall be measured by the achievement of goal- oriented results. Voluntary stewardship programs should be encouraged and facilitated. In any case, timelines should be reasonable and achievable so that new methods for managing materials are in place before restrictions are placed on the old ones. The Matanuska - Susitna Borough has solid waste management powers and therefore should focus primarily on the solid waste management aspects product stewardship. Of primary concern are those products that, due to the materials they contain or other characteristics, require special collection, handling, recycling or disposal procedures, that are different from conventional solid waste management practices. Increasing disposal fees for wastes that require special handling and expense to dispose of provides an economic incentive for businesses and consumers to practice product stewardship. In some cases retailers are unaware that products they sell can be difficult or expensive to dispose of. An education program about problem wastes and the costs of disposal may encourage consumers and retailers to change their consumer preferences and minimize the generation of these wastes. SEA3100058663.00CIO21150012 3-23 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 3.5.4 Recycling There are two primary goals of recycling: (1) conserve resources and (2) save landfill space. Recycling helps conserve resources by reusing waste materials for manufacturing commodities rather than consuming virgin materials. Conserving resources also reduces environmental impacts from resource extraction. Saving landfill space increases the time period that the designated 620 acre Central Landfill reserve is available for waste disposal. Finding a new area for waste disposal in the Borough is likely to be costly and controversial; therefore, it is beneficial to make the site last as long as possible. Other benefits of recycling can include new business start-ups, job creation, lower cost products from recycled materials, and new products from recycled materials that were formerly unavailable. For consistency with national standards, this evaluation uses definitions and metrics published in the EPA manual titled Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments, September 1997 (EPA 530 -R -97 -011). For counting purposes, certain types of waste are not considered MSW; however, this plan will consider the feasibility of recycling certain types of nonmunicipal waste as well as MSW. Under EPA guidelines, the following wastes are not included under MSW recycling rates: • Backyard composting • Industrial waste • Farm waste (manure, crop waste, silage, etc.) • C &D waste (asphalt, concrete, wood, etc.) • Landclearing debris (stumps, peat, bark, brush, small timber, etc.) • Junk vehicles and other transportation equipment • Sludge from water and wastewater treatment • Used motor oil The feasibility of recycling an item depends on a variety of factors. To effectively recycle an item it must be present in sufficient quantity and form to warrant the effort to extract it from the wastestream and it must have sufficient value to recover the costs associated with the effort of recycling. The MSW materials that currently have reasonably good market value for recycling and are relatively easy to separate from the wastestream include: • Old corrugated cardboard (OCC) • Used aluminum beverage cans (UBC) • Old newspaper (ONP) • Mixed paper • Other nonferrous metals • Lead -acid batteries Other materials that may be feasible to recycle include the following: 3 -24 SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 • Glass • Tires SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES • Appliances • Wood products (dimensional lumber, pallets, furniture, etc.) • Yard Trimmings (lawn clippings, brush, and other green waste from households) • Household hazardous wastes (paints, fluorescent tubes, pesticides, solvents, etc.) Glass is accepted at the Anchorage Regional Compost Facility where it is ground into special use products, such as sand blasting material. No money is paid for the glass and the cost of shipping to Anchorage is relatively high; therefore, it is not likely to be economical to collect and ship glass to Anchorage. However, local processing of glass may be feasible if markets can be found for the product. Alaska Tire Recycling, Incorporated, currently recycles some tires. Most of the tires collected come from warehouse stores and automobile shops in Anchorage. No tires are currently collected in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough except for a small number brought to Alaska Tire Recycling by individuals. It is estimated that about 50,000 tires are disposed of each year in the Central Landfill. Currently, Alaska Tire Recycling manufactures Portable Road Systems out of large truck tires. The portable road systems have been sold for use on tundra and muddy terrain to provide a temporary road pad. They are currently being used on the North Slope and other locations. Vehicle tires are also being chipped into 2 -inch minus material for use as drainage material, playground surfacing, horse track surfacing, and sub - road base material. Product demand has been low, but may improve in the future. The chipped rubber has not yet been approved by ADEC for leachfield drainage material, but it has been approved for this purpose in other states. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT) tests in Fairbanks found that crum rubber use in asphalt mix worked well for road paving, but it is rarely specified in contracted road projects because of the extra cost. Current markets for used tire material is marginal, but may improve in the future. Alaska Tire Recycling currently charges $1.50 per tire. It is generally less expensive for businesses to haul their tires to the Central Landfill and pay the $50 per ton fee than the $1.50 per tire fee at Alaska Tire Recycling . The Borough could stimulate tire recycling by charging a $1 or $2 fee per tire at the landfill and transfer stations. However, additional recycling should not be encouraged unless there is an adequate market for the recycled material. Stockpiled tires can present a fire hazard and other environmental problems. Many landfill owners charge a separate fee for tires. For example, the Denali Borough charges $1 per tire at their transfer station and landfill. This extra fee is charged because the tires are difficult to manage in small landfills. Tires do not present a significant management problem at the Central Landfill and are safely disposed of at the site. Metal recycling companies currently accept appliances from the Borough, but nothing is paid for the scrap. Appliances are picked up and hauled from the Central Landfill to a metals processing yard. The Borough processes the appliances to remove SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 3 -25 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES chlorofluorocarbon gas and other hazardous materials before they are removed for recycling. No formal program for recycling wood products exists in the Borough, however, some salvaging is known to occur. The Borough is considering the development of a wood salvage area in conjunction with the C &D cell. Although EPA guidelines do not include household yard waste composting under MSW recycling rates, composting does occur to some extent in the Borough and will continue to be encouraged by the Borough. Used oil and lead -acid batteries collected at the Central Landfill are shipped out for recycling. There are several items that are recycled before they enter the wastestream and are not considered MSW under federal definitions used for measuring recycling rates. These non - MSW items include: • Junk vehicles • Biosolids (sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plants) • C &D waste • Asphalt paving debris Approximately 1,800 tons of junk vehicles are collected by auto recycling companies in the Borough each year. Parts from these vehicles are re -sold to the public, thus they are recycled. Some vehicles are crushed and the scrap metal shipped outside the Borough for recycling. A relatively large portion of the vehicles collected in the Borough remain at recycling yards. Currently, low prices for scrap metal make recycling difficult, but prices for metals may eventually improve in the future. Biosolids are recycled by landspreading treated solids near the Wasilla and Palmer wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater treatment plant operators in the Borough and University of Alaska are currently looking at other recycling options for biosolids, such as composting and landspreading at farms. Information on recycling C &D waste is lacking; however, it is evident that some recycling of used building materials does occur at construction and building demolition project sites. These recycling activities are very sporadic and depend on the particular project and construction contractor. The Borough and ADOT actively encourage contractors to recycle asphalt paving during road construction projects. The conditional terms of many road construction contracts provide provisions for milling road surfaces for re- finishing rather than tearing up the pavement into chunks. The milled asphalt can often be reused as road base material or subgrade fill. In some cases, the milled asphalt can be recycled back into new paving material. Information on the total tonnage recycled in the Borough is lacking; however, the quantity is believed to be significant. 3 -26 SEA3100056663.D0C/021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 3.5.4.1 Quantities of Recyclables The quantity of each recyclable material can be estimated by multiplying the total amount of waste received per year by its approximate percentage in the wastestream. The percentage breakdown composition of MSW was presented in Section 2. Scalehouse data at the Central Landfill indicate that the landfill received 44,895 tons in 1999. It is estimated that about 15% of this amount by weight is C &D waste and is not counted as MSW. Therefore, about 38,161 tons of MSW was generated in 1999. The growth rate in the Borough over the past decade has been around 3.6 percent per year. Assuming that this growth rate will continue, it is also assumed that the quantity of solid waste will increase by about 3.6 percent per year as well. Therefore, the amount of MSW generated in 2000 is estimated to be 39,535 tons. The estimated quantity and potential recovery rate of recyclables in the Borough is presented in Table 3 -8. The maximum practical recovery rates in the Borough is based on the national average adjusted to site specific conditions. For example, newspapers in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough are smaller than the national average; therefore, the recover rate can be expected to be less than the national average. The potential recovery rate represents the highest percentage that can be practically recovered. Actual recovery rates are likely to be lower because recycling in rural areas of the Borough are not likely to be as efficient as in metropolitan areas represented by the national average. TABLE 3-8 Maximum Practical Recovery Rates of Recyclables National Matanuska- National Estimated Potential Matanuska - Susitna Product Percentage Susitna Tons Recovery Matanuska - Susitna Potential Recovery by Weight Per Year' Rate Recovery Rate Quantity (Tons Per Year) Newspaper 6.2 2451.2 56.6 20 490 Magazines 1.0 395.4 20.8 15 59 Telephone books 0.3 118.6 13.5 6 7 Office Papers 6.2 2451.2 50.4 30 735 Corrugated boxes 4.5 1 779.1 35.0 25 445 (residential) Corrugated boxes 9.0 3558.2 88.0 70 2491 (commercial) Ferrous metals 4.3 1700.0 35.1 25 425 Aluminum cans 0.9 355.8 53.9 54 192 Lead 0.4 158.1 95.9 96 152 Nonferrous 0.2 79.1 negligible 0 Steel cans 1.3 514.0 56.1 10 51 Aluminum durable 0.4 158.1 negligible 0 Glass 5.7 2253.5 25.5 10 225 Plastics 10.2 4032.6 5.4 1 40 Wood 5.4 2134.9 6.0 6 128 Food waste 10 3953.5 2.6 0 0 Yard trimmings 12.6 4981.4 45.3 5 249 Total 5691 1 39,535 tons per year of municipal solid waste in Matanuska - Susitna in year 2000. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 1999 update (year 1998 data). 1999. 3 Estimate one -third residential source and two- thirds commercial source; the combined national recovery rate is 70.3 percent. 4 Ferrous metals in appliances, furniture, tires, and miscellaneous durable goods. SEA3100058683.DOC/021150012 3.27 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Cardboard recycling can be divided into residential and commercial recycling. It is estimated that about two - thirds of the cardboard is generated by commercial establishments and one -third by residential customers. No actual numbers were available to verify this split; therefore, national average numbers were used. Most large supermarkets and department stores in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough already recycle their cardboard; therefore, it is estimated that about 70 percent of the commercially generated cardboard is already recycled. The national average recovery rate is 88 percent. The recovery rate for residential cardboard recycling is much lower. It is roughly estimated that potentially 25 percent of the residential cardboard could be recycled, whereas the national average is 35 percent. Cardboard recycling is likely to be less efficient in rural areas of the Borough than the national average. Based on this analysis, the maximum practical recovery rate of MSW in the Borough is estimated to be about 14 percent, whereas the national average is 28 percent. The higher national rate is achieved largely through yard waste composting. About 6 percent of the 28 percent average recovery rate for the nation is due to commercial composting. The percentage of yard waste in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough is estimated to be significantly less than the national average and no commercial composting facilities are currently active; therefore, the recycling recovery rate in the Borough can be expected to be less than the national average. An estimate of the quantities of MSW currently recycled in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough are presented in Table 3 -9. This information is based on actual weight data for most items; however, the national average recycling rate was used for commercial cardboard recovery because most grocery and department stores in the Borough do not weigh the cardboard they bale and ship out for recycling. Cardboard recycling practices in large chain stores is the same in Alaska as in other states, therefore using the national recovery rate should provide a reasonably accurate estimate. TABLE 3.9 Estimated Quantities of MSW Recycled in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough (Year 2000) Material Weight (Tons Per Year) Percent by Weight Cardboard from commercial sources 2491 6.3 Appliances and other scrap steel 60 0.4 Aluminum beverage cans 55 0.1 Lead -acid batteries 237 0.6 One -Stop Recycling Events and other 156 0.4 Total 3085 8.1 Based on available information and estimates, the Matanuska - Susitna Borough MSW recycling rate is about 8 percent. This rate is more than half the estimated maximum practical MSW recycling rate for the Borough. In comparison, the MSW recycling rate in Anchorage is estimated to be about 13 percent. 3 -28 SEA3100058683.00CIO21150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES No data is available on the quantity of non -MSW recycled in the Borough; however, the recovery rate for C &D waste is usually higher than MSW. For example, junk vehicles, lumber, ground asphalt, sludge, and other nonmunicipal wastes are recycled or reused rather than disposed in the landfill. No accurate quantity figures are available from contractors regarding the amount of these materials that are reused. 3.5.4.2 Economics of Recycling There are a variety of environmental and social benefits to recycling; however, the economic value of recycling results mainly from the saving of landfill space. If enough waste is diverted from the landfill through recycling, future development of new landfill cells can be deferred. The development of new cells represents a significant capital expenditure and it is usually necessary to borrow money for the design and construction of new landfill cells. The longer future expansions can be deferred, the longer interest rate payments for the debt service can be deferred, thereby lowering annual waste management costs. The interest saved by deferring landfill cell construction can be calculated through a net present value (NPV) analysis. This analysis method takes into account the time value of money and converts future dollars back into the present by discounting future expenditures by an interest rate. For this analysis, a real annual interest rate of 3% was selected. This rate is a typical bond interest rate without an inflation factor. All costs in future years were estimated in year 2003 dollars. Costs were not escalated for inflation because inflation is expected to increase all future costs at the same rate. The remaining volume of Cell 2A plus Cell 2B will provide almost one million cys of capacity. The cost of constructing the new Cell 2B and closing a portion of Cell 2A is estimated to cost 3.5 million dollars in the year 2002. Future cells are estimated to cost about $2 million dollars each and provide about an additional million cys of capacity each. To determine the volume of space saved in the landfill through recycling, the in -place landfill density of each recycled material was divided into the maximum practical quantity of materials recycled. The volume of space saved through recycling is shown in Table 3 -10. With maximum MSW recycling, approximately 12,000 cys of landfill space per year could be saved. Diverting approximately 12,000 cys per year of waste from the landfill also reduces the amount of cover material used because about one -third of the in -place volume in the landfill is consumed by cover material. Therefore, the volume of cover material that would be associated with the diverted material was also taken into account in the landfill space savings analysis. The current recycling rate of 8 percent diverts about 7,000 cys per year. The maximum practical recycling rate is about 6 percent higher; therefore an additional 5,000 cys per year could be diverted from the landfill through an enhanced municipal waste recycling program. The diversion of 5,000 cys of waste per year would defer construction of Cell 3 and 4 by about one year each. A comparison of landfill cell phasing can be seen in Table 3 -11. A more detailed spreadsheet showing cell sequencing can be found in Appendix C. SEA3100058663.DOCIO21150012 3-29 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES TABLE 3.10 Volume of Maximum Quantity of Recycled Materials Product Potential Recycled Quantity Density' (Pounds Per Cubic Volume (Tons Per Year) Yard) (Cubic Yard) Newspaper 490 1,000 980 Magazines 59 1,000 118 Telephone books 7 1,000 15 Office papers 735 1,000 1,470 Corrugated boxes (residential) 445 1,000 890 Corrugated boxes (commercial) 2,491 1,000 4,982 Ferrous metals 425 1,000 850 Aluminum cans 192 500 768 Lead 152 2,000 152 Nonferrous 0 1,000 0 Steel cans 51 2,000 51 Aluminum durable 0 1,000 0 Glass 225 2,000 225 Plastics 40 500 160 Wood 128 1,000 256 Food waste 0 1,000 0 Yard trimmings 249 500 996 Total 11,913 'United States Environmental Protection Agency. Measuring Recycling, A Guide for State and Local Governments. Appendix B. September 1997; also from CH2M HILL estimates. TABLE 3.11 Landfill Cell Phasing Cell Construction Construction Date Current Program Maximum Recycling Cell 2B 2003 2003 Cell 2C 2007 2008 Cell 3 2012 2013 Cell 4 2019 2020 3 -30 SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Over a 20 -year period beginning in July 2003 with the opening of Cell 2B, this deferment would save about $524,299 in 2003 dollars or about $26,215 per year over a 20 -year period. However, it is unknown if spending this amount would actually accomplish an additional 6 percent diversion of MSW from the landfill. A spreadsheet showing the NPV analysis can be found in Appendix C. 3.5.4.3 Continued Recycling Programs The most economical recycling programs are already being implemented; therefore, additional recycling programs are likely to be less economical. For example, commercial stores are already recycling cardboard because it is often more economical for them to ship the cardboard back through their distribution system than pay for disposal. Likewise, nonprofit organizations in the Borough collect aluminum cans to raise money. Materials that could cause an environmental problem if disposed in the landfill are a priority for recycling. The Borough will continue to recycle lead -acid batteries and used oil because they are not allowed in the landfill and alternate disposal options are more expensive. More household hazardous waste will be recycled in the future through a reuse facility. The Borough currently spends about $200,000 per year managing hazardous wastes and recycling lead -acid batteries, appliances, and other recyclables. Although the space saved through diversion does not equal the costs, hazardous waste diversion from the landfill is mandatory and is a cost of the operation. Tipping fees will continue to provide an economic incentive to find other uses for non -MSW other than disposal. Commercial waste recycling and reuse is increasing nationwide as a trend and is expected to increase in the future in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. The Borough has designated an area near the entrance to the Central Landfill for VCRS to establish a recycling facility. This nonprofit organization will continue to develop and improve recycling opportunities in the Borough. 3.5.5 Composting Composting is the controlled biological decomposition and conversion of solid organic material into humus -like material called compost. The process is aerobic and is mediated by bacteria and fungi that break down complex organic compounds into simpler compounds. Only about 50 percent of the wastestream is compostable; therefore, it is usually not practical to compost mixed solid waste. The most suitable components of the wastestream for composting are vegetative yard waste, food waste, paper, and wood. Non municipal wastestreams that are also frequently included in composting are sewage sludge and manure. Composting can be an effective way of diverting organic material from the wastestream. It can be implemented at several levels, as follows: • Residential yard waste composting at the source of generation • Commercial yard waste and other organic wastes at a public facility SEA3100058663.00CIO21150012 3 -31 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES • Farm waste composting at the source of generation • Landfill facility composting a variety of organics from the wastestream The Borough can encourage composting in a variety of way. Residential customers can be encouraged to compost their yard waste by sponsoring training events. Another technique used by many municipalities is to sponsor a compost bin sale. Several manufacturers sell compost bins at a discount to municipalities, allowing them to distribute them at nominal cost. The Borough can also coordinate through nonprofit organizations and local businesses to sell compost bins at a discount to Borough residents. Several farms already compost organic waste such as crop residue and manure. The Borough could encourage more composting by sponsoring or supporting more training sessions for farm related composting. Training sessions in the past have been presented by the University of Alaska Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Also, the United States Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Wood Utilization Center, has also sponsored compost training events in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska. The Borough could serve as an additional sponsor or organizer bringing these agencies together to produce more compost training events. Composting at or near the Central Landfill could be a viable way of dealing with some problem wastes while generating compost that could be used on closed areas of the landfill and general site landscaping. The compost feedstock could consist of yard waste, manure, biosolids, and clean wood waste (no treated lumber). Mixed paper waste can also be composted when recycling prices are too low to economically ship to Anchorage. The borough could encourage an entrepreneur to develop a composting facility near the landfill by designating an area near the animal control facility dnd recycling area for composting. The Borough has designated about five acres in this area for use by the VCRS for recycling events with the option of expanding it to ten acres if needed. About one additional acre would be needed to windrow 300 tons per year of yard waste. This land is part of the Borough property designated for landfill use and would be an appropriate area to compost organic waste. It is possible to compost year- round, but it is more feasible in the summer months. Current regulations would probably require a liner under the compost area, particularly if leachate were used for moisture control. Operating records at the Anchorage Regional Composting Facility indicate that there will be a water deficit; therefore, it may be necessary to add water to the compost material in summer months. It would be relatively easy to divert about 300 tons per year of organic waste to the composting area. Customers would realize a cost savings if they could reduce their load by discharge yard waste and other accepted organics at a composting facility before they entered the landfill. Operating a small scale composting operation would be a full time job for one person during summer months. Winter operations are not recommended unless the summer operation proves to be highly successful and the shoulder seasons can be effectively expanded. A tub grinder or shredder would be needed to reduce the particle size of material. A local landscaping company can be contracted to bring in a grinder or shredder on an as- needed basis to process material. The simplest composting method is the construction of static piles. This method involves mixing carbonaceous and nitrogenous 3 -32 SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 waste in a ratio of about 25 carbonaceous to 1 nitrogenous. The moisture should be maintained at about 45% to 60% by weight. The piles should be turned with a front - loader or other suitable equipment on a regular basis to keep the piles aerobic. The estimated startup costs for a composting facility in Table 3 -12. TABLE 3-12 Compost Facility Startup Costs Facility Component Cost Liner (one - quarter acre) $10,000 Small backhoe with attachments $50,000 Screening plant $20,000 Water pump and hoses $2,000 Operator shack $3,000 Total $85,000 SECTION 3 WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES The capital cost of establishing a compost facility is about $85,000. Assuming that a loan could be obtained for 6 percent interest per year and the life of the facility is ten years, the annual amortized cost would be $11,550. If an individual were to perform the work for $10 per hour for four months of the year, the labor cost would be $6,400. There would also be additional operation and maintenance costs, such as shredding the yard waste before composting. These operating costs are estimated to be about $2,000 per year. The total annual cost would be around $18,000 to $20,000. The value of the compost as a topsoil substitute is about 30 dollars per ton. Therefore, about $9,000 per year could be generated from the sale of the compost. This amount is less than the estimated annual operation costs; however, the operation could be viable if operation costs were reduced and compost prices were higher than estimated herein. To assure a market for the compost, the Borough could make arrangements to purchase the compost at fair market price and use the material for landscaping projects at the landfill and other locations. Money to purchase compost could come from a dedicated fund established for recycling projects. 3.5.6 Funding Recycling A summary of public responses to the solid waste questionnaire (see Section 5) indicates there is a substantial amount of interest in recycling; however, the Borough does not have a funding mechanism to pay for increased recycling. The revenue generated from the collection of solid waste disposal fees is insufficient to pay the full costs of solid waste management. Therefore, additional funding sources will be necessary if the Borough expands their recycling efforts. A one dollar fee could be added to the tipping fee and held in a separate fund designated for recycling. The recycling fee would increase the tipping fee to $51 per ton and would generate about $50,000 per year. Any changes in the solid waste fee structure must be reviewed and approved by the Borough assembly. SEA3100053663.00C/021150012 3 -33 SECTION 4 Environmental Protection Programs This section summarizes existing programs and designs being implemented to protect the environment and public from adverse impacts of solid waste. Environmental protection programs include public education, enforcement of waste storage and disposal regulations, waste screening, landfill monitoring, and landfill engineering designs to minimize pollution. 4.1 Covered Loads and Litter Law Enforcement To minimize litter, the Borough passed an ordinance requiring all vehicles transporting refuse to be covered or the loads secured. Borough Code 8.05.070 states the following: A person may not operate, drive, cause, or permit to be operated, or driven, any motor vehicle carrying refuse or other tangible material that is reasonably capable of blowing out, falling from, spilling, dropping, leaking, sifting, or escaping from the vehicle unless the vehicle is provided with a suitable enclosure or container that effectively prevents the loss of such refuse or other material. A suitable enclosure must either be an integral part of the vehicle or a separate cover of suitable material with fastening which secures all sides of the cover to the vehicle. Refuse is suitably contained if it is entirely enclosed in a secure container which is not reasonably capable of blowing out or otherwise escaping from the vehicle (Ordinance 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995). The unsecured refuse program is primarily enforced by the gatehouse attendants when vehicles enter the Central Landfill or transfer stations. Tarps are made available to the customer at a small charge so they may secure their loads on future trips to the landfill or transfer station. In addition, the Borough also has a code that addresses litter. Borough Code 8.05.080 states the following: A person may not throw, drop, discard, or otherwise dispose of solid waste or other litter on public rights -of -way or Borough lands unless the litter is placed in a receptacle maintained for the deposit of refuse or litter, or in a Borough designated solid waste disposal facility or transfer station (Ordinance 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995). The Borough has recently started a program for responding to and cleaning up illegal dumpsites that are reported by the public. The Borough attempts to contact the responsible parties and take enforcement action if necessary. The Borough also has an ordinance that prohibits the abandonment of vehicles and authorizes the Borough to remove and dispose of abandoned vehicles. The ordinance is published in Title 10, Chapter 12 of the Borough Code of Ordinances and is included in SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 4_1 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS Appendix C. In conjunction with this ordinance, the Borough has an effective junk vehicle removal program as described in Section 3 of this report. 4.2 Hazardous Waste Screening Borough staff and contract operators at solid waste facilities watch for hazardous waste and other prohibited items that may enter solid waste facilities. The Borough is required by permit to conduct random waste screening at the landfill. The Borough landfill operations contractor conducts the inspections, and a form is filled out and submitted to the Borough for record keeping purposes. Trucks are selected at random by the spotter at the working face of the landfill, and the refuse is scrutinized for the presence of hazardous waste and other prohibited waste items. Screening also takes place as vehicles enter the site at the scale house. The scale house attendant observes each load, and any prohibited materials are prevented from entering the landfill. Wastes such as used oil, latex paints, and lead -acid batteries are directed to the proper storage areas where they are processed and recycled or shipped to a facility outside the Borough that is permitted to process or dispose of the waste. At the public drop -off area at the Central Landfill, a spotter watches for prohibited materials and prevents them from entering the transfer trailer and landfill. The attendant at each of the transfer stations also observes each load brought in to the site. Prohibited wastes are prevented from entering the site and wastes such as used oil, latex paints, and lead -acid batteries are directed to the temporary storage area. 4.3 Prohibited Waste Diversion Program The Borough has a program designed to divert hazardous waste, bulk liquids, and medical waste from the landfill. 4.3.1 Hazardous Waste The Borough currently has a household and CESQG hazardous waste collection program. On the last Saturday of each month (except December and February) a day -long hazardous waste collection event is held at the Central Landfill. The general public is allowed to bring up to 40 pounds of hazardous waste to these events free of charge. If the household generator brings waste in excess of 40 pounds, they are charged $0.50 per pound for disposal. Household hazardous waste generators are also allowed to dispose one car battery, up to five gallons of used oil and up to five gallons of latex paint free of charge. For quantities in excess of these limits, the household generator is charged $5.00 per additional battery, $0.50 per gallon of latex paint, and $1.00 per gallon of oil. CESQGs are charged for all waste brought to these collection events. 4.3.2 Liquid Wastes The Borough abides by the EPA Subtitle D regulations that prohibit dumping of bulk liquids into a landfill. This is accomplished primarily through public education and through scrutiny of materials at the scale house and transfer stations. 4 -2 5EA3100050663.DOC/021150012 4.3.3 Medical Wastes The Borough follows all ADEC permit requirements for the acceptance of medical wastes. All medical waste must be sterilized or incinerated prior to being disposed of at the Central Landfill. 4.4 Monitoring The Borough performs three types of landfill monitoring programs to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. These monitoring programs include visual inspections, explosive gas monitoring, and groundwater quality monitoring. 4.4.1 Visual Monitoring The purpose of the landfill visual monitoring program is to provide for early detection of potential problems or violations. Items requiring improvement are addressed on an as- needed basis. A visual inspection of the Central Landfill is conducted at least once a month by the Borough. The staff person reviews the site for compliance with applicable requirements of the operating permit and solid waste regulations. The visual monitoring program is conducted by observing landfill structures and noting site conditions. Items reviewed include, but are not limited to the following: • Size of working face appropriate for the quantity of waste received • Litter accumulation and control measures • Fire prevention Adequacy of daily cover, intermediate cover, and final cover in areas that have received permanent closure • Safe storage of hazardous materials Drainage of surface water and grading to prevent ponding and surface water run -on into designated areas of the fill Facility structures at the landfill, such as monitoring wells, signs, barriers, fencing, access gates, and other structures • Landfill equipment condition SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS 4.4.2 Landfill Gas Monitoring The objective of the Borough landfill gas monitoring program is to prevent an explosive hazard that could be created by the accumulation of methane gas from the decomposition of waste in the landfill. Early detection of methane accumulation is accomplished by sampling the air in strategic locations on a quarterly basis. Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 258.23 and 18 AAC 60.350(a)(1)) do not allow the concentration of methane to exceed 25 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) in landfill facility structures. Also, methane gas from the landfill is not allowed to exceed the SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 4 -3 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS LEL at or beyond the facility property boundary. A private consultant on a quarterly basis monitors for the accumulation of methane gas. 4.4.3 Closed Landfill Water Quality Monitoring Currently there are four closed landfills that are undergoing groundwater monitoring by the Borough. These sites are the former Big Lake, Butte, Sunshine, and Talkeetna landfills. Water quality samples are collected quarterly and are analyzed for parameters characteristic of solid waste leachate. These sites are in compliance and do not impair the water quality beyond the facility boundaries. As part of the site closure for these landfills, a ten -year monitoring commitment was made to the ADEC for these sites. Continued monitoring for each of these sites will be evaluated at the end of this ten -year period. 4.4.4 Central Landfill Water Quality Monitoring There are currently 12 groundwater monitoring wells at the Central Landfill: MW -1, -8, -9, -10, -11, -12, -13, -14, -15, -16, -17, and -19. Wells MW -2 through MW -7 and MW -18 were removed, plugged, or abandoned either because they failed to yield water or were within the landfill expansion area. . The objective of the groundwater quality program is to evaluate conditions around the Central Landfill to determine whether leachate is migrating beyond the landfill to the extent that groundwater quality standards are being violated. Although parameters characteristic of leachate have been detected within the landfill facility, no violation of water quality standards has been detected at or beyond the point of compliance or facility boundary. 4.5 Landfill Cell Closures There has been one cell closed at the Central landfill since it was opened in 1980; Cell 1 was closed in 1987 and was given an earthen cover and a vegetative layer for its closure system. Cell 2A will reach its estimated final capacity in 2004. The proposed closure plan includes a GCL that has a permeability much lower than the prescriptive permeability limit of 10 centimeters per second. In addition, the proposed uppermost layer will consist of topsoil and will be vegetated. 4.6 Lined Landfill Expansion Future municipal waste disposal areas at the Central Landfill will have a liner and leachate collection system. This system will further minimize the potential of groundwater contamination from solid waste byproducts. Relatively inert materials, such as concrete rubble, will go in a separate unlined landfill area. Each major expansion area at the landfill is called a cell. Based on current refuse generation rates and the current compaction effort, the first lined cell (Cell 2B) should have a life span of approximately six to seven years and will be constructed in the spring of 2003 or 2004. The Central Landfill Twenty -Year Operation and Development Master Plan (CH2M HILL, 1996) includes a cell sequence plan for expansion; however, recent modifications to expansion 4-4 SEA3100058683.DOC/021150612 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS plan warrant a revised update to the plan. The revised cell sequencing plan will identify the most likely scenario for the location and timing of future landfill cells. This planning effort will help the Borough to more effectively utilize the available land within the existing site boundaries. Existing and proposed landfill cells were shown in Figure 1 -3 in Section 1. The specific size and boundaries of future cells beyond Cell 2B are tentative and are subject to change as a result of further planning and site specific engineering design. 4.6.1 Liner System The purpose of the liner system is to collect fluids (leachate) that drain through solid waste and prevent the leachate from entering the environment. The selected liner system for Cell 2B is a composite of two liners with a leachate collection layer above. In a composite liner system, two different types of liners are used in conjunction to complement each other. Figure 4 -1 shows a cross - section of the liner system. The bottom liner in Cell 213 consists of a GCL. The upper liner consists of a HDPE liner. The HDPE liner is stronger and more puncture resistant than the GCL. However, if the HDPE liner leaks, the clay in the GCL liner will expand into tears and holes in the HDPE liner and plug any potential leaks. In this way, the composite liner is much more effective than a single liner. The liner system is designed to drain the leachate into a collection tank or lagoon rather than impound the leachate within the landfill. Landfill regulations require the fluid height above the liner to be less than one foot high. Potential leakage is minimized by keeping the fluid level low. 4.6.2 Leachate Collection and Management The drainage Layer above the composite liner in Cell 2B will consist of sand and perforated collection pipes. The leachate will be directed by gravity flow through the pipes to a storage tank. The proposed tank is double walled with a leak detection system meeting all underground storage tank requirements. Collected leachate will be transported by vacuum truck to the Turpin dump station and discharged into the Municipality of Anchorage wastewater collection system. Wastewater from the collection system is treated at the Asplund Wastewater Treatment Plant. As additional lined landfill cells are constructed, the leachate generation rate will increase and other leachate treatment and disposal options will be necessary. Future disposal options include facilitated evaporation, on -site biological treatment, and recycling within lined cells to increase solid waste biodegradation and stabilization. 4.6.3 Landfill Gas Management As the Central Landfill is expanded, landfill gas will be managed to prevent an explosive hazard. When closed sections are capped, gas vents will be constructed to allow gas to escape out the top and to minimize lateral migration. The Borough also plans to install monitoring probes along the northern boundary of the landfill after capping Cell 2A to check for potential subsurface migration of gas. If necessary, additional vents will be constructed to prevent subsurface migration of gas off site. SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 4.5 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS 4.7 Waste Flow Control Control over where waste goes in a region has been an issue of great political and economic interest in the United States. In a 1994 landmark decision by the U. S. Supreme Court, C &A Carbone versus Town of Clarkstown, the court ruled that a municipality cannot direct the flow of waste to a particular privately owned landfill facility because such action violates the U. S. Commerce Clause, which guarantees free competitive commerce. This ruling means that waste haulers can choose which permitted facility to which they can take their waste. A more recent court finding in 2001, United Haulers Association v. Oneida - Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, ruled that municipalities can direct waste to a facility if it is publicly owned rather than privately owned. This latter ruling is relevant to the Matanuska - Susitna Borough because the Central Landfill is publicly owned; however, the former ruling could affect the Borough if the landfill is privatized. The 1994 Carbone ruling disrupted waste management in many municipalities preventing them from directing waste to recycling and energy recovery facilities. For example, a municipality with a particular recycling goal may have preferred that waste be taken to a facility that recycled a percentage of the waste. However, under the Carbone ruling, waste haulers could take waste to the facility with the lowest disposal fee. Facilities with the lowest disposal fees did not always meet regional waste management goals established by solid waste authorities. Municipalities and companies that invested in material recover facilities (MRFs) and waste to energy plants were hardest hit by the Carbone decision. These facilities are often more expensive to run than conventional landfills; therefore, waste haulers are less likely to haul waste to these higher cost facilities. The diversion of waste to lower cost facilities left the higher cost facilities without any waste and therefore no way to collect money to pay off loans used for their construction. In the recent court decision affecting municipalities, the court ruled that solid waste authorities can exercise flow control if the waste is directed to public facilities within their jurisdiction. The ruling was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 27, 2001 in a case titled United Haulers Association v. Oneida - Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority. The appeals court ruled that the prohibition of flow control established in the Carbone decision only applies to privately owned facilities. The court also found that local ordinances mandating that all solid waste in a county be delivered to a specific publicly owned facility does not discriminate against interstate commerce since all businesses are treated equally. The appeals court ruling only applies to the three states covered by the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut and Vermont); however, the decision could be endorsed by other states. 4 -6 SEA3100058683.DOC/021150012 Leachate Collection Pipe Leachate Collection Gravel ... 2-ft Granular Drainage Material 80 -mil HDPE Liner Geosynthetic Clay Liner 6 -In Sand Leveling Course Prepared Subgrade Figure 4 -1 Liner System Matanuska - Susitna Borough SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS Flow control is also indirectly authorized by Section 4006(a) of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), which requires states to define solid waste management regions for purposes of encouraging and facilitating the development of regional planning for solid waste management. Title 40 of the CFR Part 255 defines criteria for identifying regions and agencies responsible for solid waste management. In the state of Alaska, Boroughs and cities have been designated solid waste powers, which authorize them to implement solid waste plans. Part 256 of the federal regulations define requirements for the implementation of solid waste management plans. One obligation of the planning process requires the solid waste authority to ensure that adequate waste disposal capacity is developed within their jurisdiction and to ensure that all facilities comply with environmental regulations designed to protect public health and the environment. In keeping with this requirement, solid waste authorities must designate the flow of waste to facilities that meet environmental regulations and ensure that adequate landfill capacity is available to meet disposal needs. The Matanuska - Susitna Borough has been granted solid waste powers by the state of Alaska and is authorized to issue local ordinances pertaining to solid waste management. In keeping with this responsibility, the Borough has established solid waste ordinances under Title 8, Chapter 05 of the Borough Code of Ordinances. A copy of these codes can be found in Appendix C. Although the Borough has established solid waste ordinances and dearly intends to provide solid waste services as required, there is no clear ordinance regarding waste flow control. Ordinance 8.05.020 established the nonareawide service of constructing, maintaining, and operating a system of solid waste transportation and disposal in all areas outside cities, including special land use districts. Furthermore, Borough Code 8.05.030 states the following: The Matanuska - Susitna Borough operates a solid waste system for the transportation of solid waste, and for the disposal of solid waste at a legally permitted sanitary landfill site which has been designated and constructed to accommodate the disposal of solid waste in accordance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and permits. However, there is nothing in these ordinances that require waste to be taken to the Central Landfill or prohibits the development of private landfills in competition with the Borough solid waste system. Under current state regulations and Borough ordinances, private companies could establish new landfills in the Borough and divert waste away from Borough facilities. If waste were diverted away from the Central Landfill, the Borough would lose the revenue from disposal fees and would have to find other revenue sources to pay off money borrowed to construct landfill improvements. The loss of tipping fee revenue could hurt the Borough financially and impair the Borough's bond rating. Of perhaps greater concern would be the private development of less environmentally sound solid waste facilities than those provided by the Borough. Current state regulations allow the establishment of small unlined Class III landfills along the highway system at distances greater than 50 miles from the Central Landfill. However, the development of Class III landfills along the highway corridor does not comply with the Borough's solid 4 - 8 8EA3100058663.00C1021150012 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS waste management plan. Class III landfills have a lower level of engineering and operational controls than the Central Landfill; therefore, Class III landfills do not provide the same level of environmental and public health protection as the current system. It would be prudent for the Borough to review all landfill permit applications for conformance with Borough planning and zoning requirements and this solid waste management plan. The review could help prevent the proliferation of small landfills that do not conform with the solid waste management plan. Although the Borough is not the solid waste permitting authority, they could prevent the ADEC from issuing a permit if it does not comply with Borough ordinances or the Borough's solid waste management plan. Alaska solid waste permit regulation 18 AAC 60.210(b)(1)(C) requires a permit applicant to comply with all local ordinances and zoning requirements. Failure to comply with Borough ordinances or the solid waste management plan may be sufficient grounds for the state to deny a landfill permit application. In addition, it would be appropriate for the public works director and planning director to review all solid waste permit applications for conformance with Borough requirements. It is customary for the state to send a copy of the application to the local governments to review. However, the Borough currently has no formal process for the review and approval of solid waste permit applications. It would also be beneficial to pass an ordinance clarifying that all MSW generated along the road corridor (George Parks Highway, Glenn Highway, and connected roads) be disposed at the Central Landfill unless specifically exempted by the Borough. This ordinance could possibly prevent an unexpected flow control issue from arising and could influence Alaska court decisions regarding the validity or importance of municipal ordinances designed to protect public health and the environment. Furthermore, the Borough should be aware that solid waste flow control legislation is an ongoing process and may change due to court rulings and federal legislation. There are several current lawsuits in federal court concerning this issue. For example, a group of solid waste haulers had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Oneida - Herkimer case, but on January 7, 2002, the court decided against hearing the case. Also, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the Oneida - Herkimer case to the federal district court for a determination of the constitutionality of whether the legitimate local benefits of the municipality's ordinance are substantially outweighed by the burden on interstate commerce. Regardless of these court decisions, they do not necessarily apply to Alaska, which has its own unique situations. Also, judicial review is under a different federal district court in Alaska than the courts that ruled on the Carbone and Oneida - Herkimer cases. Municipalities in Alaska have a long history of providing essential public services and utilities that, for various economic reasons, are not provided by the public sector. The importance of municipal control over waste management in Alaska could affect court decisions regarding waste flow control in Alaska. SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 4-9 SECTION 5 Public Participation Program 5.1 Introduction The Borough recognizes that public participation is an important component of the planning process. Feedback from businesses and the community allows the Borough to focus on appropriate changes to the solid waste management system to best meet public needs. During May 2001 the Borough issued information brochures and questionnaires at the landfill, at the transfer stations, and to the numerous community councils for distribution. The Borough also held public meetings and an open house at the Central Landfill. The Matanuska - Susitna Borough Public Works staff also met with citizen groups who expressed an interest in solid waste planning. 5.2 Questionnaire Responses The results of the questionnaire are presented below. About 110 questionnaires were returned to the Borough. It is recognized that the questionnaire results may not accurately represent all residents in the Borough; however, the questionnaire was not the only form of public input used in the planning process. Comments received by the Public Works Department over the years were also taken into account during preparation of the plan update. The six questions are presented as follows with the number of responses printed in bold numbers following each question option. Written responses follow each question as well as additional comments at the end. Question 1: Expanding the Central Landfill will cost the Borough about $3 million. Where should future funding for these large projects come from, assuming that some of the funding will be provided through state and /or federal grants? 1. Increase landfill fees. 25 2. Develop another revenue source such as a sales tax. 26 3. Pay the entire capital cost out of the Borough's nonareawide property tax. 21 4. Investigate the feasibility of privatizing the entire solid waste operation. 19 5. All of the Above. 18 Written Responses: 1. I would be willing to pay increased landfill fees, but I think increasing the fees just increases the problem with illegal dumping. 2. Don't burden the tax payers anymore (user fees only). SEA3100058663.DOC1021150012 5'1 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 3. Bonds. 4. If you increase fees, you will see more trash other places as people try to avoid the high cost. 5. How is it financed currently? 6. Current fees seem high enough; do not privatize. 7. The landfill fees are very reasonable; I wouldn't mind paying more but worry others would dump in unauthorized areas. 8. People will recycle more if fees go up. 9. I am not opposed to increased landfill fees, but the reality is that if the fees get too high the garbage will end up getting dumped anywhere. 10. A private company may be able to salvage appliances and other durable goods for resale. 11. Let the users pay; don't put the burden on the property owner or grocery shopper. 12. Answer "A" might be a very good option ; however, it might increase littering. 13. Be very cautious about raising fees. High fees equals increased illegal (dangerous) dumping. Enforce littering fine of $1,000.00 and prosecute hazardous waste dumpers. 14. Any or all of these options may be viable; let's look at them all and keep open minds. 15. Recycle metals and sell them (copper, aluminum, titanium, silver, etc.). 16. Find some way to charge cities for there share. 17. Recycle, take portion not used to Anchorage. 18. Look at feasibility of recycling projects as funding. 19. Check out answer "D" to see if it would be more cost effective and would allow lower landfill fees; If not, answer "A." 20. Have the politicians pay for it; they got all the money. 21. Answer "C" or "B" are appropriate funding sources to pay for landfill expansions. 22. Spend the same amount of money to process and divert 80 to 90 percent of what goes in, then send rest to Anchorage or bury. 23. Choose the best funding for the general welfare of all Borough residents. 24. State /federal funding is most important. 25. Investigate bidding out metal recycling or charge additional fees for tires, appliances; take no brush; auto body sections should go to wrecking yard. Question 2: How would you rate solid waste services in the Borough? 1. Good: convenient disposal facilities, well managed and operated. 57 5 -2 SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 2. Adequate: waste disposal facilities meet my needs. 45 3. Inadequate: inconvenient or poorly managed disposal facilities. 2 4. Poor: disposal facilities unavailable or fail to meet my needs. 2 Written Responses: 1. Just needs more availability of recycling. 2. I live downwind of a transfer station, and I'm getting real tired of picking up wind blown trash from the dumpsters onto my property and then having to pay to place it back into the dumpster. 3. I do not believe that all of the paving was necessary; the cost of paving could have been used to offset the cost of another cell. 4. I wish there was one closer to my home in Chickaloon. 5. Need more recycling; need to encourage people to recycle so landfills don't fill so quickly. 6. Extend hours of operation for remote sites. 7. Recycling would raise rating to good and provide other alternatives for waste than burying it. 8. No recycling to speak of; in Oregon they are environmentally responsible and require recycling. Should we not take at least the same care in Alaska? 9. We need to have better recycling to cut down on the amount of waste that we generate to reduce the landfill capacity. 10. Particularly like waste oil, battery, and paint disposal. 11. Very nice people, well run. 12. We need sites for recycled drop off all materials. 13. Very helpful staff at Sutton Transfer Station and Central Landfill. 14. Your people are well trained and very helpful. 15. Great to have the smiling folks at the counter. Thanks for the good attitude. 16. The biggest weakness is the lack of a comprehensive recycling and /or separating out sorting of different types of waste going into the landfill. 17. Attendant at Willow Transfer Station is very courteous and helpful. 18. Borough needs to realize that in the long run, it makes much more sense to keep stuff out of the landfill. 19. At this time doesn't offer facilities for recycling. 20. Would like to see more recycling opportunities - -using the waste. SEA3100058883.G0C/021150012 5 -3 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM Question 3: The Borough has attempted to balance cost with convenience regarding the location and number of transfer stations and public dumpsters. Are these facilities adequately located? 1. Yes, keep them where they are. 76 2. No, relocate some facilities (see my comments below), but don't add additional facilities. 3 3. No, add more facilities even if this increases costs and disposal fees. 7 4. Consolidate or close some existing facilities to save costs. 9 Written Responses: 1. Consolidate or close the ones that don't cover costs or up the fees to cover costs. 2. The Sutton dump needs to be moved from residential area as it draws bears to where our homes are. 3. Increase in costs will deter people from using them could use more sites. 4. Due to trash and dumping of old refrigerators, couches, cars etc., it is obvious we need more facilities and recycling. 5. It depends on their use; Mid - Valley seems adequate. 6. What will have the least impact on land and costs? 7. Don't use them. Don't know. 8. Don't use them. 9. Need site between Palmer /Big Lake site. 10. Where the heck are they? 11. We live close to landfill and cannot answer; don't know where others are. 12. Not applicable for us. 13. I don't know. 14. May increase fees to use transfer stations. 15. Sutton Transfer Station is crucial to keeping Sutton area clean. 16. Raise the fees in the satellite stations to cover high wages and transportation costs. 17. Again, be cautious. Loss of convenience equals more illegal dumping. 18. I go directly to the Central Landfill so I don't have an opinion about transfer stations. 19. I live within one mile of Willow Transfer Station so it is very convenient for me. 20. Whatever people want as long as they pay for the added cost of the service. I have a 16- foot trailer and dump twice a year. 5 -4 SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 21. The Long Rifle Lodge does an excellent job of maintaining the transfer station at Milepost 102, Glenn Highway. 22. Trapper Creek and Talkeetna should consolidate at Sunshine; tremendous wage and benefit savings, lease payments also. Close Butte, possibly Sutton. Question 4: What role should the Borough play in recycling? I. Accept only items with sufficient value that the costs of recycling can be recovered. 36 2. Increase disposal fees and collection fees sufficiently for the Borough to recycle items that are not cost effective to recycle. 29 3. Leave recycling entirely up to private enterprises and volunteer organizations. 43 4. No recycling at any Borough sites. 4 Written Responses: 1. Charge extra if necessary for oil and batteries. 2. None of these options. Accepting more recyclable items should decrease the overall cost by increasing the lifetime of the dump cell. Public Works needs to stop thinking yearly and think long term. 3. Hold One -Stop Recycling events some place else besides at the landfill. Things were out of control at the last recycle day. 4. Need all cycle opportunities. 5. I like it the way it is now. 6. Private may need some initial help. We need to recycle! 7. Encourage private recyclers and offer dump locations for them to collect. 8. A cooperative effort between the Borough and its residents is optimum to deal with waste and recycling efforts. 9. Recycling would be cost effective if there was encouragement for businesses to use recycled goods; also, produce in Alaska so we would not have to ship it out of state. 10. Combination of recycling and waste. 11. I think it is up to the public to help recycle or separate trash before it is brought to the landfill, which would cut down on cost to the Borough for recycling and would keep cost down to the public. 12. I continue to recycle paints oils and batteries. 13. Fairbanks has a drop site for reusable items. It is an excellent idea. Public pick -up for reuse is allowed. 14. Make space for several categories of recyclable materials and store until there is sufficient quantity of material for a large transfer, selling when the price is best. SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 5 -5 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 15. Recycle aluminum, tin cans, cardboard, office paper, and glass. 16. Recycling makes sense and is a good public investment. The Borough invests in schools, parks, libraries, and pools, all of which are not 100 percent user - funded but make good public investments. 17. If we make it too costly to dispose hazardous materials some will resort to polluting rather than paying. 18. Let people pick through dump. 19. If it don't make money, don't recycle. 20. Cautiously, manage carefully. 21. Recycling has to become a much bigger part of future landfill plans. Demands for space, an exploding population in the valley and sensible land and resource management require it. 22. Borough should have bins for glass, plastic, wood, metal, etc. Trash would be presorted by residents. 23. Three groups: (1) recycled metals, (2) compostables, and (3) gravel /fill glass plastic concrete. Rest transfer to Anchorage landfill. 24. Increase recycling projects. 25. We need to salvage, which may require individuals to separate plastics, paper, glass, metal, etc. 26. The Borough should work to divert as much as possible from wastestream, through composting and recycling to make landfill last long time! 27. Borough should institute a per ton set aside to promote recycling and should actively cooperate with established local nonprofit recycling groups. 28. Prove that this isn't just a feel good fad by a very few people. No studies show recycling pays and it never will in Alaska. Question 5: Currently the Borough contracts out the operation of the Central Landfill while providing facility oversight. How should the Borough manage the landfill in the future? 1. Continue to contract out the operation of the landfill to a private company through competitive bidding. 61 2. Operate the landfill with government employees and government owned equipment. 3 3. Do whatever provides the most cost - effective disposal option. 41 Written Comments: 1. I don't know enough about the advantages and disadvantages. Yes, it should be cost effective, but consider long -term benefits of different options. 5 -8 5EA3100058663.000/021150012 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 2. Borough should encourage use —more free days per year. 3. Recycling is an important and much needed part of waste disposal. 4. This should be a govemment function; why should we pay a private company to do the same job? They drop wages and benefits then put the profits in their pockets. 5. The most efficient and cost effective way. 6. Put into the contract that they must recycle all recyclables to cut down on landfill capacities. 7. I prefer oversight to ensure environmental protection. 8. Set clear performance contracts to ensure clear environmental responsibility of contractor. 9. All gravel removed for pit liner development should be sold to help with costs. Gravel could be crushed and stockpiled for sale, and Borough needs to increase income. 10. I'm open to other options as well, but the current system seems to work. Additional recycling requirements are needed and should be established prior to any change in management policy. Question 6: Currently the Borough Landfill sponsors free disposal days at the Central Landfill and transfer stations as well as Borough wide roadside clean -up. How should these programs be funded? 1. Increase landfill fees. 9 2. Pay the entire cost out of the Borough's nonareawide property tax. 44 3. Both A and B. 26 4. Discontinue these types of programs. 19 Written Responses: I. These programs should definitely be expanded not discontinued. Maybe it's time to think about sales tax. May say property taxes are already too high. Increased user fees leads to increased illegal dumping. 2. Private sponsors need to be brought into the loop. A high percentage of roadside clean- up is from the private sector, i.e. grocery bags, fast food containers, and soda /beer cans. 3. Without free disposal days, people will resort to polluting our woods. 4. How can you be so stupid as to think increasing fees will increase use? You need to encourage clean -up and disposal and recycle not discourage it. These are not your only options —other places do it, just ask around. 5. Borough sales tax — everyone generates trash —not just the property owners. 6. Are the current fundings not enough? Where do the funds come from now? 7. Area sales tax. SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 5 -7 SECTION 5 PUBIIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 8. If this free to the public, let it be free and reduce the number of days for free disposal for public use and keep road side clean -up free. 9. Slight increase in landfill fees plus try to institute a 2 percent sales tax. 10. Except at the Central location to minimize costs. 11. Need recycle sites at dump- both Borough and privately handled. Recycled products for valley- to promote more "Buy Alaska " - "Made in Matanuska - Susitna. 12. Borough sales tax. 13. Fines from litter and illegal dumping. Have a small group of volunteer litter patrol officers, levy fines for cigarette butts ($250) and for other litter ($1,000) and for illegal dumping of hazardous -waste ($5,000 + clean up). 14. Taxpayers should get a free dump when paying their taxes. 15. This provides the opportunity for community groups to clean up eyesores in the area. Provides ownership. The Borough should continue to do its part. 16. Increase free disposal to nine days like Anchorage. This Borough needs a major clean- up. 17. These are only for the slobs that are too lazy to dump more than once a year. The responsible citizen ends up paying for these people. Also think this is just a political gimmick by assembly members. This is not free plus the funds have to come from some where. At the most mail one free dump coupon with each tax statement. Also quit spending my tax dollars on coupons and bags for community clean -ups. 18. A small Borough wide sales tax would involve everyone and generate more money than needed for all your problems. 19. Sales tax. 20. In planning for the future of our waste management needs we have to look ten years or more down the road. Let's not let short -term convenience and cost controls influence us to the point where were afraid to bring about changes which will produce better long- term solutions to waste management requirements. 21. I don't have a free day at my place of business. Residents should pay - -no matter the day! Roadside pick -up should be handled by local charitable organizations. 22. But if you increase landfill fee too much it will discourage people to dump their trash or other item in the right area. 23. Politicians should sell their damn resort cabins and cash their damn retirement funds and pay for it. Additional comments received that are not necessarily associated with any particular question: 1. Recycling should consider the benefits from businesses that can use or reuse the materials saved -- composting, the ink tank local businesses that remakes printer 5 -8 SEA3100058663.O0C/081150012 13. Mandatory recycling is a must. SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM cartridges, tire to road surfacing, door mats etc. to mention a few. The more we save the more business incentive and these jobs and revenue for the Borough. Consider how to work with the school district, Borough administration and other large businesses in the valley to divert recyclables Work actively with established local nonprofit groups. Think about recycling incentives to increase recycling. 2. Do not permit new groups to remove /displace /take over existing volunteer organizations recycling operations. 3. I think we need to be careful not to undercut Anchorage landfill rates, or we could become the dump for Anchorage, subsidizing their costs. The Borough needs to keep a handle on hazardous waste, to prevent the disasters we read about with large waste companies. 4. I think the Borough should monitor transfer station managers closer. For the money they're paid I don't think the tax payers are getting a dollars worth of service for each dollar paid to them. 5. Bears near transfer stations and homes near transfer stations. More open days would help us get rid of our garbage. Fish and game and troopers suck when we call them about bears near transfer station. 6. I think the girl who runs the Sutton Transfer Station does a wonderful job. She is always kind and courteous to me and my family. Thanks. 7. Recycling, recycling, recycling! 8. I am so encouraged by the current recycling effort in the valley. We are catching up to the rest of the lower 48. We must think of the future not just our immediate convenience. I do hope following Borough questionnaire will not be so biased against what they find to be non cost effective, recycling. 9. A recycling program needs to be started again. Filling our sites up with /newspapers and cans just cost us more in the long run. Is there federal money to offset the cost of recycling? 10. How can the Borough encourage private recycle centers? Is incineration a better option? Just questions /no complaints here. 11. Waste management should be everybody's job that generates it. I think the Borough should rewrite waste management guidelines to include everybody that generate trash to be more on the recyclable side to reduce landfill capacity. All or anything such as grass, trees, leaves, etc.. should separated out of the trash and ground up to make compost that has many reuse application. This alone would cut down on the amount of solid waste to the landfill capacity. 12. I strongly favor acceptance of all types of trash. If you disallow some items (i.e., paints, batteries, and oil) you will receive them anyway but as hidden with other trash; otherwise, they will be dumped wherever is convenient. I like your current program! SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 5 -9 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 14. Thank you. 15. Could the landfill be closed one day /week (perhaps Mondays ?) How about municipal bonds? 16. Great job people, keep it up. 17. Overall, great job of handling a dirty job. Put the responsibility on the public to cover costs and make those who break the rules pay for the services and the clean up. Enforce the laws and use the funds to directly support the services. 18. Thanks for this opportunity. 19. Salvaging at the landfill offers the best recycling there is as people need different thins at different times. I would leave a days garbage for 24 hours before covering and let the public salvage what they want. 20. What about a bottle bill and or aluminum can bill? $.05 deposit and $.04 upon return to help pay for some of these things. Stop making property owners pay for everything. 21. Some citizen committee or forum should be responsible to monitor changes and improvements for waste control accordingly with hopefully improving technology. This overview can be brought to the assembly, and other officials for considerations. What contractors are used should be under this umbrella. 22. Recycling is needed here in Alaska. Even though there may be unlimited landfill space — we should be conscious of the need to recycle. It is fairly easy and painless once it started. But the Borough should have large bins for glass clear and colored, plastic containers -mild jugs, new papers and magazines, metal, wood items. Aluminum cans could be donated to the local elementary school. 23. I suggest Borough offices and the school district reduce waste volumes through recycling. Also, the Borough should increase landfill disposal fees to encourage recycling. Borough should institute an economic development incentive such as a reduced tax rate or other economic means to encourage new industries that manufacture goods with recyclables. In addition Borough should purchase recycled commodities when possible. 24. In the long -term, reuse, recycle is most efficient way to reduce garbage. Can the Borough /nonprofit work together to achieve this goal? A healthier environment will be the result for all. 25. Congratulations should be forwarded to the Long Rifle Lodge for doing an excellent job of maintaining the transfer station at Milepost 102, Glenn Highway. The site is always clean and tidy, and the attendants are always accommodating and willing to assist those who need help unloading their trash. 5.3 Response to Survey Results Written and informal comments received from businesses and the public were reviewed and considered in the context of updating the solid waste management plan. The comments, 5 -10 SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM although varied, provide direction to the Borough on how to modify the solid waste management system to meet public needs. The following are potential changes to the existing system and modification of future planning efforts in response to the questionnaire. 5.3.1 Question 1 A fairly even distribution of responses to the funding question indicates that the Borough should continue to seek a variety of sources to fund the solid waste management system. Disposal fees will probably be increased over time to help pay the costs of waste management; however, it is recognized that if fees were adjusted to pay all solid waste costs, the fees may be too high to meet public acceptance. Also, high disposal fees could stimulate illegal dumping. Although illegal dumping can be minimized by an enforcement program, the cost of an ongoing enforcement program can be expensive and controversial. The Borough, therefore, will try to keep the fees within the range of general public acceptance and will look to other revenue sources to fund the deficit. Several respondents believed that a sales tax or property tax increase would be appropriate to help fund the solid waste system. A sales tax is generally believed to be a more appropriate tax method for solid waste funding than property taxes because the more items a person purchases the more waste that person is likely to produce. Despite the fact that most questionnaire respondents favored a sales tax, the voters disapproved a sales tax initiative that was on the October 2, 2001 ballot. The ownership of property does not necessarily correlate to waste generation; therefore, increasing property taxes to fund the solid waste management system may be less appropriate than a sales tax. The Borough currently has no plans to increase taxes to fund the solid waste system. Some respondents believed that the Borough should investigate the feasibility of privatizing the entire solid waste operation. The Borough will continue to privatize portions of the solid waste system when it is economical to do so. Total privatization of the landfill is expected to increase costs because a private firm must charge a sufficient amount to cover costs and provide a profit. Privatization is likely to result in unacceptably high fees. Under Borough ownership, fees can be kept to an acceptable level by subsidizing disposal costs through other funding sources. It may be less expensive to operate the transfer stations as a private operation; however, continued Borough oversight will still be necessary to provide quality control standards. Future privatization of transfer stations will be considered by the Borough on a case by case basis. Several individuals indicated they thought costs could be reduced by recycling or that recycling revenue could offset disposal costs. A detailed review of the economics of recycling indicate that revenue from the sale of recycled materials is rather low compared to landfill operating costs and is not likely to offset costs by a significant factor. However, the Borough plans to eliminate the current landfill operations contract provision that allows the operator to keep money collected from the sale of recovered items. The Borough also plans to allow the nonprofit organization, VCRS, to keep all revenue derived from the sale of recycled materials. This will allow VCRS an opportunity to invest back into the expansion of the recycling facility. SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 5-11 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 5.3.2 Question 2 Most respondents believed that existing solid waste services within the Borough were adequate or good. Only two respondents believed that the system was inadequate, and two believed the system was poor. Although there is always room for improvement, the general feeling of Borough residents is that the existing system is working well and there are no major solid waste problems. The Borough will continue to maintain adequate solid waste facilities as the population grows. Site - specific problems will be addressed as needed. 5.3.3 Question 3 Most respondents believed that the current location and number of transfer station is adequate and should remain as is. The current location of transfer stations has evolved over time in response to public demands. The Borough has received extensive public outcry whenever they attempted to close or reduce the hours at transfer stations. All existing facilities are used by the public, and reducing service is likely to generate complaints. However, the transfer stations fail to pay for themselves, and consolidating some sites could save money. The consolidation of the Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, and Sunshine Transfer Stations into one site could save the Borough about $100,000 per year. A centrally located site with regular hours of operation would still provide an adequate disposal option for residents in the area. The consolidation issue will continue to be explored with additional public input. Since the transfer stations all operate at a deficit, it may be appropriate to increase disposal fees at these sites to offset costs. Any proposed fee increase will be moderate and will be subject to Borough assembly approval. Some respondents indicated that there are litter and wildlife problems associated with some of the transfer stations. In response, the Borough will implement better site controls to minimize wildlife and litter problems, as needed. 5.3.4 Question 4 Most respondents believed that the Borough should maintain a role in promoting recycling. Only four respondents believed that recycling should be discontinued at waste collection sites. The Borough will continue to provide opportunities to recycle materials that are economical to recycle. Also, the Borough will continue to provide recycling opportunities for materials that are prohibited in the landfill, such as used oil, batteries, and other selected wastes. The Borough has signed an agreement with VCRS, a nonprofit corporation, providing them with an area within the boundaries of the Central Landfill to operate a recycling facility. The facility will be near the entrance by the Borough Animal Control Facility. Initially, the facility is proposed to be open once every three months and, over time more frequently, to accept various household products such as paper aluminum, glass, and plastic containers. Ultimately, they plan to construct a covered storage area and heated building to process recyclable materials prior to transport. Also, the Borough will encourage business to practice product stewardship and producer responsibility for wastes requiring special handling or management as a hazardous waste. Problem wastestreams at the landfill will be traced back to their source and the Borough will work with the generators to encourage them to find other solid waste alternatives. 5-12 SEA3100050663.D0C/021150012 SECTION 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM The Borough will continue to encourage commercial operations to find alternative uses for waste products. For example, road construction contractors are encouraged to grind and reuse asphalt paving rather than haul paving chunks to the landfill. The Borough will continue to evaluate the feasibility of composting wood, green waste, and biosolids. If compost is produced by a local private entrepreneur, the Borough will consider purchasing the product at fair market price for Borough public works projects on an as- needed basis. 5.3.5 Question 5 Most respondents believed that the Borough should continue to contract out the operation of the landfill to a private company through competitive bidding if it is the least expensive method of operating the landfill. Only three respondents believed that the Borough would be better off operating the landfill with Borough employees and government -owned equipment. The Borough plans to continue to contract out portions of the operation that are economical to do so; however, the Borough will continue to provide oversight of the operation and will continue to inspect and weigh incoming vehicles and collect fees. This level of oversight and control is believed to be necessary to ensure proper management of the landfill. 5.3.6 Question 6 Most respondents believed that free dump days in the spring should be continued and that taxes should be used to pay for free dumping. Several respondents believed that a sales tax would be an appropriate mechanism to fund the free days. However, as previously stated, a sales tax of up to two percent failed to meet voter approval. Free dump days are expensive to run and hard on the system. The Borough estimates that it cost the government about $40,000 in year 2000 to provide free dump days. A significant portion of this cost is due to overtime pay to haul additional transfer trailers to the landfill and the extra time it takes to manage the waste in the landfill. The extra high volume of waste also disrupts normal service, and it is difficult for staff to manage the excess volume in a sanitary manner meeting solid waste permit requirements. It would be better if the public practiced sound solid waste management throughout the year rather than once a year during free dump days. An appealing recommendation that was made by a few individuals would be to issue a free dump coupon to each tax payer in the Borough. The coupon could be used at any time within the year. This method would spread out usage and would eliminate the high cost of overtime. Also, it would eliminate those who abuse the system by hoarding waste until free dump days. Volunteer groups cleaning public roadways could apply for free dump passes to dispose of waste collected during volunteer clean -up projects. SEA3100058663.DOCIO21150012 5 -13 SECTION 6 Recommendations The following are the major recommendations in this solid waste management plan update: • Continue to work on a viable solid waste management solution for the Skwentna Landfill and obtain a Class III landfill permit from the ADEC. • Establish an enterprise fund for solid waste management. An enterprise fund will allow for better tracking of refuse - related revenue and expenditures. Follow the GASB guidelines in Statement 34 for the management of an enterprise fund. • Evaluate the current solid waste rate structure and determine the best way to adjust the rates to more closely achieve a self- supporting solid waste management system. • Consolidate the Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, and Sunshine Transfer Stations into one facility using 120 -cy transfer trailers instead of the 40 -cy containers currently used at the sites. It is estimated that this consolidation will save the Borough about $100,000 per year. In addition, more convenient hours of operation could be provided compared to the schedule for the three existing transfer stations. • Leave the other transfer stations and dumpsters where they are, but improve litter and waste control to minimize environmental problems. Continue to provide more information to the public on waste reduction, recycling, and product stewardship. In particular, notify the public and businesses of waste items that are difficult or expensive to process and dispose of and encourage waste reduction or product substitution to minimize this waste. • Work cooperatively with VCRS to make the public aware of the recycling opportunities in the Borough and encourage the public to divert more materials from the landfill that are accepted by recycling groups. • Establish a reuse area at the Central Landfill for selected waste items. If successful, expand limited reuse areas to some of the transfer station sites. • Consider adding a $1 per ton recycling fee to disposal costs and maintain the money in a dedicated recycling fund. Money from the recycling fund could be used to provide public information on recycling, recycling studies, and capital improvements at recycling facilities. Acceptance of the fee would be subject to approval by the Borough assembly and the Alaska Regulatory Commission. • Formalize the review process for all solid waste permit applications for new proposed landfills in the Borough. At a minimum, the public works director and planning director should be included in the review process. Notify the ADEC of this review process to ensure that the Borough is copied on all future applications. SEA3100058663.00C/021150012 6-1 SECTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS • Consider developing an ordinance requiring that all MSW generated along the highway system (George Parks Highway, Glenn Highway, and Denali Highway) and connecting roads in the Matanuska - Susitna Borough be taken to the Central Landfill unless specifically exempted. This ordinance will be helpful in preventing the loss of flow control and the potential loss of solid waste tipping fee revenue. • Eliminate free disposal days in the spring. This program is very costly and creates an overload problem at the landfill leading to compliance violations. Consider replacing the free days with the issuance of one free disposal pass to each property tax payer in the Borough. The free pass system will help spread out usage while still providing an incentive for landowners to clean up their property. • Reevaluate the Central Landfill master plan about every five years to ensure that adequate cell capacity is being developed to match the waste generation rate. Also, review the cell layout and sequencing plan and make adjustments as appropriate. Evaluate the feasibility of going to a by weight fee system for all vehicles at the Central Landfill, including residential vehicles. Charging all customers by the weight of their waste load could increase revenue by almost $200,000 per year without changing the fee from its current rate of $50 per ton. Also, evaluate the feasibility of installing scales at the Big Lake and Butte transfer stations so that customers could be charged by weight. Installing scales at Big Lake and Butte transfer stations and charging all customers the current rate of $50 per ton could generate an additional $70,000 and $20,000 per year, respectively. Charging by weight encourages waste reduction and recycling. 6 -2 SEA3100056663.DOC/021150012 SECTION 7 References Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Compliance Assistance Program. Environmental Assistance Center. http : / /www.state.ak.us /dec /dsps /. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Alaska Administrative Code Control of Explosive Gases 18 AAC 60.350(a)(1). Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Alaska Administrative Code Solid Waste Permit Regulation 18 AAC 60.210(b)(1)(C). Arctic Environmental Engineers. Matanuska - Susitna Borough Solid Waste Disposal Study. 1977. Bambard and Associates. Landfill Assessment Program Letter Report for the Central Landfill, Matanuska - Susitna Borough. May 2000. CH2M HILL Central Landfill Operating and Maintenance Plan. May 2000. CH2M HILL Central Landfill Twenty -Year Operation and Development Master Plan. February 1996. CH2M HILL Matanuska - Susitna Borough Solid Waste Management Plan Update. 1990. Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Borough Code of Ordinances 95- 071(AM), Section 2 (part). 1995. Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Borough Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 8.05.020. Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Borough Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 8.05.030. Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Borough Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 8.05.070. Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Borough Code of Ordinances. Ordinance 8.05.080. Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Borough Code of Ordinances. Title 10, Chapter 12, Abatement of Abandoned Vehicles. Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Borough Code of Ordinances. Title 8, Chapter 05, Solid Waste. Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Matanuska - Susitna Borough Strategic Plan. 2002. National Association of Home Builders Research Center. Waste Management Update 2. October 1997. Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Personal communication with Matanuska - Susitna Borough. 2001. State of Alaska. Alaska Statute 46.06.021. United States Court of Appeals. United Haulers Association versus. Oneida - Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority. 2nd Circuit, No. 00 -7593, July 2001. SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 7-1 SECTION 7 REFERENCES United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 1999 update (year 1998 data). 1999. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Building - Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. EPA 530 -R -98 -010. June 1998. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 258.23. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments, EPA 530 -R -97 -011. September 1997. United States Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Subtitle D: Managing Municipal and Solid Waste. United States Supreme Court. C &A Carbone, Inc. versus Town of Clarkstown. 511 U.S. 363. 1994. 7 -2 SEA3100056663.0OC/021150012 APPENDIX A Landfill Life -Cycle Costs Assessment: Landfill Assessment Program Letter Report for the Central Landfill, Matanuska - Susitna Borough SEA3100058663.DOC/021150012 liarnoard & Associates Dick Lowman, PE Operations & Maintenance Division Manager Matanuska - Susitna Borough Public Works Department 350 East Dahlia Avenue Palmer, Alaska 99645 -6488 Subject: Landfill Assessment Program Letter Report For The Central Landfill, Matanuska - Susitna Borough Dear Mr. Lowman: Basic Assumptions ___ZZfl ronitt stt ti g- .i r:s--- - - -. -- 863 Sautfi Rose Tthce, ,A»aheim,, Ca(ornta 225625 (714, 32S-t9 $ May 21, 2000 Pursuant to our Contract with Matanuska - Susitna Borough (Borough), Bambard and Associates (B &A) has completed its assessment of current operations at the Borough's Central Landfill, with the results presented herein. Scope of Work B &A was provided the landfill tonnage records and operational budgets for the past three years. Additionally, B &A was provided with the current years projected operational budget. This information has been entered into B &A's Landfill Assessment Program (LAP) with the intent of developing the following information: 1. The Bench Mark cost per ton of operating the Central Landfill. 2. The timeline and size (acreage/costs) associated with developing the first lined cell. 3. The costs and impacts resulting from opening a construction and demolition cell. In order to determine a Bench Mark cost per ton, the following assumptions were made: I. Inflation rate of 3% applied to all costs on an annual basis 2. 1999 waste generation rate of 123 tons per day (128 tpd in 2000) 3. Population/Waste growth rate of 4.5% through 2010 and 3.5% thereafter. 4. In place density of waste 10001bs per cubic yard 5. Cover soil ratio 2:1 6. Final Fill elevation 330 feet with 4:1 side slopes. 7. Fill sequence from Station 16 +70 to Station 0+00 (survey information from CH2M 11111) 8. Operations remain unchanged with C&D being deposited at the working face. 9. Closure and Post Closure Costs are not included in the evaluation. 10. No liner is installed for Bench Mark Case, however; future cell sizes remain constant for each evaluation Bench Mark Costs As can be seen in Table 1, the Bench Mark average cost per ton for disposal of waste at the Central Landfill is $30.61 over the estimated 19 years of site life. This Bench Mark Cost assumes that the future cells will be excavated, as daily cover is needed for operations. Table 1 Bench Mark C osts Costs* 0% C&D sr/Liner Costs* 6% C&D w/Liner Costs* 1296 C&D w/Liner 2000 1 $3394 $3394 $3394 $3394 2001 2 $33.61 53551 33542 $3545 2002 3 $33.13 $40.72 34036 340.48 2003 4 $3233 $40.12 $39.76 339.88 2004 5 $32.19 $39.78 $39.42 $39.54 2005 6 331.73 *39.08 *3899 $39.08 2006 7 $31.17 $3828 33852 $3850 2007 8 330.69 $37.80 $38.04 $38111 2008 9 33028 33739 $37.63 $37.60 2009 10 $2992 337.03 53727 33724 2010 11 $29.74 $36 .06 33719 337.06 2011 12 $29.61 535.13 $3518 $36.04 2012 13 $2928 13490 3 $35.05 532.05 2013 14 $2932 33539 $3499 $35.17 2014 15 $29.17 13691 qi $3599 $35.02 2015 16 $29.05 136.79 $371)3 336.66 2016 17 $2827 $34.67 $36.85 $37.06 2017 18 $28.72 328.72 $32.71 $3691 2018 19 $28.60 $28.60 $28.60 $32.70 2019 20 no airspace m airspace 322.43 $28.43 20A 21 m airspace $2829 2021 22 no airspace Average $30.61 $36.15 536.06 $3596 May 21, 2000 Page 2 Central Landfill Letter Report Therefore, for the Bench Mark Cost Case only, no special costs are associated with the construction of the future cells. For the remainder of the costs shown in Table 1, the installation of a liner system was included. A description of the liner design follows. *Costs are averaged over the life of the lined area only. Costs presented in BOLD represent the year when the next cell opens. Liner Design Assumptions The Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL) is in a similar climatic zone as that of the Central Landfill. Based upon information from ARL, we can anticipate that after installation of a liner, the Central Landfill will experience a leachate generation rate of approximately 378 gallons per plan-view acre of liner. Long -term leachate treatment at the Central Landfill will probably be handled by leachate evaporation and re- circulation from an on -site storage lagoon; however, leachate from the first lined cell will be stored in underground storage tanks. The leachate will be pumped from the underground storage tanks and either hauled for re- circulation in the landfill or to a sewage treatment plant for disposal. The size of the first lined cell will therefore directly impact Bat tbart ce Associates MI 44 • gat I- r t r •7 May 21, 2000 Page 3 Central Landfill Letter Report the amount of onsite leachate and the number of weekly hauls needed to maintain minimum leachate levels. Additionally based upon the anticipated waste flow, in -place density and cover soil ratio, it is estimated that approximately 800,000 cubic yards of airspace will be needed to last five years. Therefore the first lined area should be as small in area as possible to minimize leachate development, and yet provide a minimum of 5 years of airspace. Based upon these parameters, the following criteria were developed for the first lined cell (Cell 2B). Liner Design Criteria: 1. Liner width 240 feet (plan view). 2. Liner installed from Station 16+70 to Station 7+00 (approximately 800,000 CY airspace). 3. LCRS Slope - 1.5% west- southwest. 4. 5.3 Acres Plan View (1,800 gallons of leachate per day or 2.5 trips per week). 5. Based upon ARL costs, liner Cost $180,000 per Acre or $954,000. 6. Develop 4 lined areas (Cells 2B&C & Cells 3 B&C) which will run -out of airspace in January 2018, assuming no C&D separation. 7. Size LCRS collector pipe for peak flows from 21 acres of lined area. C &D Cell Evaluation Based upon the current plans for the Central Landfill, the proposed C &D Cell will be constructed as a part of the, soon to be Bid, Matanuska - Susitna Borough's Road Service Area Aggregate Screening Contract. It is therefore anticipated that the new C&D Cell will be constructed at little to no additional costs to the landfill operational budget. Based upon typical waste generation rates, it is anticipated that as much as 15% of the typical waste stream is comprised of C&D Waste. A review of the Central Landfill tonnage records indicates that between 4% and 10% of the waste stream is easily identified as C&D Waste. To complete this portion of the evaluation, the following three scenarios have been developed and evaluated: 1. The C&D Cell and Cell 2B are developed as previously described; however, it is assumed that 0% of the waste stream is diverted to the C &D Cell. This scenario serves as a basis for evaluating Scenarios 2, and 3 below. 2. The C&D Cell and Cell 2B are developed as previously described; however, it is assumed that 6% of the waste stream, which is assumed to be C &D material, is diverted from the lined cell to the C &D Cell. 3. The C&D Cell and Cell 2B are developed as previously described; however, it is assumed that 12% of the waste stream, which is assumed to be C &D material, is diverted from the lined cell to the C&D Cell. 2am.Gard d Associates Environmental Engineers May 21, 2000 Page 4 Central Landfill Letter Report C&D Evaluation Results As can be seen in Table 1, the average annual cost per ton for diversion rates of 0%, 6 %, and 12% are $36.15, $36.06, and $35.96 respectively. It is evident that the cost per ton decreases approximately $.09 per ton as the diversion rate increases from 0% to 6% and decreases $.10 per ton as the diversion rate increases from 6% to 12 %; however, these rate changes are considered to be negligible, because as the diversion rate increases, there is a significant increase in the life of the lined cell. It is this increase in the life of the lined cell where the true value of the C&D diversion occurs. We can evaluate the value of this diversion by comparing the dollar value of the average annual diversion rate tonnage volume with the dollar value, based upon annual tonnage, of the amount of airspace used for MSW. Based upon this evaluation we determine that a 6% C&D diversion rate results in a 5.3% cost savings while the 12% C&D diversion rate results in an 11.3% cost savings. Conclusions & Recommendations The development of the first lined cell at the Central Landfill represents a significant investment in the future of solid waste disposal in the Matinuska - Susitna Borough. Because a liner represents a large increase in the landfill's capital costs, it is important to maximize the utilization of the airspace represented by that investment. It therefore behooves us to keep environmentally stable materials (like C &D wastes) from being placed in the lined landfill cell. The more of this C&D waste that can be kept from the lined cell the more airspace can be reserved for MSW. It is therefore recommended that the Borough establish a separate lower rate for the disposal of C&D waste in the ('S'D Cell. Furthermore, it is apparent that the C&D rate should be approximately 10% to 12% less than the current landfill- tipping fee. Lastly, in reviewing the Central Landfill Tonnage records, it became apparent that a minor amount of tonnage was being generated from some of the various Transfer Stations. Rural transfer stations are typically disproportionately supported through landfill user fees. Should the Borough so desire, using the LAP, B &A could develop an assessment of the Borough's Transfer Sites, including their related tonnages and associated costs. B &A is pleased to submit this letter report to the Matanuska - Susitna Borough. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please call us at (714) 325 -3925. Sincerely, Nowland D. Bambard, PE President Ramgarc€ & .associates Tnvironn entafCansuLtingingineers APPENDIX B Matanuska - Susitna Borough Code of Ordinances Title 8, Chapter 05, Solid Waste Title 10, Chapter 12, Abatement of Abandoned Cars SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 MATANUSKA- SUSTTNA BOROUGH CODE OF ORDINANCES TITLE 8 HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 8.05: SOLID WASTE 8.05.010 DEFINITIONS. (A) For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply. (1) "Asbestos" means either of two incombustible, chemical- resistant, fibrous mineral forms of impure magnesium silicate used for fireproofing, electrical insulation, building materials, brake linings, and chemical filters. (2) "Disposal" means to deposit a solid or liquid waste into or onto the water or land of the state, whether the waste is contained or uncontained, by discharging, injecting, dumping, spilling, leaking, placing, discarding, or abandoning the waste so that the waste or any part or byproduct of the waste might enter the environment. (3) "Hazardous waste means a waste, or combination of wastes, that because of quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious, pathological, or radiological characteristics might: (a) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or to the environment if improperly managed, treated, stored, transported, or disposed. (4) "Junked vehicles" means vehicles unable to perform as originally intended and no longer wanted by their owners. (5) 'Landfill" means an area in which solid waste is disposed of on or into the land, or that portion of a facility where landfilling is taking or has taken place. "Landfill" does not include a landspreading facility or a containment structure used for the disposal of drilling wastes. (6) 'Recyclable materials" means materials which can be reprocessed, reconditioned, or adapted to use again or for a new use or function. (7) "Salvaging" means the controlled removal of waste materials for recycling or reuse. (8) "Solid waste" means drilling wastes, garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi -solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, and agricultural operations, and from community activities. For purposes of this chapter, "solid waste" does not include: (a) spoil and overburden from road construction, land clearing, or mining operations; (b) mining waste regulated by federal and state regulations; (c) domestic sewage and other wastes that are discharged into and pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned treatment works; (d) industrial or mining wastes that are being collected, stored, or treated in: (i) a wastewater treatment plant before discharge or removal; or (ii) an industrial processing facility for continual re -use; (e) industrial discharges that are point sources subject to federal or state permits; (f) nuclear or nuclear byproduct material. (9) "Solid waste disposal facility" means all contiguous land, structures, appurtenances, and improvements within the facility boundary used to treat, store, or dispose of solid waste, including property used as a landfill, a landspreading facility, or other structure used for the final disposal of solid waste into or onto the land. (10) "Transfer site" means a public use facility for the deposit and temporary storage of solid waste which is acceptable for disposal at a permitted landfill. A "transfer site' will have a containment capacity of at least 40 cubic yards. A "transfer site" does not indude a facility for the storage of a hazardous waste regulated under federal or state regulations. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.020 ESTABLISHMENT OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES. There is established the non - areawide service of constructing, maintaining, and operating a system of solid waste transportation and disposal in all areas outside cities, including special land use districts, by authority of MSB 1.10.775, Solid Waste. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.030 PURPOSE. The Matanuska - Susitna Borough operates a solid waste system for the transportation of solid waste, and for the disposal of solid waste at a legally permitted sanitary land fill site which has been designed and constructed to accommodate the disposal of solid waste in accordance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and permits. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.040 PROHIBITED DISPOSAL 11 EMS. A person may not deposit or dispose, at a borough- operated solid waste transfer or disposal facility, any items prohibited by the Matanuska- Susitna Borough's waste disposal permit issued by the Alaska State Department of Environmental Conservation. All the items as defined in MSB 8.05.010(8) are not necessarily allowable. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.050 PROHIBITED ACTS. (A) At a borough- operated solid waste transfer or disposal facility, a person may not: (1) deposit or dispose of any prohibited disposal items as descrthed in MSB 8.05.040; or (2) discharge a firearm; (3) remove, destroy, deface, or vandalize any instructional sign, fence, or structure; (4) enter except during the posted opening hours, unless otherwise authorized; or (5) dispose of material which has a special waste area designation at any other area other than those designated areas. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.060 SPECIAL WASTE AREAS. (A) Special waste areas may be designated at the solid waste transfer sites and /or disposal site for recyclable materials, junked and abandoned vehicles, asbestos containing material, waste oil, batteries, paint, and for the collection, storage and transporting for disposal of hazardous wastes as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (B) Recyclable material: The Matanuska- Susitna Borough will be responsible for determining what materials are acceptable for recycling. The recyclable materials which will be accepted may vary from time to time depending upon the market for such recyclable materials. (C) Scheduled events may be offered at the solid waste disposal facility to accept household hazardous wastes and hazardous wastes from conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG). (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.070 UNSECURED REFUSE. A person may not operate, drive, cause, or permit to be operated, or driven, any motor vehicle carrying refuse or other tangible material that is reasonably capable of blowing out, falling from, spilling, dropping, leaking, sifting, or escaping from the vehicle unless the vehicle is provided with a suitable enclosure or container that effectively prevents the loss of such refuse or other material. A suitable enclosure must either be an integral part of the vehicle or a separate cover of suitable material with fastening which secures all sides of the cover to the vehicle. Refuse is suitably contained if it is entirely enclosed in a secure container which is not reasonably capable of blowing out or otherwise escaping from the vehicle. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.080 LITTERING PROHIBITED. A person may not throw, drop, discard, or otherwise dispose of solid waste or other litter on public rights -of -way or borough lands unless the litter is placed in a receptacle maintained for the deposit of refuse or litter, or in a borough designated solid waste disposal facility or transfer site. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.090 FEES AND CHARGES. (A) The fees and charges for disposal of solid waste are based on a per ton or per - cubic -yard basis. The fees and miscellaneous charges as required for the operation of the solid waste system are established and may be amended by borough resolution. (B) Any user paying on a cubic -yard basis who disagrees with the attendant's estimate of volume may dispose of the solid waste at central landfill where the solid waste will be weighed, and the user shall pay the established fee per ton. (C) Exemption from the requirement to pay the established fees or charges for the transfer and disposal of solid waste within the Matanuska - Susitna Borough may be established by borough resolution. (D) Charge accounts may be established for commercial and agency entities disposing 40 cubic yards or more per month. These charges will only be allowed at the solid waste disposal facility unless prior approval has been obtained to charge at transfer sites. All charge accounts are due and payable within 30 days of date of billing. After 30 days, the accounts will be considered as outstanding and will be assessed a late fee. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) 8.05.100 Penalties. [Repealed by Ord. 95- 088(SUB)(am), § 4 (part), 1995. See MSB 8.05.105 for current provisions] 8.05.105 VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT, AND PENALTIES. (A) Except as otherwise specified in this chapter violations of this chapter are infractions. (B) Remedies, enforcement actions, and penalties shall be consistent with the terms and provisions of MSB 1.45. (Ord. 95- 088(SUB)(am), § 16 (part), 1995) 8.05.110 ENFORCEMENT. The manager may appoint or designate an enforcement officer to enforce this chapter. The enforcement officer shall have the authority to issue citations, summons, and complaint, or notices of violation to a person who violates this chapter. A citation filed in the district court charging a violation under this chapter shall be deemed a Lawful complaint for purposes of prosecution under this chapter. (Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 2 (part), 1995) Chapter 8.04 Sanitary Fill Sites Note to Chapter 8.04: (Repealed by Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 3 (part), 1995. See MSB 8.05 for current provisions) Chapter 8.20 Solid Waste Disposal Note to Chapter 8.20: (Repealed by Ord. 95- 071(AM), § 3 (part), 1995. See MSB 8.05 for current provisionsl Title 10: VEHICLES AND ABANDONMENT CHAPTER 10.12: ABATEMENT OF ABANDONED VEHICLES 10.12.010 ABANDONMENT UNLAWFUL. (A) A person may not abandon a vehicle in a public right -of -way or area used for movement or parking of vehicles. A "public right -of -way or area used for movement or parking of vehicles" includes all areas designated for or used for those purposes located within a service area of the borough. (B) A person may not abandon a vehicle upon public property owned by or under the control of the borough without the consent of the borough. (C) A person who abandons a vehicle in a place specified in subsection (A) or (B) is responsible for the abandonment of the vehicle and is liable for the cost of its removal and disposition. (D) The lawful owner of a vehicle, as shown by the records of the state of Alaska, Department of Public Safety, is responsible for the abandonment of the vehicle unless: (1) the vehicle was abandoned by a person driving without the permission of the owner; or (2) the identity of the person abandoning the vehicle is established and the abandonment was without the consent of the owner. (Ord. 94- OO1AM, § 10 (part), 1994; Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.020 PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT. A vehicle which has been left unattended, standing or parked within a public right -of -way or on land owned by or controlled by the borough uu excess of 72 hours without the consent of the borough is presumed to be abandoned by its owner and may be treated as an abandoned vehicle under this chapter unless it is removed before action is taken in accordance with this chapter. (Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.030 REMOVAL OF ABANDONED VEHICLES. (A) The borough may remove or have removed to a place of storage any vehicle abandoned in a public right -of -way, public area used for movement or parking of vehicles, or public property owned by or under the control of the borough. (B) A written report of the removal shall be made by the manager immediately following the removal. The report shall describe the vehicle, the date, time and place of removal, the grounds for removal, and the place of impoundment of the vehicle. A copy of the report shall be sent to the state of Alaska Department of Public Safety and to the person who stores the vehicle. (Ord. 94- 001AM, § 10 (part), 1994; Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.040 NOTICE TO OWNERS AND LIENI-IOLDERS. The person who stores an abandoned vehicle at the direction of the borough under this chapter shall, within 30 days of receiving the vehicle, give notice to the vehicle owner of record and to any lienholder of record stating the grounds for removal and the place of impoundment of the vehicle. If the vehicle is not registered in the state, or the name and address of the registered or legal owner or lienholder cannot be ascertained, notice shall be given by publication in a manner prescribed in the rules of court for service of process by publication. Notice to persons under this section shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested. (Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.050 VESTING OF TITLE. Title to an impounded vehicle not reclaimed by the registered owner, any lienholder, or other person entitled to possession within 30 days from the notice given to the owner under this chapter vests with the borough, subject only to any storage or towing lien. (Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.060 REDEMPTION. A person who presents satisfactory proof or right to possession of the abandoned vehide may redeem the vehicle removed under this chapter at any time before auction of the vehicle by paying the charges of towing, storage, notice, other costs of impoundment, and any applicable penalty imposed by law. (Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.070 DISPOSAL OF ABANDONED VEHICLES. (A) Upon satisfaction of the notice and reporting requirements of this chapter, a vehicle may be disposed of by public auction 20 days after notice of the auction is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the borough. A notice shall describe the abandoned vehicle and specify the place, date and time at which it will be sold. A copy of the notice of auction shall be sent to the state of Alaska, Department of Public Safety. (B) A vehicle disposed of under this section shall be registered and titled by the state of Alaska, unless the vehicle is junked and cannot be driven. (C) Notwithstanding this section, the borough may initiate a civil action against the person considered responsible for the abandonment and recover costs exceeding receipts for disposal of the vehicle. (Ord. 94- OO1AM, § 10 (part), 1994; Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.080 DISPOSAL FACILITIES. The borough shall designate one or more appropriate areas within the borough for disposal of abandoned vehicles. This information shall be made available to the public. (Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.090 NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. An owner or any lienholder of an abandoned vehicle removed under this chapter shall be entitled to an administrative hearing as soon as possible after the removal of the vehicle. Hearings shall be informal and technical rules of evidence do not apply. A person who requests a hearing may retain an attorney if the person desires. The hearing officer shall be appointed by the manager. Proceedings of the hearing shall be recorded. The hearing officer shall state on the record the evidence relied on and the reasons for the officers determination. (Ord. 94- 0OIAM, § 10 (part), 1994; Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.100 VEHICLES CONSTITUTING A TRAFFIC HAZARD. (A) This chapter may not prevent the borough, its employees or agents from immediately removing a vehicle in a public right -of -way, an area used for movement or parking of vehicles, or on public land owned by or under the control of the borough if the vehicle constitutes an immediate hazard to the public. (B) Any vehicle removed as a hazard under this section may be treated as an abandoned vehicle, in which case all procedures of this chapter shall be followed. (C) A vehicle is an "immediate hazard to the public" if it creates a traffic or safety hazard by reason of its location or condition, or if it impedes the regular flow of traffic on the ordinary use of the public land on which it is located. (Ord. 94- 001AM, § 10 (part), 1994; Ord. 81 -95, § 2 (part), 1981) 10.12.110 VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT, AND PENALTIES. (A) Except as otherwise specified in this chapter violations of this chapter are infractions. (B) Remedies, enforcement actions, and penalties shall be consistent with the terms and provisions of MSB 1.45. (Ord. 95- 088(SUB)(am), § 20 (part), 1995) APPENDIX C Net Present Value Evaluation Cell Sequencing Under Current Program Cell Sequencing with Maximum Recycling Net Present Value Spreadsheet SEA3100058663D0C/021150012 TABLE C -1 Central Landfill Cell Capacity Cell Capacity (cy) Running Total Cell 2A + 2B 920,000 920,000 Cell 3 970,000 1,890,000 Cell 4 1,535,000 3,425,000 Cell 5 1,000,000 4,425,000 Cell 6 1,000,000 5,425,000 Notes: Cell 2A and 2B capacity is based on actual design plans. Cell 3 and 4 capacity is based on conceptual plans. Cell 5 and 6 have not been designed yet, so a capacity estimate of one million cy was used for estimating purposes. APPENDIX C SEA3100058663.D0C/021150012 0-1 D D 0) N O c c • P. (D 0 0 ( 3 S 3 a o E 5 3 CD N O N 5. 0. - 0 y 0 • •< 3 ° (D 0) = m • ( (0 (0 O 1 O O N O • O O 0 C 5 (0 Q o 0 co O A S � (0 0) co co S (D (3 O (D 3 C '0 (1) N 9 3 m Q ✓ - t 0 (0 co 0 w 5 P0 0 0 0 c 3 co N N N N N N N N N N N IV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O CT A W N 0 (0 CO V 0) (T A(0 N - 0 07 O -4 O 01 A CO 10 -• 0 (O y 0 0 0 O N (O CO CO CO V J J V W 0) O 0) O (T N j A A A A N O a V A J A 0 O) co 03 O) W (O V (T 0) (0 O O) a O O) ( N J 0) O (0 00 (0 O � O) —& O) IV (O J CT (1) 0) N j N j - co O O O) a CT -4 0 01 0 O 0) O(0 A A N -4 0 0 J N CO (0 CO -+ A 0) (O N A (0 A 0) CO N 0 1 0 N CO -) -4 O CO (O J 0 O) — N N N N N N- 0 0 CO O O -4 0) 0) 01 CT A A(0(0 N N-s -s 4 . 0 0 CO (O CO CO 01 -4 (0 N CO CO N CT 0 CO CO N J N J N V CO (O N -4 V CO (O O W CO N W Oo U a V—' O J 00 -4 O) CO N N A 00 a O O- A 00 (0 O J O CO N CO (O O A O — N N O O) CO CO A O N co A J N — J O Co CT V CO CO 4 . O OT —L N O J CO CO CO 0) O O N O 0) (0 0) 0) N N N N N N N N N P0 N CO N 0 CO O J CO CT A(0 N N O (O CO OD V V 0) 0) 01 A A J 0) A(0 CO CO 0) (0 A Cn V O 0 Co 01 03 -• Cn O N 0) 0 01 (O A (O A Co O J (0 N O N V in 4— (O (O (0 - co V 00 V N in J-4 V O N O) V A 0 A (T N N 0) V CO Co 0 (O (0 (0 0) CO N CO 01 0) N 0) 03 O N—L A J J-• V CO J CO V- CO 0 0) 0 A 0 CO A(0 N V A O N A A a a CO CO CO N N N N (0 (O in 0) O V A N (O 0) A N - co J in (0 -+ co J N A N 0) (O -4 (T N (T -4 0 0) O(0 0 -4 (T CO Co CO j (T J O(0 V A O) O N CO (T N CO co O O J CO 0) J A CO V O N-' A in (0 0) -. (0 In —S (0 (0 O V O O N O (0 O (0 O O) 01 N a a (0 CO -' O N 0 N (O O CO CD Co O CO 4. V J 0) Cn A 0 N 01 A -4 A CO O N-L CO CO N N J O CO A 0) 0 C 3 0 0 0 3 3 (D 3 m 0 O y W CO O a C N C C 3 3 N CD CD 0 0 j O o m 3 o . a ? N a m o v C 3 - o N D) o 2 m 5a -o N T. N 3 a m co 13) 0 m N N 0 l 0 0 0 C a a y O M 5 0 S . a co CD N 0 co C 3 m N N N CO N) N) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a 000000 00000000000000000000 (D ( A W N N 0 O CO J O) N A CO N a 0 < 0 0) -4 0 0 A W CI 0 CO O - 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO OD CO V V V -4 O) 0) a 0) CT CT CT N Ui A A A A N W A J A V A (O O) CO CO O) W (0 J 0) CO (D OD O) A a a ((0 N J W O In 00 (D O 0 O) -' O) N) in J in in In in j (0 -' N 0) O O O) A 01 V O Cn co 01 O) O W A A N -4 J 0 0 N CO CO N A CO OJ N A O A O) OD N 0 a 0 (n CO a V 0 CO (0 V 0 O) - Ut N ND N N N 0 0 CO O) CO J 0) O) N 01 A A W CO N N a a a 0 0 CO (D CO OD N J (D N CT CO N N CO co OD N J CO -4 N J W (D CP a J W (D 0) W CO N W - CO in a J W V j -' 01 - co N N a W A-S 0 0 1 A - Co CO O J CO J CD CO O 0 v CO 0 W -I. O ND N 0 CO W V W W W a ( 01 a a N 0 0 0 0 CO (0 (D OD CO CO J V -4 J a a 0) O) (T N 01 N CT N N 17 01 v A a O) A - CO O a W 07 a s -a (O J in - co -S O a CO CO W a 0 N ( O T CO 0 CO CO W a A N ( N OD J 0 0 CD CO 0 ND O (O CO CO J J 0) 0) W CT A CO W W N) N a a 0 0 0 (D CO O O CO O O N 01 (O CO -4 a U) O A CO N 0 N a -4 W CO 01 a CO A O CO (0 A j CO J N O O N In N (O CO O CO - CO A N-' N A V N - co W O N CO CO O Ut N O O co A co co CT W 0) CO N N CO cn A V N CO CT CO CO CO A W CO O CO O—S CO O O) O) N a O W V N N-' N CO W N N N N N N N N N j N N N 0 (0 W V O) 0) 01 A W N O O O W OD J O) O) 0i 0) A A A03 0 CO W CO CO CO CO 0 a CO 01 J CO N 0 CO N CT (D CO OD N -no a co CO J (O 0 In - co in in W A co A O in in J N - CO V - CO a W W N N N CO A J CO O) W Ca N a a 0 V a N CO CO N (O J CO 03 CO CO 0) N W N CO O a N CO O A a a N W 0 0 W CO a CO 0 01 CO N J A N A A A CO CO CO CO N N N N a a a a a O J a - co 01 W O J N - co O W O) A N boo-4 010 N 0) A CO W A -4 O a CO A a CO V W 0) O) -4 (D a A W N -4 O) a W J W O (0 0) O 0 W 0 0t 0) A C O O D A C D C O (o O - co 0) V a N J N a 0 J N W J a 0 N a no W - co W A O N CO J CO N W a 0 0 CO N 0 N CO a N A 0) J Co (0(710 A A W—S W W (0 Oo J CT a 0— J A CO A A (o —S (D -Cr o to C 3 ra = f) O 3 3 CD 0 a N r (I) m C) 9 C to CD 0 Co F. co co 3 c 3 CD 0 Co 9 m 0 R n a a a 0 EA a a a 0 0 0 0 000 69 a a a 0 0 0 0 O O O O a a a O O O O O a a ea O O 0 a a a 0 0 0 EA a a 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 O a a o O O O a fA 0 0 a a 0 0 49 EA 0 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 0 b3 a 0 0 a N w N O O O N a a a 0 a a a a 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 O a a o O o O a a 0 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 0 a N O O O O a o O O fA N O O O DATE: June 6, 2006 TO: Rick Gifford, Manager FROM: Bud Cassidy, Director, Engineering and Facilities Department SUBJ: Assembly Direction on Pool Project Schematic Construction Docs Const begins I I I I Design Development Bid Project KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Engineering 6 Fac hittes Department MEMORANDUM Warranty INTRODUCTION The Borough presently has a contract with ECUHyer to perform design work on the pool. Though contract 2006 -28 approved the entire cost of pool design with ECUHyer, because of the rapid escalation of construction costs, the Assembly wanted to visit the project again, after schematic design review, prior to proceeding with the project. ASSEMBLY ACTION The ARB will present to the Assembly their review of schematic design. As part of their public hearing with the public and with the architect, the ARB made suggestions and design changes to the schematic design. The architect has incorporated those changes in the design and made changes to the project cost. Based on those changes, it is important for the Assembly to review and make a decision about proceeding in the manner that the ARB is recommending. CONCLUSION We are looking for direction from the Assembly to move past the Schematic Design on to Design Development (DD). At the design development stage, a more detailed building plan will be devised by the architect. As well, a more detailed construction price will also be determined. DD will get us a more precise project that will allow us to apply for grants. KODIAKISLAND BOROUGH Engineering & Facilities Department DATE: 6 June 2006 TO: Ken Smith, Project Manager FROM: Sharon Lea Adinolfi, Project Assistant RE: Design Development Stage for the New Pool MEMORANDUM In mid December 2005 the KIB Assembly approved an A/E Design Services Contract for $687,324.00. The approval, although for the total amount of the Contract, was made with the caveat that the design services stop at the first stage — 35% schematic design and cost estimate — before proceeding to the next stage The ARB held a regular meeting and public presentation of the 35% schematic design and cost estimate on 31 May 2006. A copy of that presentation is attached. The ARB recommended changes to the design along with requesting additional cost information. Some of the recommendations were: an increase in square footage, a concrete pool, a rework of the spectator seating, options for both interior and exterior materials. A copy of the revised estimate incorporating these changes and additions dated June 6 is attached. The ECJJHyer design team has satisfied its initial direction by the Assembly to proceed through the 35% design stage. Approval by the Assembly to move to this next stage is required to continue the effort to design a new pool facility which meets the needs of all of the community and incorporates the recommendations made by the ARB. A read through of the Draft Minutes of the ARB 31 May 2006 Meeting [attached] indicates a strong desire of the Members to "design to the program" — to construct a durable, attractive building with room for recreational swimmers, competitive swimmers, beginning swimmers, young children to senior citizens. The ARB's direction, basically put, is to build a good facility without compromising and to seek out additional funding to fill in the gap that escalation of materials and labor has created. Page 1 of 1 O W fn Z T. co n N F m o F O_ N O T co o a T. E o c� .2 o 0 C in = m N 0) a 1 0) N N 1 J N I 004 I 003 002 0 0 Item No. Change any areas of cement board siding to box rib metal siding similar to other areas Add salt water chlorine generation system in addition to the calcium hypochloride feed system Change pool construction from stainless steel tank to concrete Increase escalation factor from 7% to 12% Eliminate the last bank of bleachers adjacent to the diving boards Increase overall width of building by 10' to give more circulation and to prevent spectator traffic on deck. Issue C ARB ECI 9 W 9 W By Sto ECI & C -I-1 ARB ECI n To Li, Lo o O Li, w o o 5/31/06 5/31/06 5/31/06 U, \ w 0 O Date Issued Action Required Scott noted that the installation of the fiber cement board siding installed at north star elementary school has been deteriorating. ECI /Hyer made a site visit and verified that the material was intact but the paint was flaking off and the shrinkage between the boards were unacceptable. the board lengths were approximately 10' in length and the gaps were compromising the sealant at the joints. Add $35,000 to swimming pool estimate. The desire by the ARB was to have the salt system as the primary sanitizer with a cal - hypo back up. Also, it was expressed that the UV system be left in as a part of the basic pool filtration & sanitizing system. Add $500,000 to swimming pool line item estimate. Based on estimates provided by Counsilman - Hunsaker Increase the escalation factor. Based on conversations between ECI /Hyer and general contractors. ARB directed ECI /Hyer to eliminate the last bank of bleachers at the deep end of the pool. Felt that those would be the "cheap seats" and not allow for an acceptable view of swimming events. Increase the natatorium to allow more room for circulation around the shallow pool area. also to allow for circulation space related to the spectator seating. The preference is to have an elevated spectator area to eliminate street shoe traffic at the pool deck level. This affects the widths of the natatorium and the lobby. ECI /Hyer to look into bleachers which have a guradrail and elevated portion to prevent spectators from walking on the deck. Comments O W fn Z T. co n N F m o F O_ N O T co o a T. E o c� .2 o 0 C in = m N 0) a 1 0) N N 1 J N Na W co Z 0 m n N N 0 F O _ y T N O m = m — a W o 0 c co C1 C CD N N O. 91 N N 0 CO 007 Investigate layout options for shallow pool. It was determined that a ramp was not desired. Concern was expressed regarding the cedar wall treatment within the natatorium. Also to take a look at incorporating an air distribution element. Investigate "essential building" clause of the IBC (international building codes) Add 1" to AC pavement to bring total thickness to 3" instead of 2" 9 A w 9 Xi co Dl 9 n A m ARB m C R CJ rri n > w m m n 3 $P w r ECI & DOWL \ w O O, V, w 0 O, a v, \ \ N y T O T 5/31/06 Need to discuss more in depth, no pun intended, regarding the shallow pool area and options in order to accommodate toddlers and beginning swimmers. ECI /Hyer suggested a flat portion within the competition pool which could serve as an activity area in conjunction with lap swim. Members of the ARB expressed concerns towards the vertical cedar on the walls of the natatorium. Specifically staining and maintenance issues. ECI /Hyer & AMC to take a look at raising the material to 4 to 6 feet above the deck and perhaps incorporating mechanical duct /distribution element to wash the walls at the lower level with heated air. Will also look at alternative materials as well. This will occur as a normal progression during Design Development. Scott wanted to check the essential building clause of the IBC and also desired a minimum importance factor of 1.25 to the pool facility. ECl/Hyer has investigated the codes (2003 IBC) and found that the facility is not an "essential building ". Essential buildings require an importance factor of 1.5. The pool facility should fall under category III and thus would require an importance factor of 1.25 applied to the structural seismic design. Issue Resolved Scott mentioned that 2" AC pavement did not have the longevity of 3" thick AC pavement. Na W co Z 0 m n N N 0 F O _ y T N O m = m — a W o 0 c co C1 C CD N N O. 91 N N 014 013 012 0 Provide revised estimate of items above which are applicable Provide mechanical and electrical operational costs Investigate cost heat exchange /recovery system to HVAC Coaching aisles along both sides of pool + 9 R n F co ARB ARB 9 7, w HMS HMS AMC AMC & HMS m R' rn vi \ \ N W \ 0 o 0 5/31/06 5/31/06 C., W 0 (\ \ \ S. HMS to provide revised estimate incorporating the items above. ECI /Hyer met with HMS to explain scope of changes. HMS to have estimate ready by the 7th of June (Wed.) AMC to provide energy consumption and maintenance costs associated with mechanical and electrical systems as soon as possible. Asked to investigate the cost of adding a heat recovery system as well as effects to overall operational costs of mechanical and electrical systems. Jay mentioned that it would be better if coaches could parallel both lengths of the competition pool. ECI /Hyer suggested widening the stem wall between the shallow and competition pools in order to accommodate coaches and to reduce the cross over from the shallow pool. perhaps even incorporate a guardrail. also, provide a draw bridge or similar in order to span the gap between the two pools when needed. W O W ca n E . N o at O O T � O 0. n co .Q o c c s co N 0 0. 1 m N T o C. Approval of Agenda It was moved and second roll call vote. D. Approval o It was mov There w E. Minutes Architectural/ Engineering Review Board and Public Presentation 31 May 2006 - 6:00pm KIB Assembly Chambers A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 6:05 pm. B. Roll Call ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Gre. Reed Oswalt and Brent Watkins. Absent KIB Engineering and Facilities Department Lea Adinolfi. • ling, Jay Johnston, Representing the mith and Sharon oved as submitted. S. Arndt turne ��o to J r>y f presentation of the 35% schematic design and 35% e t a or t t t w pool. erry introduced the other members of his team: ]tin er, J?rct - anager and Project Architect, Boyd Morgenthaler Print p at + er and Mark Langberg, Senior Mechanical Engineer, both of T. Hyer explained the Jprocess [for the design] beginning with a preliminary schematic design and rt$ ,estimates. The next set of drawings will become more defined and costs will bs coed. Construction documents would then be generated — these are drawings that .uld be used by a contractor for bidding purposes. T. flyer turned the presentation over to Jae Shin. J. Shin began by going through the amenities of the pool — the Program Summary. He reviewed the Site Plan, the main level floor plan, aerial views of the pool, outside materials, natatorium wall assembly and the details of the interior of the building. C: \Documents and Settings \bcassidy \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK1066 \Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 1 of 8 The next set of slides on his power point presentation showed the different types of pool construction — concrete, both cast in place and pneumatically applied, and stainless steel panels covered with PVC lining and mounted to a concrete foundation and side walls. B. Morgenthaler reviewed briefly the various systems included in the design. J. Shin described various types of entries into a pool — "ramping in" or stairs. T. Hyer continued — noting that although we are facing unique economic situations, the initial concept of this pool has been to "design to the program ". What is being submitted is designed to be an attractive facility, durable, form coupled with function - a pragmatic approach. He indicated that the next step, given the economics — significant escalation — would be to identify potential funding sources. F. Public Hearing Comment re a concrete pool — it's a sure thing. Question re depth of teaching pool — if it is too shallow the area is not useful for teaching, but can't be too deep for beginning swimmers. It was suggested that a ramp instead of stairs be used for pool entry. Jim Willis of the CG pool said that no one uses the ramp at the CG pool and that -0- depth is a waste of space — 1 1/2' — 3' is a good entry depth range. D. Horne suggested that some sort of mechanism is needed for handicapped entry if there is no ramp — possibly there is funding for pool apparatus to assist wheelchair bound swimmers. He also commented on the spectator seating — he said you cannot have [potentially] 250 people on the deck. He suggested reworking the spectator seating. T. Hyer suggested the possibility of "lifting" the bleachers and questioned the need for 250 seats. It was suggested that the bleachers did not need to run to the end of the pool area — down past the deep /diving board end — visibility wouldn't be good and it was not a good use of space. J. Shin said there are various types of retractable bleachers — some with guards along the front row and the team would investigate. D. Horne reiterated that spectators should not be on the deck. P. Branson of the Senior Center strongly emphasized the need for safety and accessibility. She also commented on the use of lifts — it is very difficult for one person to move a swimmer from a wheel chair onto a lift. Question re the savings gained by removing public bathrooms and family changing rooms. Mr. Hyer stated that the savings would not be significant. C:\Documents and Settings \bcassidy \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK1066 \Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 2 of 8 Mayor Selby complimented Terry Hyer and his team on the design effort thus far. He encouraged the ARB to focus on the technicalities and to continue working on refining the numbers. He said that he is seeing $3.6M of "fuzzy" costs — wants to see more solid numbers so that the Assembly knows what is needed when investigating additional funding. Sue Jeffrey said that she would not like to see any of the windows removed [to cut cost]. P. Branson encouraged the group to not cut back, to go after the required funding and suggested the Rassmussen Foundation as a possible source. She noted that the Foundation would look at the voter approved Bond as a commitment by the community to this Project. A comment was made by one of the audience members that, as a taxpayer, they would prefer a concrete pool and did not want another "box ". The Chair closed Public Hearing. He said that he would like to go back to the beginning of the Presentation and go through some of the technical aspects. He questioned the height of the ceiling — the response was that it is a State mandated spec — and he went onto state that he was not in favor of any other kind of pool except concrete. T. Hyer responded saying that the pool consultant prefers concrete, but being driven by budget concerns, the stainless steel pool presented an opportunity for cost savings. J. Johnston said that he was in favor of a concrete pool. He would like the design to stay based on the Program. He would like to see the cost figures fine tuned and then let the Assembly deal with the financing issues. R. Oswalt noted that he was uncomfortable with electrolysis and he thought if the PVC liner [over the stainless steel panels] was used we would be patching up holes in 4 -5 years. G. Hacker was interested in knowing what kind of gutter system was available with a concrete pool. C. Jerling suggested a change in the configuration — placing spectators at a mezzanine level. J. Shin said that a mezzanine level had been considered, but with that arrangement there then would have to be two sets of stairs and an elevator [to satisfy code]. R. Oswalt questioned using a crown roof. J. Shin responded: the roof is designed with a gradual slope. This kind of a slope allows for energy efficiency and also is a safety feature. C:ADocuments and SettingsVbcassidyVLocal Settings \Temporary Internet FilesVOLKI066AMinutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 3 of 8 S. Arndt entertained a motion for a cast in place concrete pool. B. Watkins made the motion and it was seconded by R. Oswalt. B. Morgenthaler said that he felt it should be concrete but not necessarily CIP — could be shot rocked. J. Johnston asked if the vote could be simply on a concrete pool and not more particularly specified at this point. There was a roll call vote on a concrete pool being recommended. The roll call vote was unanimous. The Chair questioned the seismic factor of the building — was the building being considered essential. K. Smith noted the different factors involved in selecting a seismic level — 1.25 [A -4] would be appropriate for this kind of building. 1.50 is used for buildings such as hospitals, fire departments, police departments. S. Arndt questioned gutter drain systems. J. Johnston said that a rollout gutter system is what is preferred for competitive swimmers — that the design in place — 8 "high? — less than typical for competitive swimmers — is a good compromise for both competitive and recreational swimmers. B. Watkins questioned the dimension [height] on the rollout gutter and asked if there was a gutter system made with a removable edge — his concern is that the pool be designed for all groups and not just for a select group. G. Hacker approved of a rollout gutter system. T. Hyer noted that a level gutter system allows a lot of water to get on the deck. A motion was made by R. Oswalt and seconded by B. Watkins to use a rollout gutter system, but with more details to follow [further research by design team]. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. S. Arndt questioned the wall assembly shown at the beginning of the Presentation. He felt it was too labor intensive and suggested foam panels. J. Shin said metal sandwiched foam wall systems tended to fail at certain points. T. Hyer spoke to the vulnerability of other systems. J. Shin said that pre engineered composite panels had been priced and the shipping costs were incredible. K. Smith said that the handling of those kinds of panels was a problem — damage was to be expected in shipping and handling so that necessitated ordering an extra number of panels to make sure there were enough to do the job. C: \Documents and Settings \bcassidy \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK1066 \Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 4 of 8 T. Hyer spoke to the thermal issue of other wall systems — other than the one designed. J. Shin added that an additional plus with the system designed was that plumbers and electricians could work simultaneously — while this system was being installed. S. Arndt said that he did not like cedar on the inside. J. Shin said that the wood added warmth and texture, that cedar is a common application and would not be dark because the pool will have a lot of light coming in. There is no maintenance for this material and a natural finish could be used — the wood would fade to a lighter color. T. Flyer noted that the team could look for other materials. He also noted that the cedar will add an acoustical baffle for the interior. R. Oswalt questioned the use of bleached cedar. J. Shin said that the cedar could be pretreated — stained grey. J. Johnston said he thought the cedar walls would become stained and that he was not sold on this material being a good long term solution. S. Arndt said that he would be interested in other options — something durable that would wear well and require low maintenance. B. Watkins questioned the heating duct system. Asked if the ducts could tie into a durable panel and cover the lower 4' of wall below the cedar. B. Morgenthaler didn't know of such a product — it might have to be architecturally fabricated. He noted that this was only the preliminary 35% schematic design phase — the next phase is where getting more into the details occurs. There was a 10 minute break. The Chair reconvened the meeting at 9:30 pm. S. Arndt questioned the hardiplank exterior. He said that at Northstar Elementary where this material has been used there were problems with paint peeling and the material losing its integrity. He would encourage other options. S. Arndt went on to talk about the list of reductions /changes that had been presented earlier — in an effort to reduce the cost — and that he did not want to see any reductions — they would change the whole programmatic thrust of the Project. He wanted to stick with what we have [in the Program Summary]. Discussion followed with R. Oswalt agreeing with S. Arndt's position. J. Johnston agreed — did not want to reduce — actually maybe widen the building — rework the spectator area. He does not want spectators on the deck. Suggests shortening the bleacher arrangement — C:\Documents and Settings \bcassidy \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLKI066 \Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 5 of 8 and the seating at the end of the building is not viable. He said that it is important to keep the spectators off the deck and design to allow the coaches to be able to move up and down both sides of the pool. S. Arndt questioned what was separating the lanes between the main part of the pool and the teaching pool. Response: stem wall. Perhaps a bridge could be added. R. Oswalt wants the building to be 10' wider — thought that a lot could be gained by that enlargement — a larger wall between the two pool areas, assist the spectator issue and allow more room in the entranceway. T. Hyer questioned how adding to the square footage of the building would fit into the Ed Specs. There followed discussion re placement of bleachers and shallow pool access and depth — T. Hyer to speak w /pool consultants on these issues. Discussion re filtration systems. J. Johnston suggested that the pressure system w /sand tanks, as is in the existing pool, be used. Discussion re water treatment. R. Oswalt suggested UV and saline. B. Morgenthaler said that the UV system would reduce chlorine by 80%. The electricity cost is unknown but he will check on that. J. Johnston would like to know the operating costs. The consensus of the Board was in favor of the UV system. R. Oswalt said he wanted a saline system installed in the existing pool and then moved to the new pool when constructed. B. Morgenthaler said he was in agreement with the saline system but would like to gather more information. Discussion re ventilation system. B. Morgenthaler explained the heating/ventilating system. J. Johnston asked if heat recovery was included in the system and B. Morgenthaler answered no — and that this was an issue he would like to take a hard look at. J. Johnston questioned the efficiency and reliability of the new building being tied into the boiler system at the high school. B. Morgenthaler affirmed the existing system. S. Arndt said he wanted to see a cost analysis between trying into the existing boiler system and putting a new boiler system in the new stand alone building. At 9:45 pm B. Morgenthaler and M. Langberg left the meeting to return to Anchorage. S. Arndt began a review of the proposed reductions offered in the presentation. C:\Documents and Settings \bcassidy \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK1066 \Minutes ARB 3I May 2006.doc Page 6 of 8 All of the reduction options were negated by the Chair w /agreement from the Members. The only exception had to do with parking lot costs and that information [from the Community Development Department] has not yet been received. S. Arndt said that he would like the team to run an operations budget — electricity, fuel, etc. T. Hyer said that he appreciated the challenge and suggested that the team keep going — to design drawings and the next level of cost estimate. S. Arndt said that he wanted updated costs and that he was still not happy with the site. J. Shin questioned if what was discussed and agreed to at this meeting be included in the next design schematics and cost estimates. S. Arndt responded yes. G. Hacker said that information regarding the increase in square footage and how it fits into the Ed Specs needs to be looked at. J. Johnston asked where the architects were in terms of their scope of work. T. Hyer noted that they had completed their scope with the presentation of the 35% schematic design and 35% cost estimate, but he was willing to continue. He said that it would cost between $5000 -7000 to have another cost estimate prepared based on the changes from this meeting. G. Recommendation Skipped. H. Board Comments B. Watkins. None J. Johnston. Noted that although costs had been added, he felt the program had been improved and that it is important to continue to stick with the program. C. Jerling. He complimented the design team on their efforts and felt they had gone well beyond the 35% level. He urged the project forward. G. Hacker. He agreed with J. Johnston's comments. R. Oswalt. He agreed with J. Johnston's comments. S. Arndt. Said that we are going to live with this building for 50 -60 years and we want to do it right or not do it at all. Emphasis needs to be on the program, longevity and suitability for all the community. C:ADocuments and Settings VbcassidyVLocal Settings \Temporary Internet FilesVOLKI066AMinutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 7 of 8 I. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 pm. Respectfully submitted: Sharon Lea Adinolfi, Project Assistant KIB Engineering/Facilities Dept. Scott Arndt, Chair Architectural /Engineering Review Board Cy placed in Pool File Date: Date: C: \Documents and Settings \bcassidy \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK1066 \Minutes ARB 31 May 2006.doc Page 8 of 8 ■7\ ±!§ 4 d d 0 7 ®_a ( — _ 7 ( ST m o ca @2 7 5 5c ox zo > 0o >) q§ \ 2 )\ ° ® m \ k2 > 9 ( r /n( 7 //ƒ ¥ 63 \ all �\= £; CO §/ co e. CD ' r O° f X S .m. O o _ ? a Cc' Vj _ 7 o 7 E N a 0 co °I m 3 "O > j , = CD , a m m m CD CD 0 = c N m°° 3 rn <°° O m m o 3 3 3 3 o m c CO e N° o co ED 3 o m a 0 a N m ° a m v m D r n T m E o - ; ' m • vi n oon O m 3 co 3 cn ac a= c m' (D m c N �o CO i C o a N j 'm '" V O n S n N m Cr m 2 D co B. ^p r 0 = m .m' f co sz - 0 ) ° o g 3v m y a c w - 0m sa j o ° g pp . 3 c g N O O ' O c c o N m 7 W N 3 O� 0 2 P a m O N tl� a N .� O a N 3 m m O N c a O) O' . °.. t0 C -0 m N N • ° m n N D N N C F c = m'c n ID CL o a m m °= p v m o m' N 1 0 m N O V co O o' p 0 . 5 d �, p 3 m N .< m Cn > D) c )c o 1 3 O M N m cn m o 0 < O m m a c .° 2 `9 a 2 3 v < o m vi � . ,a co N Ca Qenm 2 CD � 0 O a w O ) W W O J `< )D c m m n y m W 3 y m _+. N m N ° O Z CO [/) O O O a m < a a — 7 m U) O 3 O c N O o N N N N N O) N o- 3 3 >> 21 -0 3 3 m of f F.5 0 0 *. *. f. v m m N 3 4 1 j 4 a C m N N. N CD cn cn N co r cn m N ID Et S n ° O ..do o 0 a)) 30 O n 8� m a d .o 00 , o � m y CD ¢ -h CD n 7 a CO N y O o a - ° a m ^ 3 El w m m r s v ' O — y 5. m °° N F - 0 a ,° < �� O Cr O > m m N O G O O pj CD C �. _ 3 O C n O p m n . � . . a m 0 o ° pc0 ° m35-0 a m o * = N vi N O N (D 0 0 N 5 N O. CO Q W N - c Q O O (O 7 Q 7 a y' m ® co co 0 -5- O a co �� y m m c a 3 nDDaom 0 �c m x - m CD m o ' Q SF , y ' >> m � 0 2 y 0 '° a' 8 a = m -. m m - c � 3 m co a Z o co �. > = 0 J = m m n Z W m 1 0 m p 3 0 y. C j V c 5 • M 0 m a m y 0 N O= co C 3 O< m 0 3 3 N 0 J N O' . d w 0. = .0 .. N p _ Jc 0 0 r co o m m n a f m ° m Ct) 3 O m N u! O O S Q (� Jc Z . C) a L ° P a. CO J p 3 m . N p 5 C: CD O N 1 CO S .N D S ) m o-a W CO n C O 4) m _— m ° p y n v — w m °° CT o °- ° 3 3 CD m U >>>>>> m O^ O $ 7 n N = 0 m fn 'O r. > > > J J J y O co m =' 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 O a _ , C a S m o m a 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 co N m O Q O N co a t .°_. * m W a �2 O M (0( 0(0( 0 t0O Q ° u! _ O = O m (D O > m m m' = O m m m cD m m N �,° o o � < � p N 3 Cr 0 Cr N DDDDDD o- p ^ 3 m � m o a ommmma0) m y a m O O n m a C J y C F F J F F W. V = _ "O O J �' m m m m m m 3 m O p _ m= J m > ° N O o a CO 3 m m m o Co or 3 a 0 co 3 ' Z < 3 0 co J N co m a D G) m N N 0 CO J A N CO O fA Cl) U) m T T N A D 3 3 m CD 5. CD m H o d O N 0 - 03 m N 3 3 5 m 0) CO n 3 co j O w N 8 M O N C n 0 C C 0 N C C 0 m m W 49 N 0) N -CO CO N 01 - • CO ✓ O 1 0 CO O W-4 0) 01 A W N-c 1 1 11111111 s vnm ncnnzmZ OX Ommmm �Mmz jOOpa) O Z D > 0 Z O 0 O A n 7 O -1 • r 0 m C Co cco Cfl c m C me A m 1 N O m O Z Z EA O A (T 0) N 0) -) A 0) - NJ CO ff A CO co A CO N W A OJ CD 01 co ( co O) O) O CO i J O W 0) -1 CO O CO (a T T o O O m O • DCD � Co viz T m V ✓ O co O C r w D O cn O 0 O O cn U m m A O O O O O O O co) O O O Z O O O -I W N Cn 5 T a ED m d O ai o o T y 0 M CD 7 . m Z CO 7 a co 7J 0 0 C o 0 O z N m O) -a N - CO ✓ co (n O N W O A O 01 W CO 91 CO V N J (D a M N CT A C4 V A O CO N Cn CO Co 0 O O N 0 0) CD A a N CD O 0 0' O N _ V) (. v Q Q 0 0 W A m X m 73 O C) r O O C m N O Cn N -a V W 0 W 0 0 0 W W C4 C W N 10 i m a 000 > on 0 CO CA -I C c C A ^ » o 7 0 O N o A W N � C co gill c 1WOO O 0 Q � c T 7 O a C c a o m c a CD a o 7 0 7 N - W A -+ V CT Co CD O - CO -a O N A O (0 N W CO Co A _ A O W A N O O A a N r..) -% CD CO W Co - W O -A - CO 01 CO W J CO V-. Cn (n O CD (O O V O - co O O lob:-.11.4 A N CD CO A V CO N CA N CA O O J N O O (n 0 CO O A O) - A-> N -, 01 O G) a N O V A al A W CO CO N J O CA O J J J CO CO N (O O --4 -a O O Cn N CO CO - V O (0 O J 0 (0 J O O N C71 N W CO N 0 CO (0 CO CO CO O co A W J J A -. CO 0 0) (O CO W a A O O CD CO (O A V 0) A - co co W W O r A O N O W (1 A CO CO N A CO O O O N O O O J W O O V (O O O 0 W O (O 0 00000) a - CO N H W WWW it C C C 0 m m m � . v 3 O 7 N N N N (n - 03 CO V CO Co to A <n 'co N V (1 O O (O O O J O N W (0 W CO J N - CO N N CD 0 a A m r m m H moo m >> cn ° C m 0 0 O o O C r co 0 O N 0 n O O en cn en m m co EA W N 0) EA CA A O U1 J W 0 01 ( N A W v, 0) m m CO W Q N N N m N W N 1 . Z 1 . . Z m 0) N Z O 0 A . O a m °Q ,_ m . - f N Z . r N X o ?,m o N m = o` O n = C = 0 0 0 m 7 N M 7 Z n c .9 CD W N N 03 CO N co - 0 V N CO J A -> - CO a J -I 0 -) A O a) A 0 N O N Ut 00 O • CO CO CO Ut 010 J 0000) 0 N CO 00 V EA Ni Of A in Ni V W CO N co J V W J CO 0 0 —s — m o N C 1 m m m m m t7i 0) Z = a 0 N 0) v CD m a c 3 N N 0 0) ) 0 0 0 A J N W 01 CO 0 O 0) I 0 (O 01 CO O Ni N N A 00 O O -� O O 0) 0 CO 0 0 0 o m CID CO NI m 1 1 1 1 0 CA V (o m m m ' s C- ' > CD CO (Ti r a a' - c p 0 N m 5 co C U) O . 3 ut N CD CO A 0) A 0 0 CO 0) Ut A A 0) J - CO A 0) CO CO O W CO 0 N CO 0 CO CO 0 (O -S O 0 CO 0 0 CO N CO A 00 O J o A A A N O J O N (0 O Na A O J 0 CO 0000 K a w AA))� m2 0y m m y 3 Z O . vC) a- o • K 0 0 r 0 d = 0) v N 3 N A W O CO A A 0) 0) (O O J CO J 0) O c0 U1 Q) Vt 0) o 0) 01 -4 O A CO 0 NJ W A O O J - CO i J " 0 0) O 0 J U1 00 W N 01 J N J 0 Ut W CO CT O A Ut J J O 00 A CO m r m m Z H 0) N r m O m OH m EA m m D Co ug X ° oo 0 D D m D � W � a T m v o 0 O C r m r- 0 O cn 0 A O 0 O N cn m 0) 2J crj r 0 > El 11 ) O e O G O 3 oa a (BulldIng Support I Walls 'Circulation 'Building Storage J 'Electrical Room I Mechanical Fan Room 'Mechanical Boiler Room I Public Restrooms 'Snack Bar 'Administrative Office I Reception Office IReception Desk 1Lobby 'Natatorium Support 'Instructional Space 'Janitor I Family /HC Changing Room 'Locker Room 'Lifeguard I Pool Mechanical/ Equipment _ J 'Pool Storage 'Natatorium 'Spectator Seating for 200 I Deck Area 'Shallow entry 'Six lane 25 yard pool 'PROGRAM AREAS Kodiak Island Borough Swimming Pool - Program Summary 5/19/2006 5,337 2,016 2,580 741 4,314 1,400 202 1,262 250 724 476 8,598 900 3,500 4,198 Area per Ed Spec. NJ u u fs u u 1 a F F• F• Fa Number of spaces 50 850 400 200 100 90 1,200 200 130 650 240 850 657 900 4,200 3,375 Recommended NSF per Space 3,040 100 850 5001 2001 100 90 1,200 3,507 200 2601 1,300 240 8501 657 8,475 900 4,200 3,375 Preliminary Total NSF 3,615 included 2,190 290 210 90 835 5,035 r 1,400 330 200 1,265 225 945 670 8,880 990 3,735 780 3,375 Current Total NSF 1200 SF included in C/H CAD plan I shared office space for 2 people I increased in order to accommodate flow of 200+ spectators & swimmers I per Counsilman /Hunsaker memo dated 2 -27 -06 I per Counsilman /Hunsaker CAD plan for option 1 'per Counsilman /Hunsaker CAD plan for option 1 Comments o. E. Ca iy F i O M O O O '� O _ C E. O 00 • E 0. o o en o cr 7,1 5 co N Ci N y . ▪ w n Q • N m o o co o w ❑ o a fir • . $ o o co • O c. o a2 g. W O a O 0 w m e w < 0 < o O 8 • a 8 A N 0 Circulation, walls, equipment, etc. (soadS JOAO 4S 96T1)390 000 CD co F) m a ZIT 'o 2 a Co m CD a O O O © O in 3 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N C) n 0). d 5- N = d 5 = O S c 0 0 0 g 0 . 7 m d a C) tn = O a O O O r CD CD m 0 0 1 0) a- O O ` CD -O � O g u , B N 3 3 O co fl — `n • O CD G fY N j O n CD e • CDco =CD C aVI d 3 o < J CD CD M M O N • M C _ N Oq N O cn Es O f; /// photo blacked out photo blacked out photos blacked out Kodiak Swimmin� Pool � \� east elevation south elevation photo blacked out 0000000000 to to < -c C. r�t r-r g C C O O k< Q ▪ 0 _ C C — O C -' -' 0 -r a to N (n a Q CD v a E a O rn4 = Q co c X. 5 Oro Q B C co CD U, DJ 0 CD CT O CT E CD fl) N a photo blacked out natatorium view with shallow pool in foreground Architectural Design Narrative , ,� ` ' . . '� :_. ._ . Pool Shell Construction Pneumatically Applied Concrete Gunite Shotcrete Cast in Place Concrete Stainless Steel Myrtha Astral kit �?ao� ��'�i�� ' Cons�ruc�ion �a�er�als • CIP Concrete �:�:. � s1 , � � ,�� .� e � �� -� � . ��_ �,� ,,�'' •,'b � .:. .f 5 r � � �'y. .� . . .'� h+ s �� 12 cm CD CO �I 0) CT a CO N --s Lo Z- O o- c< .< 0)) O p) co O r D) # CD a 0 O C CD O O C N CD V O N O CD m O CO lJ"O 0 N aSN `G"O 5 mW -omm -roam =+gip S � r oo D o = . 3 = c o CD 3 . P- 0 o o o • ° ? C, ='OO IS CD co v ° CD m 3 m m . f a ci � � o NCO S O O o y 0 0 Q3 C <s 7 D CD o O CD CD O n N J co ° co C N zi o a .< ° 3 c CD m o a m o 0 co a ? o m CO o N A a co j ' < G m ° CD C7 K ' O ill CO CS r CD o a V CL O co N c CD 3 m J s ° a 5 co v x a CD — ° N y < a — (D f O �< co CD co J 5 -o a o C) co o y N N o a 3 c 5' O O - 3 cm co 2 . y o 5 CO � , fk , � ��'1� p� .T I?o�l �V1�� . ' . ' . _ , . . . _ _ . Pool Shell Construction Pneumatically Applied Concrete $210 -$233 sq. ft. Gunite Shotcrete Cast in Place Concrete $210 - $233 Stainless Steel $150 - $180 Myrtha Astral photo blacked out ..v,.; wow (/) C p p • • • V V J CD C 3 CD k< Est -N CD 0 s t o t O V 0 > 0 ea Q Est 0 CD en ;9-1 photo CO p 0) C D zs v 0 ' 0) 0 > 0 C0 5 CD CD • • - 63 C-) 0 0 0 0 CD CO 0 • CD -3. a C o D o 0 0 = 5 0 m CO st CD X � r+ CD 0 C C D - 0 v C) • • 0 7J W c Z — 0-c 0 ,-+ k< C CD 3 CD CD D CO m 0 CD N - CD co C O r- m CD o E CD 3 CD CS fn �G IT I o a CD m 0 Da c0 >•‘< C D CD m CD z se C CD . rhis • • cr =to C O ;9 -I photo IN 1 :tar 4 n s• photo m 0 c ii 3 Co a el U, - a b ° can to 0 0 ° ° ° o ° 0 0 0 a► cn v, CO CA N CT n A IV W OV) a C a a O O CO - CO C�71 A CO - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CO CID V CA CT A CA N cnmmgfZximcncncn tormOHOXccq n ��=< » =x >m n — c . c cnx 0 oznzxciix Z - � rwpmc)c c r cis °' n m m m W � z 01 a CT CA N O) V ACT N W CA CO O CO O C O C11 N t J -A O O- CT O O U7 w A CA V CO N A N O CA 0 CO CD -% CTO V CA V CO U) n CD B l J II C) 0 rn II FIT 0) O O O O O O O 0 0 , W 0 0 , z W N -. m ,m w 5 0) .Z_1 - o N O ai $ 0 0 =' 0 C O. a) CD CD 0 C CO A O b d) A O O 0) 01 V A O O N CO CO A CO W O A) iT 01 CO U7 O O W -a CO A O N 0) CO 0) CO A N A O rn CO CO O co 01 CO 01 O V N 0) 0) U1 0) 0) 0) A V N CP K O O ( = CA N W O co A 0) O 01 co O 01 A V N O N -, A A CO V - O) O -+ CO 0 CT CO CO N -, A co a 00 00 O 03 _1 V V N 0) 00 O O V O N co W N O O N N O 011 01 O ° a x X Z1 CD A 0 n D) _cn in C ;Il m 0) N CO 01 A V N CO V CT N A A co 03 03 CO W N I , I [n Zl ?1 e a O o n n n 0 0 C C 2 c o o 0 A W 01 co N 0) CO V A CI) CO CT N O co co A co V 01 00 0) CT O A N 0) N CO 01 W -a O (0 CO CO CO CO CO A V N O O N 0) CO W O N A V N O V O 0) 0) N W O N 0000 N N) N N c A W N co WWWfW -I P ET CD CO Q D C xi ni 3 0 m n T 7 0 O-C CD o m N O a 0 r. 0 -a V CO N V A - co O 07 0 0 0 CO V A in A U) (O O O O A O O 0 0 Cn CO N m m it 0 0 o w CD 0) v 9 o — N w " CO CO d) CT CO CT - co iv A cn co CO N 0 W 01 N Cn CO V 0) 00 O) CO (O O) A - CO CO CO CO A 01 0) 0 CO W -4 Cv W CA CO a) -, W - co - co - co O - co co O)A - Oo -'01 0 O N 01 C)1 CO 01 O A 01 o O V O O CT 00 W O O W O) O O O O1 01 01 01 01 0) O N - V - V 00 0) 01 O a 01 O 0) W O -4 m r m rn z 0) a) CD Oi co A A 01 m W N ) n -v O N O (13N�m z , , , z mm 1 30m co cn z Oa U 0 CD 0) z .-. 0« NI .Zl o 7 0 n D O CO m n C n n W o O A D� N m 5 a. CD m D CD Z 0 o p - I `G 0) CT) CO V - W ND O W N CO CVO A ()1 s (O V V (D CO O O N CO CO N 0 A A O O ✓ CO A N � A N CO 00) 0) -% CO OD A A O A O OD -1 01 O W CO ✓ ER N N N 00 01 CO A CO A - CO (D N 0 CO CO - W O W O A O -gy Ni 000 c I m m C D CD m a z 3 o) -1 5' a 0 cn 0 v CD m .0 C 3 CD 7 01 CC) A OD O N N N A O O o N OD co W A o 0 o o m co co co (D r A W N --• m 1 I 1 1 () CD CD CD o Co (- rx 0) CD r r my 0) . c 0 O o . a O 0 D O % c co co 0 3 co OD ( 01 (T A O CO 0 CD 0 01 01 0 - • A -s 01 0 • W O CD 0 OD CO CD N CO CO CO A CO 0) O1 N CO V O - CO O 0 (O A 01 W A co O N O A A A W O N C W O N o co o 0 0 o g 0)0)0)0) A CO N -% m W 7 r u O (D D 0 z O. CD CD r CD C) m 0 D 0) y CD 3 co A 0) 01 O CO 0t O N -' CO CA) O O V 0 10 (0 O V W 0 CD N 0 K O 0) v co co CD Iv N O O D D) O V -• -a U1 N 0) O V 01 -‘ V O 01 0) 01 CO O 0) cD co A O o co o OD m r m m z N 0 O 0) 0) CD . H CO 0 r � n) 0 O m O O —I • m • .2 cn mm c j . . . - : z 9 \ / - 0. a a. I i Iru I 1 iI I C Cr t } \ \ - - ` 'Z.' \ _ _ _ / — / — 0 CS / : \ Y :v; \ / \ ft re 2 2 2 \ ( / / = / r \ / / \ \ § & & : / / \ E 5 • / E m KOI.)IAK ISLAND 130ROUGH Kodiak Swimmin Pool � g /i � �� 35% Schematic Design Report � 05.19.06 Ul 4. • • ? w w NJ NJ w J w o -? n 4 p w w nJ U' .- J \o w • z 11 I . S I. 0) CD 0 ^ i l J 0 CD I w I T E2 E m no r o n o O a w 5 w 0 m 0 w , C. , N < R a O O 0 0 , DIAk /s D w 0 Y O � O On o O O p 0 n- B 0 x rt n - 0.) no M a‘ 9 w Y O n 7 P. v 0 , w O CO �0 ° °& a. 0 G NO A- 0 x 0 0 w E. 0. to 1 w , 0 ON 0 rn \O > nw LI) 'ag n 0 n O F n? 0 $ -4 , v, 0 0, ., w t - m N a 0 0 On . N o N 0 0 � ' N 0 m O 0 pq O ON 9 ry n 0 9 0 .' p' 0 w c+ co w 0 j E. o %' 0 w rt 0 w c. LO O li, O v, O O ECl/Hyer Architects � Kodiak Island Borough Fr • a . G o < a m 5- ,� a P. - o 0 , a w o C `� , f D-, G tt O N ca R. a 0 P- R7 a O P - " a N o n O K ^, O O , E v -. o a � a g- 0 a 0'0 0 E. a' a v p y i fs -. �' ,a. rn a : , . t G • O rt a C ry ^ (D � ° t7 y °' ° W 7 p o w �� ** i ,, w' tai o rt: �' m w < a , -0 w 'a a O � e w 0 0 E y' a E . a . 0 p 0 ° w ppa Ca b OO O C a O 0 0 5 0 a O. y C = a ° x c 6 R K Y o a . a' H w- R ° R 6 p o ° m a `' n; e D G o rs », ag 0 5. !- a - o C .a : a E p 0 a in w y 0. O- E . a - 0 .0 o b .n Cal n 5. . 0 „ 0 a. va — 'O G +, tet, tp O O .• 0 a a' O ro C 0 0 ' b m `<' p w o s 'a a a C. g 'O a a '' . w Q et R w n R "0 a �. w C. o, o w 9 v o. w ° 'O w C . Oq p 6. on w 0.. cm y a w W P w . '..— - a w "O O a a y ' b4 q R a Z �. p a p .X y m ' a w f p tp a 0,5 Q w O 0. 0 . tp y 0 0 " p., , ^n a tp a O p . G . � C p U O e' g N R ^, V a' R b " G.. Z O 3 o w o' y o n a ro R o w cg ..0 O' '�' a a C ry : 0 O. y �' p w O a y ; r Cl" a ;, x 0 a n - 0. 9 R a .- m (per - 2- O tp a e 5 O w pq . rt y} 1 ry 0 0. G w. IN a 5 w p 5 7 ` ' % p E 0 ° � p E. C+, - 0 G,' R C O.. w " 0 5 5 - n a a- a � r i s E C. o g a E a o p -a E. �' 3 o E- 0 4 'c -, c ° ao a ao w g -o • a E a c. ; eD a. W w R a a O .0., . y a a O C p a m � .? w w O a 0 , a O' tp 0 . p _ ' . O g n' a 0, 0 g O O n o O y . A' n y 0 • N a O' 0 w 0 ig G O 0 a-.5 e p P o a 5- Zr S o a» a m. a p t a p a y n a M 2 M P- `wG 01 rfr O CD— C n I O ECl/Hyer Architects � Kodiak Island Borough d 8 o n n O Fr N 7 . w y 0 n O' O m O fs ' O C �. F A O 0 '? ? p n m a S" as on a w ' ' ( B °, g{ n CM �. o. 0 a w ❑ o ;; a, o • Go 'y' p M a n G. 'G ',� n O O a ro On a" m n a E. n 0 x ., 5- n • 0 O a b m n .. a 0 0 a O rt G n :t m w O 5, `t V .- W. n 0 0• C. 'O r p rt a 0 P O - C N w O 5 a s O ri a• 0. w it C/0 , p � , 0 O 0 w 0 0 E . 7 n .ti x n a' O » 00 r. ii n t 9- n a -0 '' a as x Oro . n .. 0O a < el n ' �, O 0 C n ^r 0 O n p a ir . o p 00 w 0 a G., a 2 F ' 5 n v, m a' ro O' 0 a O O w w m P o O O n 0 o a Cr' `O `� n w r. n O O n E. ° r o rv( 0 o M rte. o o o y n n y' w n y 5 ^) ., n w " ��• 0 as w c a p'0 • co C eta O G O 0 ,a w S' o G b n a m n 00 w O m o y +-, W k H a• N b . d C y- O � n n O P w `< `O CA M n n ti a C w a . O < n G a ? m n a. r. CD O .. W `< 0 Crci n m O O 7 ry A ' • n ry, 2- .-c, 'O d ea.. a. y w n R C 0 .' P Op a. w 0 C ' 2 - " 0., p a o - a a ar a. ar Y o a g °a o n w 0 xacr E. g g p 9 x a a. (pa n d o 5._ C" 0 0 0 ti 0 n p ^ pJ 0 O O y isc p O o. & ta a 0 ' E a G n a s E a 2. a- .G n O a p V I O p L U a) ■ U I d 0 O C O L o O 0 C O au Y CO fN 00 0 0 bbe L O M O C t N = C a • N L N Y ?0 E LE, CO N O 0 a) Y CO 0000 0 w -p w yy G ~ 3 b O C O O m n rn O C. P '�' C H O w O O P n p- O o w g. g' ( P - -, O w a O a 5 n R O n C. O R n `< R q c o R O.. n a p O O n w a ' O w a n P 5- p o .< r• n .p w o y ' ` 0 0. C O G C Cal a b 7 n o O y O. y 'O�. • 'O S� n R E- n O et y Oa ri GC n a 'v a P @: ^ C. o oa 0 R `O P 'b 7a R w m R f'i' n O 0. wT m R 0 0 O a n O ut 0 CD CD o R y R a ��. o w F o m a C. F. a °' Oa 0 O a . E " 0 n a co n c pr on 5, Cl ile w an W O w n `G ic .-1 5- n 0 q P O '' E. M; o n Y a Oaa a P 5" 3. C R n P n a 0 n ry K v, y o O v r c 0 0 O n g w a n w �. n G y ]r g. R w H - [x ` o O. E n CD b 0 w y o a O w w n y P p n p R S f E £ a o 9 a° a o g ler .. O y n r + P a " " a co p w . CD Fr_ "" f m R �* 0 O a R C ?' 5 8 ' P E' � � .T f p p „. O C. r. a m ' - Y ^w r R 00 Q n . C . n 0 C ' p i n 0 < R P o^ n 5-' "a o n a: o I? a d o & o �' E. n R o ` P ' E- �. E- y P„ n 0 n n 't7 - 0 a Y O P M n O. 0 0 . � 1 fn 'l7 a ° O O O Y a N . ny a n .. 4 O ` G -- , g - 0 . < 0 E' %r w n 5. O n E- w n C. �. n O 0 on 0 CD b . O rn a . n n w d - o 5 o as a s n o a L 0- G a n m 7 N . j O O .. �' 0 n Cn< 0 �' n Y C p C„ ? '7 O 0 p 0 co g el) cr in na„n - n z n w a w rm s c. rt O P - 7 n a . a 0' et, R ... N O W a a CD " R R !D w n N R n �. E. G p O W `< n P- O Cx' S N a a o n a v n R a C- i n b a. p . `e C. " 0 b y n p p O w p O _ co 0 0 N 0 m U) Co d 2 C a) E >, a m o R N U b m N O 00 —o En — N O — 10 0 O 0 ^pn P G O r T, i 7 C Cs' y w C. ✓ 0 0- 0 C &C m S 0 ° w 0 'O 0Q C o y a p "' n L d on ' o a O . o n EL C 0 . p - 'w-' . 0 0 aa D ▪ n • a o ] n a n a o W 0 P n a. O fa ,P y a O w n Y C y n O ` a m n 0. r' O.. h w x '3:- O w CA 0 n a x � 0 0 El w o y o p o y a. ti p y n K nn gL o E w n .w ° y p ^] p n O H O • q • E ° n 0. M O • n °'. P .. o r w a C `O a' rn n ' 7 i.• a • a m n n • 0. w T n w n - n O C°4 0 t w at' 'o r n C 5` , n E: o 0 woo p o m 5- 5- 4' n w O .,, w •`G n n m � . G' O 2 n • 'O O C . ' w n n n p .,� , tr °' -.• O 5 . ry ]' o n 0 ' w P 5Th < ' n y v y w y ^ T a n 'ti7 y , C 0 C . R . S i E. �' w n g et E. 9 p .0 n ca n 0 Er. n 4 Y oo n o .p r° O '"' w £. mo n 2 n n rt w P n y w n a n n Or n ▪ 0- C o o .-P o o- •' N 0 0 0- `.< v 0 o w x n ou w 'O' a' o S &' w, a .9-, o — e n $ d c G B 3 G o -o .q n n 0 5 a M n" y Ww o C9 _ O a- w -,y y . "' a n ry 4 g'. o ‘1\ ' O t* n '"�' n O 0. O 0.b .1 O n G n n n = 'r Erz EE Fift. L. rt n o n � . r , P. 2 < n w y 'C N m O ' `O O y .d i, ti O 0. o &'' ryp 's1 G a- O m n Oo w ', 0 N `d y N 5 � n C � 1 1 pi 0 P et w p • n n n 6" C 'r r' um O ❑ M 41 P `� 0 m �. !D y b w nn ti p n C • C 5. 0. o . n <' m U' a n '� c ' °' ti o 0. 4° n ' ° O n `O g' O G 0. . 0 n w p m n n . r n n 'd C ^C NN Y C -. n O c pe O r. " n M G- y � . O w N C. Er R n G o a✓ . rrt w w 0• F „ y .ti U Y N Y _ 0 � . N m 0 G v Y ° f~0 0 Q. ^ cy 0 o A v r5 v , = - o c e 'o a ° o v v • a 0 v a en 71 . ..X t^ v ^' v i. G . u d p a `7 • " . y b p 7 G, v 'i �' O q T v C � C on 7,. ' b v F v .. v.. C 'ti 0 �- o m o . v Q f4 . "C ? '� 0 0 " O v +'O y i° cU m 3 m '"J C �. '1 w m ti a 'xJ ", - m rom T. ' a w "v 5 F 3 3 . - o . C .14 v A v o >' e.... 5 H v . ao c ro o F m o v v v,9 v v > y vo 3 10,0 m C v .r .> °' C .2 m m ` p m w v F 4'' A O p E C y y b m C v H tf v 0. 0 . .� • C > O m m m h '� .d o y 0 E ,a ' 0 ° d v E q° E -C A° m o <C .E v o .A o 0 v 0 C c4 9 -a -0 y o y -6_ 7 v . a > 0. 'o C ", v m m 4 3 m C m C 0 wg C v 4 O y a . > L o 'r '~ s 3 7 y O v h C i ° ' > a v v - F }T C G co p' 04, ° C v C) 3 . A _C v E 3 . • v v ' u N K a avi o q a• �. , m 0 C • y 2.. 0 0 c ' a ° v m C - 5 22 ' 5 u vg.' o ' a. '5 E t 0:, w :sZ ' G >. .� y 'Y .L' .� - . � y ra 0.0 o „b 0.. 0 �.0 Q X 0 3 v p 7 . F . � - 3 U Z mg F 3 m w q 'b -`8 .E m v C F b W v > t 0 c v .A m 0 v u C 0 w m 0 ^p m 0. 0 C F m y • ca 'E E q o C o v- v v -a 80 ❑ 00 ❑ F ❑ r� E a' , ,y O C C 0. m— 'C 7 C a9 7 m 0 0 0. 0 E v m 0 C v v C "' v ro 3 . ,.C O. F . b4 +'�- U m N ° G 3 b F-� -v z v z -�' C y E w . E 0 v p D. > .v. v m 0 GA N L v d m ow v > ' -a T �, 0. 46 m C E v 0. y o � . �, w 3 � v 1 , O > .. N v � a'R 278 • C 4 i 0. C O A a + •- w 0 C v w v vv, mm 00 3 C o ° ' v 4 0 0 8 ° a a.F C '� 8 w on m o '' ° V. - • 75 E v ` 0 9 C • .` v 0 -8 C g v E ° E « ° .° ' d a a0+ bq •, w y N F a A ` A ^o •C y C o' ': 1•-• 'C .y' w 'T7 Q '� 1 F m m > v ` i, Y O I?, 0 . 7 C v v p a . v N v 1 E O ' � r0.. 0. 7 . O 4 v 0. U 1. o 0 : v 0 v -- . 5 v (CO o ` o F m o 'A v v F ',� C m w �' A a H O y C.) O ° O T O CU 'b w A u O � , ( C v 710 m ` 'C 0 - 1-. m T m v v 'o m T Op A v 0 m m p y b y p -0 W 79 bq , y U b-0'4 U 0. m ❑7 e:,' o 0 a 'A , � 9 C a ,e .° p 0 p _, a. T{ •• a v co -H ch v m C C m 4-1 '�7 v O b ' d .3 '� m v E h u 3 , C 0 i Zt V N O �` ! u .19 v — O v , v 0 5 b m E °q 'C O Y as = as N its c C o w 0. o n d C. 5 C d U) 5- a a ' b4 ^ W r. '0 rt CD O.. ( w CD w . y m n O �' K N CO 0 0'R y a Cr" n 0. cn N V4 -p O 7 0.' Ley n <p n 0 0 0 -1 n m O ro . k 7 c, s t r. ti ro ( C. a . °'+ co .. N n 0 y O B G. a a m m rn N k 2 . ` e `. w C ' 4, tra C, a M w G.. 0 p er�** O y L yy 0 : rr x a- ° a t n 0. C. ~O a P "'" H- E ; (D 0 a N 0 .' N P y cm p 0 p' w 0 0 O G. a CD VO 'S m w n P.. R, �', P .-1 • a w n O (p 5 'O � n Q' 5... O ^, b-• a' d H O a 0. N 0 9 O y 5 ^ A C. O a •` 5. O � 7. OR "2. b4 • CD 5. a- <° m p < ( � ' O E. k q w C 5- G G 3 A . Cr ro v -, w y a' 0 : p 0 09 r 2 a a' B p a . re y 0 AOCOQ ©OQO® CDw pp _ d 2 " m U Oq 3 a n O Ol C C - O "O O. — N O - N i n n O O C Q _ " O 7 C p _ C C (D C 0 N Co Oq CO O' co 3 m C' m E T m '-'- N= 0 f N F 3 n m a. d d v a El 5 m d E n N 3 = -, N N H iv - a N 00 CD 0Q 5 CD (n S 3 (A) Go "< n c S B 5- S. S S ° rr o rs rT ri °., a ` w o 0 "9. E a O N O n O ., .< O o ^ ro 5. n < ro n `< ° N N w (S` (D a w O ro m N w N O a y 0': m w w . C„ S. k C W " °° O- 0 o ro p J c '' "Cl 0 w 0 w Q) -I ^ p- CM '1 „,, '° o 'O � r9 - ° izr O . w n a. ❑ ww CDD y O n a o y E n ° s^ n 5 O 0 ' n"" n s• ° C . P �v Va 00 p < . n ", 'I w • C. m `< 5- a f' - a 0. a r N A tr� w O R. �T. O ' . 0- �p N O C 9 C. op ca n O 6 N C . ce, 5 H " V o2 c e' ty r a w w a 3° E- a o .. E. w r 1 �. n j•'`/' . A " �a �s " � � �'x e. - < CD 0 - -- �' m y n O k m 1- I o a r O C P K 0 f0 p O C o- 3 0 N `< ry R a g <. y 9., 5 5 0 ^] 0 °g, 0" 9 0 00 O5, 5- y 5- a T n - P- (o 5 * 5: 5- n 0 4 '- a a K M G O r. � ^ b o ^ . ., H �.< O AKt �. t �J y .1 G N R C 0- O L u) o N LL E o m C O N y E E d C N N O` O o o ca _ O ra N C U c a E N C O E MI C o a+ N .0 . l6 OO _a U j E p N L .Y N (0 E L o e o a U 3 E o w E 2 oo ®o cocoa 0 0 0 a a CO N t m � c on N N E o -0 a > N ® 0 O 0 — o 0 0 — a- 0 N- O 0 0- '-- 01 o© ©o U a) U I Cl) 5 5 00 r 3 c -o m— C o o C a to 0 o— To L R N L 3 -0 =- - - � F o CD -o O n 3 ✓ 0 Zr a 0 m O — 0 O • r 3 j O O CD co , ai 3 0 < 5= ETC D ' 3 CD� 0 ECl/Hyer Architects � Kodiak Island Borough G y n 04 0 c C. 0 ' ^ �' 'b n 'V •t7 C 0n� 0 ` n x ' .1 t5- n < a rt ry N a 1 n •- 0 o O O? 5 w G � P- cr ° ° o w G e CO 0- -0 n G m r . 3 w C cm y' 7 'r a ^ N O n O 'C 0 0 4. 4- 00 5 cm Y a o0 00 ry n Q Q J NJ d y a a 0 c CD a„ oy o ' m m n y 0, o ,ii ,'i w N N ry C. C G N r n a "O 0 G 0 to 7' v c ac' tr4 p 6 ` A w O n a at •• o cn z. F ry 0 5 it co (' to a- n 0 0 oa t 0 9 �a 0 n 0 0 I O cn C cc H N C C 4J m ° S S F -5 o ° o � - a U A v U o C ° E -o '' L v E a, o V— a. a '° ' o • E a C o a v a A c, c " ° u 7 a v c 3 c H A y .E , C , ° 5 0. C . .b E u 'af N p X . m bA m a. v ✓ S E o tl 3 A O° S o o C 'a 7 ° 5 O .a Y ° u F ` S '3 v ON -- rt.' .S ° w v ▪ $ e E ,X ° o . \ mo o o v 3 `" a y A U w 'a b 5 y co 4 , o µ, y ' ca rn H L p . u ) ✓ v? H 0 '- m v o j H w C o o v ^. 6 c0 v m i to � -a 'a 0 a - 3 'b H bO 0 " E i 3 r ° x - a , V , ti\ h o C In" et, H = v L v Y 3 m ° o -a v = '. • . o ,o ° ° `^. v ^ 0.M _ E o . 5 'a v c.; 'a L A D S E ' - L w o o° � a : E v 0. v -15 2 ° h • ° 'o . ' e • o ra E ▪ 3 ' 3 ;, S. 3 C 'S E v c Q v o 'd w F Y 9 o v v 0 al o v v o yy U U L a �i V U N .5 a • ¢ ,q ° � ' 'v . v m uQ ,_"5-, -a ▪ . aL u E E E ' a, bO `S o v _ a> . CC v„ S v E H. o L C .4 w° y e '7 Go U S A i 0. H O Z. . E 0. ,4 '.' N , t 8 C > C p a.'. v ,5 s O . L U y C y d' O L U Y U O .-C T N O M N �4 U U ' � N 6 . . .�'. O al co a, a a E E '� S w F cn CO a. < 0 0i v U m F - 0 0 x y o u O a M 0 U N N x 0. N N N 7 C 3 S c v c :: = A 0.. L A N • Cq v p w C .S O) O w U ' 5 A ON C N U • U v :ii:OCI 'a • E H c -d .p u .O L L r u b 0 F L > 0 cA ca . O a, 'V C ,a : : • i . C N C b O O C 3 > „ A o CrC LO raj b9 0 0. F v E U O (0 L C 4 C b 9 C o 5 . S > o O O O v aa. 3 w E °O. t. ▪ a°. F. go E 7 3 3 O P.. w S 1 ' V N 5 A O a � ' a n m K o ^ b 0.. ^ O 5.. r , a ' N P co c 5- 0 ern 0 2 B B ^ n '1 O n m 5 ^ P' ^ P o' o y w 0 as CD t- ^ CD ^ e W _ n n -° s ' O o O N P ^O N O M o E on"' c y m y n ^ ro O pq fr. ^ G N ❑ G- " G i 5 n �p w ^ 5 5' w n O. G y " e n y -j ^ 8 co?, 3 i ' " ? a 1 w O . n G < on M to 0 w m' ,b r y w 'O ^ n 0 G w P ^ 5 F 2 p rt O y e l B °' x ro g Z 5F n G b k P = n F ti P. b it n 5 - O n ro a- a w CD CD IV ^ a ^ n P n p - O n .^. n z Z. Co 0. P.. 5-g 5- ; c; o Cr) 'I ° 9 o a y o ° P a 0., o P o w y e `� , O W n w m a. P f 'I, ee I n rt. G. O y a P O OP O 5- n 4 P e w 0 5 a F n • r r - -, — 4. n n . y r C "1 C o O.. C' n ° c ry O 00 irs Co n , S. n ro P 5' r O O e0 , G d 6 • CD C N CC w O w N y n -a 0., �' w N a l'j In e t 0.. 5 g.' n ' n. P- m ..--, o t., a- a P w � ' co n 0 0 0 °• ° y o °� n r • 0 • x £ o' y ca W a O �' q w 0 N 5' o '. w 7 m n 5 cr y ro 'A y n P d n o p - ` m C' a p n �? pp p_t _ ke y n . m n os`' rn ro m G o w 5 n A 'no a ao C. w uo ^ n n ^ n w D\ 0.. P " , _ J .`G$ �' OP O tV ^ o O o O '^S G 2-CDC n pq l'g w n W n n -co o m rt 0 p n q a `� °», o >n,- °^ °' w r. °. y n 5 a "- ° o o n rt- S a °' n w P m `O ,' t 0 o m ^ P r n o w EL n . G + w o n }X n :- ° m0 0. 5' y . - p ' n y w w 5. ~ n yW ,� " n n ti ^ 5 ' w c °- $ �' 0. 5' P- ^ O n n C a r b . p ^ m m d rt � ' ° w ti y ° a i rt n n c , o n o °», - n o ° `° $- rr ° •n O O C n C. O o ry T - n p 0. O n 7 . n j 5 r y "'CI y n O 'O ro °- bq .- y. P 1 `- ^c ❑ 7 O y Po" , P a _, P 4 `e Oq OC ( , w w m ' n 0 0 n C ," P.. n C . o e o � . o n ] p o o n trY 5. w . a- .00 C. F n p. . - � `. n n ao " n n :o o o - n, w t om * 5. y ' a 7C pg Pr, R n h ti m O . ,. O n < n n O ` < GG n w O m Wy CC w N .D y `� 5' ..^. w o o e P O n P 0 w b+ P' ° ' n rt n m 9 '� t e a, o ^ C E • • ° y > d , y o ° `" 5 L ° 'EH O ' C C Y E U v el) v a 3 > F ro 0 O Y 0 O u o 3 b (1 C G b4 P. 0 U + c. •vU gyp+,„y L ¢ D 3 G U \ y b X R. z C F m e4 F m O ° U y ) >u ti F " C b C w 3 N F T O 0. . be ro l v Y Si 7 a m ) ° 0. " 3 ^: c, C O v 7, A~ . � y b t0 co , ti y ,b , 0 .. < E 0 h fib- F E a, U a ) el y o ❑ 4 .k C .. -C w" u O � CC m L Y x U m Q . y Y O v L 0. L 0 O F o b- A re L F ro Y ❑ v ro N � ^. Y (. y Q (� U 4w 0. F 2 F V N Q. 3 0 O' y '� 0 U - p F L^ o a N N O\ E m > U m b v G 4C « vv y C O d 0 0 C p cz 0 p o �b.0 v v y l—' m > G 7 G co, m m. - 0 v 'C > . ra: w '5 o m O b y 'a7 i J w d O p O ., ro v E _Y v T 4 v u 0 M v H v n .47 ° C. 7 U [� ' i . y .0 m y , It; E5 y 7 y .5 C ti E b E c CC F O' .. Y v O O m u ro C C C V -171 > L a y U y 4 w v C 7 y v O c:: u L ^ 0. U 0. v °°° E ° a v 3 fi ti a v a m ° C 0 m > m E °0 F CC v 4 .1 A > 0. m , $ x n. c v 6 a -' E et C n v, v« Q X Y • F L U y v 6 C E A a "� b T 'O d C bC9 7 2 o C a a U v F ° > 0 0 m C 0 0. , m fC 'C m O m be ' ro V 10 0 m a! v mm m , ti ° Y A +�J °r Y C 4-1 N (i i b y 0 m 3 3 'i v 0 ° > ° : bA o 0 ro r5 .0 .0 O v b �° a C m y H -- E ❑ o m ° ,. > ` Y Co ° " C O Y O C ` o 0 C v � E > U C H e 0 v W u "C v T , E F .,. y O. . ° 9 U 4-1 T U C� L i a) L .Y ^ V U U U O O .'� 'j V v . y ,� O O �) Co v OL o cr. is .5 O v O ro (0 D M V ro E CO 0 F 0 0 C o EL v w 0 '� ^^. C C �.`. U 'O .. 7 ... q c...0 3 '° iy C O ti 'a O '� .� . m 1 CO U m b U ^ O-5 L O ' 0 , O E x -0 -0 0 .Y. U ¢ ..lo 0 .0 0 , v v ` CO 9 o X O n w CA n n m m • q r o O y 0 ° n m 0 . 0 0 a O O ti - 0 0 y n 7. C ' o 2 rn n. m h P . 0 d 7 a t�� g C. w 0 a 'd °= o < . n o- - 0 n :, "° 'o 0 o- o .g `o : 0 n ra' �.r` b ' b E. rt 0 (1 1 0 w x 5. a n 0 0 n w 0. 'L O 0 0- C n w C 0 O C , m :- "d n O n t"° n N n' �i o' O ` n ' C F° ` � n < rt y p rt y 0 s s- " 5 8 IL 4 w n 0. n 6 .0 n n n- O_ " y m » w n .o n • r' �" by a n' . y y .0 3 0 a ° ' 3 y y n 1= R o E. .o o N £ < mm 7, E. < E 0 '� t n T :`Co rt m a c 'o X o c ° o � . x $" C 0 3 P tr4 n 0. a • rt 0 `' w ° G m ":1 n O n En 5- trQ m ° 0 m ti n O w C. fr' " 9. w .0n ro P ,.,., " b 0., y lor w '' 0 ' by 4 , 5- 5" 0 W O �: n 0 bi w n R. p O y 0 w 0.. rt O. " : n O O • w a G - n . n , y. oa E C7 ° m n o a w .^,. - n o �, ° o O r^o C v 0 a 41 . n M ° ^ M CO 0 r; n 0 O w a E n e 0 0 w G O • �' M w a a to "O .nj 0 0 ^" < y 0- C w ° g B w n -o ° ° ° o n �. 3 o 5: O V ' ❑ 'O m 00 w n 'a ''T' � ' 0 ,w. n W O .' a G7 e. R C 2 w n '. o ' .. ° $ 99 m" o �. o O n p ' w F S' t° n O N n ° R v P ca 0 o w T. O 0- ' ^ y 0 w < 5 n n O f O fS w y a. o a o o w 0& w Q, y � . d ° .o - '" m m � o w n wq � < '- o- M o : 0 0 g 5" E- ao o y 0 CD n w ❑ " N 0' 0 O CL. `O 0 C v I, is .1 O c a v n. o o -. n. y C V N N O '7 V. b y 3 v cr. 0 ro A "0 H S ^C 0 0 u a 0 p u . a . � d p L 0 + -o 8 c. 0 - Ct N d A 0. h O b. O 8 "0 v ro v>, C O U . 0 A L co 7 0 0 b O. Q v U y ti m F o v a o f V ' -I 4 ' 1 IS? v > �°. > ° el F 1 ro v el 'i ° N > 1 pY C U N [ F i G 0 " 00 ' P 6 Y ; V0 q b m h A > 0 o v a v H 9 u h .+>' m y ti0 'D P. w [ °"' Q v L 0 v 0 ..1 .5 pT p "C 0 --« J 0 [ 0p "' ^p 0 . O G: id 'O i ll O H L 7 O �" "O [ S C .y a- ❑❑ o« p ` o ;� v o y - 5 .Y. 7 A g O O 0 N . > C". > > u w u V PO w v "� .3 c 0 m v c.i 0 04 0 co N "O y 0 'R. ❑ w v m N 0 - S O 1C1 u v 3 o cn m v v ro 3 .n p o O y a ' v A ,t -0 H r2 a 7 i v « p y m C. O ': « L b0 " ° m v C w u '� = >� U c m b N V 1'r y '3 f N �' U v o b9 "° o v o F o c '0 0 .0 O d a E" o v p V d 7 U ' y C0 o C a o y °- L -° ° y o o n 001 S o° a °� U 0 6 Li Ct C •I ' C' '« a ° «° . ° a 0 o 0 S c H C) U [ o o y 3 T o v c v> o p 0 O S . S C> " " S y " N ° w " vii y ! [ O v 0 U b 0 v v u H « y O ro O w m p., <^ n G C v H O 0 N r�i, p O u > . y C O F O O ro 0. N .'7 a! O u i0 > t ' P m 0. _ O 0. S O P o > C S m v 7 S y oo '.. .0 O S ° v 3 7 ° n' y b ° > a ? C E 3 v oN o o o 0 [l L • b y r N . L L . . ' '° L N ' N U '� ro T L O U [ > « p A C d v O^ O O ' O v' ' � y c N m C 0 P. p L v fi y fi v [ ° c � a v [ °° s Q O h 0 a o .y X S w u U F E ro v v 7 Q ro U C. F U m Q u v n Coco n y O To a va 0 M 7 Q o . 53 r g: S. o Z x rD 2 o 0 m Y N 'O O Y X' ° O w C �. G .,G ° - CD 0 5.1 0" O S. t „' G o a a w 1,14 0 uo m a w w w 7 m m r O R C. `d e G �a w n •-r5 B " co "t O M n N o 0 O !!]] rye' . n ? .nj "" N N " ' to G OQ P 5 C n b 7 5 T ' C. `U o 0 P CD CA g II' C 0 r wp , � o � a w n o z. n Y 0 4 G ,q 'n � C C O -' w Y 0. f±,., o-0 I n G �+ ,7 � o S O m m ‘1< c. 0 H co E L el E 5 ' m m O aa R w w O W 7 4, ,o 0o K n w a E O "O 0 R O O .. 0 ' m . o m < 9 J ,' O' G n W n w o A 0 n n O x m o r n � y as P- G n n w in Y PN N) I O CIS 5 5. - o R O T R E 0 E co O C m L t O = n) L_ E 2 M- e Y N - o d Y U U) N Vl w O a) m C A n 0 n k T n o' a E p O n ° n 0 0L O O < E. '+ n et � ' . O < G K 0 n « 5 an c c y n co' 0 Pp" 0. � o n := n n O c b n o 0 n w < B o 2. O E o n G w — D o E w n 0 N rr I,YOC v d 0 n 0 E. A � d �' N "7 O O C] y n b C r o n n o § -, w G n a c o cm m o r w E- C y n � ° y O o C O 0 . w W F W P n o N d y' N E' n O G A � +. 5. OC O' `G C' O E' 0.. r n 0 .. O O E. �- O o CD e p. o a ° E a o 9 � y n . -e M n ' O .°. w n �» E. S' p A O ry M w `< n G P- ' Pr n n O O ,_z, 0 m Y a' S 0 y M n 8 5' O El E'. N' °' < ' a 0 w , n P " ' P.,' - CO � y a 04 0.. OD n < � • 3 d V v Cl- e t v v w H O O v h w y o a v ,� E o . v '� v «° E ° E o o a . ° C -Ed o ° 3 H o y c o . o w „d v P. a J O o ro 4 _, E C y v A v a' C lock a 'd ''7 '' J v U m >� m E O v A O C F' 0. ° 'D bq w A v C v C O w v C .L' f'�. V A O O y - d b m v O O •E ❑ E o o v a U 0. U N O O > �. C .d bA 4: � ^ L o f. v , d v .L' ' w y v 0. C O O '> v v CC m G i m y y ' , t1 ° m v m .L' O 'f ''�J' t v. v. O a cc b4 0. v '� v c la.' A o ° V ° o . ° C °' 5 o .5- - '' S a L ' v E a `o a ° 3 y 'A y a+ ,' v 6 A O iqp ' m w v VI V V V ¢ 0 y V ' O O. ^ N F G 4-' 'b 8 v S .0 i "O A O X U m O m ` ° ..--q b O v < ut V C b m n " cfl V m > O ^0 C v a5 ed > '� 0 m b9 y m « ... :.� I ' 0 0 d. ro a ro o E ° A - 'm d o b o 0 "J "' '� O r. 'J ❑ u °' O ti A V V v O 0. . V '�„ 04 v m O o 9 « O 0. F b r E 3 ' � " ` ` " ro C a'"5 w 'J ° a'S " : � « 8 3 ro o ° G ° .E 73_0 �.o c w 0. CO U "E g A W C O a v v , v v F' v b p F F4 F 8 H w ° a E w F� y N '2 p t^ p 8 w o o F . a' 7 C. 5 a a Pit < n a 0 O "O y w O O n y r ��' r y > CO O a e — a � n w r y m P Pj ' C. m n O y n 0 CD co eD 0 a. 't 3. E n a 0 y oc o E" y ? E n < y �. cm A o . m N = E. E ■c tome? o 0 rb w G O. O n ' y n O O 0. g, n O y E. ? ' P- y w F. CJ O m 7 C. y 0. N 0 0 y n E y c E c °'' a m ° - y '° or ° war E 9 b 0 .... c ° > ° ° y • °° r o 1—. ° p N n 0r' p w , m m E. p 0. w 0. P 00 E r n ^ Et G G rn N 2 �r ' d N y y = a" < . cm n a O w ry 0 7 14 y n ,: 2 O" o E ., w w n 5- ^ d .o ° m b G 0 G m W �N g. N O •-! 1 0 0 Y N E •< a a. n m 0. G G 0. � d y -O O °, ro y n :, a w CD 'b . j " ' N E IT, TY G 'O a b r a , r' a 0 0 ° o. C. , .+ y w O E ' .. G . n a Op 0 r H w M 0 G o W EA �` y1 O $ w n <° 5. . G n 0. O N O N n or E E O 0 0 ry n a 0 n 40 Oa n y y' @,. o 5- n r 0 W I ECl/Hyer Architects � Kodiak Island Borough 0 0 0 P 0 n 0 n1 0 � O 0 ry rt 0 d 0 0.- d 1 0 '1 0 rt G Y :. 0 co Y 0 o '>0 O 1 m O n C O Cm n p O G C . ,� 111 Oy Cr! 0 n o a 0 c. -. '1 0 y w n n V O w W . 0- p ry n n p, C y n O P O ro" n rn 'C t"` n 9 . c. � a. E o o Ton CC o ° I 0 a R: ' ° o '151 p 0 . O n p w O E 6 n w ^I O~ 0 ( 1 y n 0 ° ° b g N 0 0 ° -t , a 0 0 ° rn ' b 4: 3 P .n trG p an O O n a . r kt7 n yy 0 w (� n 0 n- n n C p 0 a A G N w 'a O P. n -0 o w Y m n .. � '°.. 0 'O C : O w O a. n w 1 C ti n y �o 3 7‘, a y s 0 w a w off � z 57 4 n co 4 ° ` .. CD w £ p n F. 04 n y 0. 0 "° 0 0 q' �, o 'o 0 C ...] E r 0 . ° n . r' O A 0 � 0 p ' O 0 C 0 y -3 P n k Va n p .. n y P n p tr' (� y . n - 0.. T 0 - 0 0 • p„ ❑ S. 1 0 0 ° "O in . n '= r` n y G 5- 0 0 0 rt n ' w O O O ` O 0 y n "O ^ h c 0 ' P w 0 `< V4 0 wr 7 0 0 y m 0 p' 2- G O r . 0 n 0- O rt 7 n n 0 y 0 0 0 O n n w o0 cn n s 0 n 0 0 - 0 7' (J W (1) 1 c 0 c I 0 0 et et 0 \ } \ CO -o ° " 0 -0 w 0 n -- CA CA NJ • r n w < CA m o n o S n • v • -0 o q n o n v m c ce 3. P+ o n n 0. 0 _ m B ▪ d m 0 CA W O • 0 d n y W 0 n 0 0 0 b7 0 o x a a ECl/Hyer Architects � Kodiak Island Borough xP n 0 O O r O 0 o - o ' VIr co C 0 G 9 B x 0 C O' E. 9 °" CD u-h CD 0 0 a b 0 'a a C n a n7 Pi 'o V y rr co vo H n a. n n c w m p a o a E .a d G) a rya s:pg N o �' b B 0 ro e n n C n -o C x �. h n n 5. 0. pq o P �. 7 f ro ") n0 n P a- �• O O' 0' n 0. n 9 ry R.' Oq n MI t a i O t� rt 0 .. n • O m � Y 1 O- ` Co o c y tit ° ri- d M .O rn C. ro 0.. ,a te C y n ° a C b 0- o ' y R� n a Co n n (D a a O nc O .. a- a, n n n I- P- ro 'U D 7 n s a - n n ] ° o 1 0 E 8 ^a' a d ..,° eon - t d '0 n '1 a LI p e. a. .n n y o M a 5- q e a n aa . 8 d n. 1 0 rt n 0 a. rt a 0 a ° G a 8 O G. H m D. a" -t n a a 't7 P $ b e rn dd ry o o c a a . n ,- a' CC t ° D - o° � a w ^ . t ], n n P n b a ,5 a E C. 4. C. x a 9 a y ' ` o D G1 a - a" a- a 7 CD — m y w O P rt t� ~ w O P O o ° 0 P mo tD e 0. p C. 0 .a t C. 0 CD a a : m t 'D ° o �aa y> E' E. w ao a w �ooaa n P.. y �. 'i X G 0 2 '' C B v n 2 E °' YS�' 7 P I PV e, O ^ E n D a' E E O E �' 'fl Sr g �O 0. " C t 7 up s ° ry 0. r p ' O -n 6' 0 n Cl) A, o n. 0. 0. n y tD eY N Q. w n a' r+. ^ ,a y 0 . ' 0 C. O n a o. 5- o CD » ^ ' . �' la Q n n O 0 rn CD P a C n a, G Y N 0 � . C O 0. , p C D N m O (n 2 F O ° tD » 2 0 c rt ° °o y a e a � a. a' E CD E . �* k a' Od- .t p ° .t ` C. �' n a . ~ R O. E N n n 't .J O sr. ET r' 0 -' .a O' n E. F. W O 0. L 0. n D O 03 rr R p y D R q , 9 ry & � E. n .b m `w' a rt E A a . 8 0 C 0- a fi�, w m - 'C a Oro n R on 0. IT.r' Z. no N ' �'' rn ° a n' O ° 0 a 0. 0. W V I O PLa cn 5. k Y -° U v O 1-1. .-. OO� O v O O v �., L 'C m V O 0 m 0. U 0 'a a> ' � .� Cv 'r u `° C m > n �^ O a' 7 F E 3 m ro« o o v 0 -o « F O 0 o 1 v 'A w H u° ^ O a0 u 'i7 0 Y y i a w 4, -C • y g. — v C C `d — . v o v L 0 O ,y ^O ..O 7 E 'O Y .-C v � ' 0 . = e G v O • '> ° . p °a° K a '� 0 ° a , ,v O e O O o m '.O C 0 y a O A O A . O y " ' C v O U O CY U • 0 m 4 42 O g v .n y 7 t ; 0 .6 b ' E a j h- � b `° a 3 0_ i u. 0 0 7= w o. 74 b A G 0 v > N 5 v C o E 0 E "° Y E ° v c v a v o 4 A I v .0 0 0 a. 1 0 U U O O O 2 Cd b p V F ° y I!: x F C jO m C ` - 0 a w 0. bF� v h x � 5 v v V. cc v o o . 6. O w N N ' J d '' O F Y O., m v 7 C w cd M ' rip 0$ M T ° .0 ° .b ' N -o o e t; .4 v 0 '° y . � - o Z v 'O .. 0 0 7 -E n N W O yyVV� w f O 0 O w 0 v U u >°$ tl v b 7 G c 7 _L. ° u ° a. = v • 0 7 E '0 v eV 5 o E v ° 0 .o .° 0 0 v o a v 7 3 v o 0 u u E v m •° ^ m q ^ E4 F a v m b.o -1 E m ,d S v o 0« -a 4 x `t y -b ° it, 3 c E ao c u v F .c 0 E ' C > P G E � o w h 0 , CV v > J. v 0 E X p., 't7 0 0 7 x _ N F 'O V . F O h „ U v '� O 3 x 0 F F • W yQ 0 O 3 Y C A 7 v up, 0 C rn C •••0 V O "' ie T 1 V v pp L o '� r E 3 Y v. U . b x C 0. E O N • v ro O bD O 0. .LE F 3 0 A - p ^O E . ° E h F -° ❑ 3 ',� V v '. 0 - v a . 0 0 > ° 0 . ti 3 '� v a . a E ' td . n u E F o a v O 0 y a . E y • w ° E v 3 Y 0 E E V v" o y v C y v C T O Y o o E Aiv 'a b v C a i N y ^ o u o ° y E El e T n ', U v E o 0 "" v y v 0' a m y o Liz a Si Q E v 0 � ry 3 -a 0 F v o O v❑ u a. _. � ' v o F b 1 "� .� h 'v o O V v S E ' O q v > N V K w" F u m �° v y '' 7 > '� 0 F > ° > Q v b v E ° h s F O 0 o F o y. U ry F O N F 8 .� F U a. d Y o °° o .� c n Y o S r -s o v a r�F E o x o c Y w �, o f -o y O 1 E v v -0 0 "-ma:v:1 C iO .'"� N y m a v� v m U G m > 3 O C b.0 .� 'd Y v ct C .4' y. ^O .0 C 'O v F O ( ❑� 7 Jr F O U N Y F ,� F Y E F ° '40 bU rzt v F v o E , � wu -[ ' h z ' _v, E v m ., F t ti _o F -L r w, v rx . ii u W w 0 a. F 0 ° O ° v sJ • < n O C. 0 a � � d 0 O 0. • 0 0 0 ▪ O 0 C MI w E o rn ° c ° O " w r O k a r 0 e O e' O 0 1 0 wr O N ca. O r • C C w O 0 „0 O • C cr y � rt � a w O rn O 0 a. a r� p O ro0 "1 w pi 5 2 o O y C w CD rn C. p o m 0 p 0 0 C 0. C a w .0 C m 0 0 `a w 0 5 O 0 M^ g 0 O m w 0 in cr! • 0. N C ▪ 'y' g. O SS • T, 5' t ry 0 0 a a n 0- 0 0 0 . 0 y o E. cr e. 0 0 0 ^ w ° � S CD 5 5 0 0 b - G. s '+ n � � r a , :h.!. F y O 0. w PI Y ° '' O O as 0. O CD W w C . R- 0. . G O C' 0 pq ti • w K n ., --7 00 o A 0, 0 7- 0a < 'b B 0 ("� "�O O y d 0 0 0 4 `e 0 C p a t O_ . 7 O 2 0 0 n f' N O ^ 0 0. .. M 0 0 O § R ri, N c O � . 9 '' 0 O N N 1 0 b p X $ N rt 0. -O W w O N 0 0 " ' O "t m N. - c 70 0 v 0 Cr E. O N O S rzr 0r o ti N 0 O w. P . y w O O w 0 0 e, .< 0 0 t. y N n' 00 O 9 CD CD a "0 ° E. o b v -0 0 0 0 o `a E CL 4 a ay �. c n , c n. a 0 PI ^ O CD II I L 0 i 0 0 0 - 0 m 4 O ,! r • r ; l t .. e - k+..'t::&L a. LSv vM� • F a:' ra •n s RN •i. 0 U r. o > N L 7 m > o V 0 • [ o' > m in 7 U t-'.. C "O p ▪ Y Y tv C Q. t �- o N 4. 0 o. 0 O ▪ F t. o 0 o a. 0 y %' C 0 m C a C •y 0 G -o d w co la et1 bp 0 3 .0 3 ›-” W C S 4, QS C 0 7 an 4 - o 7 V J m .i m 0 •C • w IC 0 o_ 3 " a C- o o ❑ C m 7 ^ ✓ p o i ▪ ro S o >" V° ` o S 5 't . « b n .. 0 3 L 3 7 2 c . s a 0 m y n b7 Q ' p' C7 w' G O O, b H E. °° a z ? ma y' A 0 x a C 5 $ 5- Y C. n Op -a ,) yy w co o a O n O co rt 0 a. . n C H. co a' o m O H O E. • o w a. a d P 0 5 l 0 a 0 E o a c`o y 6. v 5' °° p m ,. 0' o C C „ w O n H. w y m d ` p. b o . o C � ° ro � ° Q- " O 't7 O O 0 t to `* C 6E-. ' f�' N m to 0 O - ..0 a. 'l A 0 rr C 0 I O a rr q CS'. o✓ R N ' "� w '2 `G 5- O :7-r `G 2 d '� 0 a N w C. cA a . a' oo. M m CM a' 5 o' a rn . 0 0 - o ro m or .o b 0 O `< N ro 0 P.. rt o w _Pr a oc` a " 0 0 �' N w a y 0 O 0 0 'w G m A O 0 — a O o $ a ro Fes., r 0- r O tlo w L m .. a on a 5 K ° - 0 a Cl 5 °: S 0 a• " 2 0 a. n. 5' O ,, y d O p 0 p .1 0- R n O ba H w m 0 0 Cl � ' w Cl °�°o a .- r w ° ^ o Cr .. 0 0 o gq' o , n. I O 5 5. ECl/Hyer Architects � Kodiak Island Borough 0. (° O w n ?' Q > 5 1 w P w m �' 9 - n n g n a O O n 0 a ° O 5 - 'c c n L'. ''r ,g,.. 0'a < w C C O O Da y ' ,.. O 0 a - E. ' c J O . a a I II 's - 7 w 'a ^ ot. y O Oq y 0 C p . '7. CO ?) a n . as O C 7: G i 0 w 0 r 0 O 7 0 ^ w n E • S' n 0 d- o q y b y O `� O y 0 n ; o z �?. C n a rD n n .." '}.' O : as w ..5... -o • 0 ti n 0 p n n y y one 0 � � a CL ` . w w y w �' £. L O b b a . ^ y 0 ta, 5. y rt as w P.. � O' y co y ` E n n n R a O . O '7 p n G 0 m 0. 9 w A C n '`. n 2 G w n 0. w- n 'O A" a o 0 5 n ' -' a a a � * s k- y g at O o N. a. a o: n, o w o ' 0 p ° a. 0. 5 a. O n 7 �+ M C S R o n 0 .- ❑ O G - `! C w y a cn n d n E- O, a N 0. n ° O o �0 y n 2, n M n 5 n n � A W -c — n o y X z z cr o 0 w `-a P 0 0 O o O a 0 a O O n w O n . w C n N 0 v L o to y b4 - '9 U 4 o p 0 Y O 0 O U ° n o 5 a O o r 0. N v v a E v 0 H w y 'd 0 O .ro a. ' O 7 N 0 v '0 v O ' C p O U m U 3 w Q t Y U v '�' ‘L is 7 v ^^, 22 3 k "V' O' '� b '> S--. v q o N C V o , b y v U PJ a L ' v . y� 0 1 5...' 0 0 6 8)-. ' 3¢ C-0 Q G N s' '� v 0 y N T '0 . 0 3 F" Y 0 0 0 ^0 U 0 U O 0 0 L U N �x o �O 7 .K ° 0 0 0-.0 U 5 a O y C y a C 1 1 d 1 0 ¢ '� 'i 0-00 O N 0 3 N C 7 0 ❑ '� C ' 0 � O 7 C o 0❑❑ F 0 3 0 C 0 o y a.. . v ro . C U 0 0 U 0 U v 4 O 0 v v C V O 0 C .> 1F-1-. 3 ,, ?< v o -B Y y ro U 0 v o Ln 0 0 O " i w O p u v w .A X O� O- v V' w' ro I" 0 O v 2 U Ir U 'J' �-. N C Y Y 0 � R . . , d 0 - .? 0.0 G v 8 0 ' O U 0 -0 U o ' v ; L '' 0 aU 0 0 0 O G o 0 0 0. 9 U 0 w 0 O C W '0 0 U 0 0 0 O 0 y U t N Y U v O T o .b U'' O 1 H O ro U 0 w a z O L L. m 0. . C cN 0 7 °' 0 O pc ._1 �b9 C .. m a do . .7 ¢ 'a Jr .. C w o -0 .V, .V, C v v . 1 ri ' U O 3 ro N -S " $ v 0. ' 3 v a .3 00 8 R. 3 L. k 0 1. y w 0 0 a a -5 � 0 0 ..I c-,' A O Y b O U ro 5 N -6 W C. C z 0 v b ,...44. ," v As 2 a_ .°. 0 a T b❑ O 0 v . Y. 0 '"O b op FO i O a to F .� d4 0 C 7 0 U F C 00 0 42 9 C - i i 0.'0 O U O. O.. C ro i z t v v 0 a v 4,S -a -d 0 o b '3 00 r O 0 O' U F Y 33 5 v v > m G 5 7 ¢ y h 8 to F h P H rn C . 0 0 w ro O O w O Y 0 ^O ab U -0 05 J0 CO O 0 0 C 0 V v dA O b O v s C ❑ G bU ro . Y s O 0 0 0 .O 0 C- 0 0 CO C R Cr R M w ^q rn q n 5-. '° f 'ti n _ R A n C S Cr Cr o E . o rn 5r o `° 5' 0 0 o a° ° ° a- o f a n a a n C a g w I—' a w w .- o rt w 0 O :° E!. 't7 a ry w 0 p - o o N a o' '° ^ O A o < <+ i. n P ` n ' o ' p j ' y c . G .. p o a y � . .. w a 'rr ° 0 ° .1 h 0 , Q .1 o ,i o a :. a ° . '� a a E . a o' o a E d c w c 'x w S ° c S a S , o m g a ' r o o a; t o o» f D o a a- ° g = - E y ° d a w ... a a a U C h 0 ° o d w 5 n o w o' S . B: a °o w w a a 0 O o • ° w ao S ❑ S ° a E a? h ar Y ° e Sa o> Po' o. °- E MI 5. e g ^a «, e S o -, O' S °' O y s a 0 O S:. :? a O E C: -G C. P. CD 0 w 7 O - » ° a n Q " v o l > ° .\- 0 N G 0 b y ° 'o a p ad G. � o O O Q., a n O °' < 'O �: C. ti Y w a w -° a ° ° 8-' O . .� r 0 n :- ? w w O �. O 0. P-1 E. O O a ,+ 0 t O a 0 r o 0 w n A O2— O X a n R w O � 'b a '�° 4. n , 0 0 ti 7 C . `d w 'I R r .. .^ v, oc 0 0 rn . o , - F.' b `< Si °o .n £' m o a' ' OF a ao aa q- oc o > m E O t cr a a o C ° a o - P a 0 ac a a 6 a a > ! z e :' ` N o r p a w C a c p .'T � ' N b p P- 0'Q O . y a 0 ' °' y a P . ❑ d' a S ran p �. a o n ry n h 74 on ro cap 0 Or 7. P a4 G rn o_ ry P g .1 5. , ,5� �. m or! o p A. ao d ° y '+ a a 5-- ' . a ° w ' DEL '1 m S. o ., n o ^ o Cl) ar a � �. a �' E E ° a �a o y "� p a O' � + o 'O O A O a O a o m O 9 A n N • P O Wy a 0 a a n a O 't ,T Y n "T rt -0 : a S' n O^ P• n' O X' O 0 0 a S ° ' a " o w w D y a 'a+ E a N a a O a q' -a El k a 0 d 0 O p ° p aQ a 'z 0 0- 1 eD N y `° a L e . O S a n 5 - Op N a ~ O Cr cm OZ a W a0' 0. 0.. X a C w ' O m n a 2' p �. o C N P C S ' G' a Cr' PJ N R n p a E : P y n. a a Y a aQ a w A y ° `, ao 0. P 'O t. an a E SF 0 M o a m o 0 a a m Cr n w 5 O R p `-.1 a Y rn oO i r n O gL H ' �' �. a y a s M y ^' N a a 0 `2 a o I O 0- p (f) 5 5 It U U C) LU • • • H 0 o' C , a o f O . +] O • C O U O b ' O A H V L S L V b0 V U O ti V U N U y w L N 3 " 6. Y a. " 3 > O C) v C C �� U U d O U 1.4 (2 O p O H 0 0 i II "' •Cr C I, :a C U 0 H b U M O C a U A C N p d 'O 3 'O ' C id C 0 v p H A C 5 m L 3 oo a+ V O p .0 :: C y `d 0 C) L ° x C a V . C.0 N n 0 a+ G. ^ '� ° p ° Y O A 'L ' � CO bA d [ o [ v -o z a `v v .s 3 O .: C A a+ �y .�' . v 'E .0 0. U 0 . v . F ❑ h •bq 0 C a° c p o -a ° g1.0 o 0. a O C a ( 7 . C V -C a 5 C A v � a x a v ° o c y 5 .E a -o v o ti v v p c O V ,_, . ' n .- m y 3 ro a y F ,. N .E .8 . V L O U 3 N L, U 'O U N a C U I T �A v '"� bA 7 V A C 'C V > V O O �� F '5 O L L .� ' \ C C L G^. l-. C V . q L 0. d N O 0 �d G , C N C, ^- C . G V L ^ L �.,' N .. F N U L M 'O 7 'O j ro C o .0 « C i w O p ¢ O w CC N O. 7 [ 2 U A V > U ' S C L ° z '2 & ° ' A .20 • - o c U c ° • O v O "O o o o -- 7 cr ro y L U « z N dQ y 5 U 5 a • m � m ''a O co es') S V G 5 0 U L U C V 'C) OA V a C 0 0 y m E v LB s ¢ 3 v to 3 < v l'e 0 : a « O a 3 0 o 44 oo p � ° ° i w. 0 ., i o '� V o in NC b C "' 5 N T m b o 6 v CC IV) V r^. 0 L +s'' p et. b o C bA U C O "' C L U v 0 V c 7 A o - 0 'D o . C .� C V U 4-) LO I C) v F o w C C V +' m "d U L ., L C 3 O L w g C C V N 0 'C) a o V u v C "e O '� a+ L. V V C N V '. N V y O . ., m -C C 'O w H b �. a ,n v 2 g U I V 0. O co It o :a 8 5 r o s- e O n O. n n a- m 0 0 O a �. .n n p v .t 2 In aJ n n n £ n M. a. �', y n O k P C. y O S' �- go O 0 - , S a n 0 n o .7o. C k O n Pt w 00 w , .. C C S y .� m U 0 Cr - 4 w P- 0 — o 0 cn S- y > a-- f < k S n o - - w m 'C ° CD N o C ,-< s C w ,. 0. n - d n o N 7 G r a• O 0 0 0 ° y O Y a, 0. S C n 0 a C- O n O a.. 0 n C f 0 , K o at - O w > W 0, a � . Y a, 0 S a o c C a. (c ') e. W ° S lac C- i. ( � rt ,, S w m O (ni CD OR a -I o S ' n" 'l 7" 3- o .n° 5- ••o a N' S o- 0 w 5- n '" n 0 -' In o a U� °° 0 a o Ua a- Y y n W w ° �' UP CD Y ° °' . Pt O. w n 0 w ° w 0- n o w C c o e n n n ° n m o 2 0 0 ' J 7 Er M a M n fa- ° Ui r ', y a rt -t 'd �o O M O y - P_ G ' T N C P n n ri ° 0 O o n , i-t ,t 0 n 7 o n 0. n Y CO > C 5-o o -° < WW -o C. -o °o > o to S y n P. • C a G 7 Ell 0.. -, m .< a ° a a P w n n w rt w rt 7 C � . -1 or I Cm , a. ^ & o o 'o n' 5- g w _a ` o' �. o' m S m �, ° � n Z a a r a o, n " -o w a o ° a m a S E h ° a ro S n O A P. 0., n w n ^~-' a y m o w E' C ' v . v' C c -, 4 ' -, S o m a- a S - o °- ^ . b y o n w n. g o n 5 w 4 o F S S ° S S w a w i S a° Et a, 0 .* n .--i a S N P O J °° ° o bQ� y a Co n 3 w o w N E E. CT E N S � E v o F o 4° o a w o ° m et d a a n F '' �_ 5 � ' gist ° C . CD ":< P. `4 r a. �. F n n g -° o 5" e 0- FL t a C S 2 p C' 0. ° rt �r n m o ' a n G O 1p o n w , D rocr n o ' o y o S CD x a. o n rt w _ 0' & ` , S• '• S ny -o o ❑ ^, 'O a = ti O ' w C. w UO ON r kW v Er ^ 5- " o < C. n < n M � ' C P R u n �' c &.' y i rp n w R. ° o 0 o V n n S ' c n E o a n � 0 - oo C. S n. �' �+ .,, n w x' ° a y n w m C S o o y n •n n E. 5 a �. a' w ^mot n ' rt a n ' 5' a m O C n 9 o n t O O P. C. a n - O y s 0, .0.. y cn %, -- a.. .- "n"' . ' a y a ry n 7 U w G. ° .. .w. S � 0 0'� fa- N �'- ° N w Cr' W O O y ^--' R 7 ' z 0 L Oti 0.. a 'rl C. y n Pt C n n' y ?� 'r m C n n P -- n a V C U O C U ^o 3 vv -S v 'P o V '� a �1 v U l"' �p 40 l'' ' 0. « Q-, F A to E � s v r ° .ro ° E E u - c ° a t.:.3 ct ¢ c v U p 7 N ° v uo 0 . q w .7 C eon v ° h v xa o V v A w v ' E C ; b 5 ro v F g � + .D ^ O id P o A 6 y aU. -, o 0 o ' C ro 6.o E .3 v 0 [u n ° ro 7 N v ..... F L d o w° E '' o v y' . I a o o a 44 5 L 3 y a v N a N v 0 3 O 'O p L O v b `° Xbq C ..... +' J bA o b „ 0 3 3 -a 5 3 3 c o . A E S v b m • C U O M C O y O p '9 'A F m A U U p F t - -173 , N v W ° {. F � F y . y VV A 7 u E y V . ' 3 3. �c F '0.w = 7 H d =° E t 1 V E 3 a F .. E ° .S ° ec, H '° Y v '° . 'ti -o « E v ° C x o b H .5 u °o o x N C U '3 .9 > „ 'b e v H 04 x g 0., w o 6 ro 7 W U W .5 v' _2 N a' 7 w B 0 aL+ N E m 'L p C. �i ^C 0. h .3 L U E° a ° , o L ° ° C w 6. 'O ': C to ° 0 " y is '-0 C 4 v t o 3 7, N o w v i a v v 1.172 -o .ti c` V .ti o .o U -.$ av cC v 'c S v v Y Z E m L O E ° o o ° E ;q CV U 0. . L y C O C '3 R. � - v E ro A 3 f o C ° E O. h N • v . d N N H ^. -0 C ,� T U -O -. ^, C ,� o $.. G o 3 p o '° 5 5 7 c>'.. 3 3 .o O x Li O 2 tea' ca ^ E L N h o .3 c o ;L a) E v ° v o o 5 Cti r 0 '° n h .° F C + - d '`�' o 5 o o v° .5 V ° `'V �0 .3 v o °F' U Y N U d .0 ?L V N h Y O .L p O C� ( L 6 0 to N 'C F y '� E .o A U N ° O a_. G P. .x G v m 5 ,, C 7 _ • 3 y o : o a P o .. 'N o .T w .44 p ' O v C' V , o 'O o a C z ¢ 0 ° iO, 'b N C .� C O q ' O R. 0. L C b -° U " UU N 0 v O .. a � O F 7 7 L U c5 L O ° °' N Cd m L Q N 3 ° bq U ° h O U u 'O m N U et , T - o .5 7 t v ° v' o .c o v T A o .5 o a s v, v v v v A° E L E b v v o v ° o o N v o u E° v A Y g a ° ro N E \ ro $ G \ / \ n Ca 0 ell Pi 0 raa \ O t O 1 \ ECl/Hyer Architects � Kodiak Island Borough o b a N r. O Pa 0 0. B: a O 0.w 0 0 C ` G C O m F,- 9 e . r a w n o w w 't 0 S o n w w m A X ff a ■ ° < 0 v = B a a a c» . 0 h s a s v o O 0'w y FL w ' C w ` .: O O .- m 5 a° O G m 7r O co 0 O a a a A a d "'� o 1 4% G co `O n. N cr a w w • G a o a n. co 0 t y rn 5- -o ' c° o w n E. n n- 9 .i w tyq 0 O 0 w O < r . O • O Y ^ 0. ', ' �: y L a T. O. w y 0 .' a' 0..a w C w w a 5 Y o a 0. 0., u K . m-- y c 5' � E. a ©© 2 C E P . 5. °, o C. c "' ., � 0 cap O. , a p- m ca o E o 7 .. o N co cr 3 a c p A- �T O N a '< VG N w M aa a 'O 'o w `< n O. O ;Lana G �' n to 5 g man 0* Y O * .. O f a D v ' W a a " rt ' "� S. P O co C E . t O' O G O X O m " L' 0 . 2 n co S (Xi o a w o o a o '' a m �e C a hi n • coo a' y o y Sri .5 n ", t' 'v n om ' o .On a y 7. y' a ,' w .. O vO 0 0 " "O r* • 0 ., OQ N a c N a F L a' o o E 0 C m <^ ° rx a c H • a . v) r o . ° o h m 3 c . b 5- ° a M 5 a o c o a .o o 1. T ` 2,1 a m O N O O O G b y a 0 0 5 c ° a a g H o e o a ° ▪ , n a. EE. � n o ° » ' m B St o..o 0 r o o y w C. ` E E. d . . . . ti O ro o o f 3 g .: la ^ � Fo p R. B ' " y �< w ti a" o m G y ac ' Oa a a. C E . c 2 ^ 3 0) ECl/Hyer Architects � Kodiak Island Borough g 2 Z 0 CO ECl/Hyer Architects I Kodiak Island Borough Multiplier for net to gross 1.2 965F over ED Specs) Program Net Area ells, equipment, etc. Comments per Counsilman / Hunsaker CAD plan for option 1 per Counsilman/Hunsaker CAD plan for option 1 ' per Counsilman /Hunsaker memo dated 2 -27 -06 increased In order to accommodate flow of 200+ spectators & swimmers shared office space for 2 people 200 SF included in C/H CAD plan I Kodiak Island Borough Swimming Pool — Program Summary 5/19/2006 Current Total NSF SLE'E 108L I GEL'S I oat 10L9 1546 I 966 I S9t1 Ioo I OEE 004'T MO'S 5E8 106 10TZ 1062 I06TZ papnloul 919£ Preliminary Total NSF I sd£ £ 100k ' 1 006 I SL48 1109 1 008 00£`L 1 091 1 001 I use 007 I I 06 I an 100/ I Dos Os8 I oot I opo'E Recommended NSF per Space GLEE 00Z'4 006 L99 098 04Z 059 OCT 00Z 00Z'T 06 007 00Z 004 098 09 Number of spaces .a .. .v .y vl N N vl I n-1 N Area per Ed Spec. 8674 004`8 006 8698 9LP PZL OSZ Z9ZY 101 004'T 4TE'4 7W 09S'Z 970'Z LEE'S PROGRAM AREAS 'Six lane 25 yard pool I 'Shallow entry I I Deck Area I 'Spectator Seating for 200 I wnpolelaNI 'Pool Storage I 'Pool Mechanical/ Equipment I I Lifeguard I 'Locker Room I IFamily /HC Changing Room I toil I Instructional Space I 'Natatorium Support I 'Lobby I Reception Desk I I Reception Office 'Administrative Office I 'Snack Bar I 'Public Restrooms I I Mechanical Boiler Room I [Mechanical Fan Room I IElectrical Room I I Building Storage I 'Circulation I slleMI IBulldingSupport I 2 Z 0 CO ECl/Hyer Architects I Kodiak Island Borough Multiplier for net to gross 1.2 965F over ED Specs) Program Net Area ells, equipment, etc. CTI 0' From: 9th Wave B & B To: Rick Gifford • Pat Branson • Sue Jeffrey • Barbara Williams • Tom Abell • Cecil Rannev • Judy Nielsen ; mmsteotOotialaska.net Cc: Linda Freed • City Council • Carolyn Floyd Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:24 PM Subject: Letter to the Kodiak Island Borough Mayor, Assembly and Manager Good day, I am continuing to ask that you suspend allocation of the Transient Accommodations Tax revenues to the Kodiak Island Convention and Visitors Bureau until they can demonstrate financial accountability. I can't believe this is still necessary but the KICVB's recent actions continue to support such a suspension. I realize that the issue may be small in the scheme of all the items you are dealing with. To me $45,000 is a lot of money but more critical is the integrity of the systems involved. I would like to share my observations from the most recent KICVB board of directors meeting, and ask that you add these actions to the list of practices I find unreasonable and have been presenting to you since January. At the beginning of the May 22, 2006 board meeting, during guest comments, I once again asked for copies of the financial records I have asked to see since January 2006. I also asked that an annual audit, as required by KICVB's bylaws, be conducted. I was told that the last audit was in 1995. Then I was bluntly told that there would be no audit conducted, and the board was going to change the bylaws such that no future audits would be required. Conducting an audit was a dead issue and I should stop wasting everyone's time asking for one. How can this be acceptable or legal? The first committee report for the meeting was the finance committee's. I am the only non -board member on the finance committee and expected to hear a report from the last committee meeting held on February 16, 2006. I was surprised when the executive director apologized to me because they had had a finance committee meeting earlier that morning but she had forgotten to contact me. (I wouldn't think that I would be that easy to forget.) The unscheduled, unannounced meeting was held with (I am assuming) a few board members and the executive director. At this meeting the organization's proposed FY 2007 budget was determined and prepared for presentation to the entire board. Another item at the board meeting that caught my attention was the handout that the executive director supplied to the borough assembly outlining KICVB's FY07 program budget. It might just be a coincidence but I think that the revenues and expenditures are provided in a misleading format. On the sheet assembly members were presented, $116,000 is listed as Membership Revenues. This figure is not broken down such that the forecast $72,000 in advertising revenue the visitors guide generates is reflected. The visitors guide expense, $48,000, is listed under Tourism Development. I think it is misleading to assume that the Accommodations Tax might be being used to fund the visitors guide when through advertising the guide actually pays for itself and provides an additional $24,000 in revenue. I have attended every KICVB board of directors regular meeting and work session since November 2005, more than the executive director and every one of the directors. I have tried to work within the organization to point out discrepancies such that they could be resolved 'in house' and in a less conspicuous or detrimental manner. There have been improvements which I am glad for. Unfortunately I think the lack of financial accountability and the board's disregard for organizational bylaws, disqualifies the KICVB from the benefits of public funding. Changes are being made but much more change is necessary to satisfy issues of public trust. I continue to plead that you find a more suitable way to disburse the revenues from the accommodations tax. In the future, investing in the KICVB might be appropriate. Right now I think the money is being allocated to a nonprofit corporation that is conducting its business too far from the rules required of such. As I see it, investing money in a corporation that cannot withstand an audit, even if legal, isn't prudent. I hope that you can find a responsible way to use the accommodations tax revenues to promote Kodiak tourism, or save the money until its proper use can be guaranteed. Thank you for your time and service, Jim Van Atta 9th Wave Bed and Breakfast Mile 35 PO Box 5656 Chiniak, Alaska 99615 (907) 486 -0838 Memorandum DATE: June 5, 2006 Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone (907) 486 -9363 Fax (907) 486 -9396 www kib co.kodiak.ak.us TO: The Honorable Mayor Selby and the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly THROUGH: Rick Gifford, Kodiak Island Borough Manager FROM: Mary Ogle, Director - 1/144 c3, Community Development Department c ) SUBJECT: Interim Report of the Gravel Task Force RE: Request for funds to do exploratory excavation Mission: The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, on the recommendation of the KIB Planning and Zoning Commission, establishes a Task Force committee to assess the sand, gravel and earth materials resources of the road system region of the borough, development policies for earth resource management, and to make recommendations to the KIB Planning and Zoning Commission and the Borough Assembly on management approaches, procedures, and policies. Goal: The goal of the committee is to provide for the sustainable long -term availability of sand, gravel and earth materials in support of orderly and economical growth and 44' Co The Gravel Task Force was appointed by the Assembly in May 2005. The task force is comprised of ten members with the Community Development Department sewing as the staff. I was elected to be the chair as the Director of the department, although I serve in a non - voting capacity. Formal meetings of the task force began in the late summer of 2005 and meetings have been held consecutively, over the last nine months. Minutes from these meetings are available for review at any time in the Community Development Department as they are part of the public record. The mission and goal of the task force as established by the Assembly are provided below for your information: development in the Kodiak Island Borough and to reduce to the maximum extent possible any undesirable impacts and conflicts arising from the extraction and use of these resources. The purpose of this interim report is to provide an update of what the task force has found to this date and to request funding for exploratory excavation on public lands. When the task force was established, members were appointed on a volunteer basis and there were no borough funds specifically dedicated to use in the support of this group. Prior to a discussion of seeking funds, I think it appropriate to detail the methodology that the task force has used to evaluate current site, criteria for selecting new viable sites and preliminary selection, and volume of anticipated material for the next 30 years. The first charge of the task force was to have staff review and analyze the existing known gravel extraction sites on the road system. Staff detailed fourteen separate sites that have either been historically used and/or are currently extracting resources. At that point, the following categories of information were complied; commonly known name of site, owner, date established, operator, extraction amount authorized, amount of resource remaining (if known), activity status, type of material (either gravel, rock or clay), quality of material (for either fill or concrete /asphalt uses), zoning, environmental sensitivity, and socio- economic sensitivity. These findings were reviewed and accepted by the task force. The next step in the methodology was to create criteria for selecting potential new resource extraction sites. When the gravel task force was established, there were no funds specifically dedicated for use by the group in conducting their analysis. Therefore, they chose to use the best available topographic and soils mapping as well as field observations to establish a scenario where viable gravel resource might be located. Specifically, for gravel we considered the points where major streams leave bedrock canyons and flow into alluvial valleys. From a geological standpoint, that is where the bulk of the commercial grade gravel is located. The task force also considered soils mapping to verify the type of gravel either granite or a comparable rock that would have the characteristics necessary for fill or concrete /asphalt applications. Next, it was important to take into account the need to find where high quality gravel is easily accessible. The task force considered sites that were along the existing road system and that were relatively close to existing developed areas or areas that we anticipate future development that would need gravel resources. The thought was that the hauling distance, if too great, would create a scenario where the resource might be geologically viable, but not economically feasible from a business perspective. Using this methodology, a total of four specific areas that appear viable sources for gravel either at fill quality or concrete /asphalt quality were determined. The information provided below indicates the general locations of the four sites as well as anticipated volume of material. It should be understood that there are individual, unique areas within these general four areas and that the yardage of material is estimated conservatively. 1. USCG property adjacent to the KIB fairgrounds 2. Salonie Creek area owned by the KIB 3. Kalsin Bay Area (Along Pasagshak Point Road) 4. Middle Bay Area (Along Saltery Cove Road) 2,491,000 yards 2,181,000 yards 1,057,000 yards 4,555,400 yards The final step in the analysis conducted by the gravel task force to date is to establish the anticipated need for the resource, along the road system, for the next several decades. Various indicators were used to try to project anticipated needs into the future. Existing population, building construction trends, and major road projects were all calculated to establish a baseline of information. There was then discussion and ultimately concurrence between the task force members that the rate of use would not significantly increase in the next several decades. At that point, there was the need to establish a baseline of annual volume of resources extracted from the road system. Although staff has not been able to get detailed records from all of the operators, two of the larger companies have provided staff with some detailed annual volume counts. Based on this data, we can estimate that a maximum of 200,000 yards of gravel for all uses are extracted along the road system annually. Therefore, over the 30 next years, it can be projected that the projects along the road system of the Borough would use approximately 6,000,000 yards of gravel over the next 30 years. Based on the information that has been complied for the four general site detailed earlier in this report, it is estimated that there is approximately 10,284,000 yards of various quality gravel along the road system. Therefore, it appears that there is enough supply to meet anticipated demand. However, these potential sites were only evaluated and investigated using the best available mapping and rudimentary field observation. At their February 2006 meeting, the gravel task force requested staff to complete an interim report to the Assembly to submit their finding to this date. The catalyst for this interim discussion with the Assembly is to request funds to do exploratory excavation on two of the four sites. The two sites would be the Salonie Creek area that is owned by the KIB and the USCG property adjoining the KIB fairgrounds. It is the task force's understanding that the borough has expressed an interest in the USCG site when and if it becomes available through the divestiture process. Specifically, the borough has made it clear in writing to the Coast Guard that they are interested in obtaining this site if it is deemed unnecessary for retention by the Coast Guard, the Federal government (all applicable agencies) and the state of Alaska (all applicable agencies). However, permission has not been sought for this work on the USCG site through the land planner of the local Kodiak Coast Guard base. Field observation and available mapping can only provide for a certain level of probability as to the amount and quality of gravel at a given site. Given the significance for the community as to the mission of the task force, they found it necessary to complete exploratory excavation to answer the question as to the quality of material. As stated earlier in this document, this task force does not have any operating budget in order to fund this excavation. At the February 2006 meeting, the task force made a motion to formally request the sum of $25,000 to conduct exploratory excavation of the USCG property and the Salonie Creek site. Neither the task force nor staff thought it appropriate to use public funds to explore the other two sites (Middle Bay and Kalsin Bay) which are in private land holdings. This amount of $25,000 is the best estimate that the task force agreed upon using the expertise of task force members that are in the business. Saying this, it is understood by all that if the appropriations for this amount is made, the actual contract and work program will go thorough the borough approved formal bid process. The task force is anticipating submitting a final report to the Assembly by January 2007 which will include formal recommendations for action. Considering that we are beginning the time of year when earthwork is the most practical and reliable, staff recommends that a decision be made concerning these funds and work begin during the summer of 2006. If the monies were designed in May or June, the bid process could be completed July or August with the actual work being conducted and finalized by mid - October at the latest.