Loading...
2006-11-30 Work SessionCITIZENS' COMMENTS (limited to three minutes per speaker) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Native Village of Afognak/Dig Afognak Request for Property Tax Exemption 2. Alaska Waste Solid Waste Study for Kodiak Island Borough 3. Discussion of Maintenance with School Board PACKET REVIEW UNFINISHED BUSINESS Contract No. FY2007 -22 Landfill Lateral Expansion Design and Construction Services. Resolution No. FY2007 -11 Declaring Surplus to Public Need a 6,000 Square Foot Portion of Borough Land (Lot 1A -3, U.S. Survey 3465) Located Adjacent to Lot 1, U.S. Survey 3466 and Authorizing the Borough Manager to Negotiate Directly with the Petitioners. CONTRACTS Contract No. FY2007 -26 Approval of the Purchase of a Saline Water Treatment System for the New Swimming Pool to be Installed in the KHS Existing Swimming Pool and Transferred to the New Swimming Pool When Constructed. Contract No. FY2007 -27 Approval of the Purchase of a UV Water Treatment System for the New Swimming Pool to be Installed in the KHS Existing Swimming Pool and Transferred to the New Swimming Pool When Constructed. Contract No. FY2007 -28 Approval of the Purchase of One (1) 8000 Gallon Fire Guard Fire -Rated Above Ground Fuel Storage Tank for KHS. Contract No. 1995 -47G Amending Contract No. 95 -47 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1547. RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. FY2007 -14 Certifying the FY2007 Shared Fisheries Business Tax Program Application to Be True and Correct. Resolution No. FY2007 -15 Adopting a Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2007 -2011. Resolution No. FY2007 -16 Adopting a State Legislative Capital Improvement Priority List for the Fiscal Years 2007 -2011. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Ordinance No. FY2007 -11 Amending Section 902 Tuition Refunds of the Kodiak Island Borough Personnel Manual. OTHER ITEMS Confirmation of Mayoral Appointments of Assembly Representatives to Boards and Committees. Kodiak Island Borough Assembly 2007 Meeting Schedule. Appointment on the Bay View Road Service Area Board. MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS ASSEMBLY WORK SESSION November 30, 2006 - 7:30 p.m. Borough Conference Room AGENDA Branson Oswalt Friend Gifford ON LEAVE October 25 -Jan 17 (Sabbatical) November 20 -Dec 5 December 18 -26 December 21- January 1 30 7:30 p.m. Cancelled 4 5:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7 7 :30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 9 9:00 a.m. 11 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 13 7:30 p.m. 14 7 :30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 20 7:30 p.m. 21 7 :30 p.m. 25 Holiday Cancelled 28 7:30 p.m. Cancelled 1 Holiday 4 7:30 p.m. 8 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 10 7:30 p.m. 11 7 :30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 17 7:30 p.m. 18 7 :30 p.m. 22 7:00 p.m. CALENDAR November 2006 Assembly Work Session — CR City Council Regular Meeting December 2006 Gravel Task Force Meeting — CR School District Board Work Session - SD /CR Assembly Regular Meeting — AC Emergency Services Organization /Local Emergency Planning Committee Meeting -- AC Strategic Planning Meeting — KFRC Womens Bay Service Area Board Meeting -- WBFH School District Board Regular Meeting — AC City Council Work Session - CR Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session — CR Assembly Work Session - CR City Council Regular Meeting — AC Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting — AC Assembly Regular Meeting — AC Borough Offices Closed in Observance of the Christmas Holiday City Council Work Session Assembly Work Session - CR City Council Regular Meeting January 2007 Borough Offices Closed in Observance of the New Year's Holiday Assembly Regular Meeting — AC School District Board Work Session - SD /CR City Council Work Session - CR Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session — CR Assembly Work Session - CR City Council Regular Meeting — AC Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting — AC Assembly Regular Meeting — AC School District Board Regular Meeting — AC 25 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting — AC AC - Assembly Chambers CR - Conference Room SD /CR - School District Conference Room AC /CR - Assembly Chambers Conference Room C /CR - City Conference Room D /CR - Hospital Doctors= Conference Room H /PL - Hospital Physicians Library KFRC - Kodiak Fisheries Research Center BFH - Bayside Fire Hall HC - Hospital Cafeteria WBFH - Womens Bay Fire Hall H /BR - Hospital Board Room MHGR - Mental Health Group Room H /DL - Hospital Doctors= Lounge KHS - Kodiak High School KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH WORK SESSION MEETING Work Session Meeting of: ///3 O () 67 Please print your name I. J E Fr 2 2. ©b 0 '01■ - � As� 3. Jck 30 4. d--e) -Yd rez. 5./C'? ( C.�t�M °s E ti 6 PaitAL 7. 8. 9. 6-d4 10. `�- Cv�1•tr 15. ‘s- k.V 0 /63 ftr5 i� _Al\cDove-AL (-71L-1()(2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS For KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ALASKA WASTE November, 2006 PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background on Kodiak Island Borough Solid Waste Management Practices. a History of Waste Disposal b. History of Waste Collection c. Future Needs and Issues Identified III. Solid Waste Disposal Options available a. Conventional Compacted Landfill b. Waste Reduction Methods used with Conventional Landfills i. Baling for Volume Reduction ii. Incineration for Volume Reduction iii. Recycling for Volume Reduction iv. Other waste reduction methods for Volume Reduction c. Transfer off - Island to regional disposal site i. Transfer to facility outside Alaska ii. Transfer to facility within Alaska with potential backhaul d. Separation of other non -solid waste streams i. Metal collection and processing ii. Wastewater Sludge handling IV. Solid Waste Collection Options available a. Current KIB contract methods PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION i. Methodology ii. Billing iii. User issues b. Curbside collection c. Common neighborhood collection (transfer /dumpster sites) d. Contract /Franchise collection vs. Regulated collection V. Comparative methods and costs in the State of Alaska a. Analysis of municipal and borough solid waste methods b. Comparative costs of municipal and borough methods V. Identification of Alternatives for Further Study by Borough a. Recommended Disposal options for further review b. Recommended Collection options for further review c. Implementation strategies EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To be added PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION BACKGROUND ON KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES History of Waste Disposal in Kodiak KIB currently operates the Borough Landfill and Baling facility on Monashka Bay Road, which is a Class I landfill' and regulated as such. This landfill has been operated since 1987 as a balefill facility wherein the waste is compacted hydraulically into rectangular bales and then deposited into the working face of the landfill and then covered. Use of the baling facility was undertaken in an effort to reduce the volume (or airspace) required for a given amount of waste. From 1970 to 1987 the facility was operated as a compacted waste landfill, where the waste is deposited on the ground, compacted with heavy equipment and covered. Kodiak was not the only location to adopt the balefill concept in the late 80's. There was a wave of activity throughout Alaska to install baler facilities, spurred by the need to reduce perceived compliance costs, maximize utilization of existing permitted airspace, and,to some degree, effective marketing. There were more than a dozen baler facilities installed in this time frame. Of the nine active Class I landfills in operation in Alaska today, however, only two are continuing to utilize a baling facility for handling solid waste. Those two are Kodiak and Dutch Harbor. Currently, in addition to municipal solid waste ( "MSW "), the Kodiak landfill also accepts construction and demolition debris ( "C &D "), wastewater sludge, metals and asbestos waste. Over the period of time since operations began in 1970, the amount of waste disposed of has increased each year, growing from handling approximately 10 tons per day to the current level of 45 tons per day. Under the current rate the Borough administration expects the facilty to last through 2020, assuming the use of the baler facility is continued and that lateral expansion of the landfill footprint is approved and utilized. Currently, the landfill is operated directly by the Borough using Borough employees. Prior to 1986, the landfill was operated by a private contractor on behalf of the City of Kodiak. In addition to taking over operation of the main landfill since that time, the Borough has also successfully closed a number of smaller, non - compliant landfills, including Smoky's, which was shut down and finally capped in 1995 and PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Chiniak, which was shut down and replaced with dumpster service in 1987. In 1988, the Coast Guard began closure of their landfill and began utilizing the Kodiak landfill for disposal on a fee per ton basis. History of Waste Colection in Kodiak KIB currently holds a certificate to provide refuse collection service within the Kodiak Island Borough issued by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and sets its' own rates pursuant to authority granted under A.S. 29.35. The actual provision of the collection service has been provided by contract for a number of years. Originally, the RCA certificate was held by Kodiak Sanitation, owned and operated by the Buhlen family, The Buhlen family agreed in the late 80's to transfer their certificate to the Kodiak Island Borough in exchange for a contract for collection services. Since that time, the Buhlen family sold their interest in Kodiak Sanitation to USA Waste Services, which provided services under an assignment of the contract until 1999, when they were the successful bidder on a new 5year contract. During that contract, USA merged with Waste Management and continued to operate the contract successfully. In 2002, Waste Management began divesting its' Alaskan refuse collection operations. At that time, a group of former employees of Waste Management of Alaska entered into agreements to purchase the assets of some of the Alaskan operations, notably the Juneau, Ketchikan, Nome and Dutch Harbor locations. Subsequently, in 2005, the same former employee group, along with new partners, completed the acquisition of the refuse collection operations in Anchorage, Matunuska - Susitna Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Kodiak Island Borough. After various extensions, the Kodiak Island Borough let a new refuse collection contract with a two -year term in July, 2006 with two one year options. This contract was awarded to the current contractor, Alaska Pacific Environmental Services Anchorage, LLC doing business as Alaska Waste, which was the purchaser of the Waste Management assets in 2005. During the two year contract, the KIB plans to evaluate the system of refuse collection and disposal and determine whether to continue utilizing the existing methods or whether to pursue other options. Currently, the collection methods used are mixed. Residential collection is provided by curbside collection in certain areas within the City of Kodiak, while residential collection outside the City area is provided through community dumpsters. Commercial (business) collection is provided by dumpsters located at the business and construction and clean -up services are provided by large roll -off containers. In addition, certain areas in the Borough have large roll -off containers that are utilized for residential PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION collection due to a combination of factors, including distance from other collection locations and frequency of service. Future Needs and Issues Identified Currently, the waste disposal operation faces several challenges. These include: Limited Remaining Life without additional expansion. Current projections indicate the current footprint of the landfill will be full in fiscal year 2009 or roughly three years. Currently, the administration is requesting funding and engineering for a lateral expansion which will increase the capacity for up to an additional 12 years, at which point there is no further room for expansion without additional land acquisition. Increased expense related to DEC compliance issues relative to baler operation. The administration is requesting funding to install a wastewater treatment facility on -site to handle the baler squeezings (liquids produced during the compaction of the garbage in the baler). These liquids were the source of a recent Notice of Violation regarding the landfill. Continued utilization of landfill space for storage /collection of metals, which ties up available land in the landfill that could be utilized for other purposes and potentially creates additional groundwater contamination due to residual runoff from ferrous metals. Continued utilization of landfill space for disposal of wastewater sludge, which adds significantly to the leachate collection process and adversely impacts the future capacity of the landfill when alternative uses could eliminate landfilling of this material completely. Baler life cycle concerns. The existing baler is fully depreciated and has no book value. It is reaching the point where it will require major refurbishment and rebuilding to insure continued operation over the life of the projected expansion. Cost and utilization of cover material. There is a lack of readily available, economic cover material to be used in covering and capping the landfill working face. This problem is exacerbated by the method used for placing daily cover, maintenance of slopes to meet permit requirements and the physical requirements for cover made necessary by the configuration of the stacking of bales at the working face. PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Lack of a significant program and funding to support source reduction, reuse and recycling efforts. All of these can and would reduce the future volumes at the landfill and take pressure off of the need for expansion but outside of the limited Threshold program there is not a structure in place to promote reduction (food waste composting, etc.), reuse (area for sorting and removal of household goods and other items held for limited period) and expanded recycling. The Collection system has similar needs and issues that should be addressed in the context of an overall solid waste management plan. These include: The need for integration between the collection and disposal systems on such matters as scheduling of landfill operating hours consistent with community collection requirements, determining appropriate level of collection /separation at the consumer level vs. sorting at the disposal level, and whether a comprehensive collection system should be implemented to eliminate any individual customers at the disposal site. Identification of appropriate collection systems, i.e. curbside residential collection vs community dumpsters. This will have to be integrated into any future contract and commitments made to insure the appropriate type of equipment can be acquired and amortized over the life of the contract. It will also require coordination with the disposal system to insure that whatever level of source separation is consistent with the planned disposal options and that the collection system provides the appropriate consumer incentives for participation. Enforcement capabilities must be addressed. Currently, the Borough has no ability to enforce any of the ordinances related to solid waste and illegal dumping. It must rely on cooperation with the State, including various agencies such as the Troopers, Dept of Fish & Game and DEC , the City of Kodiak and the Federal Govt, including the Coast Guard. Many of these agencies do not have the time, manpower or inclination to assist the Borough and as such leaves the service provider without any real ability to insure compliance. Many of the collection issues regarding illegal dumping, improper utilization of community dumpsters and attraction of animals to collection locations would be eliminated with Borough enforcement capability. PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Fee structure for services need to be defined such that the appropriate incentives are created to divert materials from disposal if they have a higher and better use. A structure that supports cost - causer /cost -payer (variable rates) is critical so that people are encouraged to not just throw everything in the trash. A key component to establishing variable rates is setting the true cost of disposal and building that into the system to encourage diversion through reuse and recycling. Only then can the cost - effectiveness of each component be evaluated and managed effectively. The collection system structure needs to be evaluated to determine whether the Borough should continue to contract for collection services separately or whether such collection services should be included in an overall solid waste management contract to have privatized operation of both collection and disposal services. This type of system may lead to the greatest efficiencies, both for the Borough and for the private contractor by resolving some of the issues addressed above. REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Conventional Compacted Landfill The Conventional compacted landfill is the primary means of disposing of solid waste throughout the world. While the number of conventional landfills has declined over the last ten years, the amount of material disposed of in each landfill has increased. This is a function of the regulatory requirements and the economics of operating a landfill. The current trend, due to the high cost of building and operating a landfill in full compliance with all federal, state and local regulations is to move towards regionalization, where solid waste is accumulated locally and transported to a central regional landfill site that supports the economies of scale needed to bring unit costs down. The methods associated with a conventional landfill and the environmental requirements that must be met are relatively straightforward. The principal purpose of conventional landfilling is to bury the waste in the ground and let it go through a decomposition process. In the process of decomposing, the waste will reduce in volume as a result of the production of methane gas and due to the percolation of liquid waste through the mass. In order to protect local water and air quality, modern landfills are required to eliminate the discharge of the leachate (liquid waste) and the diagram PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION accumulation of methane gas from the landfill property. To meet these requirements, a Class 1 landfill must be contained in an area which is protected with an impermeable liner to prevent migration of the leachate outside the landfill boundary and typically requires a methane gas collection system to remove the gas from the landfill. The compacted landfill operating method involves the construction of lined cells, which have the impermeable liner and various leachate and methane collection systems in place prior to depositing any waste. Waste is then deposited directly to the working face and compacted with heavy equipment in a series of lifts. Each day, the active lifts are covered with an appropriate cover material (typically fine gravel or sand) which is further compacted by the heavy equipment. As each cell is filled, the cell is capped (covered) and no more waste is deposited in the cell area. When the landfill reaches capacity, it receives a final cap and must be monitored for many years to ensure the integrity of the liner and that leachate is not migrating from the site. Typically, a closed landfill under today's regulations will require monitoring for up to 30 years after closure and the costs of such post - closure responsibilities must be provided during the operating phase or through financial guarantees from the owner. In Alaska, the typical costs for design, construction and post closure cost for a Class I landfill would be approximately $575,000 per acre. The estimate assumes that an acre of land will hold 12,000 tons of solid waste, utilizing a height of 30 feet and 3 to 1 vertical side slopes. It also assumes that waste is compacted to a density of about 1000 pounds per cubic yard and about 20 percent of the volume would be cover material. Based on a review of operating costs in Alaska, the typical annual operating cost of a compacted landfill should be approximately $225,000 per year. Based on a formula developed for application to Alaskan landfills by Henry Friedman and utilized by the Alaska chapter of SWANA in evaluating solid waste management in Alaska, the disposal costs per ton can be derived by a specific formula based on population and cost per acre. The results of this formula indicate that a compacted landfill in Kodiak, assuming a population served of approximately 13,000, should have a disposal cost per ton of approximately $65 per ton. In contrast, current budget information and usage as reflected in the FY 2006 update on closure costs shows a disposal cost for Kodiak of approximately $140.92 per ton. (NOTE: SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF BOROUGH OPERATING COSTS NOT YET PROVIDED). Waste Reduction Methods used in Conjunction with Conventional Landfills Baling for Volume Reduction PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION In many cases, primarily in areas where land is at a premium or geographic challenges are present, operators will utilize a baling facility to compact the solid waste prior to depositing in the ground. The perceived benefits of this are that marginally higher compaction rates can be obtained which conserves airspace in the landfill cell, that the bales help control effects of wind and rain on the working face by eliminating blowing litter and uncontrolled runoff, and that the use of bales provides for better integrity of the cell structure through uniformity. The disadvantages of the baling concept include the cost of building and maintaining the baling facility, including the cost of supplies such as the baling wire used and utility costs, the increased labor associated with handling the material as many as three times before deposition in the working face of the landfill, that bale structured cells do not allow for proper recirculation and management of the leachate, and finally, that no "hydraulic effect" of continued compaction of the layers above occurs in a balefill vs a compacted landfill. The primary argument used to justify a baling operation is that the compaction rate achieved by the baler (typically touted as 1,300 Ibs per cubic yard) is significantly better than the compaction rate obtained in a typical landfill (typically 1,000 Ibs per cubic yard). However, as the baler efficiency declines over its' life through normal wear and tear and since the waste stream can have significant variability, the baler operations rarely achieve the increased compaction rate. Another significant factor in space is the amount of daily cover used. In a typical installation, cover is provided at a fixed depth over the side slopes and working face. In a balefill, the need to offset the bales at the end of each lift to match the slope creates a significant void area that must be filled by the cover material. By our estimate, the use of the balefill concept is creating the need to utilize at least 10% more cover material than would be required in a conventional compacted landfill. This cover material must be accounted for in the tons used against available airspace and thus negates a significant portion of the compaction advantage which may exist between baling and compacted operation in addition to increasing the operating costs. Incineration for Volume Reduction In some locations, the use of incineration has advantages for volume reduction of solid waste. Incineration of solid waste can take two forms. One, is the incineration of the material to reduce the volume by converting the solid waste stream, through application of heat, to hot gas and ash. The hot gases are vented to the atmosphere but must be treated effectively to control air pollution and the ash is pulled out and landfilled. Although Iandfilling of the ash is still required, the requirements for this type of landfill are reduced since there is no putresciible material remaining to decompose and produce leachate or gases. The limitations on this type of operation are the costs of the facility, the complexity of the air quality control equipment required to meet air pollution limits, and the auxiliary costs of fuel to sustain the burn rate during wet periods or through issues of variable waste stream types. The second type of incinerator is when the trash is burned and is used for either the production of steam to use in an PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION electric generation plant or for local steam heating, or the trash is burned and the production of steam is used internally for the generation of electricity. Although these technologies sound appealing, they have significant limits and have, in general, not proven to be feasible on a large scale. The only commercially viable incineration plant that operated successfully in Alaska was located in Juneau and it was shut down in 2003 after facing numerous issues regarding air quality. Other efforts at incineration, including a high technology system installed in Barrow and smaller facilities in Sitka and Skagway have proven to be unreliable and more costly to operate in compliance with regulations than other alternatives. The only viable incineration options are for small facilities, like production camps and small villages, that produce limited amounts of material and don't require continuous operation. Our company had direct operating experience with the Juneau facility and the cost to operate the facility was greater on a per ton basis than the cost to operate a compacted landfill, as they are doing now. Given the lack of success on a large -scale and the failure of most of the higher technology type incinerators, along with the fact that the potential for connection to the power grid and the market for non -firm power on Kodiak Island is limited to non - existent, we would not see this as a viable alternative for future handling of the waste stream. Recycling for Volume Reduction The potential for recycling to reduce waste stream volumes is significant. Currently, only a percentage of the aluminum cans and cardboard are being taken out of the waste stream. Alaska has one of the worst, if not the worst overall, percentages of recycling in the United States. Part of this is based on economics, due to the fact that we import most of our products into Alaska while producing very little in the way of consumer products. As a result, there is little, if any, market for recycled products to be used in basic industry in the state. In other locations where there are aluminum smelters, glass plants, packaging companies and plastics manufacturers, demand can be higher for post- consumer recyclables and thus create a greater diversion. In areas of greater farming and where more lawn and yard creation is happening, composting of food wastes and other organics can significantly reduce the volume of the waste stream. Organics and food wastes alone account for as much as 30 to 40% of the active waste stream. However, as stated earlier, Alaska doesn't currently have markets for many of these items and thus any recyclables must be shipped outside. In certain cases, the market value of the materials can support the additional cost of shipping, notably cardboard, mixed paper and aluminum, however many of the other materials, such as plastics and glass, cannot support that and thus get Iandfilled. The other difficulty with this is that the removal of the cardboard and paper products and the continued presence of plastics and glass, further decreases the efficiency of the baling process, since these items, particularly glass are essentially non - compressible and do not decompose in the landfill. As far as an opportunity for volume reduction, however, recycling represents one of the best options to limit the amount of future waste streams. However, to achieve any significant reduction will require changing the nature of the PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION collection system or the waste disposal process, or both and will mandate significant consumer education to be successful. Other waste reduction methods for Volume Reduction Another methods that can be utilized to reduce the volume in the waste stream is to adopt a re -use policy. Reuse, as was practiced in the World War li era during times of rationing, was a method of bringing items that still had remaining use or life to a facility where they could be dropped off and /or exchanged for other items at the facility. Typically, there was no charge for this service and the community benefited. Today, this is similar to what Goodwill, Salvation Army and Value Village do, although they typically limit the materials they take and then charge people a minimal price for the items to defray their other charitable expenses. Some locations in Alaska, like Fairbanks, allow residents to remove material brought to their transfer stations for free, prior to landfilling the material. It is there for a limited time, and the thinking is that if it has a use to someone, then it saves the borough the cost to dispose of it. Although much of the material may be classified in the category of deferred disposal, there is some reduction in volume inherent in the process. It would only work, however, in a system where people bring material to a central location or locations and would be educated on what can or cannot be left at the location. Although it is difficult to estimate the quantity of diversion that can be obtained from re -use, even a small percentage, when added with other measures, could be significant over the remaining life of the facility or in reducing costs if other methods are adopted. Transfer off - Island to regional disposal site Transfer to facility outside Alaska An option being utilized by a number of municipalities and Boroughs, particularly in Southeast Alaska, is shipping their waste outside in specially designed containers. Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka and numerous other small cities are currently shipping their waste south to a large regional landfill located in eastern Washington. In addition, almost all hazardous material and contaminated soil or products are being shipped south by container to these regional landfills. For example, during the recent clean -up of the cargo ship off of Dutch Harbor, more than a hundred containers were shipped out by barge with contaminated material for disposal at a regional facility in Eastern Oregon. The primary advantage in this is that the cost of disposal is significantly lower, no landfill operations are required and in the long -term, after dealing with current closure requirements, there is not a burden on future residents for closure costs. The disadvantage is the shipping cost to get the material from Alaska to the port in Tacoma, and the infrastructure to support loading and handling the containers of waste. Looking at overall costs, the cost to ship is comparable with the current cost of operating a balefill. However, in looking at the life -cycle costs and the costs of future PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION expansion, the long -term cost will be Tess. In addition, if any of the methods of reducing volume are employed, other than baling or incineration, then the total system costs will be reduced. We have obtained preliminary quotes from both entities that provide regional disposal options but need to obtain more specific information on seasonal trends in volume to get more accurate numbers. At this time, the only item that we can report with confidence is that the disposal rate at the facilities will not exceed $25 per ton. (NOTE: WILL QUANTIFY ACTUAL EXPECTED COSTS ONCE SPECIFIC VOLUME INFORMATION IS OBTAINED FROM BOROUGH STAFF TO DETERMINE SPECIFIC SHIPPING COSTS.) Separation of other non -solid waste streams Metal collection and processing PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION expansion, the long -term cost will be less. In addition, if any of the methods of reducing volume are employed, other than baling or incineration, then the total system costs will be reduced. We have obtained preliminary quotes from both entities that provide regional disposal options but need to obtain more specific information on seasonal trends in volume to get more accurate numbers. At this time, the only item that we can report with confidence is that the disposal rate at the facilities will not exceed $25 per ton. (NOTE: WILL QUANTIFY ACTUAL EXPECTED COSTS ONCE SPECIFIC VOLUME INFORMATION IS OBTAINED FROM BOROUGH STAFF TO DETERMINE SPECIFIC SHIPPING COSTS.) Transfer to facility within Alaska with potential backhaul Another method to consider for shipping waste off the island is to ship to a facility within Alaska and combine the container movement with a backhaul of needed material to bring back to the island. We looked specifically at moving the waste in container by barge to Homer and then trucking the waste to either the Soldotna landfill or the Anchorage Regional Landfill. To help reduce the shipping cost, we looked at a backhaul of material that would have value on the island, with our primary focus on sand and gravel. Full analysis of this option will require further detail from the Borough as addressed above, and will also be subject to the willingness of either of the facilities to accept the waste. Our preliminary inquiries with both were positive and currently Anchorage is taking waste from outside their municipal boundaries from Whittier, so the precedent has already been set as to the ability to do it. We will need further input on the volume requirements for gravel and sand and estimate of cost levels in order to evaluate fully the economics of this option. The obvious advantage with this method would be reduced shipping costs and the potential for acquiring other needed material at a reduced cost, although the expected disposal cost would be higher than shipping outside, given the current tipping fee at Anchorage of $45 per ton vs. $25 per ton outside. Currently, the Borough landfill has a significant problem with the amount of metal collected at the landfill. It is taking up considerable space, is potentially having a negative effect on water quality in the landfill and takes up staff time in working around the pile. It is our belief that the Borough should undertake immediate steps to get this metal off the property, in order to minimize the potential risk and simplify its' landfill operation. By eliminating this problem and taking metal out of the waste stream that has to be dealt with at the landfill, the Borough should experience a significant reduction in operating expense. The Borough should still have a role in controlling metal disposal in the Borough, but it should model its' system after some of the other communities in Alaska, where private entities provide for collection, processing and disposition of waste metal, based on ordinances passed by the community and tied to designation of a service provider by RFP or through sole sourcing. In today's market, the clean -up of the existing scrap metal could be offered through an RFP, and we would expect it to be readily be undertaken at little or no cost to the Borough. This would be a relatively straightforward way of managing what could be a significant problem area at the landfill. As to the future policy of dealing with scrap metal, we would recommend that it stay outside of the waste stream at the landfill. Adopting ordinances regarding fee collection up front for auto registration to offset costs of junk car removal and disposal by private contractor and setting fines for illegal disposal of junk metal will allow for Borough control of the process while letting private industry manage and handle the problem. Wastewater sludge handling PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION The most significant opportunity that we see in reducing the volume in the landfill and reducing the cost, whether of landfilling or of shipping the waste out, is the removal of wastewater sludge from the waste stream. Currently, our estimate of the amount wastewater component, in tons, represents nearly 20% of the tons disposed of in the landfill each year. This constitutes significant utilization of airspace and greatly increases the cost of operation as it is not handled in the same manner as the rest of the waste stream. Our belief is that the wastewater sludge could be handled separate from the solid waste stream in a manner similar to what the Fairbanks North Star Borough does. Fairbanks recognized that the wastewater sludge consumed a significant amount of the landfill volume and determined to find other methods of disposal or handling to eliminate this material from the waste stream. We have reviewed the Fairbanks information and believe a similar program could be adopted in Kodiak. Fairbanks essentially removed the sludge from the waste stream and began a composting process, mixing the sludge with wood chips in an open aeration model. This removed the sludge from the waste stream and provided a potential end use for the material that may have value. Even if there is insufficient demand for the compost material, the resulting product may have other uses. (NOTE: WE NEED TO OBTAIN FURTHER VOLUME AND QUANTITY INFORMATION FROM BOROUGH ADMINISTRATION TO QUANTIFY DIRECT COSTS AND POTENTIAL SAVINGS OF THIS OPTION.) Comparative methods and costs in the State of Alaska Analysis of municipal and borough solid waste methods. We have compiled a summary table which shows the disposal cost and methods for the largest operations in the State. Of the nine, Class I landfills in the State, (Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat -Su, Soldotna, North Slope Borough, Juneau, Ft. Wainwright, Dutch Harbor, and Kodiak), comparative costs are presented for five for which budget information is readily available. Juneau is privately owned and Dutch Harbor and the North Slope Borough do not have publicly available data, while Ft. PRELIMINARY DRAFT NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Wainwright costs are included in the total base operating costs and not readily available. Looking at these costs shows Kodiak to be on the high end of the scale. (NOTE: WILL PROVIDE FURTHER DATA AFTER OBTAINING MORE SPECIFIC OPERATING COST INFORMATION FROM THE BOROUGH). Comparison of costs (NOTE: WILL PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION AFTER OBTAINING MORE SPECIFIC OPERATING COST INFORMATION FROM THE BOROUGH). Identification of Alternatives for Further Study by Borough (NOTE: WILL PROVIDE SPECIFIC RECOMMEDATIONS AFTER OBTAINING MORE SPECIFIC OPERATING COST INFORMATION FROM THE BOROUGH). For Discussion Purposes: Our preliminary recommendations are: Long term: Seek RFP responses for long term plans to ship off island, either outside or within Alaska and design collection system to match source separation and waste stream requirements Short -term: - Pursue elimination of baling operation and plan for vertical expansion rather than lateral expansion Get metal out of landfill Get wastewater sludge out of landfill Start designing collection plans to enhance source separation and reuse (establish variable rates and move to community transfer stations rather than local dumpsters) Memo To: Rick Gifford From: Tom Andersorf j ---- CC: Nova Javier Date: 9/25/2006 Re: Native Village of Afognak / Dig Afognak Rick, Assessing Department Kodiak Island Borough I have before me a letter dated February 2, 2006 from Native Village of Afognak (aka Dig Afognak) which you have asked me to review. This letter requests an amendment to borough code which would grant a property tax exemption previously denied by the Assessing Department. I've reviewed the correspondence concerning this application for exemption. While staff agreed that Dig Afognak did seem to meet the general definition of community purpose, we were unable to grant the exemption due to the specific requirements set forth in 3.20.080(G)(2) of borough code as follows: for purposes of this section, a qualifying community purpose organization must be active and qualified for tax exempt status under section 501(c) of the internal Revenue Service Tax Code. Afognak now requests amendment to the code which would add it to a list of exempt agencies under KIBC 3.20.080(G)(3). While the Assessing Department sees no reason to object to exemption of the assets used in the community purpose function, we would caution against granting blanket exemption to any organization. It is conceivable that Afognak could at some future time procure assets used for other purposes, and in that event these should not qualify for exempt status. We are unsure how to accomplish an exemption of a delimited set of assets, and we believe it is beyond the scope of our administrative function to advocate policy on behalf of any party. We recommend that this request be presented to the Borough Assembly through the Clerks Office. We will gladly assist in implementing any decision it may take in this matter. Thanks. Tom • Page 1 3.20.080 -- 3.20.087 G. Property of an organization not organized for business or profit making purposes and used exclusively for community purpose activities is exempt from taxation under this sub - chapter. 1. the assessor may from time to time require such information as is reasonably necessary to determine the character of the organization and the nature of uses made. The exemption provided in this section is not applicable unless the required information is provided to the assessor. 2. for purposes of this section, a qualifying community purpose organization must be active and qualified for tax exempt status under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Code. 3. the property of the following organizations shall be exempt from real and personal property taxation under this section: a. Kodiak Island Sportsman' s Association; b. Kodiak Senior Center; c. Kodiak State Fairgrounds - Kodiak Jaycees; d. Kodiak Chamber of Commerce; and e. Kodiak Island Convention and Visitors Bureau. (Ord. 94 -03 §2, 1994; Ord. 89 -10 -0 §2, 1989; Ord. 88 -31 -0 §2, 1988; Ord. 84 -47 -0 §1, 1984; Ord. 84 -25 -0 §1, 1984; prior code Ch. 3 subch. 1 §7). 3.20.085 Property tax billing. The treasurer, upon receipt of the certified assessment roll and with the millage rate established by the assembly, will cause to produce property tax bills for all property owners of record. These tax bills will be mailed to the most recent address on file. (Ord. 82 -7 -0 (part), 1982). 3.20.086 Correction of errors. A. Correction of error in billing of penalty and interest. When it is shown to the chief fiscal officer that a taxpayer has been billed erroneously for tax, tax penalty, or interest because of administrative error by the borough, the chief fiscal officer may adjust the tax bill accordingly. B. Correction of errors in assessment. When the assessor discovers that an error or omission has been made in a real or personal property assessment or billing, the assessor, upon receipt of proper documentation showing error or omission, may assess, bill, or rebill for such property. Taxable property which has been omitted from assessment for any year may thereafter be assessed and taxed for that year at any future time. C. All rights provided by this chapter, including but not limited to rights to appeal and times for making payments, shall be reserved to the person receiving a corrected assessment or tax bill as of the time the new assessment or billing is mailed. (Ord. 82 -7 -0 (part), 1982; Ord. 78 -21 -0 §3, 1978). 3.20.087 City taxes. Taxes levied by the cities within the boundaries of the borough and collected by the borough shall be returned in full to the cities for which collected as provided in AS 29.35.170. (Ord. 82 -7 -0 (part), 1982; prior code Ch. 3 subch. 1 §6). 3 -33 (KIB 06/2004) Supp. #40 N { f ve V / Of e io k rr (.4race, preteef, rAiiio.ct 41.01 ct 1(611T, tr•Eeti rNr ErA.-lifirt.di ace orcr+‘ nhd tae»arp ye aaif y iroiri.g Ike 41effiil r f Elie 1Crrlink Arclairelo.ir February 2, 2006 Kodiak Island Borough Assembly 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK. 99615 Iris: Request to Amend KIBC Section 3.20.O80(g)(3) Tear Mayor Selby and Members of the Assembly: Under the Kodiak Island Borough Code, "( p)ooperry of an organization not organized for business or profit making purposes and used exclusively for community purpose acdvities is exempt from taxation" IKIBC 3.20.080(g)). While the Native Village of Afognak (NVA) is such an organization, its application for exemption from property taxation was denied by the Assessor based on a technicality. We are requesting that NVA be added to the list of organizations that are specifically granted an exemption. NVA is a small organization and you are probably more familiar with us by the name of Dig Afognak, the cultural program that is our principal focus. At Dig Afognak, we serve youth from throughout the Island. In offering our programs at Dig Afognak, we regularly collaborate with various local non - profits, such as the School District (out partner in the long- running Science Camp), the Kodiak Island Housing Authority, the Alutiiq Museum, and Kodiak College, our newest partnet. In addition to Dig Afognak we have after - school programs. Ours truly is a community purposed organization. In denying our application for property tax exemption, the Assessor cited the fact that subparagraph 2 states that an organization trust qualify for tax exempt status under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. While this may be accurate, it seems that it was unintentional that an organization such as NVA was excluded from the tax exemption provided by KIBC 3.20.OS0(0. NVA is recognized by the IRS to be tax - exempt, It is just that our tax - exempt status is derived from Internal Revenue Procedure 2001 -15, instead of 1RC 501(c). As NVA satisfies the spirit of KIBC 3.20.080(g) it is both federally tax- exempt and meets all other provisions of this section --we ask that an amendment be made that would provide for NVA to also be treated as exempt from property taxes. Subparagraph 3 of KIBC 3.20.080(g) names specific organizations that are to be exempted from property taxation. We ask that this section be amended by adding the name "Native Village. of Afognak" to subparagraph 3. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. For your convenience, I have enclosed copies of NV A's application for property tax exemption, the Borough's response denying an exemption, Maternal Revenue Procedure 2001 -15, and KIBC 3.20.080. (Note that NVA is listed OD page 470 of 204 6, AciAwef Drive, Smite 100 It KoIl1Ak, AK /1615 7k ptiewc 707 -06 -6357 qo7- 486 -4s21 £/2'd I L£6 9817 L06:0i 62S99817L06 NHNJOdH291di1I(12( (IIlHN:WOZid LS:171 9002 - 172 -9f113 FLIE: NQtj✓f V% 9 e Of 4fz. jiiiik T rni4rAcc, prpfecf, kvelar Ah4 , thNAkcC QjNfll� It t i " ek prnfccf tar ErAolifinhAi use ArcAr Axel GhaliAraiL MAIL" AwiDisi 4114iiil n f fete 14124%01 Qrc��i�c�A�n A Fax Rick To: Rick Gifford From; Melissa Borton Fax: 486 - 9374 Pages: 3 (incl. cover sheet) Pawn: Date: 8/24/06 Re: Tax exempt status Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE•'. This fax transmission and any documents accompanying it may contain confidential information. The informatiti n transmitted is intended only for the use of the Mchvidual(s) nanted above. If you as not the intended recipient of the transmitted information, you are hereby notified that disclosing, copying, distributing, or eking anion in reliance on the cnntcnts of this information is strictly pmhihited. If you have received this transmission in error, please stout the sender and then shred the Information. 204 6. 1tc:AAof Drive, Satfc 100 Yr 1 4IAk, Ak T%15 pl»oic 907 -486 -6357 foil 9 07- 486 -6529 2/I'd 17L26 98i, L06 :01 62S99817L06 N90d1ti39 311If 3i3AIltiN : L40 J LS : bI 9002- f72 -9f1d Rev. Proc. 2001 -15 as the "Village of Afognak." In 2002, the legal name of this organization was changed to "Native Village of Afognak. ") If you should need additional information or desire a representative of NVA to address the Assembly, please feel free to contact me at 486 -6357, Again, thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, n Larsen ribal Administrator enclosures: Letter of Application for Exemption from Property Tax I _crier of response denying request Internal Revenue Procedure 2001.15 1.313C 3.20.080 2/2'd 17L26 9817 L06:01 62S998'L06 NtINSOdd391111I03flIldN:WOHA LS :bi 9002 -1,2 -Jn The purpose of this document is to clarify the application of AS 14.17.990(6) to the Kodiak Island Borough School District and the Kodiak Island Borough. The Kodiak Island Borough provides a number of services to the Kodiak Island Borough School District but accounts for these services in the Kodiak Island Borough budget and expenditure reports. This document defines those services and the common rules to govern the application of and accounting for the value associated with these in -kind services. In -kind services include: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AND KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN -KIND SERVICES November 30, 2004 • Insurance Premiums: The actual cost of the insurance premiums is the amount of property and liability insurance the Borough pays for KIBSD buildings, vessel, vehicles and general liability. All of these expenses should be accounted as an in -kind contribution. • Mental Health Services: • These services are provided by the Borough by contract to insure the access of high quality licensed mental health services for the students. Historic areas of concern involved the quality and cost of these services. There should be accountability provisions within the contract, but the cost of the contract would be accounted as an in -kind contribution to public education. • Allocation of MIS Expenses: These allocated costs to the KIBSD are for the provision of hardware, software, operational costs and technical support based on the proportion of the total cost for the Borough's MIS department. Based on past experience, the allocated cost for KIBSD will be the actual costs of direct services, plus a proportional share of the common charges as a percentage of system time, plus the loaded hourly rate for direct staff support. • Audit Expenses: This item is the actual cost of the KIBSD audit required by state statute. The borough provides this as part of a master contract with an auditing firm as part of the duties of running the central treasury. The KIBSD portion of this audit is to be fully applied as an in- kind contribution. • Allocated Costs of Grounds Maintenance: Historically, this category has been limited to expenses associated with snow removal and ice control within KIBSD parking lots. To insure cost efficiencies and safety, the Borough has administered this service under a master contract with a local snow removal contractor. The expenses associated with snow removal and ice control at KIBSD facilities Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska KIB Resolution No. FY 2005 -05 & KIBSD Resolution No. 045 -002 Page 3 of 4 are accounted for separately under the master contract. The allocated contract expenses for the KIBSD should be treated as an in -kind contribution. • Minor Maintenance: Minor maintenance has not been adequately defined by the State or by the local government. Minor maintenance is defined as maintenance and /or repair work costing less than $ 10,000 per occurrence per site. Painting of a classroom in a school would likely be minor maintenance. Painting of the entire interior of a school, or of several schools, would likely exceed the value limitation and be considered as a major repair. It is clear that minor maintenance could quickly become major repair if not addressed in a timely fashion. This would not be in the best interest of either the KIBSD or the KIB. The committee agreed that an annual maintenance program be developed through collaboration between the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department and the KIBSD Maintenance Department. The joint list resulting from this effort would be prioritized and submitted to both KIB and KIBSD by the end of April to become part of the annual budget process. Minor repairs that are taken from the mutually agreed list of projects for the fiscal year and are funded by the Borough would become part of the in -kind contribution. • End of Year In -Kind Accounting Adjustment: Before the end of May in each fiscal year" the KIB and KIBSD finance departments shall determine the actual costs of in -kind services for the year to date. The actual in -kind expenditures will be compared with the budgeted amounts, and • any differences will be corrected by adjusting the cash appropriation from KIB to KIBSD. A standing committee is established comprised of members of both the Assembly and School Board to review issues where the two parties might disagree that a provided service should be included within the in -kind contribution as a component of the local funding of public education. The committee would recommend a resolution to such disagreements. The committee will also act as a forum to resolve other joint tasks or disputes between the two parties. Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska KIB Resolution No. FY 2005 -05 & KIBSD Resolution No. 045 -002 Page 4 of 4 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. FY 2005 -10 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 045 -002 Introduced by: KIB & K1BSD In -Kind Commitee Requested by: KIB Assembly & KIB School Board Drafted by: KIB & KIBSD In -Kind Commi tee Introduced: December 16, 2004 Adopted: December 16, 2004 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AND THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ADOPTING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT WILL ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR GOVERNING THE ACCOUNTING AND APPLICATION OF IN -KIND SERVICES WHEREAS, during the summer of 2003, the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) and Kodiak Island Borough School District (KIBSD) commissioned an ad hoc committee of four members to jointly review and formulate draft policy concerning the in -kind contributions that are part of the annual local component of the funding of public education; and WHEREAS, the committee was made up of Kodiak Island Borough Assembly members Robin Heinrichs and Pat Branson, and Kodiak Board of Education members Norm Wooten and Jeff Stephan. Support staff from the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) and the Kodiak Island Borough School District (KIBSD) assisted with research and materials; and WHEREAS, the goal was to establish common rules to govern the application of and accounting for the value associated with these in- kind.services; and WHEREAS, the committee has done its best to address many of the chronic disputes relating to the accounting for in -kind services that have existed between the Kodiak Island Borough and the KIB School district for many years. The committee not only reached consensus on these issues, but also established a mechanism to deal with future disagreements; and WHEREAS, the committee was always mindful of the impact these deliberations might have upon the welfare of the Borough's public education program. This is especially important in Tight of the fact that the Borough has reached the State "cap" on local funding of education; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AND THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD THAT the following Memorandum of Understanding is hereby adopted to establish a procedure for governing the accounting and application of in -kind services. Kodiak Island Borough Alaska "` KIB Resolution No. FY 2005.05 & KIBSD Resolution No. 045 -002 Page 1 of 4 ATTEST: ATTEST: ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THIS SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2004 Judith Nielsen, CM , Borough CI rk ADOPTED BY THE MB SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD THIS 10th DAY OF January , 200)4X5 Sheila Roberts, Administrative Assistant KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Jer e Selby, Borough Mayor___ KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Scott Williams, Board President Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska KIB Resolution No. FY 2005 -05 & KIBSD Resolution No. 045.002 Page 2 of 4