Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-29 adjNovember 29, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 29 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 29, 1988, at 12:00 Noon, at the Omni Hotel, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from November 17, 1988. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. ABSENT: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and County Engineer, Richard Moring. ALSO PRESENT: Charlottesville City Council members: Messrs. Alvin Edwards, Frank L. Buck, Darden Towe, Thomas Vandever, and Mrs. Elizabeth Waters. City Staff members present were: City Manager, Cole Hendrix; City Attorney, Clyde Gouldman; City Director of Public Works, Judith Mueller; Clerk of Council, Jeanne Cox. ALSO PRESENT: Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr. and Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at approximately 1:00 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way, and the Mayor, Mrs. Waters. Agenda Item No. 2. Brief Discussion on 1-64 - Avon Street Interchange. Mr. Way said the Board of Supervisors has requested the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation several times to give consideration of constructing an interchange at 1-64 and Avon Street. The County has planned for a lot of development in that area in the future. In 1986, Highway Commissioner, Ray D. Pethtel, wrote rejecting this idea. The Board would appreciate any help it can get from its legislators in this matter. Mr. Michie said he would be glad to work With the City and the County in drafting a resolution to the Highway Department. Mrs. Waters said that Council ha~ previously expressed its support of this idea. Agenda Item No. 3. Presentation of "Economic Feasibility Study of Alternative Solid Waste Disposal Methods" by Judith Mueller and Richard Moring. Mrs. Mueller began the presentation by showing slides concerning the Ivy Landfill operation since the middle 1970's. Mr. Moring said the remaining life of the Ivy Landfill is estimated to be only between ten and fifteen years. A study was therefore initiated to identify solid waste disposal methods that might be feasible for managing City and County wastes, to compare the cost of those technologies to continued landfilling, and to assess the impact of alternative disposal methods on the remaining life of the Ivy Landfill. The study has shown that more accurate subsurface data is needed. Soil borings will be taken and from the pieces selected, geologists will determine the nature of the underburden. There will be ~a minimum number of borings specified in the contract, and a seismic refraction study will be done to determine contours of subsurface rock. Until all of this work is completed, the detailed design of the cell cannot be dong!to determine capacity remaining in the landfill. Before completing the economic feasibility study of alternative solid waste disposal methods, it was necessary to determine the quantity of solid waste that would be generated. The first difficulty experienced was trying to determine the amount of inert materials comingito the Landfill and if that amount should be of concern. In order to determine the best way to get, rid of wastes, a study was done, and it was decided that not all methods ~ould be addressed. A decision had to be made as to what was workable at this!facility. The committee then selected six technologies to deal with: 30 November 29, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) 1) Baling plus Landfill. Take everything that comes into the Landfill and turn it into bales. There are several successful operations of this type in Virginia at this time. 2) Incineration (no energy recovery) plus Landfill. Take the entire waste stream and put it into an incinerator and burn everything and then dispose of the ash. 3) Energy Recovery (Mass Burn) plus Landfill. 4) Mass Burn - Energy Recovery plus Materials Recovery plus Landfill. 5) RDF - Energy Recovery plus Materials Recovery plus Landfill. Take any combustible material, separate it out, burn, and fuel:is then a salable item. 6) Materials Recovery plus Landfill is simple recycling. A determination was made of the relative cost of each of these opera- tions. These six technologies were run to determine at what point the Landfill will close. That date seems to be in about ten years. If recycling were instituted, it would add two years to that time frame. Adding some of the other techniques could keep the Landfill in operation until 2033. That is important, since if the Landfill is to close in ten or twelve years, a new site must be found immediately. The staff does support some type of recycling program, but there are difficulties involved in implementation. There are basically three ways this can be achieved: 1) Ail waste would come to the Landfill as it does now, and be separated at the Landfill. This is not really considered to be a workable solution. 2) Source separation would have each homeowner provide that separation. This provides difficulties since the City picks up sixty percent of its waste in dumpsters. The University of Virginia has one hundred percent collection from dumpsters, and the County has no collection system at all. When a family type of collection is implemented, the local government normally spends $15-20 on a container for each household to use for recyclable items. Two trucks are needed, instead of one truck, to pick up trash and recycla~le items. 3) Have drop-off recycling centers. A wood chipping operation for trees and stumps will be tried since the consultants feel this could reduce the volume in the landfill by forty-five percent. Mr. Moring said there are risks involved with recycling. The biggest risk is the market. It is a stable market at this time fo~ aluminum cans. Glass is a volatile market, as is plastic. Paper is an un~table market item. The paper market usually depends on the amount that has be~n invested in pulp by wood producing companies. The City is currently involved in leaf recy- cli g ~' The report does not give any one clear cut way in which,, to proceed. The staff is recommending appointment of a citizen committee. 'i!~he committee should be representative of the community and interested c~vic and neighbor- hood organizations. The community needs to be fully informed and educated on both the problems and the alternative solutions and given a. mple opportunity for input and discussions. The staff then took questions from Board and Council members. The committee will be further discussed by the two governing b~dies separately. November 29, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting) 31 (Page 3) Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to November 30, 1988. At 2:23 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn this meeting until November 30, 1988. Boll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.