City of Douglas, Georgia 2008 Municipal Compost Business Plan Prepared by Tyler Reinagel University of Georgia Department of Public Administration and Policy December 2008

(1)

(2)

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

A. Background on Douglas, GA ................................................................................................................................................ 4

B. Purpose and Scope of Project ............................................................................................................................................... 4

C. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

D. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5

E. Background and Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

I. Municipal Composting .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Municipal Composting Equipment .......................................................................................................................................... 6

II. History of Municipal Composting in Douglas ....................................................................................................................... 6

Motivation and Considerations ................................................................................................................................................. 6

The Process ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Initial Costs .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Site Selection .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

III. Composting in Douglas Today ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Current Recipe ............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Public Works “Green” Collections ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Wastewater Treatment “Brown” Collections ....................................................................................................................... 11

Grinding/Mulching Contract .................................................................................................................................................... 11

Staffing ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Distribution .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

IV. Shortfalls in Continued Operations ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Product Quality ........................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Staff Training and Development .............................................................................................................................................. 14

Recent Issues ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

Site Needs ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Proximity to Wastewater Treatment .................................................................................................................................... 16

Consideration of Neighbors ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

Distribution .................................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Equipment ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

F. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Operational ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 16

Collections ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Production .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Distribution ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................... 25

G. Cost Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................28

H. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................................. 30

I. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................... 31

(3)

Acknowledgements My experience with the City of Douglas proved the most practical and fulfilling portion of my Masters of Public Administration curriculum at the University of Georgia. During my time with Douglas, I have been exposed to multiple aspects of local government management, including solid waste, public works, finance, state relations, wastewater treatment, capital projects, and purchasing and contracting, just to name a few. The influence each of these areas has on the composting project showcases the complexity of local government operations and I have a deep and broad appreciation for Douglas having allowed me to be a part of this project. For the period of the last three months, I have had the chance to collect information from a host of sources and put together a document that, I can confidently say, provides a broad assessment of where Douglas’s composting program is ten years after it started. Douglas is a forward thinking city, indicated by the fact that it was ahead of green dumping to MSW landfills and was ultimately one of the first in the state to start a municipal composting program. That is not to say there are not opportunities for improvement, and by inviting me to undertake this project, city leaders acknowledged these opportunities and gave me ample opportunity to help identify them. First and foremost, I extend my utmost gratitude to Mr. Terrell Jacobs, City Manager in the City of Douglas. Mr. Jacobs welcomed me with open arms and went out of his way to ensure that I had all of the resources I needed to achieve my goal. In addition, he was willing to discuss the challenges I was facing and my goals after obtaining my MPA. Additionally, Charlie Davis, Ernie Crussell, Anthony Kirkland, Joyce Taylor and all of their respective staffs with the City of Douglas were instrumental in gathering the information, data, and documents that I needed to produce this document. Gratitude, also, to Mayor Jackie Wilson for her hospitality and graciousness. I would be amiss not to acknowledge Dr. Joe Whorton and Ms. Becky Taylor, the instructor and GMA representative respectively, in the local government practicum. Both were supportive in helping me achieve my goals, beneficial in helping me hone the scope of this project, and always ready and willing to lend an ear to hear out problems and challenges I faced over the course of this project. The final product accomplishes several things: it provides a background of municipal composting, composting in Georgia, and composting in Douglas; it assesses the current state of the city’s composting program; it identifies opportunities the city has to improve the operation; and it identifies a series of recommendations that will allow the city to achieve a new level of excellence in municipal composting. Just as Douglas set the precedent in 1998, there is an opportunity to take the operation to a new level of excellence. I feel privileged to be able to make even the slightest contribution to the city and the program and extend my gratitude to the Georgia Municipal Association for facilitating this relationship and the City of Douglas for their contribution to my professional growth and development and the MPA program at the University of Georgia.

(4)

                                                           

Part A. Background on Douglas, GA Douglas, GA is a full-service city of just over 11,000 residents located in Southeast Georgia. Douglas is the county seat of Coffee County and is a regional center for commerce and industry. The city sits approximately seventy miles north of the Florida border between the cities of Valdosta and Waycross at the intersections of US 441, GA 158, and GA 32. Douglas was established in 1858 on 50 acres of land at the merge of Twenty Mile Creek and Seventeen Mile Creek. It was named for Senator Stephen A. Douglas, Abraham Lincoln’s opponent in the 1860 presidential election. Douglas was chartered as a town in 1895, which corresponded with the arrival of the railroad, and was chartered as a city two years later in 1897. During the 20’s and 30’s, the tobacco market began to boom in the city and in 1927, the state’s first two-year junior college, South Georgia College, opened in the city1. The city witnessed modest population gains from 2000-2007 and represents just over one quarter of the Coffee County population2. Today, Douglas has two areas listed on the National Register of Historic Places: Downtown Douglas Historic District and the Gaskin Avenue historic district, located several blocks east of Downtown. The city is governed by a six-member commission and mayor with day-to-day administration handled by a full-time professional city manager. Douglas is recognized as both a City of Excellence and a Certified City of Ethics by the Georgia Municipal Association, has an active Main Street program, and maintains strong ties with the Douglas-Coffee County Chamber of Commerce3. Part B. Purpose and Scope of Project The Department of Public Administration and Policy at the University of Georgia (under the auspices of the School of Public and International Affairs) offers a “Local Government Practicum” for credit in the Local Government Management specialization in the Masters of Public Administration Program. This Practicum brings together an upper-level MPA student, UGA Faculty Member, Georgia Municipal Association staff member, and GMA Member City. Together, this group designates a particular semester-long project that the student will complete in coordination with the other three participants. All practicum students meet regularly over the course of the semester to discuss progress, challenges, and successes and remain in constant contact with the instructors and city leaders. This business plan for the City of Douglas is a result of work between Tyler Reinagel (UGA MPA Student); Joe Whorton, Ph.D. (UGA Faculty Member); Becky Taylor (GMA Staff Member); and Terrell Jacobs (Douglas City Manager) and his staff. The purpose of this business plan, presented to the City of Douglas, Georgia in December 2008, is to provide a comprehensive background of the setup and first decade of operations of the city’s municipal

 

1 "City of Douglas, GA." State of Georgia - Douglas, GA. State of Georgia. <http://www.douglas.georgia.gov>. 2 "City of Douglas, GA." Mar. 2008. United States Census Bureau. <http://www.census.gov>. 3 Georgia Municipal Association. City Guide. Atlanta, GA, 2008.

(5)

composting project; identify opportunities for improvement; provide business recommendations; and identify marketing opportunities and potential users of the finished product. Part C. Executive Summary In 1994 the city of Douglas, GA began contracting out mulching services for the city’s collected yard debris. Four years later, the city took this a step further and began using the mulched yard debris in conjunction with municipal sludge collected at the city’s wastewater treatment facility to produce compost for distribution and use by the city and its residents. Ten years later, the city continues to utilize this model and has changed very few components of the operation since starting it ten years ago. At this point, Douglas has significantly reduced ties with the Municipal Composting Researchers and trainers at the University of Georgia, continues the mulching contract at significantly increased prices from the early years, and has frequently had an overabundance of finished product that it has been unable to distribute. The city of Douglas, in order to continue the operation, must evaluate the operational components, collection of raw materials, production methods, and distribution goals and techniques of the compost operation to maintain continued success. Part D. Introduction Douglas’ ten year-old composting operation is in need of a breath of life. This includes all aspects of the operation including, but not limited to, operations, collection of raw materials, production of quality compost, and distribution of the finished product. The operation was cutting edge for Georgia municipal solid waste innovations at the time, but has fallen into a rut in which the operation itself is no longer as efficient or effective as it could be, raw materials are no longer being collected in the most appropriate manner for the city and resident benefit, production methods have been detrimental to the quality of the product, and the product is not desirable for significant portions of potential consumers. It is undeniable that the composting operation is a better option – both financially and environmentally – than the alternative of disposing of the raw materials at the landfill/transfer station. At this point, reenergizing the compost project through investment of time, energy, and money will result in long-term savings for the city and a model operation that could be replicated across the state and region. The objective of the project is to identify both short and long-term changes that will improve the overall composting operation, reduce the amount of excess compost produced by the city, provide a beneficial product for residents, and continue to reduce costs for waste disposal and compost production. Though the composting is facilitated by the City of Douglas, there are regional topics that must be addressed for a comprehensive understanding of the project. This includes Coffee County (in which the entirety of the City of Douglas lies), nearby cities, neighboring counties, and municipal/county /private composting operations across the State of Georgia.

(6)

Part E. Background and Analysis I. Municipal Composting Process Municipal Composting takes place largely through the “Windrow Compost” process. At its most rudimentary, it involves creating 200 foot parallel “windrows” that are arranged on a compost pad. These rows are made up of approximately two-thirds “green” material and one-third “brown” material. The specific “recipe” for creating the compost came from experts at the University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences. These windrows are required to reach certain temperatures and obtain certain levels of pathogens to effectively break down the materials and produce the “compost.” To do this, the rows are “turned” on a regular basis (recommended daily) to infuse oxygen and exposure to sunlight and blend the raw materials. This process takes approximately 4-6 weeks for the final product to be produced. Municipal Composting Equipment Potential equipment needs include: Equipment Tasks Front End Loader Materials Handling Tractor Materials Handling, Compost Turner Operation Chipper Initial Particle Reduction Compost Turner Windrow turning Auger Mixer Preparing homogeneous initial mixes, water addition Screens Final Processing Douglas purchased a tractor and turner at the advent of the composting program. These are still used today. The chipping of the incoming “green” materials is currently contracted (costs are evaluated later) and screening does not take place on a regular basis. III. Municipal Composting in Douglas Composting in Douglas Douglas was one of the first cities in the state of Georgia to employ a large-scale municipal composting operation. Nearby cities that currently report a compositing facility to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) are: Waycross (Ware County), Blackshear (Pierce County), Woodbine (Camden County), Brunswick (Glynn County), Tifton (Tift County), McRae (Telfair County), and Dublin (Laurens County). Statewide, there are approximately 80 municipal governments and 15 county governments with composting operations. At its inception, the process was new to the city, to state regulatory bodies, and to public and private organizations that would be affected (either positively or negatively) by the new operation. Most other compost projects in Georgia came about after Douglas, and Douglas has made few alterations to their operation during the ten-years that have elapsed since it began.

(7)

As is the case with new and previously untested projects, there was much to be learned in the process. Among the initial considerations of the composting project are the motivations of the city, identification of a process for composting, setup and continuation costs, and site selection. Motivation and Considerations Until 1994, all yard trimmings coming from Douglas residents were disposed of in the Coffee County landfill. These trimmings include pine straw, leaves, grass clippings, limbs, sticks, trees, etc. The cost accompanying disposal was borne by the city on behalf of its residents. The city attempted an aggressive campaign to get residents to find alternatives to disposing of the yard debris at the landfill. This resulted in less than a 5% reduction. The city then began a mulching operation. In this capacity, the city contracted out the mulching and distributed the mulch to residents free of charge and used it for various city projects for erosion control and ground-cover. The outright purchase of a tub grinder for mulching was rejected at the time and the service was contracted. This contracting practice continues to this day. Another decision that was made at the time was to deliver the finished product to residents at no charge. About 50% of the available mulch was being distributed. Four years later, the city realized it was only distribution roughly half of the mulch that was produced. The city began a search for alternatives to returning to the transfer station and paying the disposal fee. Disposal of municipal sludge is another significant expenditure that was to be targeted by the city. Because of the abundance of mulch, the city needed another method of disposal without returning to the costly transfer station disposal. The push for an alternative was promulgated by the desire to dispose of municipal sludge in an alternative manner, as well. For context in 2008, the disposal fee at the Coffee County Transfer Station for yard debris is $44.65/ton. Douglas’ monthly average intake is approximately 400 tons, resulting in an annual cost of nearly $215,000 for disposal. For the “brown” component of the composting, the city’s cost would be significantly greater. Estimates from city leadership put the annual cost for disposal of this municipal sludge at approximately $1.5M. The resulting compost program would take two items that were being disposed of at a high cost – yard debris and municipal sludge – and would ideally turn them into a desired product – compost. It would yield significant reduction in expenditures to Coffee County at a comparatively low cost. Initial Costs The City of Douglas signed an agreement with the University of Georgia’s Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering in April 1997 to conduct an evaluation and demonstration of alternative disposal mechanisms in the Douglas-Coffee County area. Pleased with the outcome of the evaluation, Douglas purchased an Aeromaster windrow turner, a rubber tire loader, two side discharge trailers, a top dresser, a tractor, and an 11-ton dump truck to begin a full-scale municipal composting operation.

These equipment purchases were strictly for the composting component of the operation. The mulch that was required for the “green” component of the composting would still have to be ground from the green intake, and would continue to be contracted.

Source – City of Douglas, GA

In the initial setup of the composting program a decade ago, the city relegated costs significantly. There were no costs for land, which was already owned by the city along Wendell Sears Road just inside the city limits; grading site preparation, which was completed with adjacent city facilities in years past; office space, as the offices for nearby wastewater treatment facility were utilized; and restrooms, which were available at the adjacent city-owned pistol range site, among others. Skirting these costs and utilizing this site were reasonable and commendable at the time, but as a continuing project with increased forthcoming needs, it is essential that Douglas identify necessary costs and meet them in a timely manner. Without doing such, the current product quality and distribution problems will continue and the future existence of the program will be in jeopardy. The Process Large-scale composting is typically done in one of four ways. Douglas decided to adopt the Windrow Composting technique that lines compost in parallel row that are turned on a regular basis to maintain optimum conditions. This technique requires a site known as a “compost pad” on which the rows are aligned and turning takes place. The city began developing plans for the composting operation in 1997 after realizing that diversification of the use of the mulch was necessary. The result was a series of proposals that gave maximum flexibility to the city in the disposal of these “green” materials without having to spend

(8)

(9)

excess money at the transfer station. In early composting proposals, city leaders developed the following 8 step process that addresses the product from is collection, through production, and finally to the proposed methods of distribution of the finished product: Step 1 Generator(s) place yard trimmings at the street or designated location as determined by

governing authority. Step 2 Yard trimmings are picked up by the governing authority, private contractor or other approved

entity. Step 3 Governing Authority determines appropriate site on which mulch and composting are to be

accomplished. Approval must be granted by appropriate office of Environmental Protection Division of Department of Natural Resources.

Step 4 Other appropriate items are to be delivered to the mulch site, as determined by governing authority.

Step 5 Governing authority must decide whether to self mulch or contract through another governmental agency or private entity.

Step 6 Governing authority must decide what end result shall be used for. 1) Mulch, 2) Compost, or 3)Other.

Step 7 Governing authority must decide best way to dispose of product: 1) Give it away, citizens load; 2) Give it away, governing authority loads for citizens; 3) Sell it, they load; 4) Sell it, governing authority loads for citizens; 5) Bulk delivery to farms, gardeners, etc; 6) Spread on farmland for farmers by governing authority; 7) Spread on farmlands for farmers by private contractor/hauler; 8) Others or any combination of above.

Step 8 Composting decisions now can be made as to what the product needs to be in order to meet Step 7 listed above.

Source: City of Douglas, GA This process governs the way composting has typically been done and will continue to be done in Douglas. Recommendations and considered changes are given to the way individual steps are performed. Initial Site Selection The composting site was placed somewhat adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment facility. This site had previously been utilized as a sod production site for the city. The site was used for mulching operations beginning in the first quarter of 1994. As a result, municipal sludge produced at the facility could be transported easily to the composting site where it was necessary for production. The site of the Douglas Wastewater Treatment Facility is bound on the north by Victor Bray Lane and sits north of a residential development on Wood Valley Drive. The corporate limits of the city extend to the east as far as Wendell Sears Road (which runs directly north-south). The composting facility sits on approximately five acres on the western side of Wendell Sears Road, thereby at the border of Douglas City Limits and Unincorporated Coffee County. More significantly, both the Douglas

Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Douglas Composting Site are located in a portion of the city currently zoned R2 single family residential. A pistol range separates the two facilities, which has proven beneficial in that the use of the restroom prevented construction of a new facility for the site, but is problematic in that it sits directly between the two facilities and vehicles must transgress the range in city vehicles to deliver the sludge. Fortunately, there is a back path that largely allows the vehicle to stay off the public, paved road. At times during and following significant rain, however, this path is flooded and unusable. This remains an addressable obstacle.

Source: City of Douglas, GA

Composting in Douglas Today Having been in active operation for a decade, the municipal composting operation in Douglas has established norms for its operation and by all indications, is comfortable in its current operating procedures. This includes a standard composting “recipe,” awareness of both “green” and “brown” intake, staffing needs, ongoing costs, and distribution of the finished product. As is also the case in long-term and on-going projects such as the compost operation, there is the risk of falling into a rut. Local government and all of its functions are, at their core, business operations. Consequently, it is critical that local governments strive to provide the best product and service possible through methods of continuous improvement. There are several issues that Douglas has been made aware of and addressed in recent years, and many more that should be thoughtfully considered and addressed by city leadership. Current Recipe The compost recipe used by Douglas is two-thirds green material (the ground mulch from contracting services) and one-third brown material (delivered from the adjacent wastewater treatment facility). The green material is currently stored for up to three months on site after being ground and before being combined with the brown component in the windrows. Windrows are approximately 200 yards long, six feet wide, and three feet high. The Douglas composting site holds 9-11 windrows at any one time. The windrows are constructed with 2.5 feet of green material on the base, 1.5 feet of brown

(10)

material dumped by the side discharge trailers, topped by an additional 2 feet of green material. After compilation, the rows are “turned” to mix and infuse oxygen into the compost. This turning continues regularly throughout the process. Public Works “Green” Collections

The two basic components of the composting operation are the two-thirds “green” and one-third “brown.” The green component is coming from two primary sources. The first of these is municipal pickup being managed by the Public Works Department. A month’s worth of pickups is illustrated below:

Douglas Public Works "Green" Pickup: 1 September-22 October 2008

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

9/2/08

9/9/08

9/16/0

8

9/23/0

8

9/30/0

8

10/7/

08

10/14

/08

10/21

/08

Tota

l Pou

nds

Source – City of Douglas, GA

This sample six-week period is very scattered, with a norm of approximately 35,000 pounds (17.5 tons) per day. Interviews with city leaders indicate that, aside from periods immediately following storms that produce more debris; this amount is typical throughout the year. It is important to note that this amount only applies to pickups done by city public works. The compost pad accepts drop-offs of materials free of charge, which approximately doubles the total amount of green product. Public Works “Brown” Collections While the yard trimmings represent 2/3 of the compost recipe being used today, the brown component represents the other third. The municipal sludge is collected at the Douglas Wastewater Treatment facility (accessible to compost pad via path behind city-owned pistol range).

(11)

Source – City of Douglas, GA

As this two-year window indicates, there are no seasonal trends that follow brown intake, either. There are peaks at different periods during both year and no replicated trend. The brown material is gathered at the wastewater treatment facility and transported via unpaved path to the compost pad where the city-owned side loaders dump the material onto the entire length of the windrow. Current Grinding Contract Since the mulching of yard trimmings began in the mid-1990s, the city has used contract labor to do the mulching. The standard has been that this contractor would bring the mulching equipment to the mulching site/composting pad and performs the work on-site. This is done, on average, once per quarter and the resulting grindings are stored on-site until they are ready to be formed into windrows. Between the grinding and mixing stages, there is ample opportunity for moisture to be lost (often several months), which is vital to achieving the needed level of heat. This contract arrangement prevents the city from having the work performed on an as-needed basis and is ultimately a costly expenditure to which viable alternatives have not thoroughly been explored by the city. Current Staffing Currently, the city maintains two full time employees on the site that were assigned to the operation under the auspices of Water/Wastewater Treatment. There was no new staffing included as a part of the program. These positions fall under the auspices of wastewater treatment (similar to the permitting of the composting operation). According to the University of Georgia School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (and by their own admission), the City of Douglas has not been engaged in ongoing training, conferences, and meetings regarding composting operations that are conducted by the University regularly. The creation of the initial composting recipe and operation was the most significant portion of the University’s involvement and on-going costs might not have been deemed necessary or viable at the time – a decision that has lingered for the remainder of the past decade.

(12)

Compost Distribution An insight that came early in the program’s history is that “it appears that most of the usage is in horticulture and not agriculture.” In fact, estimates put non-agricultural use of Douglas produced compost at over 90%.

Douglas Compost Distribution - January 2000

70%

30%

Coffee County Residences Douglas City Residences/City Use

Source: City of Douglas, GA Costs Expenses for the composting operation have come from the city’s Sanitation Enterprise Fund for the entirety of the project’s existence (52.2112). The two charts below demonstrate the budget v. actual expenditures for this line item in the enterprise budget. The first includes the FY immediately preceding implementation of the program, while the latter excludes that same FY. It is evident by the first that the composting operation is a significant saver for the city compared to the previous operating procedure. The second, however, indicates that since the composting operation began, there have been significant fluctuations in both budgeted and annual expenditures from this budget line.

Source: City of Douglas, GA *FY08 Figures are not audited **FY09 in progress

(13)

A second budget line relates directly the mulching component. Because mulching was taking place four years earlier than composting, there is no pre/post comparison to be made on this budget line. As stated earlier, the current method for mulching the incoming green components (both those picked by Public Works and those dropped off at the composting pad) is contract labor. The contractor brings equipment and labor to mulch on a quarterly basis. According to the Douglas Finance Department, these services are funded completely by account 52.2113 Sanitation Enterprise Fund. The below chart demonstrates budgeted v. actual spending on this budget line over the past 12 fiscal years. The increase in both budgeted and actual expenditures is well-defined.

Source: City of Douglas, GA *FY08 Figures are not audited **FY09 in progress Until FY07, compost funding was strictly from the Sanitation Enterprise Fund. Beginning with FY07, The Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund began contributing funds to the Sanitation fund. V. Shortfalls in Continued Operations Product Quality The most pressing issue facing Douglas is the quality of the product being produced. This can be directly impacted by three changes. First is a finer green product in the input. The contractor is currently utilizing a four-inch chipper once per quarter. Reducing the size of the chips will result in a finer product. By empowering city officials to chip on an as-needed basis, the green material will be able to retain much of the moisture that is lost as it sits for month at a time. The retained moisture will ease the heating in the windrows. Second is the turning frequency. The more frequent the turning, the less odor and the more quality the composting process. The third is the screening process, which takes place at the conclusion of the composting, quite literally screens out the “chunkier” pieces of compost. Consequently, there is a finer product that is more desirable for backyard gardens or flower pots. Staff Training and Development From its origin, the relationship with the University of Georgia was treated as a one-time expense. Project management from the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at the University was budgeted at approximately $28,500 and specifically treated as a one-time cost. This decision was

(14)

(15)

very shortsighted on the part of the city, as with any science, there are new innovations, ongoing training, and networking opportunities that will result in better equipped employees, a higher quality product, and ultimately a sufficient demand to warrant continuing the program and providing the finished compost. Discussions with the School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at the University of Georgia revealed that Douglas had not been sending staff members to the on-going training programs at the University. This could be attributable to costs, institutional history on the part of the city, or a belief that Douglas employees had all the training/skills thought required to perform their duties and produce an acceptable product. Whatever the reason may be/have been for not continuing involvement with the University of Georgia, it is a distancing that has remained in place for the last decade. The most recent training that was conducted by UGA was a three-day workshop that addressed topics ranging from the composting process and compost pile recipes to product quality and odor (Appendix C). In workshops conducted by the University’s Cooperative Extension Service, 98% of participants report “good” and “excellent” ratings. These sessions facilitated by the University of Georgia bring a sense of collaboration, a wealth of knowledge, and culture of continuous improvement that has fallen by the wayside in Douglas’ municipal composting operation. Permitting When the city began its composting operation ten years ago, the State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) was arranged so that permitting for the project was administered by the Water branch of the organization. Since that time, the EPD has rearranged the organization so that solid waste permitting (including sludge) is handled by the Land Protection Branch of the EPD. At this point, new applications and permits statewide are being handled and issued by the Land Protection Branch. While there is no problem with the existing permit held by the city, it would be advantageous to apply for a new permit based on the current EPA arrangement. This issue is neither pressing nor problematic for continued operation, but will allow Douglas to align its operation with state norms. Recent Issues In recent years, the composting operation has become slightly more problematic. In a February 2007 correspondence from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the city was advised of a violation of the Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control. “Specifically,” the letter read, “this violation is for stockpiling over fifty loads of composted sludge on top of an old City inert landfill near the wastewater treatment facilities.” The abundance of the final compost product and the lack of distribution caught the eye of state officials and was becoming increasingly problematic at this point in 2007. Later that year, in their May 2007 Draft “Coffee County 2007-2027 Comprehensive Plan Update - Community Agenda for the City of Douglas,” Jordan, Jones, and Goulding recommended removing selling compost from the community facilities plan, citing it as being “not feasible” for continuation. While this reiterates the problem facing the composting operation, this recommendation is short-sighted in that it does not provide a solution for disposal of yard debris or municipal sludge. The ultimate cost of discontinuing the program altogether will be significantly greater than the immediate investment in improving the quality of the product and initiating an aggressive marketing campaign.

(16)

The same month, the Board of Commissioners addressed the distribution of compost during a budget work session. In regard to the sanitation fund (which will be addressed at length), the need for a method of disposing compost was identified. While it was noted that the city “will seek to tighten our efforts to keep in compliance,” the root of the problem was not explored or identified. The threat of fines has been made by DNR. In the violation letter from February 2007, Jim Harris, Program Manager for the Coastal District Office, advises that “any future documentation by the Division that the City is improperly handling sludge may result in further enforcement action, including but not limited to, monetary penalties.” The question has also been raised as to whether or not the sludge being produced by city is of “Class A” standards as determined by the Environmental Protection Administration of the United States Government. The regulations surrounding this question are found in part 503 of that organization’s code. Inasmuch, there are maximum limits for metals permissible (see below) in Class A Sludge and the expectation of no pathogens in the sludge as it comes off the belt (prior to mixing with “green” material).

Metals Limits for Class A Biosolids Pollutant concentration limits from the U.S. EPA Part 503 regulations. Biosolids with metals concentrations below these limits should not accumulate to levels that would pose health risks. POLLUTANT MONTHLY AVERAGE

CONCENTRATION (MG/KG) Arsenic 41 Cadmium 39 Copper 1500 Lead 300 Mercury 17 Nickel 420 Selenium 100 Zinc 2800

Source: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service and School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Based on monthly reports produced by the city, the pathogen levels are low, but not at the level of non-existence dictated for Class A standards. Further, the metal levels frequently exceed the concentrations set forth as the Class A standard. While these qualifications do no prevent Douglas from utilizing the sludge in the compost, it limits the uses of the sludge and requires a higher level of permitting and restrictions from environmental authorities at higher levels of government. In identifying methods of achieving the Class A status, Douglas should refer to United States Code, Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 503, Section 32 (Appendix G). This section provides for 8 methods of achieving Class A status. The city should partner with wastewater treatment employees, experts from the University of Georgia or other institutions, and city leadership to identify the most feasible of these methods. It is and will remain in Douglas’ best interest to achieve this Class A status and remove the permitting and restrictions currently in place on their sludge. It will also help increase the quality and marketability of the finished compost.

(17)

Site Needs The most rudimentary problems facing the current compost production include inadequate size, access, and location of the compost pad site. Not only is it separated from the wastewater treatment facility by a pistol range, it is also criticized by University of Georgia officials for being too small for the needs. UGA researchers estimate the size of the site at five acres, where the norm for this scope of a project is seven-to-eight acres. Site visits make the need for more space evident, as the rows are tightly packed, an abundance of yard clippings to be mulched, equipment being stored, and finished product on standby for pickup. Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Douglas has successfully integrated the composting facility with the wastewater treatment facility. Even though the two are not directly adjacent to one another, they are largely accessible without transporting sludge onto public, paved roads. Constant access, regardless of weather conditions, should be a consideration of the city for continued operations at the current site. This consideration should be made regardless of the timeline for a new site. As the city begins serious consideration of a new wastewater treatment facility to meet growing need, an eight acre site for composting should be included as a component of this capital improvement. Consideration of Neighbors Because of the problems that Douglas encountered with unincorporated Coffee County neighbors throughout the upstart in 1998, it is critical that the city explore options outside and away from land currently zoned residential, institutional, and commercial. Distribution Douglas has made the finished compost readily available to anyone who desires to take it. It has been made available at the compost pad free of charge. To date, there has not been an aggressive marketing campaign, effort to give a perceived public value to the product, or an effort to bring the product to the people (i.e. through home delivery). Equipment Currently, the city owns a side discharge trailer for distributing brown material into the windrows, a turner that straddles the rows, and a tractor to tow the turner. Noticeably missing from this inventory are a chipper and screener. The former is currently contracted out (at significantly increasing cost to the city) and the latter has never been used. Exploring other arrangements is critical to moving forward and increasing product quality. Part F. Recommendations Recommendations provided to the City of Douglas in this report fall into four different and chronological categories: 1) operational; 2) raw material collection; 3) mulch and compost production; and 4) distribution of finished product.

(18)

The first of these areas, future production needs, will be addressed first. Among the components of continued production that should be addressed are intake, mulching, compost recipe, equipment, the city’s infrastructure, and involvement with the University of Georgia. Consumption will require the city to think about its target customer(s). The final series of recommendations – those related to distribution - will be eased by a higher quality product and will enable the city to develop a comprehensive marketing campaign that is sustainable over a period of time. I. Operational Involvement with University of Georgia Douglas must make a concerted effort to re-engage with the University of Georgia. This involves sending both city leaders and manual laborers to training programs and conferences at the University; incenting professional growth and skill development; and working collaboratively with University researchers to bring new innovations and continual improvement to the project. EPD Permitting Changes The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has rearranged its solid waste permitting since Douglas applied for and received its permit in 1998. In the reorganization, this process was shifted to the Land Protection Branch of the organization. While there are no negative consequences to maintaining the current permit, it would be in Douglas’ best interest to complete the Land Protection Branch permit application and remaining on the forefront of state municipal compost procedures and regulations. Financing The current arrangement of financing the composting operation involves the Water/Sewer and Sanitation Enterprise Funds. In recent years, transfers have taken place between the two funds to compensate for the split costs. City leaders need to evaluate the current methods of funding and work with the Finance Director to structure the funding and expenditures to ensure that these are being handled in the most appropriate and transparent manner possible. Sludge Management Plan Cities and Counties in Georgia that utilize sludge-producing wastewater treatment facilities are required to have a sludge management plan on file with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Because of the change in leadership in Douglas in recent years, the initial Sludge Management Plan (that was likely filed in conjunction with the beginning of composting operations in 1998) cannot be located. Similarly, EPD officials have acknowledged that they are unable to locate the document either in their Atlanta offices or at the district office that serves Douglas and Coffee County in Brunswick. In June 2006, the EPD released a document entitled “Guidelines for Preparation of Sludge Management Plan.” This five-page document provides the guidance and norms for the plan’s contents and purpose. The Douglas officials that contributed to this research have been with the city since June 2006, and all indicated an awareness that the Sludge Management Report exists, but none had contributed to it. This indicates that the existing report is not in compliance with the June 2006 guidelines set forth by EPD.

(19)

Therefore, it would be advantageous of Douglas to develop a new Sludge Management Plan by the standards set forth in the June 2006 document (Appendix H) in coordination with the EPD district office in Brunswick to meet the city’s current sludge production/disposal needs, remain in accordance with EPD guidelines, and provide a comprehensive course of action for future sludge issues. “Class A” Sludge It is in the city’s best long-term interest to being producing Class A Sludge in a timely manner. This classification is outlined in USC Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 503. To achieve this goal, the city should convene those employees most familiar with the wastewater treatment process and testing; experts in the field, most likely from the University of Georgia School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences; and city leadership that would be responsible for both approving and funding any changes in sludge production. Changes in production (particularly those changes that will require significant investment) should be considered with the capital investment of a new/supplementary treatment facility in mind. If the timeline for the new facility will be short, significant investment at the existing facility might not be a reasonable expenditure. However, if the timeline will be lengthy, this is an investment the city should make for reduced regulation on usage, elimination of many permitting obstacles, and creation of a higher quality and more marketable finished compost product. New Wastewater Treatment Facility Coordination In conversations with Douglas officials, it is evident that there is emerging consideration for a new wastewater treatment facility. The current facility is nearing capacity and there is little room/interest in expanding the existing facility on the east side of the city. One of the primary criticisms that have emerged from the current composting operation is site selection. Not only is the current site considered too small by municipal composting standards (4.5 acres with a typical need of 7-8 acres), but the city has also received numerous complaints from neighboring Coffee County residents regarding the odor after beginning the operation. As Douglas begins preliminary work with consultants to identify the needs and potential sites for a replacement/complimentary wastewater treatment facility, a more suitable composting site should be treated as a component of the project. Potential sites that address the current slate of needs are identified in Appendix E. As tipping and disposal fees indicate, composting will continue to be the most cost-effective way for Douglas to address its’ “green” and “brown” waste problems. The city, however, must give the composting operation the resources it needs to recreate its initial success in the late 1990’s and identify ways to make the program increasingly cost effective. Improvements on path connecting existing wastewater treatment facility and compost pad Regardless of the timeline or location for the new wastewater treatment facility, immediate improvements should be made to the path connecting the existing facility and existing compost pad. During periods of inclement weather, the path is not usable and transport of the municipal sludge is taking place on Old Nichols Road to the compost pad.

(20)

Improvements on this path should be made in a timely manner to prevent any potential legal recourse from the state or federal government for the transport of the sludge, prevention of any spill or accident of the sludge on the public roadway, and safety of employees that use the path on a regular basis in a variety of weather conditions. II. Collection “Green” Intake The two basic components of the composting operation are the two-thirds “green” and one-third “brown.” The green component is coming from two primary sources. As mentioned earlier, the first of these is municipal pickup being managed by the Public Works Department. The second source of “green” intake is contractors and other operators who make deliveries to the compost site off of Wendell Sears Road. These deliveries have typically been taken free of charge double the total green intake at the site. There is no documentation of where the product was coming from, or whether those making the delivery were city or non-city residents. In order to provide both a modest increase in revenue and curb some of the non-city deliveries (and subsequently reduce the excess compost being produces), the city should consider a fee structure for deliveries to the site. Since city pickups are made by city employees, there would be no charge for this intake. The charge would come strictly from deliveries of green materials to the site and would impact non-city residents/businesses. Currently, the Coffee County Transfer Station charges $44.65/ton for yard debris. It is possible for the city to realize modest revenue increases, maintain a healthy level of green intake from these external sources, and remain a viable alternative to green dumping at the Coffee County Transfer Station. This is achievable through a charge of approximately $20/ton for intake. Statewide, a University of Georgia report indicates that tipping fees for materials brought to the site trended $2-$38/ton in 2002. Since the closest competitor to Douglas is well over $40 in 2008, this is a reasonable charge for the city to assess to site delivered yard trimmings. Per conversations with city employees, it would be advisable to institute an emergency waiver clause that would go into effect after storms that would result in substantial emergency intake. Previous emergency situations have resulted in revenue from FEMA to cover any additional expenditure. Purchase and Installation of vehicular scale In order to appropriately charge those making “green drops” at the mulching/composting site, it will be necessary to measure the amount of material being dropped. This can be achieved by weighing the vehicle as it enters the site (with material) and again as it departs the site (without the material) and charging based on the difference of weight (the amount that was dropped). This process will require the purchase and installation of a vehicular scale. The total cost for purchase and installation of a scale would be approximately $40,000 for a scale with a ten year life. III. Production Production Schedule

(21)

Based on the journal EcoCycle, “ideally, the windrows could have benefited from a more intense turning frequency, albeit more costly from an incremental labor and overhead point of view.” Douglas should consider increasing the turning schedule as a part of the effort to improve the quality of the final product – an issue that is at the core of the distribution obstacle. Bidding for Mulching There is no indication that the city ever issued a competitive bid for the mulching process. It is possible that a competitive bid could result in a lower price, finer mulch, or more frequent mulching – all of which would be beneficial in the process. For the city to move forward on any potential equipment purchases, it would be advantageous to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for this process and have a full understanding of the possibilities and current contract equity. In order to ensure that Douglas is executing the mulching component of the composting process in the most efficient and effective way, having a competitive bid will provide better context for the charges and extent of the services provided Adoption of a Screening Process In addition to the mulching process, the city should issue a second RFP for screening. This will serve a similar purpose, namely giving Douglas leadership a more thorough understanding of the actual cost of the process. With this understanding, the city will be better equipped to make a quality decision about how to pursue screening for a significantly higher quality product City Equipment Purchase

After receiving bids for mulching and screening, the Douglas needs to solicit bids for mulching and screening equipment. Dependent on the results of these offers for outright purchase, it is possible that a cost-benefit analysis will indicate a higher level of cost-efficiency for outright purchase of equipment and use by city employees. There are two important considerations to make in an equipment purchase. The first involves additional costs. These costs would come in the form of routine maintenance, fuel, and labor. Maintenance and diesel fuel are unavoidable costs. Because the chipper and screener must both be “fed” with the product they are processing, it is necessary for human resources to do the “feeding.” This labor intensive job would be costly for the city, and ideal for inmate labor to perform. Should the city purchase one or both pieces of equipment (in addition to another purchase mentioned in regard to distribution in Section D) debate and decisions should involve input from the Coffee County Sherriff and Court Administrations regarding the viability and availability of inmate labor for these tasks. Added costs would come in the form of fuel, maintenance, repairs, and labor, but the city would have greater flexibility in timing of mulching, quantity of mulching, grade of product, and the ability to provide mulching services for outside clients for a fee (role reversal from current arrangement).

IV. Distribution The final set of recommendations relates to distribution of the final product. This includes institution of a rate schedule and minimal charges for the finished product, identification of potential consumers and markets, and coordination of a marketing campaign.

(22)

Identification of Potential Markets and Users While direct sales of the finished product to small scale (individual) users would be possible from the composting site (both existing and considered in future), it would be more advantageous of the city to explore commercial sales. This would bring the product (and thus familiarity, confidence, and loyalty) to a wider scope of users. If the city cultivates healthy working relationships with area nurseries, there is an increased sense of community pride, an increased speed at which the finished compost product is rotated, and an opportunity for revenue for the city. Among the potential commercial buyers are: Harpers Nursery 6811 Ga Highway 32 W # 24 Douglas, GA (912) 384-1080

Sunbelt Greenhouses 200 Thompson Dr Douglas, GA (912) 384-3806

Carroll’s Nursery 2308 McKinnon Rd Douglas, GA (912) 384-5553

Plants Plus 802 Iron Rd Douglas, GA (912) 384-0870

Deep South Growers 1535 Harvey Vickers Rd Douglas, GA (912) 384-5450

Lewis’s Nursery 184 Lois Ln Alma, GA (912) 632-4069

Simmons Tree Farm 545 Snipesville Rd Denton, GA (912) 375-7520

Pricing One of the strongest considerations that should be made is regarding the cost of the finished product. There is no cost for the raw materials (yard trimmings and municipal sludge), but there are costs associated with marketing, production, equipment, and labor. As has been demonstrated consistently since its implementation, the compost operation is a money saver for the City of Douglas against the alternative. Thus, it intuitively makes no sense to charge for the product. From a marketing perspective, however, this is problematic because the general public has no perceived value in the product because the City is not assigning a quantitative value to the product. The city can combat this lack of perceived value from prospective customers by assigning minimal cost to the product. By paying for the product, users will perceive value in the product. Based on 2000 data produced by the city, approximately 70% of those acquiring the finished product are non-city residents. While the city’s first concern and priority in distribution should be its own residents, this number indicates a high demand for the product outside of the city. As a result, the non-city resident rate schedule will be used more regularly and result in greater sales revenue for the city. The industry norm for garden shops carrying 1 ½ cubic foot bags of compost is $4/bag. The proposed rate schedule still offers product at a substantial discount to the consumer, offers a perceived value in the product, and provides the city with a modest increase in revenue.

(23)

City of Douglas Residents Non-City of Douglas Residents Mulch (1-5 Bags) 1.00/Bag 1.50/Bag Mulch (5-10 Bags) 0.75/Bag 1.25/Bag Mulch (10-20 Bags) 0.50/Bag 1.00/Bag Mulch (20+Bags) 0.25/Bag 0.75/Bag Compost (1-5 Bags) 1.50/Bag 2.00/Bag Compost (5-10 Bags) 1.25/Bag 1.75/Bag Compost (10-20 Bags) 1.00/Bag 1.50/Bag Compost (20+Bags) 0.75/Bag 1.00/Bag

Truckload Mulch (Standard Pickup, Unbagged)

5.00 8.00

Truckload Compost (Standard Pickup, Unbagged)

7.00 10.00

Home Delivery (Bags) 2.00 per house, per drop

As a city operation, Douglas should still maintain an interest in providing the most efficient and effective service to city residents. It is still critical that city residents have the perceived value established by a rate structure, but it is wholly unfair to provide the same product at the same cost to non-city residents. As such, any rate structure should include a distinction between city and non-city residents giving the fiscal benefit to the city residents who are paying taxes to the city government. A proposed rate structure is seen above.

Marketing The final set of recommendations relates to marketing opportunities for the finished compost. As with any product, it will be necessary for the city to market to potential buyers. Marketing provides an opportunity for the City to work closely with Coffee County students who express interest in business administration and, in particular, marketing. Douglas has several options for the marketing component of the re-vitalized composting operation. The first option is to enter into a contract with a marketing firm that would handle all components of the project. The second, and more community-desirable, is to engage local students who have an interest, enthusiasm, and creativity necessary for marketing in the project. This would not only reduce costs for the City of Douglas, but it would also provide local students with personal and professional development necessary for their future success. Douglas is fortunate in that there are several options for this community involvement – Coffee County High School, South Georgia College, and the University of Georgia. Once the product quality is improved and target consumers are identified, Douglas has the opportunity to do outreach with local students and educators to develop their professional skills in marketing and agri-business, while reaping the benefits of a comprehensive marketing campaign. Coffee County High School, as the only high school in the county, serves Douglas’ entire population

(24)

and using this resource will raise awareness and brand recognition of the improved product that will be critical to its successful distribution. The primary point of contact at the Coffee County School District is: Ms. Joann Danna Professional Learning Coordinator Coffee County School District 1311 South Peterson Avenue Douglas, Georgia 31533 912.720.9981 jdanna@coffee.k12.ga.us Another option for involvement of local students is engaging students in the business program at South Georgia College. The Division of Business and Social Sciences at the two-year college allows students to pursue an Associate’s Degree in Business Administration, from which many students continue to receive their Bachelor’s Degree in business fields, including marketing. It would be advantageous for both parties to initiate a working relationship on the project. Douglas would reap the benefits of well-trained students for a well-coordinated marketing plan for awareness and sale of its improved product. Students at SGC would have the opportunity to work collaboratively on a project, build their personal portfolio and resume, and see the impact of their work in their school’s hometown. To accomplish this relationship with South Georgia College, city leadership should coordinate their marketing needs and approach faculty leadership at Coffee County High School and/or South Georgia College to begin work on the project.

The points of contact at the South Georgia College Business Program are: Dr. Rick Reiman Division Chair of Business and Social Sciences South Georgia College 100 West College Park Drive Douglas, GA 31533 912.260.4248 rick.reiman@sgc.edu

Dr. Yuna Chen Associate Professor of Economics South Georgia College 100 West College Park Drive Douglas, GA 31533 912.260.4251 Yuna.chen@sgc.edu

Ms. Kelly Waldron Assistant Professor of Business South Georgia College 100 West College Park Drive Douglas, GA 31533 912.260.4257 Kelly.Waldron@sgc.edu

Though the University of Georgia is, itself, 200 miles away from Douglas, the university provides two resources that would be beneficial to Douglas’ revitalized operation. The University’s Small Business Development Center (SBDC) in Valdosta provides consulting services that perform a variety of services for small businesses, including the creation of marketing strategies

(25)

and advertising campaigns. These centers also work with small businesses in their respective regions to connect local businesses with local, state, and federal government agencies for business. The SBDC could help “bridge the gap” between Douglas and many local small businesses that may have use for the product. This will allow Douglas to tap previously untapped business opportunities and unload the improved product at a faster pace. The points of contact at the University Of Georgia SBDC, Valdosta is: Ms. Rose Ware 229.245.3738 rvware@valdosta.edu Ms. Suzanne Barnett 229.245.3739 sbarnett@valdosta.edu Mr. Scott Manley 229.249.2724 scmanley@valdosta.edu Small Business Development Center Harley Langdale, Jr. College of Business Administration Valdosta State University 1500 North Patterson Street Valdosta, GA 31698-0077 Because of the existing (and ultimately reenergized) relationship with the University of Georgia’s Cooperative Extension Service and College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, it is intuitive to engage the Terry College of Business Marketing Department in the project as well. Coffee County Schools and South Georgia College lack many of the resources held by the University of Georgia, such as a larger student body from which to recruit, students in more advanced coursework, and a more specialized faculty that can provide the advising needed to successfully complete the campaign. The main drawbacks are the distance from Douglas and the lack of direct involvement with Douglas and Coffee County students. The primary point of contact at the University of Georgia Marketing Department is: Charlotte Mason Department Head Department of Marketing Terry College of Business University of Georgia 133 Brooks Hall Athens, GA 30602-6258 706.542.3776 cmason@terry.uga.edu

Bagging of Product Douglas has adopted a passive approach to distribution of the final compost product. The product has been typically stored within the confines of the 4.5 acre composting site and made available for pick-up as is. With the anticipated improvements made to the quality of the final product through better mulching/screening procedures, the product will be more desirable to individual users looking to fill

(26)

                                                           

backyard gardens, flowerpots, and other household plants. Once the existence of this product is realized by the general public, there will be a corresponding increase in demand in comparatively small quantities. The City of Douglas should consider purchasing an industrial sized bagging machine and ten-gallon bags to distribute product to this new market. This bagging technique would include both mulch and compost and give Douglas the opportunity to develop brand recognition and confidence through custom-printed bags, ease of access, and quality of product. As a part of the initial marketing campaign, Douglas produced a flyer that gave product information and directions for use. This would be beneficial to include on the custom printed bags (Appendix F). This, too, will require an investment by the city. According to BioCycle, a publication in which the city’s program has been featured, depending on what the ultimate needs of the city are, it should be expected to require $35,000-$60,000. This investment will draw the interest of homeowners who may not have had access to a means of transportation, individuals who did not have interest in large quantities of compost, or large scale users who could not get dump trucks to certain areas. This is a previously untapped market that Douglas would have access to with this one-time investment4. Home Delivery As it exists today, compost must be picked up at the compost pad or special arrangements made to have the product delivered. If the city arranged for product (ideally in the bagged form) to be delivered to city residents who “order” it and are billed through existing city processes, there is likely to be an increased demand for the product. This would include arranging the logistics of the operation, assigning zones for delivery comparable to existing pick-up arrangements, advertising the service through existing means of communication such as mail inserts, and coordinating billing at the recommended charge of $2 per residence, per drop. This is added to the cost of the product, but is constant regardless of the size of the order. The convenience of this service would increase the level of service to residents, increase revenue for the operation, and increase the ability of the city to keep product rotating quickly. XI. Summary of Recommendations

A. Operations

1. Reengage with the University of Georgia’s College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences. While the basic premise and technique of large scale municipal composting may remain the same over time, new technology and innovation, idea sharing, and refocused energy will produce a better trained and more motivated staff and ultimately a better product. An investment by the city in training and professional development through programs like those offered by UGA is for the benefit and continued operation of the composting program.

 

4 Goldstein, Nora. "Expanding Markets with Bagged Product." BioCycle 47 (2006): 58.

(27)

2. Apply for permit through EPD’s Land Protection Division. The current permit held by the city predates the EPA’s organizational adjustment to include all solid waste permitting in the Land Protection Division. While neither pressing nor problematic, this new permit will align Douglas with statewide norms.

3. Convene the Public Works Director, Water Treatment Director, and Finance Director to devise a more equitable and efficient method of funding compost activities. Developing a thorough understanding of all costs (both financial and labor) will allow all affected departments and city leaders to make an informed decision regarding future adjustments, reductions, increases, or one-time costs in program expenditures.

4. Develop a Sludge Management Plan. While it is likely that an initial Sludge Management Plan was filed with the Georgia EPD, neither the City of Douglas nor the EPD (Brunswick or Atlanta Offices) were able to locate the document. Lack of awareness of what the document prescribes indicates that it is likely not being adhered to. Furthermore, the guidelines for preparing this document were revised in June 2006. It would be advantageous for the city to develop a revised Sludge Management Plan in coordination with the EPD district office in Brunswick to meet the city’s current sludge production/disposal needs, remain in accordance with EPD guidelines, and provide a comprehensive course of action for future sludge issues.

5. Identify best method for achieving Class A sludge requirements. To increase the

quality and marketability of the final product, as well as to remove restrictions and permitting requirements currently in place, the city should review USC Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 503 for requirements of Class A sludge. It is in the city’s best long-term interest to achieve this goal in a timely manner.

6. Make improvements to the path connecting the wastewater treatment facility and

the composting site. Regardless of the timeline for the replacement/supplementary wastewater treatment facility and compost site, the existing path connecting the current facility and compost pad should be improved so as to be usable during all weather conditions and avoid transport on the public roadway.

7. Include a 7-8 acre compost pad and mulching site as a non-negotiable, adjacent

part of future wastewater treatment facility plans. For the mulching and composting operation to continue to thrive there must be room to expand. As it stands, the site is small by statewide standards and limits the ability of the city to store equipment, supplies, windrows, and finished product.

B. Collection

1. Charge a tipping fee of $20/ton for delivery of yard trimmings to site. Include a waiver for emergency situations (as determined by Mayor and Council) and continue curbside pickup at no charge for residents. Based on estimates from city staff, this delivered green amounts to approximately 17 tons/day. At this rate, the city would collect approximately $350/day or $91,000/year over the course of 260 operating days annually.

(28)

2. Purchase and Install a vehicular scale. In order to get an accurate tipping fee for those dropping their “green” material, it will be necessary to weigh the vehicle as it enters and as it departs, and charge the difference in weight. The cost of this (including installation) will be approximately $40,000 for a scale with a ten-year lifetime.

C. Production

1. Maintain a strict turning schedule. By taking shortcuts in favor of labor, fuel, or other operational cost reductions, the quality of the product is suffering. The primary focus of the composting operation should be increasing the quality of the product and maintaining the highest production standards is critical to achieving that goal.

2. Solicit bids from other potential contractors for the mulching process. This process

would ensure that the city is performing this essential task in the most cost-effective way.

3. Solicit bids from contractors that could potentially assume the “screening”

component of production. This will produce a finer, more desirable product for users and is currently not being done by the city in any capacity. Demonstrations have already been conducted by potential vendors and the difference in product quality is defined.

4. Solicit bids from multiple companies for outright purchase of different packages of

equipment. Potential companies that have sold in Georgia include Vermeer, PowerScreen, and ScreenUSA. Two primary needs if this option is employed are a chipper/shredder and screener. Should the city purchase this equipment outright, there is an added cost of fuel, maintenance, and labor. While the first two are unavoidable, the city should work closely with the Coffee County Sherriff’s Department and Court System to arrange for inmates to conduct the labor intensive “feeding” of the new equipment.

D. Distribution

1. Identify and penetrate potential users and markets. This includes, but is not limited to, FFA or other agricultural organizations in the city/county/school district; special events at the Central Square Complex; and activities organized by the Ag Council of the Douglas-Coffee County Chamber of Commerce.

2. Institute a pricing grid for distribution. While this would produce modest revenue

for the city, profit is not the primary purpose. Rather, when users pay for the product (no matter how little the cost), there is a perceived value in the product. When the finished compost is distributed gratis, it is viewed as worthless. This rate schedule should offer bulk discounts and should distinguish city and non-city residents.

3. Develop a list of marketing needs and reach out to local schools (Coffee County

High School and South Georgia College) to provide practicum opportunities for students who have expressed interest in business, marketing, agriculture, and other fields in which developing and implementing a compost marketing plan would be beneficial for both the city and their professional development.

4. Implement a bagging component to both the mulch and compost. This would

require soliciting bids/quotes on bagging equipment and custom printed bags. This will give the city the opportunity to provide bagged mulch and compost for small-scale residential use and develop brand recognition across the region. Bags of finished product can be made available both at the composting site and other local nurseries/garden shops. Investment in a bagging machine will likely run $35,000-$60,000 and custom printed bags will run $0.10-$0.15 each, with greater discounts for greater quantity. The labor involved with the bagging process, like the mulching process above, can be conducted by Coffee County inmates as facilitated between the city and Coffee County criminal justice offices.

5. Arrange a pilot of a home delivery program. By using existing city capabilities, the

city can coordinate, market, and bill for delivery of higher quality bagged compost to city residents. Douglas residents win by receiving the product delivered to their home at an incredibly low cost. City leaders win by being able to improve services to residents, modestly increasing revenue, and rotating product quickly.

Part G. Cost Summary Throughout this series of recommendations and possible scenarios for disposal of the “green” and “brown” inputs, there are savings currently being realized, an opportunity for significant savings that could be realized, opportunities for modest revenue, and several costs that will empower the city and improve the product being produced. The following charts outline specific costs, savings, and revenue sources. A full 10-year Cost/Benefit Analysis is also provided (Appendix I).

(29)

(30)

A. Potential New Costs Expenditure One-

Time/Recurring Unit Cost Total Annual Cost

Chipper/Mulcher for incoming “green” product

One-Time $350,000-$400,000

$350,000-$400,000

Screener for final product processing One-Time $175,000 $175,000 Training/Conferences with UGA Recurring ~$1,500 ~$1,500/year Bagging Equipment One-Time $35,000-

$60,000 $35,000-$60,000

New Compost Pad/Wastewater Treatment Facility

One-Time Variable Variable Cost

Bags for mulch and compost Recurring ~$.10-$.15 $1,000-$1,500/year Fuel, Maintenance, and Labor for Equipment

Recurring Variable ~$10,000/year

Scale for weighing vehicular deliveries

One-Time ~$40,000 ~$40,000

B. Existing and Potential Cost Savings Expenditure One-

Time/Recurring Unit Cost Total Annual Cost

Tipping Fee at Coffee County Transfer Station for “green” materials

Recurring $44.65/ton $200,000/year

Tipping Fee at Coffee County Transfer Station for “brown” materials

Recurring $1,500,000/year

Contract operations for mulching Recurring ~$400/HR $130,000/year

C. Potential New Revenue Expenditure One-

Time/Recurring Unit Cost Total Annual Cost

Tipping Fee for Compost Pad drop-off to “green” materials (~17 Tons/Day, 260 Business Days)

Recurring $20/TON $90,000/year

Sale of bagged mulch Recurring $.25-$1.50/bag $3,000/year Sale of bagged compost Recurring $.75-$2.00/bag $5,000/year Sale of mulch and compost by the truckload

Recurring $5.00-$10.00/load $5,000/year

Home delivery of bagged mulch and compost (2,500 deliveries)

Recurring $2.00 per house, per drop

$5,000/year

Contracting of Douglas-owned Equipment to other local governments (4 Hour contracts, 38 times per year)

Recurring $200/Hour $30,000/year

Part H. Conclusion The City of Douglas was on the forefront of municipal composting operations when the program began ten years ago. At this point, for Douglas to maintain the viability of the program and avoid reverting to the costly and environmentally inferior disposal method of dumping both the green and brown components, evaluation of current procedures and investments of time and energy must be seriously considered. Without significant change in the management of the program, the city will continue to see costs increase, will see continued production of an inferior product, and will not reap the potential benefits of the composting operation. Douglas has the ability to reinvent its once cutting edge composting program and to once again make it a leader and example for cities and counties across Georgia and the Southeast. Implementation of these recommendations will require investments of time, energy, and money. All of these investments, however, are for the long-term viability of the compost operation and avoidance of the alternative of dumping the raw materials being produced by Douglas.

(31)

(32)

                                                           

Part I. Appendices

A. Background on Municipal Composting in Georgia Municipal Composting in Georgia In 1996, Georgia cities and counties were required to abide by new state regulations regarding the disposal of yard trimmings. State law required that these trimmings not be included with Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Douglas was conforming to this requirement two and a half years earlier. Seven years later, during FY03, “253 cities and 67 counties reported collecting yard trimmings for diversion from MSW landfills,” according to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reports. Douglas also met the state norm in that “most local governments also reported that they provided the collection services with just a few indicating they contracted with a private vendor to collect yard trimmings5.” The abundance of yard trimmings that were being chipped/mulched by Douglas starting with this 1996 state mandate resulted in a significant stockpile of mulch that was not being used to the fullest extent possible. In a search for alternatives, a large scale municipal composting operation was explored and ultimately employed. Douglas’ program was one of the first in the state. Statewide, there are 41 public and 16 private municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. At current trends, the combined 57 facilities are estimated to be exhausted by 2044 according to Department of Community Affairs estimates. DCA estimates for the Southeast Georgia Regional Development Center (which includes Coffee County) are even more daunting, as the agency projects the region to be out of MSW sites within 20-29 years as of FY046. A 2004 University of Georgia research project found that “In general, the private facilities produced the highest quality compost and had the lowest stockpiles of materials. Local government facilities produced 24% of the compost in Georgia. Stockpiling percentages were higher for these facilities.”

 

5 Georgia Solid Waste Management Report. State of Georgia. Department of Community Affairs. Office of Environmental Management. Atlanta, GA: DCA, 2004. 6 Georgia Solid Waste Management Report. State of Georgia. Department of Community Affairs. Office of Environmental Management. Atlanta, GA: DCA, 2004.

B. State of Georgia DCA Municipal Composting Programs Map

(33)

C. UGA Training Program Agenda

Edited by: Jason Governo, Dr. Mark Risse, Dr. K.C. Das

7th Edition

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This training workshop and the guide were made possible due to the support of several people who worked together as a team. First, the speakers who provided their expertise and time in preparation of the lectures and were available to teach in the workshop. Second, Nathan Melear of the Bioconversion Laboratory, BAE Department, UGA, who developed the laboratory demonstrations and conducted the windrow composting portion of the workshop. Third, Cathy Felton of the BAE Department, UGA, who prepared the notebook and was a constant resource of workshop experience. Finally, for Dale Threadgill, BAE Department Head and Tom Adams, Director of the Faculty of Engineering Outreach Service, who provides the support for composting education and technical assistance at the University of Georgia.

Compost Facility Training Workshop

Agenda Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:00 am Registration 8:30 Course Introduction and Welcome Jason Governo 9:30 Science of Composting Process Dr. K. C. Das 10:15 Break 10:30 Composting Systems Jason Governo 11:00 Feedstock Preparation and Handling Dr. Mark Risse 12:00 pm Lunch (catered) 1:00 Compost Pile Recipes Jason Governo

Feedstocks and Software, lab data analysis 2:15 Break 2:30 Recipe Development Jason Governo 3:00 Windrow Construction Nathan Melear 5:00 Adjourn Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:00 am Microbiology of Composting Julia Gaskin 9:00 Laboratory – pH, EC, O2, basic sampling Nathan Melear 10:00 Break 10:15 Managing the Composting Process Jason Governo 11:00 Product Quality, Maturity and Stability Gaskin 12:00 pm Lunch (catered) 1:00 Odor Dr. K.C. Das 2:00 Facility siting and Design: Contest Jason Governo 4:00 Erosion control and rainfall simulator Dr. Mark Risse

(34)

(35)

5:00 Adjourn Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:00 am Overview – The Economics of Composting Jason Governo 8:30 Filtrexx – Erosion control market Polly Sattler 9:30 Poultry Compost and Marketing Dr. Casey Ritz 10:15 Break 10:30 Compost Marketing Strategies Gerry Harstine 11:30 Group Project Evaluation Jason Governo 12:00pm Adjourn

Speakers

October 10-12, 2004 Gerry Harstine, Harvest Farms Agricultural Products Harrison, TN 37341 (877) 206-3013 Gerry Harstine is the President of Harvest Farms Agricultural Products, a company

specializing in compost manufacturing, market research and development. Dr. K.C. Das, Department of Biological & & Agricultural Engineering, University of Georgia, Driftmier Engineering Center, Athens, GA 30602, (706) 542-8842 Researcher / Educator with experience with odor management/abatement and

experience in the engineering aspects of composting as a waste management tool. Julia W. Gaskin, Cooperative Extension Service, Engineering, University of Georgia, Driftmier Engineering Center, Athens, GA 30602, (706) 542-1401 Scientist with research and educational experience in land application of by-

products of agricultural and industrial processes including manures and composts Jason Governo, Engineering Outreach Service, Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering, University of Georgia, Driftmier Engineering Center, Athens, GA 30602, (706) 542-6119 Workshop coordinator and research engineer with experience with compost

facility design and composting as a waste Dr. Nathan Melear, Department of Biological & & Agricultural Engineering, University of Georgia, Driftmier Engineering Center, Athens, GA 30602, (706) 227-7147 Research coordinator with extensive research experience in waste residual

composting and laboratory data analysis. Dr. Mark Risse, Cooperative Extension Service, Engineering, University of Georgia, Driftmier Engineering Center, Athens, GA 30602, (706) 542-9067 Pollution prevention specialist with experience in animal and agricultural waste

management issues.

D. Regional Landfill Map

(36)

E. Proposed Sites for New Wastewater Treatment/Compost Facility

One swath of land that proves most suitable for achieving this task is located southwest of the Central Business District:

1) An area near the Coffee County Airport and current zoned Light Industrial (M1) and Industrial (M2) bound on the east by South Peterson Avenue; on the south by the Douglas City Limits; on the west by Kellogg Drive; and on the north by Bowens Mill Road.

(37)

(38)

F. Product Information and Directions for Use

Product Information

Douglas Natural Pride (or revised name) Compost is a soil amendment derived from yard trimmings and dewatered bio-solids. It is a totally safe product approved by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Used according to directions, it can improve soil structure plus water and nutrient holding capacity of soil.

Directions for Use

Vegetable Gardens and Flowers

Spread a 2”-3” thickness over the area to be planted. Till thoroughly to a depth of 6” prior to planting. Side dress applications can be made at a rate of 10 pounds per 50 feet of row after plants are up and

growing.

Lawns

For establishing a new lawn, spread a layer 3” deep over the entire area to be sodden or seeded and till thoroughly to a depth of 6”. For top dressing existing lawns, spread 50 pounds of compost evenly per

1000 square feet in early spring. Repeat in mid-June and again in late-August.

Trees and Shrubs

When planting or transplanting, mix 1 part compost and 1 part soil directly under and around shrubs or trees. Increase compost to 2 parts to 1 if soil is extremely sandy.

Mulching

Compost may be placed around plants any time during the season. In winter months, apply 2” to 4” on

surface around plants to protect from freezing temperatures.

G. USC Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 503, Section 32

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

H. Guidelines for Preparation of Sludge Management Plans; Georgia Environmental Protection Division, June 2006

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

I. Ten Year Cost-Benefit Analysis City of Douglas, Georgia Municipal Composting

Ten Year Cost/Benefit Analysis FY10-FY19

Expenditure FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

Chipper/Mulcher -$375,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Screener -$175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Bagging Equipment -$50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Vehicular Scale -$40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Fuel, Maintenance, and Labor for Equipment

-$10,000 -$10,000 -$10,000 -$10,000 -$10,000 -$10,000 -$10,000 -$10,000 -$10,000 -$10,000

Training/Conferences with UGA

-$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500 -$1,500

Bags for mulch and compost

-$1,250 -$1,250 -$1,250 -$1,250 -$1,250 -$1,250 -$1,250 -$1,250 -$1,250 -$1,250

Sale of bagged mulch $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

Sale of bagged compost $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Sale of mulch and compost by the truckload

$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Home delivery of bagged mulch and compost

$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Contracting of Douglas-owned Equipment to other local governments

$30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000

Douglas Tipping Fee at Compost Pad

$90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000

Contract operations for mulching

$130,000 $137,500 $145,000 $152,500 $160,000 $167,500 $175,000 $182,500 $190,000 $197,500

"Green" Tipping Fee - Coffee Count

$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000

"Brown" Tipping Fee - Coffee County

$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

New Compost Pad/Wastewater Treatment Facility

TBD $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY Annual Totals $1,315,250 $1,962,750 $1,970,250 $1,977,750 $1,985,250 $1,992,750 $2,000,250 $2,007,750 $2,015,250 $2,022,750

$1,315,250 $9,211,250 $19,250,000

One Year Net Gain

Five Year Net Gain

Ten Year Net Gain

(49)