HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - May 16, 2023, Special Meeting of the Ames City Council
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
MAY 16, 2023
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Resolution confirming appointment of Emily Roberts and Jian Janes to serve as Iowa State
University Student Government representatives of Ames Transit Agency Board of Trustees
WORKSHOP:
2. Solid Waste Management discussion
FINANCE:
3. Billing error related to minimum charges for 1 ½ inch water meter
DISPOSITION OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COUNCIL:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as
provided by Section 21.4(2), Code of Iowa.
Caring People Quality Programs Exceptional Service
MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: John A. Haila, Mayor
DATE: May 16, 2023
SUBJECT: Iowa State University Student Government Appointees to Ames Transit
Agency Board of Trustees
Due to expirations of Iowa State University (ISU) Student Government terms on the
Ames Transit Agency Board of Trustees, the City Council needs to confirm
appointments to fill these vacancies. I have been notified that Jian Janes has been
selected by the ISU Student Government to serve as the ISU Student Government
Senator on the Board, and Emily Roberts has been selected by the President of the
Student Government to serve as the ISU Student Government Representative on the
Board.
Therefore, I recommend that the City Council confirm the appointment of Jian Janes
and Emily Roberts to the Ames Transit Agency Board of Trustees for a one-year term
beginning May 15, 2023.
JAH/jsn
Item No. 1
1
ITEM:__2__
Staff Report
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
May 16, 2023
BACKGROUND:
In late 2022, the City Council received two reports concerning topics that interact with the
City’s waste-to-energy system. The first was a staff report regarding organized solid waste
collection, which was delivered to the City Council on September 27, 2022. The second
was a final Waste-to-Energy Options Study report from RRT Design and Construction,
received on December 20, 2022.
Upon receiving each of these reports, the City Council directed staff to take certain
follow-up steps and then report back to the City Council. This staff report contains
responses to these follow-up steps in the sections below, along with staff’s related
analysis and recommendations.
It should be noted that for the purposes of this report, the term “garbage/trash,” refers to
the portion of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) that is not separated recyclables, organics,
or yard waste.
ORGANIZED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FOLLOW-UP:
In response to resident inquiries, the City Council received a report from staff on
September 27, 2022, regarding organized solid waste collection. “Organized Collection”
is a model of solid waste collection in which local government relies on private haulers to
provide a uniform set of collection services and the community is divided into one or more
concentrated service areas to maximize efficiency.
This model contrasts with the “Open Collection” system that exists in Ames, where
residents may choose from among a variety of private sector garbage haulers. Open
collection generates more traffic, road wear and tear, noi se, and pollution compared to
organized collection alternatives. However, organized collection limits customer choice
and may impact the level of customer service provided.
Upon receiving the September 2022 report, the City Council directed staff to seek
input on the outcomes and goals discussed in the report from the current haulers
operating residentially in the City. In response to this direction, City staff met
individually with each of the seven haulers currently licensed to provide residential solid
waste collection in Ames.
2
The haulers were asked about the following topics:
1. Whether they currently provide or have the capability to provide recycling, organic
collection, and yard waste collection.
2. Whether they provide, or could provide, pay-as-you-throw rates.
3. Whether they have any concerns about eliminating the requirement to offer twice
weekly residential garbage collection.
4. How they set up their routes for efficiency and sustainability.
5. Whether their fleets use alternative fuel sources, such as 100% biodiesel, CNG,
electric, etc.
6. Ideas they have to address customer costs, sustainability, availability of
services/diversion offerings, and traffic and noise issues.
7. Whether they would consider bidding if the City moved to a model where collection
was provided by a single hauler per zone.
8. Their appetite for changes to how the collection model in Ames works.
Hauler Feedback:
Recycling, Organic, and Yard Waste Collection:
Recycling - Three of the haulers currently provide recycling collection in Ames. Two
haulers indicated they do not currently provide it but would do so if there was more
demand or a mandate to provide it. A sixth hauler does not provide recycling in Ames and
indicated they are required to provide recycling in Marshalltown and believes the
requirement to provide recycling leads to contamination issues. The seventh hauler does
not provide recycling and did not indicate that recycling could be provided.
Organics - None of the haulers provide organics collection in Ames, although one provides
organics collection in other communities. Concerns were raised about a lack of customer
interest and odor issues. A consistent theme in the feedback regarding organics collection
was that there was no feasible place to take organic material if it was collected in Ames.
Yard Waste - All seven of the haulers provide some option for yard waste collection, with
variations for regular service, on-call service, bags, and bins.
Pay-as-You-Throw Rates:
Two haulers provide different sizes of carts with higher prices for the larger cart (pay -as-
you-throw). One offers a smaller cart, but charges the same fee as the larger cart. The
3
remaining four provide a single size of cart. The arguments for a single size of cart include
standardization for inventory and use with automated trucks, smaller carts being more
susceptible to tipping from wind or animals, and customer confusion regarding multiple
prices and sizes.
Twice-Weekly Residential Garbage/Trash Collection:
Note: Municipal Code currently requires that haulers provide twice weekly garbage/trash
collection for residential customers, unless the customer requests once per week
collection.
Six of the seven haulers indicated they had no concerns about eliminating the requirement
for twice weekly garbage hauling, and the majority prefer to offer a second can for extra
material rather than collect twice per week. One hauler indicated that prohibiting twice
weekly collection would be problematic because 1/3 of its customers have twice weekly
pickup, but they are considering going to once per week pickup starting this summer .
Since the conversations with the haulers occurred, several haulers have indicated to
customers that they would no longer be offering twice per week as an option, opting
instead to provide a second can for customers who have larger volumes of weekly
garbage.
Route Efficiency and Sustainability:
Three of the haulers indicate they use routing software to maximize efficiency. A fourth is
considering obtaining software. The remainder set up zones manually by day and
consider how to combine commercial pickups and residential collection to reduce mileage.
Alternative Fuel Sources:
Five of the haulers use diesel trucks and operate using bio -diesel blends in the summer
months. One operates using regular diesel year-round. Two of the haulers that operate
using diesel indicated they would look into the equipment necessary to operate on 100%
biodiesel. One hauler operates using compressed natural gas (CNG) for its residential
collection trucks. Several of the haulers indicated they were aware of electric trucks for
garbage collection, but the current generation of these trucks is not yet capable of driving
significant distances.
Ideas to Address Costs, Sustainability, Availability of Services, Traffic/Noise:
Several haulers suggested that each neighborhood be assigned a designated day for
collection, rather than the current system where collection trucks may be in a
neighborhood each day of the week. The haulers indicated they receive very few individual
noise complaints.
Several haulers also indicated that a local transfer station for recyclables and a location
for construction and demolition debris would reduce the traffic and carbon footprint
4
associated with haulers driving to the Des Moines metro area and Boone County Landfill
for these materials.
Response to a Potential Bid System for Collection:
Most of the haulers do not support a system for dividing the City into zones and soliciting
bids to serve each zone. Two haulers indicated they support this concept. Two other
haulers indicated they would participate in bidding but do not support moving in that
direction. The remaining three are opposed to a bidding sys tem and point to the loss of
competition as removing the incentive to provide quality customer service. Additionally,
these haulers point to zones as limiting their potential customer growth. They indicate that
they have made substantial investments in equ ipment, facilities, and employees to
operate in Ames and are concerned about the risk to these investments if the City was
divided into zones or a contract.
One hauler suggested as an alternative that the seven existing haulers be permitted to
continue collecting, but no additional haulers would be licensed, thereby capping the
potential for increased truck traffic and related issues.
Response to Other Potential Changes in Ames’ Collection System:
The haulers note that the lead time for trucks, cans, and other equipment is very long,
which makes transitioning collection systems difficult. They also indicate that the labor
market is challenging, so there is risk if a contract system is implemented th at the
providers selected may not be able to provide the service. One hauler indicated that
uncertainty is causing it to consider leaving the business, and that a community dialogue
should be held before a decision is made to move to a contract system. Thi s hauler felt
that customers want the choice of haulers.
Several haulers pointed out that with Ames’ unique rental move -in/out time in July and
August, the volume of garbage could be overwhelming for one or two haulers to collect
and transport. It was also noted that some landlords do not supply waste service with the
rental agreement, leaving that responsibility to tenants instead. This can lead to garbage
being piled at the residence or curb during move in and move out when residents assume
that garbage collection is included with their rent. The haulers suggest that requiring
landlords to furnish waste collection with the rental agreement would eliminate this
problem.
WASTE-TO-ENERGY OPTIONS STUDY FOLLOW-UP:
The Waste-to-Energy Options Study was initiated in 2020 and a final report and
presentation were provided by the consultants in 2022. The purpose of the study was to
evaluate all possible, credible options for disposing municipal solid waste (MSW) in a new
or modified waste-to-energy system and satisfy the majority of Story County residents’
solid waste disposal needs for 2023 and beyond. The options evaluated in this study
5
would serve as a component of a reliable, sustainable, waste management solution and
allow the City of Ames to perform as a leader/innovator in the Waste to Energy Industry,
focusing on providing community wide sustainability with minimum impact to the
environment. In addition, the study evaluated the opportunities to reduce the amount of
municipal solid waste that must be combusted in the existing Power Plant units, thereby
allowing Electric Services to take advantage of market energy prices when those prices
are low.
The study involved developing projections regarding the quantity and characteristics of
municipal solid waste entering the system into the future, and evaluating options for waste-
to-energy systems to dispose of that waste. For each option, the consultant was asked to
evaluate capital costs, operational and maintenance cos ts, environmental impacts and
permitting, externalities (such as truck traffic, odor, and noise), and the timeline to design
and construct. The ability to provide redundant systems and re -use existing components
was also to be evaluated. Additionally, the consultant was asked to identify the impacts of
each option on the existing diversion programs (glass and food waste).
Seven options were requested to be evaluated:
1. Maintain Resource Recovery Plant and Power Plant as-is (Base Case used
for comparison)
2A. Maintain existing Resource Recovery Plant and install a new, dedicated
refuse-derived fuel (RDF) unit inside the Power Plant (Unit 8 as a backup)
2B. Modify the Resource Recovery Plant to produce 20” RDF, and install two
new dedicated RDF units
3A-1. Construct a new Resource Recovery Plant and a dedicated RDF unit at the
former Coal Yard (Unit 8 as a backup)
3A-2. Construct a new Resource Recovery Plant and two new dedicated RDF
units producing steam to an industrial host at a greenfield site
3B-1. Construct two new MSW mass burn units (no Resource Recovery Plant pre-
processing) at the former Coal Yard
3B-2. Construct two new MSW mass burn units (no Resource Recovery Plant pre-
processing) producing steam to an industrial host at a greenfield site.
After finalizing the options, the consultants evaluated the technical aspects of each option,
including feasibility, performance, availability/redundancy, environmental impacts,
technology options, and capital/operating/maintenance costs. The costs developed were
then used to prepare a comprehensive financial model. The financial model, which has
been provided to City staff, allows for adjustments to be made to key assumptions,
6
including natural gas costs, waste volumes, recovery/reject rates, purchased power costs,
and other variables.
The total design and construction costs for each option range from $115.82 million to
$228.74 million (2022 dollars). Among the evaluated options (excluding the “as-is”
Option 1), City staff has evaluated the cost of the least costly option (Option 2A –
Maintain existing Resource Recovery Plant and install a new, dedicated refuse -
derived fuel (RDF) unit inside the Power Plant (Unit 8 as a backup)) to determine the
potential impacts to rates and fees if such a project was pursued.
According to the study, Option 2A involves an estimated capital cost of $115,820,000. City
staff estimates that the principal and interest payments over 20 years would to tal
$183,914,212.50, or an average bond payment of $9,195,710.63 per year. It is estimated
that the utilization of a dedicated RDF boiler could save the Electric utility approximately
$8,000,000 per year. This is the net savings after reducing the consumption of natural gas
and adding back the cost of purchased power that is no longer being produced in the
Power Plant. It is important to note that the $8,000,000 savings is associated with
the current natural gas contract which ends this year. Under a new natural gas
contract that will be required next year, staff anticipates the cost for natural gas to
be at least $4,000,000 higher. Therefore, the avoided cost is expected to exceed the
annual debt service payment for the new facility under Option 2A.
At the December 20 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to explore two further
waste-to-energy system concepts that were not envisioned at the time the
consultant was retained for the Waste-to-Energy Options Study. These concepts
are:
Combustion Turbine #2 Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Concept
The City’s Electric Utility operates two combustion turbines (CTs) at the Dayton Avenue
substation. CT #2 was installed in 2005 and is capable of generating 29 megawatts of
electricity. These CTs operate by firing fuel oil to rotate a turbine, which is connected via
a shaft to a generator. With some infrastructure modifications, the units could be converted
to operate using natural gas. These units are used at times of peak electric demand, for
backup when other infrastructure has failed, as a price hedge for market energy, and to
meet the utility’s obligation to have generation capacity equal to 110% of its historical peak
electric load.
Both existing CTs are a simple-cycle design, meaning the heat generated from the
combustion process is exhausted to the atmosphere; only the rotational energy of the
turbine is used to generate electricity. This contrasts with a “combined-cycle” process,
where the energy from the exhaust gas heat of combustion i s extracted and used to
increase the total power output of the unit, thereby decreasing the cost to produce energy.
Staff desired to investigate whether it would be possible to move CT #2 near a newly
constructed waste-to-energy boiler and steam turbine as envisioned in Option 2A. This
7
would allow the steam produced by the RDF combustion to produce energy through an
existing generator, saving the cost of purchasing a new generator. Additionally, this would
convert CT #2 from a simple-cycle to a combined cycle unit, which increases the rated
capacity of the unit and decreases the overall operating cost when its needed to run.
The City Council authorized a contract with Sargent & Lundy, LLC, Chicago, IL
(S&L), to determine the technical and financial feasibility of this potential project.
S&L reviewed the feasibility of the arrangement by developing a conceptual diagram,
proving the theory of the concept, reviewing relevant research papers, and soliciting
feedback from WTE boiler suppliers. Relevant research papers were found with
configurations similar to the base concept. S&L was able to locate one similar installation
to the desired concept. However, this application is significantly larger than that needed
for the City and has unique characteristics different than the concept that would be
implemented in Ames.
S&L is still developing a final report but has indicated the concept is feasible regarding
theory of operation. However, it is believed the concept is cost prohibitive for the
following reasons:
• There is no practical experience with this concept in the United States and only
limited experience world-wide. As such, this would be a unique, first of a kind
design carrying risk if implemented.
• This concept would require the continuous use of both systems , which does not
align with the City’s desire that the WTE boiler and steam turbine should be able
to operate independent of CT #2.
Since there is no previous known example of a similar installation in the United States,
and as only one example was found to exist in Spain, a detailed capital cost estimate is
very difficult to develop.
Based on this analysis, this option has significant challenges associated with it,
and, therefore, is no longer being recommended as an option by staff.
Potential Partnership with Lincolnway Energy
Lincolnway Energy uses a substantial amount of steam in its process to manufacture
ethanol. Representatives of the company indicated to City staff that they were interested
in exploring the use of a waste-to-energy system to generate that steam, in a scenario
similar to Option 3A-2 or 3B-2. Steam produced from a waste-to-energy process, as
opposed to the steam Lincolnway Energy currently generates from natural gas boilers,
would have advantages for the marketability of the ethanol produced.
Staff has held preliminary discussions with Lincolnway Energy regarding the possibility of
a partnership whereby a third party would construct a new, larger waste-to-energy facility
near Lincolnway Energy’s ethanol plant in Nevada, to collect waste from a regional
8
customer base. In this scenario, the City of Ames would sell refuse-derived fuel to the new
facility for combustion. Additionally, RDF or MSW from other communities would be
transported to the facility to provide additional fuel and allow the Waste-to-Energy system
to benefit from economies of scale and lower the overall cost of the process. Under this
scenario, Ames’ role would be as a “fuel” supplier to the overall system, and the
City would purchase power from the generating plant.
It should be emphasized that this option is still in the high -level conceptual stages. A
substantial amount of analysis would be necessary to evaluate the feasibility of this option.
As of yet, no cost information has been develop ed. Further, Ames would not be the
primary driver under this scenario and would rely on other parties to lead this development
as well as provide the capital investment.
STAFF COMMENTS:
As City staff has worked on these two follow-up projects (Organized Collection report
follow-up and WTE Options Study follow-up), two issues have become clearer:
1. There are a variety of recent documents that concern the subject of how
municipal solid waste should be handled in Story County and in the City’s
waste-to-energy system. These documents include:
a. 2022 Waste-to-Energy Options Study
b. 2022 Organized Garbage Collection Report
c. Climate Action Plan
d. Central Iowa Solid Waste Management Association (CISWMA) Comprehensive
Plan (this plan, expiring in 2025, is the basis for the connection between Story
County, the Resource Recovery System, and the Boone County Landfill)
2. There does not yet exist a strategy to reconcile these varied influences and
guide the City’s future steps in response to them.
Many of the City’s core services, infrastructure development, and operational decisions
are guided by strategic plans that synthesize many influences to identify specific projects
and performance goals. These kinds of plans are used by the City for zoning and
development (Ames Plan 2040), transportation (Long -Range Transportation Plan),
bicycle infrastructure (Bike-Ped Master Plan), wastewater treatment plant needs (WPCF
Long-range Facility Plan), and others. However, no such strategic planning document
exists to guide the City’s solid waste planning efforts. This makes it challenging to
determine which prospective initiatives and policies related to solid waste should
be pursued, and the prioritization of them.
As staff has reviewed these various documents, it appears that a preliminary
hierarchy of goals emerges. This hierarchy is, in priority order:
9
1. Landfill as little as possible.
2. Combust as little natural gas and RDF as possible, and when we do combust it,
do so when it is most economical to do so.
3. Divert as much Municipal Solid Waste from the Resource Recovery Plant as
possible.
This tracks closely with the Environmental Protections Agency’s Waste hierarchy:
In addition, these goals appear to fit with the historical role of Resource Recovery
to promote solid waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and the creation of RDF as an
alternate fuel source. To accomplish the goals, staff has brainstormed an initial list
of potential waste-related strategies to explore:
1. Alternative collection and disposal methods for recycling (glass, plastic, cardboard,
ferrous and non-ferrous metals).
2. Alternative collection and disposal methods for organic debris.
3. Alternative disposal methods for construction and demolition (C&D) debris to avoid
the Boone County Landfill.
4. Conversion of existing pilot programs for waste diversion to broader scale, more
universal approaches.
5. Additional partnerships to identify opportunities for Story County waste to be
recycled, reused, or disposed of in mutually beneficial ways.
10
6. Partnering with Resource Recovery System communities to identify their goals and
preferences; explore if there are alternative methods of waste disposal that would
be mutually beneficial and desirable.
7. Policies that would implement greater separation of recyclable and organic
materials from MSW before it is disposed of, through economic
incentives/disincentives or requirements for separation.
8. Policies and incentives that could be imposed by haulers to encourage disposing
of lower volumes of MSW and discourages disposing of greater volumes of MSW
(pay-as-you-throw).
9. The feasibility of expanding the use of the Water and Pollution Control Facility for
the disposal of food waste/organic materials as an alternative to landfilling or long-
distance transport.
10. Reducing the volume of RDF that is produced to allow it to be combusted in the
smaller boiler at the Power Plant, thereby reducing natural gas consumption.
11. Whether the RDF could be reduced to a point where it could be stored for
combustion at times when market energy prices are high.
12. Further adjustments/equipment to the RRP System that increase the separation of
recyclable/reject materials from the RDF stream.
NEXT STEPS:
Among the ideas indicated above, staff believes four potential strategies rise to the top as
more immediate priorities to pursue:
1. Alternative Disposal of Construction/Demolition Debris – Staff has learned from
conversations with Boone County officials over the past two years that construction
and demolition debris from Story County represents a major challenge for the
landfill’s future operations by taking up available capacity. This material does not
compact, and higher tipping fees do not reduce the amount generated. C&D debris
in Story County is not counted within the Resource Recovery System’s annual
tonnage statistics since this material is considered a “direct haul” to Boone County
Landfill (BCL). However, BCL has indicated that it received 17,291 tons of Story
County C&D on average each of the past three years.
Staff has made some inquiries with landfill operators and waste agencies outside
Story/Boone counties to determine if alternatives may be available. The Marshall
County Landfill is a potential alternative site for C&D materials (it has a lower tipping
fee, but haulers would have to travel farther). Metro Waste Authority in Polk County
is another potential alternative site for C&D.
11
2. Develop a Closer Partnership with Metro Waste Authority – Staff has toured Metro
Waste Authority’s Grimes recycling facility and discussed a variety of mutual
experiences and challenges. City staff came back from these discussions with an
appreciation for the expertise Metro Waste Authority has regarding organized
collection, recycling facilities, and recyclable collection programs. Similar to the
Ames/Story County program for collecting glass for recycling at several drop-off
locations, Metro Waste Authority has implemented drop-off bins for glass and for
cardboard. These materials are then recycled in the Grimes recycling facility.
Capacity exists in Metro Waste Authority’s facilities for processing additional waste
and recyclable materials. Additionally, like the City of Ames, Metro Waste Authority
is a governmental entity and could be a stable long-term partner. City staff believes
there is much more to be gained from continuing the discussions with Metro Waste
Authority regarding potential collaboration.
3. Develop a Pilot Drop-off Recycling Program – When City staff presented the
proposed FY 2023/24 City Budget, it was noted that an upcoming activity would be
the development of a pilot program for drop-off of recyclable materials at the
Resource Recovery Center. Following conversations with Metro Wa ste Authority
as described above, staff believes it is possible to move this initiative forward
through a partnership. Metro Waste Authority has expressed a willingness to
consider transporting and processing a limited amount of the materials collected at
an Ames pilot drop-off site. This pilot program would provide staff with information
regarding the community’s interest in additional recycling initiatives, so larger-scale
programs could be effectively developed using the data.
4. Plan Next Steps Regarding Organized Collection – It does not appear that there is
consensus among the haulers that organized collection is a preferred approach.
Although one alternative suggestion from the haulers was to establish specific days
that specific zones could be served, staff believes concentrating all the providers
onto the same street on the same day could make certain issues (e.g., traffic)
worse, and have a negligible effect on other issues that are caused by multiple
truck trips on the same street. Staff has doubts as to whether the City has the legal
authority to require landlords to include garbage service in their lease agreements,
which was an additional suggestion from haulers.
As City staff has further explored organized collection approaches alongside
1) the capacity limitations of MSW to be processed in the Resource Recovery
System, 2) the challenges presented in combusting RDF in the Power Plant,
and 3) the limitations of the Boone County Landfill to receive material, it
becomes increasingly apparent to staff that organized collection may be an
important step not only for the issues experienced in neighborhoods, but to
manage the significant volume of waste that the City’s Resource Recovery
System and Power Plant must dispose of.
12
It would be far more effective to implement and monitor waste
reduction/diversion programs and policies in an organized collection system
with contracts and performance measures, versus an open collection
system. Such programs could include curbside separation of recyclable
materials from the waste stream and initiatives that reduce the volume of
MSW entering the Resource Recovery System, and therefore the volume of
RDF burned in the power plant.
Examples from other communities indicate that organized collection can be
successfully implemented (from customers’ perspectives), and in the time since the
organized collection report was originally provided to the City Council in 2022, City
staff has evaluated variations on organized collection that could address many of
the Ames haulers’ unique concerns.
It is clear from discussing with the haulers and from consulting with Metro
Waste Authority that a contract where the entire community is dependent
upon a single hauler is risky. The City would be at risk of a lack of acceptable
alternatives if the hauler fails to perform, along with unexpected price hikes at
contract renewal time, and challenges with the hauler being able to secure labor,
equipment, and materials needed to serve the community. Therefore, staff
believes that if the Council proceeds with organized collection, an approach
that involves as many of the existing haulers as possible would be best – the
key change would be to coordinate their services in a manner that maximizes
the efficiency of collection.
Staff believes the two options for contract collection models shown below
could mitigate the concerns that several haulers have regarding a bid
system:
Model #1:
The City could be divided into perhaps 10-15 zones, with sizes that offer a
variety of residential customers. The invitation to bid would describe a
specific set of services that are desired by the City, and haulers would be
invited to indicate their bid price per household per month for the services.
In the scoring criteria, the City could indicate that proposals involving
sub-contracts with other haulers will receive more points (e.g., one
hauler provides the garbage collection for a zone while another
provides the recycling collection for the zone). Additionally, the City
could indicate that due to the concerns over having just one or two
haulers serve the community, the policy of the City would be to award
contracts to at least X number of haulers.
In the original organized collection report in 2022, staff expressed
concern that a zoned system could cause some parts of the
13
community to pay different prices for the same service. Staff now
believes that a method to resolve that issue would be for the City to
handle billing for residential waste collection as part of the City’s utility
billing. The haulers would receive payment from the City for the total
number of households served, multiplied by their bid price.
The monthly fee charged to residents would be determined by the total
cost of all the collection contracts with haulers in the City divided by
the number of households in the City receiving service. In this way, the
price remains uniform across the City for residential collection,
contract end dates could be staggered in duration to soften the impact
of future price increases, a variety of haulers could remain in the
market (providing alternatives if customer service issues arise with a
hauler), and the areas in which they collect would be cons olidated.
Haulers would receive the added benefit of not having to handle billing
or collections, and the City would be able to include policies in the
contracting process that address the City’s waste diversion and
reduction goals.
The disadvantage to this approach is that residential customers would
no longer have the ability to choose their hauler. However, with the
City involved in handling billing and the contract performance, any
customer service issues could be mediated and resolved by the City.
Model #2:
The second potential approach to consider is to again divide the City
into zones, then for the City to determine a set of desired services and
to offer a price per household. Haulers would be invited to apply if they
are willing to provide the listed services and accept the City’s offered
price. The haulers that bid would then be assigned a customer zone,
taking into consideration if there are areas of the City where their
customers are already concentrated.
This model provides greater assurance to the haulers as to whether
they will be allowed to continue providing residential service (the
answer is simply whether they agree to the offered price or not).
However, it is possible that the price offered by the City is either lower
than the cost the haulers are able to accept (in which case few or no
bids will be received), or that the bid price is much higher than the real
cost to the haulers to provide service (in which case residents will be
paying more for the service than is actually necessary).
Like the model described above, this approach could be combined
with the City providing the billing services. Additionally, this approach
14
continues to have the disadvantage that customers would not have the
ability to select their own hauler.
Of the four “next steps” described above, staff anticipates the City Council would
have no objections to proceeding with items #1-3. However, staff will need further
guidance from the City Council as to whether there is a desire to proceed with Next
Step #4 (organized collection).
It appears there is a difference of opinion among the haulers regarding the interest
in organized collection. Additionally, the City Council has requested that questions
regarding the potential for organized collection be included in the Resident
Satisfaction Survey; these results will not be returned to the City Council until late
summer 2023. However, some City Council members might have already received
input from residents about their desire to maintain a system that allows them to
choose their hauler.
If the Council desires to proceed with considering an organized collection system,
staff recommends that direction be given to staff to develop the outline of a request
for proposals and the details that will need to be decided upon prior to issuing it.
This would take several months to complete, allowing time for continued
discussions with the haulers and receipt of the Resident Sati sfaction Survey data.
Staff would also use this time to consult with Metro Waste Authority to determine
what assistance it can provide in preparing for a potential transition to such a
collection system.
Solid Waste Workshop
May 16, 2023
Organized Collection Report
•September 27, 2022
•Council direction to consult
with haulers and discuss the
outcomes and goals outlined in
the report
Follow-up to Two Council Reports
Waste -to-Energy Options Study
•December 20, 2022
•Council direction to
additionally explore:
•CT #2 Heat Recovery Steam
Generator Concept
•Potential Partnership with
Lincolnway Energy
Met with 7 haulers:
•5/7 provide or are willing to provide recycling collection
•Concern with providing organic collection (lack of customer interest, lack of
disposal site)
•7/7 provide yard waste collection
•2/7 provide pay-as -you -throw rates
•Most prefer standardized size for ease of collection and to avoid wind/animal
issues
Organized Collection Follow -up:
•Support from haulers to eliminate the requirement for twice weekly residential
collection
•Some haulers already transitioning away from this
•3/7 haulers use routing software. A fourth is considering it
•5/7 use biodiesel blends. 1/7 uses CNG trucks
•Technology for electric garbage trucks is not yet ready
Organized Collection Follow -up:
•Suggestions from haulers:
•Assign one collection day to each neighborhood
•Need for local transfer station for recyclables, C&D debris
•Cap number of licenses to prevent more traffic/trucks
•Require landlords to furnish garbage service rather than tenants
•2/7 support zone -and-bid system for contract hauling
•2/7 do not support, but would participate in the bid
•3/7 strongly opposed to bidding, unclear if they would participate
•Issues related to equipment lead times, labor, ability to service move -in/move -out,
and customer choice/competition
Organized Collection Follow -up:
•Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Concept:
•Sargent & Lundy analysis
•Feasible in theory
•No comparable installations
‒Very difficult to estimate costs
•Lincolnway Energy
•City would provide RDF
•RDF or MSW from other communities needed
•Third-party would build and operate WTE facility
•Steam sales to Lincolnway Energy, energy sales to Ames Electric
•Very preliminary and many details to evaluate
Waste -to-Energy Options Study Follow -up:
•Waste -to-Energy Options Study
•Organized Collection Report
•Climate Action Plan
•Central Iowa Solid Waste Management Association Comprehensive Plan (exp.
2025)
Reconciling Many Plans and Influences:
•Hierarchy of Goals:
•Landfill as little as possible
•Combust as little natural gas as possible, and when we do combust it, do so
when it is most economical to do so.
•Divert as much Municipal Solid Waste from the Resource Recovery Plant as
possible
Reconciling Many Plans and Influences:
•Alternative disposal for recycling (glass, plastic, cardboard, metals)
•Alternative disposal for organic debris
•Alternatives to BCL for construction/demolition debris
•Expanding existing pilot programs to broader scale
•Outside partnerships for waste to be disposed of in mutually beneficial ways
•Discussing with RRP partnering communities to discuss goals and explore whether
there is continued mutual benefit for disposal at RRP
•Economic incentives/disincentives to achieve greater separation of
recyclable/organic materials from other trash
•Policies such as pay-as -you -throw, which could be implemented by haulers
Potential Strategies to Achieve the Goals:
•Feasibility of expanding use of WPC facility for organic disposal
•How to reduce/store RDF to allow combustion in smaller Unit 7 with less natural
gas
•How to reduce/store RDF to allow combustion to be timed to high market energy
prices
•Adjustments to RRP equipment to improve materials separation
Potential Strategies to Achieve the Goals:
1.Solve Construction and Demolition Debris Challenges
•Major pain point for Boone County Landfill
•Substantial amount of debris comes from Story County
•Alternatives exist –would need to get Boone County, Ames, haulers/construction
firms, and other landfill(s) on board with a change
2.Develop Closer Partnership with Metro Waste Authority
•Wealth of expertise in hauling, processing, landfilling
•Committed to stable, governmental partnerships
•Willingness to share lessons and experience with City staff
Next Steps:
3. Pilot Drop-off Recycling Program
•Budgeted activity to develop a pilot drop-off program
•Use to learn about customer demand, contamination, costs, resource needs, etc.
4.Plan Next Steps Regarding Organized Collection
•No consensus among haulers
•It may be difficult to substantially change MSW volume and composition issues
at RRP/Power Plant without more City involvement in how collection is
accomplished
•Risk in having one hauler serve community (price changes, lack of alternatives,
challenges with labor/equipment/materials, etc.)
Next Steps:
4.Plan Next Steps Regarding Organized Collection (cont.)
‒Staff originally had concerns about zone bidding leading to different prices for
different customers
‒Alternatives exist that would have the City bid the zones to haulers and handle
billing, payment, etc.
•Keeps several haulers in the community, uniform pricing and services,
alternative haulers if one has service issues, addresses traffic issues
•Does not provide customer choice
Next Steps:
Next Steps 1-4:
1.Solve Construction and Demolition Debris Challenges
2.Develop Closer Partnership with Metro Waste Authority
3. Pilot Drop-off Recycling Program
4.Plan Next Steps Regarding Organized Collection
Council Direction Needed: