Draft 83007 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1 STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS..................................................1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.2 SOLID WASTE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS ........................................2 1.3 SWSP SCOPING WORKSHOP..............................................................................3 1.4 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY TEAM (SWAT) ......................................................3 1.5 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR.....................................................................4 1.6 PRESENTATION TO PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION (PWC)........................5 1.7 PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL........................................................5 1.8 PUBLIC MEETINGS ..............................................................................................5 1.9 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY.................................................................................6

SECTION 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS .........................................................................................7 2.1 COLLECTION ........................................................................................................7

2.1.1 Residential Collection and Hauling .............................................................7 2.1.2 Commercial Collection and Hauling ...........................................................7

2.2 WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING................................................................8 2.2.1 Residential Sector Recycling Service ..........................................................8 2.2.2 Institutional/Commercial/Industrial (ICI) Sector Recycling Service ..........9 2.2.3 Glass Collection Depots.............................................................................10 2.2.4 Ada County Wood Waste Diversion Program...........................................11

2.3 TRANSFER ...........................................................................................................11 2.4 DISPOSAL ............................................................................................................12

2.4.1 Hidden Hollow Landfill .............................................................................12 2.4.2 Simco Road Regional Landfill...................................................................13 2.4.3 Clay Peak Landfill .....................................................................................14 2.4.4 Regional Landfills......................................................................................14

2.5 PROMOTION, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.............................................15 2.6 ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION....................................................15

2.6.1 Management Structure ...............................................................................16 2.6.2 Rate Setting................................................................................................16

SECTION 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.....................................................................................17 3.1 COLLECTION ......................................................................................................17

3.1.1 Residential Trash Collection......................................................................17 3.1.2 Residential Recyclables Collection............................................................18 3.1.3 Commercial Trash Collection....................................................................19 3.1.4 Unlimited Residential Trash Collection.....................................................19

3.2 WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING..............................................................20 3.3 TRANSFER ...........................................................................................................21

3.3.1 Potential Boise Transfer Station ................................................................21 3.3.2 Eco-Park.....................................................................................................23

3.4 DISPOSAL ............................................................................................................24 3.4.1 Status quo: Continued Use of the Ada County Landfill ...........................24 3.4.2 Transition to Intermediate Disposal Sites ..................................................25

Draft 83007 ii

3.4.3 Transition to Long-Haul Disposal Sites.....................................................26 3.4.4 Local Landfill Development ......................................................................27 3.4.5 Incineration or Waste-to-Energy................................................................27 3.4.6 Waste Conversion Technologies................................................................27 3.4.7 Special Wastes ...........................................................................................28

3.5 PROMOTION, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.............................................30 3.6 ADMINISTRATION & ORGANIZATION .........................................................30

3.6.1 General.......................................................................................................30 3.6.2 Boise-Ada County Disposal Contract........................................................31 3.6.3 Allied Waste Services Franchise Agreement.............................................32

SECTION 4 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................33 4.1 COLLECTION ......................................................................................................33

4.1.1 Automated Residential Collection .............................................................33 4.1.2 Collection Contract ....................................................................................33

4.2 WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING..............................................................33 4.2.1 Program and Policy Initiatives...................................................................33

4.3 TRANSFER ...........................................................................................................35 4.3.1 Transfer Station..........................................................................................35 4.3.2 Eco-Park.....................................................................................................36

4.4 DISPOSAL ............................................................................................................37 4.5 PROMOTION, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH (PEO)...................................37 4.6 ADMINISTRATION/ORGANIZATION .............................................................38

Draft 83007 iii

APPENDICES Appendix A: Solid Waste Regulations a. Idaho State Statute 39.74: Solid Waste Facilities b. Idaho Administrative Procedures 58.01.06: Idaho Solid Waste Regulations c. Boise Municipal Code 8-10: Boise Solid Waste Ordinance d. Boise Municipal Code 8-18: Nuisance Property Abatement Appendix B: SWSP Scoping Workshop a. Workshop Materials, July 11-12, 2006 Appendix C: Solid Waste Advisory Team Meetings a. SWAT Meeting Minutes Appendix D: Presentation to the Public Works Commission a. PWC Meeting Minutes, May 3, 2007 Appendix E: Presentation to the City Council a. Introductory memorandum from Catherine Chertudi, Public Works Department b. 1992 Solid Waste Management Goals c. Solid Waste Strategic Plan Project Schedule d. List of SWAT members (see Section 1.4) e. Diagram/flow chart titled “Overview of Preliminary Draft System Strategy” f. Minutes from the presentation to the Public Works Commission (see Appendix D) g. Disposal data h. Transfer station evaluation i. Preliminary System Strategy presentation j. City Council Meeting Minutes, May 22, 2007 Appendix F: Public Meetings a. Summary of Citizen Comments Appendix G: Public Opinion Survey a. City of Boise Public Works, Awareness & Attitude Survey, July 2007 Appendix H: Waste Reduction & Recycling a. Boise Recycles Powerpoint Presentation b. 2002 – 2006 Boise Recycling Statistics c. 2006 Boise Residential Trash & Recycling Data d. Compost Facility Guidelines Appendix I: Collection a. Issue Paper – Deciding Whether to Go Out to Bid

Draft 83007 iv

Appendix J: Transfer a. Boise Area Solid Waste Facility Map b. Issue Paper – Boise Transfer Station: Desirable Features c. Boise Transfer Station Conceptual Cost Analysis d. Summary of FAA Guidance – Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On Or Near Airports e. Conceptual Drawing: Alternate 1 f. Conceptual Drawing Alternate 2 Appendix K: Disposal a. Boise Disposed Waste Data b. Trash History Spreadsheet, 2002-2006 c. Nearby Landfills Map d. Ada County 2006 Annual Report e. Ada County Strategic Plan f. Idaho Waste Systems Simco Road Regional Landfill Information g. Payette County Clay Peak Landfill Information h. Boise-Ada County Contract Questions, March 2, 2007. Appendix L: Allied-Boise 2006 Annual Report Appendix M: Organizational Structure Appendix N: City of Boise 2007 Solid Waste Budget Appendix O: List of Acronyms

Draft 83007 1

SECTION 1 STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 1.1 INTRODUCTION In 2005, a citywide Strategic Plan was completed. The Strategic Plan’s Executive Summary can be found at www.cityofboise.org (select City Government/Mayor’s office; find “strategic planning” on the lower left side of the Mayor’s home page). The Strategic Plan established a framework for City departments to develop their business plans and to set priorities. Preparation of this Solid Waste Strategic Plan (SWSP) was a high priority for the Public Works Department. Its Environmental Division developed this SWSP to provide a blueprint for the future of the City’s solid waste management system. It presents recommendations that will guide the City of Boise as it works to reduce waste generation, increase recycling, and manage collection and disposal services. The roles and responsibilities of government to provide services and to encourage citizens to change behavior continue to evolve. The SWSP reflects a partnership approach between the City of Boise, Ada County, local citizens, and the private sector service providers who have a role in managing solid waste. It makes recommendations for programs and capital investments, identifies funding sources, and assigns responsibility for measuring and achieving program objectives. This SWSP is not intended as a final solution, but rather as a snapshot in time that considers existing conditions, available facts, possible actions, and the beliefs and attitudes of the agencies and people involved in the process. While the City has planned and implemented a successful solid waste management program for many years, this SWSP formalizes and provides written documentation of the solid waste planning process, including the involvement of citizens and interested parties. In many locations, state law requires municipalities to develop solid waste planning documents as a means of ensuring the long-term availability of environmentally sound waste reduction, recycling, collection, and disposal. Since Idaho does not have such a requirement, this SWSP is also the first municipal solid waste planning document in the state. Boise’s planning effort is therefore entirely voluntary, and is based on a partnership with members of the community to create an orderly, strategic, and carefully considered approach to short-term and long-range needs and opportunities. Boise prepared a set of initial goals for the SWSP, as follows: • Strengthen Boise City’s involvement with the planning, implementation, monitoring,

evaluation, and modification of solid waste management activities to improve the City’s control over management of solid waste system.

• Assure a reliable disposal method for Boise’s garbage that meets applicable regulatory

requirements and the City’s financial, environmental and public health obligations. • Provide leadership in coordinating and cooperating with Ada County, other jurisdictions, and

the private sector to expand diversion activities.

Draft 83007 2

• Control waste management costs and prevent sudden, large fee increases. • Develop and maintain a stable, long-term revenue base. In addition to the goals described above, state and city regulations help to define requirements and performance objectives for the solid waste management system. In particular, the following rules were considered: • Idaho Solid Waste Facilities Act, Chapter 39.74 ISS, which establishes standards for disposal

facilities, and addresses federal Subtitle D requirements. • Solid Waste Management Rules & Standards, Chapter 58.01.06 ISR, which regulates solid

waste treatment and disposal, and provides for licensing, certification, and fees. • City of Boise Solid Waste Ordinance, Chapter 8-10 BMC, which establishes a system for the

storage, handling, collection, and processing of solid waste with uniform requirements for direct and indirect contributors, encourages and improves the opportunity for recycling, and equitably distributes the cost of the solid waste collection and disposal system.

• City of Boise Nuisance Property Abatement Ordinance, Chapter 8-18 BMC, which defines

nuisance properties and provides procedures for remedies and enforcement. Key regulatory requirements can be found in Appendix A. 1.2 SOLID WASTE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS The SWSP was developed over a period about fifteen months. The process began in June 2006 with the selection of URS Corporation, Bell & Associates, and Zia Engineering (collectively Consultant) as the team that would write the SWSP. By the end of September 2007 the Final SWSP would be prepared, adopted, and approved by the City Council. During the intervening months technical research, analysis, and recommendations were prepared by URS and discussed with City staff, a Solid Waste Advisory Team (SWAT), the Mayor, Public Works Commission (PWC), City Council, interested members of the public, and interest groups. This participatory, interactive process was undertaken in order to prepare and build consensus for the SWSP. A summary of some of the key steps in the SWSP development process in approximate chronological order is presented below.

Draft 83007 3

1.3 SWSP SCOPING WORKSHOP A workshop was held July 11–12, 2006 involving City staff and URS. The workshop was the official initiation of the SWSP project and covered the following topics: historical perspective on solid waste management in Boise City; existing practices in Boise City as compared to trends in other large jurisdictions; important solid waste issues in Boise City; potential program and policy alternatives; and future project activities. The specific topics addressed by the Consultant were: Introduction and Goals, Waste Reduction/Recycling, Collection, Transfer, Disposal, Costs, and Public Involvement. Workshop materials are in Appendix B. 1.4 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY TEAM (SWAT) The SWAT was established to assist the Consultant and City staff in reviewing proposed initiatives, providing policy guidance, and ultimately reaching agreement on courses of action recommended for approval or adoption by the City Council. The SWAT represented stakeholders interested in and/or impacted by the proposed SWSP. The ten SWAT members and their affiliations were as follows: • Dr. Eldon Edmundson, Chairperson – citizen • Kathie and Mark Hilliard – citizens • Renee Quick – Public Works Commission liaison • Dr. Joan Coonan – Public Works Commission liaison • Kimberly Johnson, Public Works Commission liaison and Boise State University Student • Ron Whitney – Southwest Idaho Building Contractor’s Association • Kristin Bjorkman – Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP. Representing the Building

Owner’s and Manager’s Association • Tom Ryder – JR Simplot Company • Paula Forney – Cheers • John Bernardo – Sustainable Innovations • Bob Gross – Micron Technology • Tom Turco – citizen, retired Environmental Health Specialist and Environmental Health

Director, Central District Health Department Six SWAT meetings were held; meeting dates and general discussion items are listed below. Minutes from the SWAT meetings can be found in Appendix C. • October 26, 2006 – Project purpose, structure, role of SWAT; current solid waste

management techniques in Boise City and their strengths versus weaknesses; areas needing resolution; possible directions and strategies.

• November 28, 2006 – Disposal functions such as transfer stations and landfills.

Draft 83007 4

• January 3, 2007 – Collection of refuse and recyclables; flat rate for unlimited amounts of trash versus variable rate/“pay–as–you–throw” approach; co-mingled/“single–stream” residential recycling technology.

• January 31, 2007 – Waste reduction, reuse, and recycling (referred to collectively as diversion); existing efforts in Boise City by public and private sectors; accomplishments versus service gaps; program and policy alternatives; current status and deficiencies of diversion data.

• February 28, 2007 – Overall Guiding Principles for the SWSP; preliminary conclusions and recommendations.

• March 21, 2007 – Final discussion on conclusions / recommendations for collection, waste reduction / recycling, transfer facility, disposal, public outreach / education, administration / organization; adoption of strategic directions set forth for these solid waste management system components.

1.5 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR On March 21, 2007 Dr. Eldon Edmundson, Solid Waste Advisory Team Chair, Public Works Department staff members, and the Consultant met with Mayor Bieter and his staff to brief the Mayor on the status of the SWSP development. An overview of the Preliminary Draft System Strategy was given emphasizing the inter–relationships between the Guiding Principles and the primary proposed initiatives. The Guiding Principles were identified as: • Strengthening City’s role in solid waste management. • Assuring reliable disposal capacity. • Providing leadership for waste reduction / recycling. • Controlling costs, maintaining stable revenue base. • Consistency with livability goals and objectives. The primary proposed initiatives discussed in further detail at the briefing were: • Secure land for a potential transfer station, possibly large enough to include an “eco–park” (a

complex with various recycling and materials recovery facilities.)

• Sign a disposal contract with Ada County regarding continued access to Hidden Hollow Landfill.

• Transition to a fully automated, cart – based collection system for residential garbage.

• Transition from one residential rate for unlimited trash quantities and move to some form of variable rate/pay–as–you–throw standard.

Draft 83007 5

• Undertake multi–faceted, ongoing, coordinated promotion/education activities for waste

reduction, reuse, and recycling.

• Gather reliable data on a regular basis about the types and quantities of Boise City materials diverted from disposal.

• Extend the solid waste services contract with Allied Waste to facilitate implementation of the above–noted initiatives and others contained in the SWSP.

1.6 PRESENTATION TO PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION (PWC) On May 3, 2007 a presentation was made to the PWC by Dr. Eldon Edmundson, the Public Works Department staff and the Consultant. The content of this presentation was very similar to the one for the Mayor described in Section 1.3 above. The minutes from this meeting are in Appendix D. 1.7 PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL On May 22, 2007 a presentation was made to the Mayor and City Council by Dr. Eldon Edmundson and the Consultant, with assistance of the Public Works Department staff. The content of the presentation was very similar to the one for the Mayor and Public Works Commission described in Section 1.3 above. Nine items were provided to the City Council for review prior to the presentation, as follows: • Introductory memorandum from Catherine Chertudi, Public Works Department • 1992 Solid Waste Management Goals • Solid Waste Strategic Plan Project Schedule • List of SWAT members • Diagram/flow chart titled “Overview of Preliminary Draft System Strategy” (see Section 1.3

above) • Minutes from the presentation to the Public Works Commission (see Section 1.4 above) • Disposal data • Transfer station evaluation • Preliminary System Strategy presentation. These nine items are in Appendix E along with the minutes from the City Council meeting. 1.8 PUBLIC MEETINGS During June 2007, the City hosted nine public meetings/open houses for citizens. Meetings were also held in June and July with several neighborhood associations and business groups. City solid waste staff, SWAT members, and the Consultant made presentations regarding the

Draft 83007 6

proposed SWSP. Citizen comments were solicited using comment forms that could be returned at the conclusion of the open houses or by mail. Comments were also submitted on-line through the City’s website and by email. All comments were compiled and categorized for review by City staff, the SWAT and Consultant. The comment summary can be found in Appendix F. 1.9 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY To ensure that the City and the SWAT received a broad perspective of citizen opinions, the City contracted with Northwest Research Group (NWRG) to conduct an opinion survey of about 200 residents. (A copy of the survey is included in Appendix G). The survey was used to gather additional information on the topics discussed at the Solid Waste Strategic Plan open house meetings that were held in June. The telephone survey was completed in early July and results compiled and analyzed by NWRG. They also evaluated customer’s sensitivity to rate increases and added service levels. All respondents said they were aware of the garbage pick-up service, while 97% had knowledge of the curbside recycling. Based on a scale of 1 to 7, both services rated much better than average (4) for level of customer satisfaction. Garbage pick-up received a score of 6.53, while recycling services received a 5.91. On average, respondents reported setting out one to two 32-gallon bags or cans a week. Nearly half of the respondents were aware of the wheeled trash cart program which recently began in selected neighborhoods in the spring of 2007. Support for the wheeled trash cart program was mixed. Nearly 36% strongly or somewhat strongly supported the program, while 56% strongly or somewhat strongly did not support the program. Over 77% of the respondents report that they use the curbside recycling program. Over 80% of the respondents believe they recycle up to 40% of their household waste. While Boise residents may be over-estimating the amount they recycle (at least on a weight basis), it is clear that the opportunity to recycle is important to the majority of citizens.

Draft 83007 7

SECTION 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2.1 COLLECTION Allied Waste Services (formerly BFI) has an exclusive contract (a franchise agreement) with the City to collect all residential solid waste and recyclables, as well as all commercial waste. Allied Waste, along with other companies, collects commercial recyclables. The franchise agreement was signed in 1996 following a competitive request-for-proposals (RFP) process. The agreement was extended for an additional seven-year term in 2002. 2.1.1 Residential Collection and Hauling Allied Waste uses about 20 trucks to collect residential garbage, each with a two or three person crew to manually empty containers of garbage into the truck. The standard collection vehicle is a 25 cubic yard rear-load truck. Allied Waste currently provides weekly collection of unlimited garbage at a flat rate of $12 to approximately 68,000 residential households. Some customers subscribe to use the optional 64- or 95-gallon roll cart provided by Allied Waste. The monthly rental fee for this service is $2.44 (plus sales tax) for the 64-gallon cart and $2.74 (plus sales tax) for the 95-gallon cart.

Residential recyclables are collected in a blue 18-gallon bin provided to the customer at no additional charge. Allied Waste provides weekly curbside collection of an unlimited amount of recyclables on the same day as garbage collection. A variety of source-separated recyclable materials are collected curbside. The collection of recyclable materials is accomplished by a one-person crew utilizing a sideload trough body truck, where the driver can segregate materials at the curb. Residents that choose to recycle are credited $2.00 on their monthly bill.

2.1.2 Commercial Collection and Hauling Waste in commercial containers is collected using front-load or rear-load vehicles. Containers range in volume from two to eight cubic yards, with collection frequency from once a week to six times a week, depending on the needs of the customer. Most of the City is collected using the front-load containers; however, rear-load service is provided in areas such as the downtown core due to tight access or overhead wires.

In 2006, the City and Allied Waste launched a new commercial recycling program. Recyclables are collected in an

Draft 83007 8

18-gallon blue bin, a 3- or 6-yard green container, or a 95-gallon roll cart. Customers can select the type of container and frequency of service that best suits their needs and the types of recyclable materials diverted. Customers requiring trash containers larger than 8 yards may utilize a stationary garbage compactor. Or, if they have large or heavy materials, they may use a temporary, on-call box for disposal. In 2006, Allied Waste reported 25,405 drop box hauls within the City, an increase from 2005 due to increased construction and economic growth in the region. Allied Waste collected approximately 52,000 tons of compacted trash and 162,700 yards of construction and demolition waste in 2006. Table 1 below summarizes the amount of waste and recyclable materials collected in Boise during 2006. Table 1: 2006 Tonnages of Collected Waste and Recyclables

Service Solid Waste Recyclables Residential 82,000 tons 7,958 tons Commercial Container 63,000 tons 1,340 tons Drop Box (Stationary Compactor)

52,000 tons NA

Drop Box (Open Boxes) ~20,000 tons* (162,700 yards)

NA

*Assumes 250 lb/cubic yard of drop box waste. 2.2 WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING

2.2.1 Residential Sector Recycling Service Weekly curbside residential recycling collection service is offered to approximately 68,000 households in Boise City by Allied Waste under the terms of its contract with the City which expires January 31, 2010. Recyclables are collected in separate trucks on the same day as garbage pickup. This is often referred to as the “Blue Bin” Program because of the storage container provided residents for recyclables. Targeted materials include the following: • Cardboard • Newspapers • Magazines and catalogs • Mixed waste paper such as junk mail, envelopes, cereal boxes, and phone books • Plastic containers made of resin types 1 through 7 • Metals: Aluminum cans, tin–coated steel cans, aerosol cans, aluminum pie tins, metal

hangers • Used motor oil

Draft 83007 9

The typical composition of Boise’s residential recyclables by weight is: • Newspapers 53 % • Magazines and catalogs 7 % • Cardboard and other paper 29 % • Plastic containers 6 % • Steel and “tin” cans 3 % • Aluminum cans 2 %. These materials must be set out for pickup in the distinct categories noted above and cannot be mixed together. In other words, they must be “source-separated” and may not be “co-mingled”. Residents are asked to use paper bags to sort the materials and then place the bags in the Blue Bin and/or next to it if it is full. Glass containers are not recovered curbside but instead through a network of drop–off depots discussed in Section 2.2.3. Under a separate contractual arrangement, recyclables collected curbside by Allied Waste are taken to Western Recycling in Boise for processing and sale. According to data from Allied Waste, in calendar year 2006 about 7,960 tons of recyclable materials were collected from residences along with 3,872 gallons of used motor oil. In addition, 3,553 large appliances were picked up from Boise City residents for environmentally proper handling, disposal, or recycling. Other recycling services focus on the collection of leaves during the fall and Christmas trees/branches during the traditional holiday season. In 2006 Allied Waste estimates that 10,000 Christmas trees were recovered and 25,356 households set out leaves for collection. Both materials streams are taken to Ada County’s Wood Waste Recycling Program at the Hidden Hollow Landfill for processing and eventual composting or other forms of reuse. The City’s Public Works Department periodically sponsors sales of backyard composting bins as a way to promote this waste reduction method. Finally, there are several private or non–profit entities and organizations in or near Boise City that accept and/or pick up reusable/repairable items, products, and materials. These include St. Vincent De Paul, Good Samaritan Store, Salvation Army, Deseret Industries, Women’s and Children’s Alliance, Goodwill Industries of Southwestern Idaho, Idaho Youth Ranch, and ARC, Inc. 2.2.2 Institutional/Commercial/Industrial (ICI) Sector Recycling Service Since at least 1996, Allied Waste (as BFI) has provided an ICI subscription cardboard recycling collection service. In the summer of 2006 Allied Waste formally began offering expanded commercial recycling services under the City’s franchise agreement to ICI generators for cardboard and mixed waste paper. The ICI service continues to expand and Allied Waste will begin collecting co-mingled recyclables from the Boise School District school facilities in September 2007. Boise’s Public Works Department and Allied Waste perform free waste audits

Draft 83007 10

to determine the most practical approach for recycling at specific ICI locations. In 2006 the program collected 1,340 tons of material. The Boise School District currently recycles mixed waste paper at 48 schools and two administrative buildings. During 2006 this effort recovered around 400 tons of cardboard and mixed waste paper. All school sites with kitchens also collect and recycle steel cans. There are numerous for–profit companies located in and around Boise City that provide collection/ processing/marketing services for recyclables from ICI sources in Boise City. Those companies include but are not necessarily limited to the following: • Boise Recycling (Garden City) • Pacific Recycling (Boise) • North American Recycling (Nampa) • Idaho Recycling and Salvage (Nampa) • Rocky Mountain Recycling (Pocatello) • Treetop Recycling (Boise) • TVM Recycling (Nampa) • United Recycling • Western Recycling (Boise) • United Metals (Caldwell). Using telephone interviews, City Public Works Department staff attempted to obtain data about the quantities and types of recyclables from ICI generators in the City that were handled by these firms in 2006. However, it was commonly reported that material amounts/types are not tracked by jurisdictional origin; furthermore, such information was also considered proprietary by a number of the commercial firms contacted. Therefore, because this type of data was unavailable, it is currently not possible to calculate the amounts or types of ICI recyclables being recovered from Boise City ICI generators. The lack of current, complete diversion data limits the City’s ability to calculate the recycling rate for all recyclable materials diverted within the City. 2.2.3 Glass Collection Depots Boise City provides 16 collection sites for glass containers located throughout the community. The sites are serviced by Allied Waste on a regular schedule. All collection and hauling costs are paid by the City from the solid waste customer fees. The glass is hauled to a gravel pit owned and operated by the Ada County Highway District where it is processed and mixed with pit run material for use as fill or road base. 2.2.4 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Management HHW includes the following materials: used motor oil, antifreeze, car maintenance products, old gasoline, batteries (vehicle and household), latex and oil- based paints, solvents, paint thinners, wood stains, pesticides/herbicides, garden chemicals, pool/spa chemicals, aerosols, household cleaners, fluorescent light tubes, mercury thermostats and mercury thermometers.

Draft 83007 11

HHW may be properly reused, recycled, or disposed through a facility and services operated by Boise City and Ada County. The services and facility consist of: • A permanent Household Hazardous Material Collection Facility at Ada County’s Hidden

Hollow Landfill operated for the County by Clean Harbors, Inc. • The Boise City EnviroGuard vehicles which serve as mobile HHW collection equipment at

eight locations throughout the City on a monthly basis. The vehicles are also rented to other area cities’ for mobile collection services.

Electronic or e–waste products such as computer monitors or televisions are also accepted at the HHW facility or at the collection sites. The HHW contractor (Clean Harbors) also provides disposal services for conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQG) in the City and county. Businesses must pre-register and schedule waste deliveries to the facility and pay for the disposal costs. 2.2.4 Ada County Wood Waste Diversion Program Ada County has set aside an area at the Hidden Hollow Landfill for the storage and processing of source separated wood waste. Wood waste is ground into chips that are marketed as fuel, compost feedstock, animal bedding, or landscaping applications. This program is operated for the County by Enviro–Progress, Inc. 2.3 TRANSFER A transfer station is a facility where smaller vehicles such as cars, pickups and garbage collection trucks unload their solid waste. The waste is then consolidated into a larger vehicle, typically a semi-trailer, which is driven to a disposal site such as a landfill or incinerator. When the disposal site is relatively distant, the waste may be compacted into shipping containers for transport by road, railroad, or barge to the landfill. In general, the reasons for building a transfer station include: • Savings in shipping costs such as fuel and labor: It is more efficient to load 20-30 tons into a

transfer trailer and make one trip to the disposal site than to make numerous trips in smaller vehicles. For example, a transfer trailer with a 25-ton payload would displace about 100 pickup truck trips or 3-5 garbage truck trips. When the one-way distance from the waste generators (e.g. housing or commercial areas) to the disposal site exceeds about 15 miles, the economics may make it worthwhile to consider a transfer station.

• Reducing traffic congestion and vehicle emissions: a few large-payload vehicles (e.g.

transfer trailers) traveling to the landfill produce less traffic congestion and less vehicle emissions and reduced use of fossil fuels than the numerous smaller vehicles carrying the same amount of waste.

Draft 83007 12

• Safety: it is safer for citizens to unload their cars and pickup trucks at a transfer station than

at a landfill. Boise is currently served by a single transfer station located off of highway I-84 at 4485 S. Curtis Road in southeast Boise. The Boise Transfer Station is owned and operated by Allied Waste. The station receives waste from the general public as well as Allied Waste’s route collection trucks and is open six days a week. The station currently handles an average of about 90 tons/day of waste and could potentially handle up to 400 tons/day (Fisher 2007). About 1,000 vehicles use the station each month. Waste collected at this station is hauled to the Idaho Waste Systems (IWS) Landfill, a private facility near Mountain Home in Elmore County, Idaho. The transfer station also accepts a variety of recyclable materials including steel and aluminum cans, newspaper, magazines, mixed paper, plastics, and glass. Some wood waste is removed from the waste stream and is recycled. 2.4 DISPOSAL A reliable and efficient disposal system that serves the citizens and businesses of the City of Boise is an essential component of cost-effective solid waste services. The City’s system is based on two landfill disposal sites. The primary site, Hidden Hollow Landfill in Northwest Boise, is owned by Ada County. The secondary site, Simco Road Regional Landfill in Elmore County, is owned by Idaho Waste Systems, Inc. Privately-owned landfills and landfills owned by municipal entities in Idaho are regulated by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. The law covers six basic areas: location, operation, design, ground water monitoring and corrective action, closure and post-closure care, and financial assurance. Landfills located in other states are regulated under similar regulations. The consistency of the regulatory system helps to ensure safe operations and a level playing field in terms of environmental protections offered by the various facilities. 2.4.1 Hidden Hollow Landfill This facility receives slightly more than ninety percent of the city’s municipal solid waste for disposal. It has served Boise on a long-term basis and provides an array of diversion and recovery services to all its clients. The landfill also serves unincorporated Ada County and the cities of Garden City, Meridian, Kuna, Eagle and Star. The most important immediate issue for Ada County regarding Hidden Hollow is the landfill’s capacity. The site’s original design forecast was for the landfill to reach capacity by about 2016 However, rapid growth and a review of the capacity of the existing landfill cell resulted in an estimated closure date of 2010. The county resolved the capacity issue through an expansion plan within the existing Ada County property to develop the North Ravine Cell Landfill.

Draft 83007 13

The North Ravine Cell Landfill will be approximately 400 acres and increases the county’s disposal capacity by one hundred years. The landfill’s first stage, a 20-acre lined cell, began receiving municipal solid waste (MSW) in August 2007. The history of Hidden Hollow, as described by Ada County in their annual report, is based on a public-private relationship. The landfill, which opened in 1972, is owned by the county and operated by a private contractor. The current contractor, Environmental Earth Works, Inc., provides comprehensive service through specific contract requirements which include: • Standard, daily landfill operations and management including waste compaction, cover,

construction and maintenance.

• Waste screening to prevent the disposal of hazardous wastes in the landfill.

• Diversion of wood waste and organics for recycling, including chipping for use as bio-fuel at co-generation facilities and as animal bedding.

Services at the landfill provided by other private contractors include: • Hazardous waste management and the operation of the permanent collection facility and

mobile collection program by Clean Harbors, Inc. • Landfill gas collection and conversion to power through a co-generation facility managed by

G2 Energy of Atlanta, Georgia. Ada County has been charging $6.00 per cubic yard for compacted waste (typically, garbage collected by Allied Waste). Allied Waste uses two types of trucks: rear loaders (waste compacted up to about 800 pounds per yard) and front loaders (about 750 pounds per yard). Because Hidden Hollow does not have truck scales, the tipping fee per ton must be estimated using these assumed waste densities. The equivalent tipping fee is estimated to be about $18 per ton. Ada County recently announced tipping fee increases for a variety of wastes, becoming effective October 1, 2007. At that time, compacted waste will be charged $10.00 per cubic yard. 2.4.2 Simco Road Regional Landfill Idaho Waste Systems, Inc. (IWS) developed this private landfill to compete for large waste disposal clients based on geology, modern environmental technology, and long-haul transportation. Located near Mountain Home in Elmore County, this regional landfill receives about ten percent of Boise’s MSW for disposal. It is a large, regional landfill which serves clients in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Nevada. The landfill received its initial permit in 1999 for a capacity of 210 million tons. Waste is delivered to the site by transfer trailers and rail cars. Although current daily volumes range from 500 to 1,000 tons, the potential market reach is extensive.

Draft 83007 14

Boise’s MSW is delivered to IWS by transfer trailers from Allied Waste’s Boise Transfer Station. This station currently processes an average of 90 tons/day of waste which is truck-hauled thirty miles to IWS. The landfill offers disposal services for a range of acceptable waste streams including: • Municipal solid waste from commercial and residential generators; • Construction and demolition debris that is non-hazardous including brick, concrete, soil, rock

and wood; • Special waste that may be an indirect industrial byproduct such as asbestos, furnace ash, auto

fluff and petroleum products; • Industrial process solid wastes that may pose risks to human health and the environment such

as agricultural chemicals, pulp and paper residue, and refinery waste. The tipping fee at Simco Road is reported to be $16.50 per ton. 2.4.3 Clay Peak Landfill Payette County owns and operates the Clay Peak Landfill, which serves clients in Idaho and Oregon. It opened in 1993, is a federal EPA Subtitle D facility, and is three miles east of Payette, Idaho. The landfill is within a 1,340-acre site that is owned by the County. Clay Peak Landfill is operating Cell #1 of a three-cell facility that has a forecast MSW capacity to serve the region through 2085. It is approximately thirty miles from Boise (a similar distance to the IWS site) and charges a differential disposal rate for in-county ($17.25 per ton) and out-of-county waste ($30 per ton). 2.4.4 Regional Landfills The long-term disposal trends throughout the western United States include the development of large, regional landfills that serve local and distant clients. The IWS Simco Road Landfill, although close to Boise, is an example of private facilities that meet disposal needs for different clients. Other examples of available sites that compete with IWS include: • Columbia Ridge Landfill in Gilliam County, Oregon (Waste Management) • Finley Buttes Landfill in Morrow County, Oregon (Waste Connections) • Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County, Oregon (Allied Waste) These facilities all require substantial commitments to infrastructure improvements for the shipment of MSW. Their respective locations introduce the use of water, rail and road service options for disposal delivery. The corresponding costs for how MSW is delivered to these large

Draft 83007 15

facilities is based on the decisions to build the necessary transfer stations, intermodal operations, as well as rail and barge service. 2.5 PROMOTION, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH Boise City’s Public Works Department maintains and distributes a wide variety of brochures and other printed materials for purposes of promotion, education, and outreach (PEO) regarding different facets of solid waste management. Sample titles include: • Downtown Recycling • Glass Collection Sites • Household Hazardous Waste – What Can I Dispose Of and Where Do I Take It? • EnviroGuard Homebound Service for Household Hazardous Waste • Household Hazardous Waste Collection Sites • Donating Household Items • Boise’s Blue Bin Basics – Tips for Better Recycling • Compost Happens Allied Waste publishes and distributes the “Boise Citizen’s Guide to Waste Collection Services” which contains “how to” information and instructions on management of household hazardous waste, garbage collection, and curbside recycling. Allied Waste also publishes and distributes a twice yearly newsletter called “Blue’s News” that has information and instructions on the solid waste services offered by the company. There is also a separate printed piece titled “Boise Transfer Station” with directions to the facility and describing its functions. For community events and periodic education/information outreach campaigns, Boise City and Allied Waste prepare radio, television, and print advertisements, public service announcements, stickers, flyers, postcards, and brochures.

2.6 ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION Within Boise City government, solid waste management is the responsibility of the Public Works Department’s Environmental Division. The Environmental Division’s primary tasks with respect to managing solid waste are to: • Protect and enhance Boise's environment by establishing a system for the storage, handling,

collection, and processing of solid waste. • Ensure that solid waste generated within the city limits is handled and disposed of in an

environmentally sound manner and in accordance with Federal, state and local regulations. • Encourage and improve opportunities for recycling. • Equitably distribute the costs of the solid waste collection and disposal system.

Draft 83007 16

• Administer the Boise Municipal Code, as it pertains to solid waste management and nuisance abatement.

2.6.1 Management Structure The Environmental Division staff consists of 24.11 full-time equivalent staff (FTE), with 4.34 FTE devoted to solid waste management. An organization chart is included in Appendix M. 2.6.2 Rate Setting The Environmental Division manages the collection of waste and recyclables through an exclusive collection contract with Allied Waste. Boise City Utility Billing invoices commercial and residential customers for collection services provided by Allied Waste. Allied Waste submits an annual report detailing the prior year costs and the projected costs for the upcoming year to the City. The report is reviewed by City staff, and if necessary, the rate request is negotiated and adjusted prior to setting Allied Waste reimbursement and customer rates. All rate adjustments as well as any service or program changes are negotiated between Boise City and Allied Waste. Boise City has set a “rate of return” target for Allied Waste reimbursement which allows the City to review and negotiate annual reimbursement rates. Rates are then submitted to the Public Works Commission and, if approved, then moved to City Council for final approval. In addition to the annual rate review, the City’s Internal Auditor has the contractual authority to review any elements of the annual report submitted by the contractor. The most recent audit was completed in March of 2007. Customer rates are developed by the City based upon an annual cost of service study which reviews fixed costs such as the Allied Waste reimbursement rates and the landfill disposal fees; and indirect costs such as billing, operation and management.

Draft 83007 17

SECTION 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

3.1 COLLECTION 3.1.1 Residential Trash Collection Boise is one of the few remaining cities in the Western U.S. that offers pickup of unlimited trash volumes using manual collection. Manual collection is labor-intensive, ergonomically unsafe for the workers, out-of-date, costly in terms of worker’s compensation and employee turnover, and inefficient. The objective for the future collection system was to choose a method that was safe, reliable, efficient, cost-effective, and would give the City the ability to economically add services such as yard debris and co-mingled recycling using wheeled carts rather than luggable bins, cans, and bags. The Consultant presented three collection systems for consideration by the SWAT: Status quo manual collection, Semi-automated, and Fully automated

Status Quo: Manual Collection This is the current method of collection in Boise. Waste is set out for collection at the curb in cans, carts, bags, boxes, or loose. Collection crews of two or three people; one driving the truck and the other(s) collecting the waste by hand, haul the trash and throw it into the rear of the truck. Crews collect may collect trash from up to 1,000 households per day (800 is an ideal route design). Boise requires trash containers be no smaller than 20 gallons and no larger than 32 gallons each. Each can or bag of trash may weigh up to 60 pounds. The average Boise household sets out 2½ 32-gallon cans or bags of trash each week. Allied Waste provides wheeled or roll carts for rent with capacities of 65- and 95-gallons. These are dumped by a cart tipping mechanism affixed to the rear of the trash truck. Semi-Automated Collection Trash is collected using standardized wheeled carts that are dumped into the truck with a hydraulic cart tipper. Carts range in volume from 20 gallons to 95 gallons. The crew size for a semi-automated collection route is reduced to one person. The truck is equipped with a steering wheel on the right side of the cab so the driver can stand while driving from house to house. Rather than picking up various containers or bags by hand, the driver leaves the cab, rolls the cart onto the hydraulic tipper that then lifts and dumps the waste into a hopper. The primary advantage of semi-automated over manual collection is that mechanized equipment, rather than the driver, does the heavy lifting, greatly reducing the risk of strain and injury and eliminating the need for two and three person crews. The other advantage is the ability to use standardized containers for waste and recyclables.

Draft 83007 18

Fully Automated Collection This method uses the same carts as semi-automated; however, the trucks are equipped with a mechanical arm that grabs and lifts the cart. The driver operates the arm from inside the cab of the truck. The two main advantages of a fully automated route are driver safety and increased productivity (the number of carts collected per hour). As with semi-automated collection, a mechanical device does the heavy lifting, greatly reducing the driver’s risk of injury. The second advantage is speed: the arm takes only about 15 seconds to grab, lift, and dump a cart; additional time is saved because the driver does not need to leave the cab. This increase in driver productivity (compared to a semi-automated or manual route) reduces labor costs, thereby reducing the cost to customers. After a review of the collection options, the SWAT recommended that Boise move to a fully automated collection system. Worker safety was the primary reason for the decision. Under the current manual collection system, Allied Waste had 21 work-related lost time injuries in 2006 at a cost of over $200,000. SWAT members wanted to ensure that the City’s solid waste management practices were consistent with the City’s goals and objectives for livability as set out in the city-wide Strategic Plan. The potential rate impact of implementing automated collection is discussed in Section 4.6. Other reasons given for the recommendation were:

• Standardized Collection Carts: customer convenience and reduction of litter and garbage in

the streets. • Rate Stability: over the long-term (5 to 10 years), collection rates would fluctuate less for a

fully automated system than with other methods of collection. Equipment is typically amortized at a constant rate an extended period of time. While labor rates generally increase over time, the labor component is considerably smaller with automated as compared to manual collection. These two factors contribute to rate stability.

• Future Services: fully automated collection trucks can also pick up yard debris and co-

mingled recyclables, enabling the City to add additional services in the future at a lower cost due to collection fleet/cart standardization.

3.1.2 Residential Recyclables Collection Residents currently source separate their recyclables into Blue Bins for curbside pickup. An alternative would be to switch to a co-mingled1 recyclables stream placed at the curb in 65- or 95-gallon roll carts. After reviewing the existing local recycling infrastructure and projected costs, the Consultant and City staff concluded that the current collection system is sufficient. However, changes should be made 1 Co-mingled recycling is the mixing of all recyclable materials such as newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, “tin” and aluminum cans, and plastic containers in one cart or bin for curbside pick-up.

Draft 83007 19

in the outreach and education of Boise residents regarding recyclables collection. Based on its review, the Consultant came to the following conclusions: • Processing Capacity: The amount of recyclable material collected each year within the City

limits is not sufficient to defray the cost of adding a sorting line to Western Recycling’s plant to process a co-mingled recyclables stream. The City would need to triple the number of tons collected before the additional investment would be profitable. Alternatively, recyclables could be baled and long-distance hauled to a regional sorting facility.

• Collection Costs: The implementation of automated trash collection is a higher priority than

automated recyclables collection. Monthly residential rates would need to increase approximately $2.50 to cover the cost of the new recycling trucks and wheeled recyclables carts. Trucks used for co-mingled recyclables can also be used to collect garbage. There is reason to believe that the public would be hesitant to accept both changes (automation of garbage and recyclables collection) simultaneously. There is a higher likelihood of public acceptance and support for implementing the programs in phases: automated trash collection first, followed by automated recyclables collection once the public has gotten used to the concept. Phasing in the automation would also ease the financial shock of the increased cost per household.

3.1.3 Commercial Trash Collection Since commercial trash (with a few exceptions) is already collected using an efficient and effective system of front-loading garbage trucks, the Consultant recommended, and City staff concurred, that it was not necessary to review this method of collection further. 3.1.4 Unlimited Residential Trash Collection During the development of this Plan, Boise residents frequently expressed their view that having a flat garbage fee for single-family residences, regardless of the amount of waste set out, was crucial to prevent illegal dumping of trash in the City and surrounding areas. This belief that “unlimited garbage for one price prevents illegal dumping” appeared to be widely held. Solid waste collection is currently the only locally provided utility service that has an unlimited use rate; charges for all other utilities (power, sewer, natural gas, and drinking water) are based on the amount used by the customer. Experience in other locations indicates that graduated rates (in which fees are assessed in proportion to the amount of trash disposed) do not cause an increase in illegal dumping. In other areas, the belief is that someone who is too lazy or unwilling to dispose of their trash in a legal manner will dump illegally regardless of whether the fee is $1 or $50. Graduated fees have an added advantage in that they appeal to people’s sense of fairness and individual responsibility. That is, while each person has the right to choose how much trash he generates, everybody else should not have to subsidize his wasteful behavior. Although it may not be widely known, it is interesting to note that Boise already has a well-established and successful graduated fee structure in the commercial sector. A business that

Draft 83007 20

chooses to have a 6-yard dumpster emptied five times a week pays more than one with a 3-yard dumpster emptied once a week. These two hypothetical businesses do not get to throw out as much as they want for one standard price. It is also unlikely that they dump their trash in the street, in vacant lots, or just outside of town. Businesses see waste disposal as another cost of doing business in a legal, ethical and responsible fashion. One would hope that some focused education could instill in the residential sector the idea that garbage fees are part of the price one pays to live in an environmentally healthy and aesthetically pleasing community. It seems reasonable that the residential sector could employ a graduated rate structure similar to the one already operating successfully in the commercial sector. Consistency between the residential and commercial sectors could help to create a new belief system to replace the “unlimited trash prevents illegal dumping” myth. It is critical to note that graduated rates do not limit the amount of trash a household could choose to dispose of; they merely require that household to pay proportionately for the right to dispose of more waste than its neighbors. A phased implementation could be used to move to a graduated fee structure. First, all households would be provided with one 65-gallon wheeled cart. In the NWRG citizen survey, most citizens believe they place one to two cans or bags of trash out per week, therefore a 65-gallon cart would be adequate for a typical household’s trash disposal needs. Any additional wastes could be picked up, for an additional fee. The additional waste would be placed into a trash can and plastic bags would be eliminated. Alternatively, citizens could rent additional wheeled carts. In the second phase, trash cans would not be allowed and all trash would be required to be placed into wheeled carts. One 65-gallon cart would be provided to each home and additional carts would be available at a fee that covers rental and disposal. Smaller and larger carts would be available for variable rates (less waste, less cost; more waste, higher cost). This seems to be simple, logical and fair to all households. Additionally, it will allow for public education and outreach programs that emphasize how citizens can save on their garbage bill with waste reduction and with recycling. 3.2 WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING Findings about waste reduction and recycling in Boise include: • There are currently no strong economic, regulatory, or legislative “drivers” for increasing

diversion. • There is at present no company located in or near Boise City with the capability of

processing co-mingled residential recyclables into marketable commodities. • The 18–gallon Blue Bin for residential recycling has limited storage capacity. Some

residents have requested additional Blue Bins for increased storage while others set out small quantities of materials due to lack of storage space.

Draft 83007 21

• The current approach to residential curbside recycling collection is labor–intensive and inefficient for both citizens and Allied Waste crews. The number of material separations required also makes it inconvenient, and may be a barrier to increased program participation and materials recovery.

• Promotion/education/outreach in general is inconsistent, fragmented, and irregular. • The full amount and extent of recycling in the institutional/commercial/industrial (ICI) sector

cannot be quantified, as there is little documentation. • At several venues (for example, the June 2007 public meetings and the May 22, 2007 City

Council meeting), some citizens expressed an interest in yard waste collection and composting. Only 3 of 202 respondents to the NWRG survey (Appendix G) requested yard waste collection and composting.

While some Boise residents maintain backyard compost piles and bins, the metropolitan area currently lacks a commercial-scale yard waste composting facility. Yard waste composting is technically feasible and popular in many communities across the country. A successful composting program requires a significant number of citizens to be willing to separate their yard wastes and to pay the associated fees. The more households that subscribe to yard waste collection/composting, the lower the price per household will be. The composting facility itself could be developed through a public-private partnership (see Composting Facility Requirements in Appendix H). The City could consider assisting a private developer with obtaining land and permits. If there are sufficient subscribers, the cost of yard waste collection and composting is currently estimated to add about $6 per month to household solid waste fees. Development of a yard waste composting program would need to be carefully planned and phased-in over time. First, additional surveys should be conducted to determine whether a sufficient number of citizens would be willing to pay an additional $6 per month for this service. Second, an automated waste collection system using roll carts must be implemented. If yard waste is collected in plastic bags, composting costs increase significantly: not only is the collection less efficient, but each bag must be emptied. Furthermore, any remaining pieces of plastic will degrade the quality of the compost and may result in a product that is not marketable. As an alternative, it may be useful to increase education and outreach programs for backyard composting. Other communities have used Master Composter classes and worm bins as less capital-intensive means of promoting composting. 3.3 TRANSFER 3.3.1 Potential Boise Transfer Station A transfer station is a building where cars, pickup trucks and garbage collection trucks bring their waste for consolidation into semi-trailers for hauling to a landfill. As noted in Section 2.3, a transfer station can result in more efficient waste transport, reduced traffic congestion and

Draft 83007 22

vehicle emissions, savings in fuel and labor to transport waste to the landfill, and greater customer safety while unloading waste. For the City of Boise, the potential advantages of having a second transfer station (in addition to the existing Allied Waste transfer station in southeast Boise) include: • Geographic flexibility: a second transfer station could be located to serve growth areas of the

city and/or reduce traffic impacts of citizens and trash trucks navigating through the city to the Ada County landfill site.

• Increased regional waste transfer capacity and backup capability during an emergency. • Greater control over the City’s solid waste management by increasing the choices for

disposal options (e.g. besides Ada County, there are other regional landfills that could potentially be feasible disposal sites).

• Potential for higher waste diversion (the transfer station could be co-located on City property

with sorting and processing facilities for recyclables). • Opportunities for a public-private partnership where the City could contract-out design,

construction and/or operation of the facility, or perform one or more of these functions itself, while retaining control over costs, features, and disposal site.

If Boise chose to build a new transfer station, it would likely have the following features typically found in new stations: • A transfer building where waste is “tipped” (unloaded) from smaller vehicles, inspected for

hazardous waste, and then reloaded into larger vehicles. This may involve equipment to compact the waste to increase the vehicle payload for more cost-effective hauling.

• On-site roadways of sufficient length so that vehicles can “queue” (wait to unload their

waste) rather than blocking public streets. • Scales for weighing inbound and outbound vehicles to determine payloads and a scalehouse

where customers pay the associated “tipping” fees. • A collection area for “traditional” recyclable materials (metal cans, glass, newspaper,

cardboard, mixed paper, and plastics). • Employee facilities (offices, restrooms, locker rooms, lunch room, and conference room,

etc.) • Parking for transfer trailers, storage, and an equipment maintenance area.

Draft 83007 23

If sufficient land is available and the economics are reasonable, additional drop-off areas could be provided for certain wastes that present disposal problems or opportunities for additional materials recovery, for example: • Higher pollution potential: household hazardous waste (HHW) and electronic waste (e-

waste). • Yard waste: suitable as feedstock for a compost facility, if one were available locally. • Metals recycling: currently favorable world market for white goods (large appliances) and

miscellaneous scrap metal. • Bulky waste (furniture, building salvage): difficult to handle and a temptation to illegally

dump. 3.3.2 Eco-Park If sufficient land is available at the transfer station site and the economics are reasonable, the City could encourage the planning and construction of facilities related to solid waste handling such as a: • Compost Facility: This facility could initially grind and compost leaves, lawn clippings,

tree trimmings, and land-clearing waste. In the future, it might be expanded to compost other organics and biosolids.

• Material Recovery Facility (MRF) to sort and process recyclables (e.g. cardboard, paper,

metal, plastic, glass, etc.). These would be baled and shipped to recycling markets. The facility might eventually be expanded to process construction/demolition (CD) waste including wood, gypsum wallboard, miscellaneous metal, etc.

• Scrap Metal Recovery Facility to sort and consolidate ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal.

This facility might also remove Freon (a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) containing coolant found in refrigerators and air conditioners and process large metal appliances that impacts the ozone layer if it is not properly collected and stored).

• Retail Reuse Center: The center would sell reusable items such as light fixtures, plumbing

fixtures, metal shelving, pipe, and similar items salvaged from demolition or construction of buildings. It could also sell lawn mowers, bicycles, file cabinets, and other household or business equipment that is disposed at the transfer station.

An eco-park co-located with a transfer station would be convenient for customers dropping off their wastes and would minimize the effort to transport salvageable materials from the transfer station to a distant recovery or reuse center. An eco-park also provides an excellent opportunity for public-private partnership: for example, the City might provide the land and assistance with permitting, while private companies might operate the recycling businesses.

Draft 83007 24

An ideal site for a combined transfer station/eco-park would be about 30 acres, zoned for light or heavy industrial land use. It should have convenient access to a major arterial and a freeway. Ideally, the site would not have existing environmental problems or sensitive areas such as streams or wetlands. It would also be advantageous to have natural buffering from sensitive neighbors such as hospitals, schools, and residences 3.4 DISPOSAL Boise’s primary objectives for waste disposal are to have reliable long-term disposal capacity and stable system costs. Suitable alternatives must allow the City to grow, manage its waste, control its system costs, and establish a stable revenue base to fund the waste management system. Actions that support Boise’s ability to control its solid waste disposal destiny may include: • Working cooperatively with the private sector and other local governments to implement

cost-effective solutions to manage its solid waste system. • Managing the solid waste system to support the local economy and provide jobs; and • Managing Boise waste locally to minimize reliance on other jurisdictions or facilities. As discussed in the following subsections, five major disposal alternatives were considered: Ada County’s landfill; an intermediate landfill; a long-haul landfill; waste-to-energy; and a conversion technology. Each alternative is evaluated below: 3.4.1 Status quo: Continued Use of the Ada County Landfill Since the 1970’s Boise has relied on Ada County’s Hidden Hollow Landfill for solid waste disposal. The landfill’s unlined cell will close in 2010 and be replaced by the lined North Ravine Cell. This 400-acre cell will be developed in stages and provide a 100-year disposal capacity. Considerations affecting continued use of the Hidden Hollow Landfill include: • It requires additional cost or management to deliver the city’s MSW outside the county. • As the Boise area population grows, the increasing volume of MSW going to Hidden Hollow

will result in more vehicle emissions and greater traffic impacts on the roads approaching the landfill.

• Future development near the landfill may increase community impacts and opposition. • The current lack of a formal contract between Ada County and the City of Boise for the use

of Hidden Hollow provides little control to Boise.

Draft 83007 25

• The current lack of scales at Hidden Hollow makes it virtually impossible to consistently

provide accurate waste data that can be used for billing purposes. It is industry standard practice to assess landfill disposal fees based on the weight of garbage disposed. Each truck has a specific volume that doesn’t vary, but it carries a different tonnage on each trip that varies according to the density of the waste (for example, a truckload of polystyrene packing peanuts will weigh less than a truckload of food waste). The only fair way to charge for waste disposal at a landfill is in proportion to the weight of garbage disposed; otherwise, it is merely guessing.

• The possibility of constructing a City-controlled transfer station to consolidate waste and

decrease the number of vehicles going to the landfill, thereby reducing air pollution, noise, and traffic, presents the option of contracting with other disposal sites.

3.4.2 Transition to Intermediate Disposal Sites The City could consider transitioning from using Hidden Hollow to another private or government-owned landfill located within a 50 mile radius of Boise. The cost of developing Hidden Hollow’s North Ravine Cell may increase its disposal rates to the extent that other intermediate landfills are cost-competitive, when the total cost (both transportation and disposal) is considered. Examples of intermediate disposal sites include:

• Idaho Waste Systems’ (IWS) Simco Road Regional Landfill located 30 miles southeast of

Boise in Elmore County. • Publicly-owned Clay Peak Landfill located 50 miles northwest of Boise in Payette County.

Considerations affecting the use of an intermediate disposal site include:

• Reduction of waste-related traffic and impacts to communities near the Hidden Hollow

Landfill. • Develop one or more transfer stations to reduce transportation costs, split commercial vehicle

loads, and mitigate traffic impacts over more than one location. • Higher waste management costs related to transfer station construction and management

costs and longer round trips to the landfill. • Possible increase in illegal dumping due to higher disposal costs. • Mitigation of community impacts (increased local traffic, noise, litter, odor, etc.) from new

transfer stations constructed to facilitate hauling of waste to the intermediate site. • Air pollution impacts and fossil fuels used to haul garbage.

Draft 83007 26

3.4.3 Transition to Long-Haul Disposal Sites This alternative involves a decision to transport MSW to a more distant, out-of-state landfill. It is a complex choice that requires substantial infrastructure improvements, which may include at least one rail transfer station, and one or more truck transfer stations with compactors. The disposal trends in Oregon and Washington have involved the closing of numerous small, local landfills and delivering solid waste to regional mega-landfills. Today, the three regional landfills in eastern Oregon and Washington that serve cities and counties throughout the Pacific Northwest for disposal are: • Columbia Ridge Landfill in Gilliam County, Oregon, approximately 300 miles by road

(Waste Management, Inc.) • Finley Buttes Landfill in Morrow County, Oregon, approximately 270 miles by road (Waste

Connections Inc.) • Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County, Washington, approximately 310 miles by

road (Allied Waste Services). The Idaho Waste Systems Simco Road Landfill, 30 miles from Boise, is the primary regional facility in southern Idaho. Its proximity to Boise offers the City a regional choice but at an intermediate distance. This is an unusual situation because most large jurisdictions that use regional landfills for disposal have complicated transportation decision related to that choice. In this case, the City already has a portion of its MSW delivered to Simco Road via the Allied Waste transfer station in southeast Boise. Considerations affecting the use of a long-haul disposal site include: • Reduction of waste-related traffic and impacts to communities near the Hidden Hollow

Landfill. • Develop one or more transfer stations to reduce transportation costs, split commercial vehicle

loads, and mitigate traffic impacts at one location. • Higher waste management costs related transfer station construction and management costs

and to longer round trips to the landfill. • Possible increase in illegal dumping due to higher disposal costs. • Mitigation of community impacts (increased local traffic, noise, litter, odor, etc.) from new

transfer stations constructed to facilitate hauling of waste to the long-haul site. • Air pollution impacts and fossil fuels used to haul garbage.

Draft 83007 27

3.4.4 Local Landfill Development The City could theoretically attain maximum control over disposal of its solid waste by having its own landfill. However, this would involve a multi-year effort to find and permit a suitable site, then design, construct, and operate the landfill for a period of time, perhaps several decades. When the landfill reaches capacity, the City would construct the landfill closure and then be responsible for maintenance and environmental monitoring of the closed landfill for decades thereafter. The process to site a new landfill is complicated and requires a significant commitment of time, labor, resources, and public policy decisions. The process is difficult politically and the outcome is uncertain. Given the availability of viable landfill alternatives that are accessible and affordable to the City, it does not seem prudent for the City to embark on development of its own landfill. 3.4.5 Incineration or Waste-to-Energy Incineration of solid waste reduces both its volume (up to 90%) and weight (up to about 75%). Waste-to-energy (WTE) involves capturing some of the heat released through incineration and converting it to either steam or electricity for sale. The process for siting an incineration or WTE plant is similar to that for siting a landfill. However, the public is more likely to oppose a WTE plant than a landfill, due to concerns about the health effects of air emissions, particularly dioxins. Even with the sale of energy, the economics of a regional landfill tend to be more favorable than that of a WTE plant, at least in the western United States. An August 2007 survey of five incineration and WTE facilities found unloaded tipping fees ranging from $45-$55 per ton. Many of the existing WTE facilities are facing high maintenance or replacement costs. Those costs, if incurred, will likely be passed on to customers in the form of higher tip fees in the future. Given the availability of viable landfill alternatives, it does not seem prudent for the City to embark on the difficult task of siting a WTE plant at this time. 3.4.6 Waste Conversion Technologies The use of chemical processes such as pyrolysis, gasification, anaerobic digestion, and ethanol fermentation to convert the organic portion of solid waste into products such as chemicals and fuels is receiving more attention. A significant advantage of these conversion technologies is the possibility of producing fuel or energy with less environmental impact than traditional incineration. However, in the United States there is limited experience applying these technologies to MSW, a variable mix of materials that is more difficult to process than more homogenous waste streams such as wood chips. Waste conversion technologies must demonstrate their value through real projects, financial assurance, public understanding, regulatory compliance, and environmental

Draft 83007 28

protection. MSW conversion technologies are being considered for projects in California, Florida, New York, and Hawaii. These should be monitored for future consideration in Boise. For example, plasma arc technology is a non-incineration thermal process that uses extremely high temperatures (over 5,000o C.) in an oxygen-starved atmosphere to decompose waste materials into simple molecules. The process produces a synthetic combustible gas high in hydrogen and carbon monoxide that can be burned in a combustion turbine to generate electricity. The high temperatures also produce a glassy metallic slag (rather than ash) that is reported not to leach metals. In late 2006, a developer (Geoplasma) proposed to build a large (3,000 ton/day) plant in St. Lucie County, Florida. Geoplasma intended to self-finance the $425 million project by selling bonds. There may be some difficulty in scaling up from the much smaller (300 ton/day) plant operating in Japan, but the project bears watching. 3.4.7 Special Wastes Through it collection services contract with Allied Waste and cooperative agreements with Ada County, the City continues to manage special waste streams, including:

3.4.7.1 Wood Recycling Program

Enviro-Progress, Inc. manages the wood-recycling program at the Hidden Hollow Landfill. It chips the wood onsite and ships it as fuel for co-generation facilities in the region. Some of this material is also used for compost feedstock, cattle bedding and landscape services. This program diverted approximately 40,000 tons of material from landfill disposal during FY 2006. This equates to a savings of approximately 6,000 trash truckloads per year. 3.4.7.2 Hazardous Material Management Boise owns two household hazardous waste (HHW) collection vehicles and collects HHW at one of eight sites in the City throughout the month. Clean Harbors, Inc. contracts with the City for the HHW mobile collection program. It also manages the Household Hazardous Material Collection Facility at Ada County’s Landfill. The facility is open every Friday and Saturday for residential service and accepts Conditionally-Exempt Generator material by appointment. The program segregates these materials into ten categories and recycled approximately 820 tons during FY 2006. The categories include:

• ReUse Program • CRT (cathode ray tube) • Automotive and Household Batteries • Oil-based Paint • Flammable Liquids • Latex Paint • Motor Oil • Antifreeze • Pesticides • Other (fertilizers)

Draft 83007 29

3.4.7.3 Waste Tires

Customers may deliver tires directly to the Hidden Hollow Landfill for a tip fee of $2.00 per tire. The Hidden Hollow Landfill shipped over 10,000 waste tires to a recycling processor during FY 2006. Allied Waste does not collect tires from homes or businesses. 3.4.7.4 Other Special Wastes • Agricultural wastes – The volume of agricultural waste generated in Boise is limited. Most is

handled as regular MSW. • Animal carcasses – Animals weighing less than 20 pounds may be disposed in a bag, with

residential trash in Boise. Larger animals are handled separately through veterinarians and animal disposal companies.

• Asbestos – Asbestos-containing material is handled as a special waste at the Ada County

Hidden Hollow landfill. The disposal fee is currently $25.00 per cubic yard ($50.00 minimum) and the waste must be labeled and packaged in accordance with regulatory requirements.

• Biomedical wastes – Several local and regional biomedical waste companies provide

collection and disposal services to Boise clinics and hospitals. • Biosolids (sewage sludge) – Boise City owns and operates a Biosolids Farm. • Bulky wastes – Large items such as furniture are collected at no charge by Allied Waste from

households in Boise. Businesses may purchase special collection as needed. • Construction-demolition land-clearing (CDL) wastes – CDL is disposed with MSW. No

special management is required. • Disaster debris – There is limited planning and management for disaster debris at this time.

The SWAT has recommended that the City should ensure the availability of disaster debris management via a formal disposal agreement with Ada County.

• Electronic wastes (E-wastes) – E-wastes such as televisions and computer monitors are

collected at no charge at mobile collection sites or the Ada County HHW facility. Businesses may also deliver electronic wastes to the HHW facility.

• Fats-oil-grease – Local hauling companies provide collection and disposal services to

restaurants and other generators. • Industrial wastes – The volume of industrial waste generated in Boise is small. Generators

may arrange for them to be managed as special wastes by contacting the disposal facility.

Draft 83007 30

• Inert wastes – Inert waste is disposed with MSW. No special management is required. • Petroleum-contaminated soils – regulated by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

as a special waste. Generators may arrange for them to be disposed by contacting the disposal facility.

• Street sweepings and vactor wastes – Under a formal agreement, street sweepings and vactor

wastes are delivered by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) to Ada County’s Hidden Hollow landfill where the materials are mixed with daily cover soils.

• Wood wastes – Source-separated wood wastes may be recycled at the Hidden Hollow

Landfill, as described above. Wood waste that is mixed with MSW is managed as MSW. 3.5 PROMOTION, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH Findings about the City’s current promotion, education, and outreach (PEO) programs include: • Helping citizens to understand their role in environmentally sound solid waste management,

and achieving increased participation in diversion efforts necessitates ongoing promotion, education, and outreach.

• PEO for public and private sector diversion efforts in Boise City appears to be inconsistent,

fragmented, and irregular. • In order to advance waste reduction / recycling there needs to be a comprehensive,

systematic, coordinated approach on PEO among City, County, and private sector service providers.

• The City should play a leadership role in waste reduction, reuse and recycling to better

promote and inform the community about waste diversion opportunities. 3.6 ADMINISTRATION & ORGANIZATION 3.6.1 General The current approach of relying on the private sector and on third parties for waste/recycling collection and hauling has served Boise residents well. However, achieving Boise’s goals of increased participation in waste reduction and recycling, maintaining better control over the timing and size of rate increases, and assuring the availability of emergency services will require the City to expand its role in solid waste management. To achieve the recommendations outlined in this Solid Waste Strategic Plan, the City should assume a more active role as an equal participant with Ada County and the private sector, as follows:

Draft 83007 31

• Use the City’s staff resources and its authority to both strengthen and extend its relationships

with current and potential solid waste partners. • Standardize data collection about disposal and diversion; collaborate with Allied Waste,

private recyclers, and Ada County to obtain data based on actual weights in tons, not on volume.

• Set benchmarks for tangible measurement, accomplishment, and accountability. • Form an ongoing solid waste advisory team, with jurisdictional representatives and private

sector stakeholders to support additional cooperation and coordination, foster regional perspectives, and enhance multi-entity policy and implementation.

3.6.2 Boise-Ada County Disposal Contract To continue to provide environmentally sound, cost-effective, and reliable waste disposal to its citizens, Boise should continue to utilize Ada County’s Hidden Hollow Landfill for the majority of waste generated within the City limits. Although there is a long-standing working relationship between the City and Ada County, a formal written agreement would clarify expectations, provide assurances, and establish procedures. These procedures will be the framework for the City and County to address jointly future changes in local solid waste management conditions, whether routine or unanticipated. A preliminary list of issues to be addressed in a formal agreement includes: • Clearly define the obligations, authority, and responsibilities of each party: what materials

will be directed to Hidden Hollow, minimum quantities, duties of the County to process or dispose of the materials in accordance with regulatory requirements, availability of recycling, managing risks, etc.

• Establish the duration of the contract, opt-out clauses, timing of renegotiation or opt-out, etc. • Establish an annual process and protocol for jointly reviewing and approving solid waste

rates, including escalation clauses and indexes, etc. which will help Boise plan and stabilize rates.

• Arrange for one or more back-up disposal alternatives for emergency conditions such as

natural disasters, road closures, or labor disputes; cost-sharing, etc. • Define operating and cost-sharing parameters for the recycling facilities for

hazardous/special wastes, wood and yard debris, and other hard–to–handle materials located at landfill.

• Require the use of scales at the landfill to provide accurate measurement of waste quantities

so that billing can be consistent and fair to all customers, both private and public. The

Draft 83007 32

approximate cost of adding two truck scales and a scalehouse at the landfill ranges from about $150,000 to 200,000.

• Agree on data collection and accounting methods to ensure fair and accurate billing of all

customers based on weight, not volume, of garbage. • Establish procedures for addressing citizen concerns and changes in regulations. • Establish procedures for planning and sharing the cost of new programs at the landfill. • Establish procedures for ensuring environmental compliance. This may include giving the

City the contractual right to enforce regulatory standards without waiting for other regulators to do so.

• Establish procedures for allocating the cost of fines or penalties that may be assessed by

regulatory agencies. Additional information can be found in Appendix K Disposal, Boise-Ada County Contract Questions, March 2, 2007. 3.6.3 Allied Waste Services Franchise Agreement Allied Waste currently has the franchise (exclusive agreement) to collect residential garbage and recyclables, as well as commercial garbage, within the City limits. Originally signed in 1995, the contract it was extended until 2009. Normally, contracts are rebid for reasons such as poor performance/working relationships, inadequate contractor experience or resources, or to obtain more favorable rates. In this case, because there is a solid, long-term working relationship and the waste services have been good, the only reason to rebid the contract would be to attempt to reduce rates. Since Boise already has the lowest collection rates in the region, this is unlikely to occur, especially considering the large investment in equipment and drivers that haulers (other than Allied) would have to make, in order to compete for the contract. The major pitfall of rebidding the collection contract is that it would seriously delay the implementation of many recommendations of this SWSP. Automated collection is a critical part of the SWSP, and Allied Waste is unlikely to invest in new equipment if it is at risk to lose the contract rebid. Another important factor is the amount of time (City staff, consultants, and legal) involved in developing a Request for Proposals, evaluating the bids, and negotiating a new contract. As an alternative, the City could extend Allied’s contract for a period that would allow Allied to recoup its investment in automated collection equipment, and allow major portions of this SWSP to be implemented in the near future. Additional information can be found in Appendix I Collection, Collection Contract – Renew or Rebid?

Draft 83007 33

SECTION 4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 COLLECTION 4.1.1 Automated Residential Collection Garbage collection is a highly visible component of the solid waste and recycling system. One of the key recommendations of the Consultant as well as the SWAT is to update the method of residential garbage collection from one relying on manual labor to a fully automated collection system utilizing standardized carts. This automated collection system would require the franchised hauler to invest approximately $9.2 million dollars in equipment over the next two years. The projected cost to “roll out” automated residential collection is approximately $5.5 million for the 25 collection trucks ($220,000 each) and $3.74 million for 68,000 residential roll carts ($55 per cart). Details of how this would affect residential collection rates are discussed in Section 4.6 below. Recommendation C-1: The City should proceed with the phased implementation of automated residential garbage collection. Automated residential recyclables and/or yard waste collection could be considered one to two years after automated garbage collection has been fully implemented. 4.1.2 Collection Contract Updating and extending the collection contract with Allied Waste will facilitate implementation of automated collection. It is economically more feasible for Allied Waste to make the substantial investment in collection equipment and trucks if it holds a long-term residential collection contract with the City. The contract should allow Allied Waste sufficient time to recover its costs and receive a suitable return on its investment. A contract would also provide the City a longer period over which to spread out rate increases, which are inevitable and due to a variety of factors such as inflation and increases in fuel and labor costs. The longer contract time period allows more flexibility in controlling the pace at which collection rates are increased. Recommendation C-2: The Consultant recommends that the City should initiate negotiations with Allied Waste to extend the existing collection contract for a period of no less than five years. (For more details, see Collection Contract – Renew or Rebid? in Appendix I). 4.2 WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING 4.2.1 Program and Policy Initiatives There are numerous ongoing waste reduction/recycling (diversion) efforts and services in both the residential and institutional/commercial/industrial (ICI) sectors of Boise City. These are provided by Allied Waste through its contract with the City and by other private sector

Draft 83007 34

companies that collect, process, and market recyclables. In addition, Ada County offers recovery opportunities for certain specific material streams such as wood waste, appliances/white goods, computers and other forms of electronic equipment, and household hazardous waste at the Hidden Hollow Landfill. The recommendations presented below are designed to build on the strengths of existing diversion activities and service providers, while addressing the needs and opportunities identified in Section 3.2. Recommendation R-1: The City should serve as an example for other businesses and institutions in the community by developing or expanding model diversion practices at City buildings, facilities, and operations. An inventory can be undertaken to determine the status and effectiveness of current waste reduction/recycling methods. Based on this assessment, additional actions can be implemented that would be applicable to a variety of generators and conditions in the wider ICI sector. Recommendation R-2: To determine the effectiveness of recycling in Boise, it is essential to obtain more complete data on the types and quantities of materials recovered by private sector service providers. This data should be obtained at least quarterly to provide a reliable basis for ongoing program evaluation. The most critical data gap concerns ICI sector recycling in Boise City, since Allied Waste/Western Recycling already maintain information on the amounts and composition of residential recyclables. The City should meet with the relevant stakeholders to determine an acceptable approach for gathering the necessary data, while still being responsive to their concerns about confidentiality and proprietary information. Recommendation R-3: After the mechanisms for generating a reasonably accurate diversion database have been instituted and have produced results, the City should consider adopting staged and progressively more challenging diversion goals and associated timeframes. A goal or series of goals functions as a rationale and motivation for waste reduction/recycling and offers a benchmark/milestone for measuring progress. Recommendation R-4: It is widely acknowledged that while there has been promotion/education/ outreach (PEO) for the present residential recycling program, it has been inconsistent and irregular. While co-mingled residential recyclables collection may be more convenient and thus increase participation, there is no processing capability in the Boise region for co-mingled recyclables. Thus, it is recommended that the City take the lead in organizing and carrying out more systematic and frequent PEO about the existing residential recycling program, in coordination and cooperation with Allied Waste and Western Recycling. It is further recommended that areas in the City showing high non–participation be targeted. Effectiveness can be determined by increases in the number of participating households and recovered material quantities. Recommendation R-5: To provide strong support for residential recycling, it is recommended that the City and its contractor eliminate the policy of collecting unlimited amounts of household trash for a flat fee; move to a modified variable rate; and implement a phased approach with economic incentives for diversion. This would mean that the City adopts a residential version of the “pay–as–you–throw” standard that now prevails in Boise’s ICI sector as the basis for service

Draft 83007 35

charges. A base fee and service level would be enacted. Households could still set out as much refuse as they wanted, but would be charged accordingly for additional containers/garbage. Recommendation R-6: To stimulate more ICI waste reduction/recycling, it is recommended that the City take the lead in providing waste audits, technical advice, and PEO assistance to major institutional/ commercial/industrial generators. This would be done in coordination and cooperation with private sector recycling companies active in Boise City. To achieve higher diversion impact, the initial emphasis would be to target generators with a large employee base and/or sizable waste stream. Recommendation R-7: A common barrier to recycling in the ICI sector is lack of storage space for recyclable materials. Therefore, the City should consider building code requirements (or incentives) for the inclusion of adequate storage space for recyclables in all future ICI construction. 4.3 TRANSFER 4.3.1 Transfer Station As noted in Sections 2.3 and 3.3, a transfer station can result in more efficient waste transport, reduced traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, savings in fuel and labor to transport waste to the landfill, and greater customer safety while unloading waste. It can also provide geographic flexibility, increased regional waste transfer capacity, serve as a back up during an emergency, increase the potential for waste diversion and recycling, and provide opportunities for a public-private partnership. A significant advantage of a City-owned site is the ability to plan the buildings and control overall site development in a manner that provides adequate buffering from neighbors. This should reduce objections during the permitting process and promote amicable relations with the neighbors once the facilities are built and operating. It is clear that as residential construction encroaches on areas used for industry or agriculture, the latter uses are forced to relocate to areas where land is less expensive. Given the demographic and economic growth trends in the Boise metropolitan area, it is likely that industrial land close-in to the City core will become increasingly scarce over time. Therefore, it is recommended that the City move quickly to purchase a suitable parcel of land and reserve it for future construction of a transfer station and eco-park. While it is not urgent to build a transfer station or eco-park at this time, it is critical to reserve the land for future solid waste management purposes and to resist the lure of selling the property when surrounding land values increase. Experience in other regions of the country has shown that it is extremely expensive and difficult (if not impossible) to locate a solid waste facility once the surrounding area has been built up, especially if the neighboring properties are residential, commercial, or schools. A site of 10-15 acres would allow development of a transfer station with room to expand. For preliminary planning purposes, a range of $4.5 to $7.5 million (2007 dollars) including

Draft 83007 36

purchasing a building site, permitting, design, and construction is estimated. This budget estimate is not site-specific; it was prepared without knowledge of the actual site and without having developed design drawings and specifications. As such, this budget estimate should be considered preliminary and subject to change as more detailed information becomes available. The City currently owns a suitably sized parcel of about 20 acres located in southeast Boise, on Blue Heaven Road near Eisenman Road. The site has suitable zoning and would be compatible with surrounding land uses, which are also industrial. It can be reached via arterial streets and has convenient access to I-84. Alternate 1 in Appendix J illustrates one possible site layout for a transfer station including a large recyclables drop-off area, scales for weighing and charging customers, a tipping building for unloading waste and reloading it into transfer trailers, and staff facilities. The City also owns two adjacent parcels on the east border of the proposed Power Plant, totaling about 13 acres. These parcels are just slightly south of the 20-acre site and have similar arterial and freeway access. Alternate 2 (Appendix J) illustrates one possible site layout for a station with the same features as Alternate 1. The proximity of these sites to the east end of the new airport runway poses some potential permitting problems. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places restrictions on landfills, transfer stations, and composting facilities located within 10,000 feet of a jet runway (see Summary of FAA Guidance in Appendix J). Depending on the actual separation distance, the FAA might require the City to build an enclosed transfer building where vehicle maneuvering takes places inside the building. The hatched areas shown in Alternates 1 and 2 illustrate the increase in building size necessary to accomplish this indoor vehicle maneuvering. These larger buildings would be significantly more expensive than a three-sided structure (such as Allied Waste’s transfer station) where vehicles back into the building rather than drive through it. Recommendation T-1: The City should purchase or retain a 12-20 acre (or larger) parcel zoned for industrial land use. The parcel should be reserved for future development as a transfer station. If the site is large enough, consideration should be given for co-locating an eco-park that might include some combination of composting, waste recycling, recovery, and materials resale facilities. 4.3.2 Eco-Park As noted in Section 3.3, an eco-park would be a logical and beneficial addition to a transfer station, if sufficient land were available. The eco-park could be home to facilities related to solid waste handling such as a compost facility, MRF, scrap metal recovery facility, and retail reuse center. These types of facilities would benefit from proximity to the transfer station, making it more convenient for customers to drop their non-garbage recoverable materials at the appropriate facility. There would be a synergy between the transfer station and eco-park facilities and would help build public awareness of solid waste management and the benefits of recycling and materials recovery. An ideal site for a combined transfer station/eco-park would be about 30 acres.

Draft 83007 37

Current City property may be located too close to the airport to allow construction of a composting facility, which the FAA may view as attracting birds which are a danger to aircraft. However, the property may be useful for other waste recycling or recovery opportunities. Recommendation T-2: The City should consider purchasing a 10-20 acre parcel zoned for industrial land use. The parcel should be reserved for future development as an eco-park that could include various composting, waste recycling, recovery, and materials resale facilities. 4.4 DISPOSAL The selection of a long-term disposal solution has an important effect on the City’s ability to control its long-term solid waste destiny. The review of disposal alternatives (various landfills, incineration, and waste conversion technologies) indicates that continued use of the Hidden Hollow Landfill is the most reliable and economical disposal solution for the long term.

Recommendation D-1: The City should continue to use Ada County’s Hidden Hollow Landfill for MSW disposal. However, the City should develop a detailed, formal written agreement documenting the responsibilities of both parties, and financial and legal terms and conditions. The agreement should require the installation of scales at the landfill; establish procedures for an annual review of disposal rates; and grant the City the right to have input into the setting of new rates. Recommendation D-2: The City should keep informed on the status of other waste recycling, recovery, and disposal technologies and methods for practical ways to increase waste diversion and to provide flexibility in the management of solid wastes in the future.

4.5 PROMOTION, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH (PEO) The City has a well-established program for promotion, education and outreach (PEO) regarding solid waste and recycling issues to Boise residents. City environmental staff members are skilled in developing new materials for communicating waste management issues and solutions. The following recommendations are intended to focus the City’s PEO efforts in particular areas for the near term. Recommendations: • Boise City should exercise leadership by integrating diverse PEO activities into a highly

visible, easily identifiable, coherent program with a unifying message and purpose. • Designate a PEO Team with representatives from the City, County, and private sector. • Select a common PEO program name, logo, and theme(s).

Draft 83007 38

• Design and carry out sustained waste reduction/recycling PEO for the residential sector in cooperation with Ada County, Allied Waste, private recycling companies, other interested entities, focusing on areas of the City with historically low participation rates.

• Same as above for institutional/commercial/industrial sector with focus on larger generators. • Provide waste audits, technical advice, and PEO assistance to major ICI buildings, facilities,

and employers. • Continue and expand presentations to schools, community and neighborhood groups,

business and service organizations. • Communicate often with print and electronic media. 4.6 ADMINISTRATION/ORGANIZATION Ultimately, residential collection rates should be variable (graduated) based on the amount of garbage put out for collection; they should also be equal to the cost of providing the service. As an incentive to promote recycling, the cost of recyclables collection should continue to be included in the base collection rate for garbage collection (regardless of trash container size). The $2.00 discount for recycling would be discontinued and replaced by the customer’s ability to choose a smaller cart, and thus a lower rate. Table 2 below is an example of how rates could be calculated. It is important to note that effective October 1, 2007 the Hidden Hollow Landfill will increase its rate from $6.00 to $10.00 per compacted cubic yard. This higher rate is estimated to increase monthly rates for the three can sizes by about 60 cents to $1.63. Table 2: Potential Effects of the SWSP on Residential Collection Rates

Rate Components 35-gallon 65-gallon 95-gallon Collection Costs 4.04 4.78 5.51 Cart Costs 0.64 0.79 0.86 Landfill Costs (current) 0.90 1.67 2.44 Recycling 1.92 1.92 1.92 Admin & Billing Costs 1.80 1.80 1.80 Total Current Monthly Rate $ 9..30 $ 10.69 $ 12.53 Difference in rates $ (1.66) $ 1.57 Landfill Costs after 10/1/07 1.50 2.78 4.07 Total Monthly Rate after 10/1/07 $ 9..90 $ 12.07 $ 14.16

Recommendation A-1: Implement wheeled cart collection and move toward a variable rate structure. Phase in graduated customer rates for 35, 65, and 95-gallon garbage carts. Recyclables collection should be included in the rate for each size of cart. Each customer will have the ability to subscribe to as many carts of each size as he/she chooses.