El Dorado County

Document Sample
El Dorado County Powered By Docstoc
					  Board Meeting                                                                      Agenda Item 12
  April 24-25, 2001                                                                    Attachment 2

                                             El Dorado County
                                         Five-Year Review Analysis
                                              by Kyle W. Pogue

  Introduction: El Dorado County’s five-year review date is November 2000, five years from the approval
  date of their Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. El Dorado County (EDC) will be the first
  county to undergo the five-year review. EDC and their consultant, Jim Greco from California Waste
  Associates, initially met with Kyle Pogue and Steve SoRelle on October 31, 2000, to discuss the
  upcoming review. At that meeting Jim Greco provided a summary of the items he felt needed to be
  discussed through this process. Board staff reviewed this initial report and recommended that several
  additional points be addressed. Those points were addressed in the final report (reviewed by the Local
  Task Force and approved by the County Board of Supervisors) submitted on December 18, 2000.

  Timeline: Board staff has 90 days to review this document and bring it before the Board for approval or
  disapproval. The report was delivered to the Board on 12/18/2000, therefore the 90 day date is 3/18/2001.
  The March Board meeting is to be located in Southern California and the February Board meeting will
  not allow sufficient time for review. Therefore, Board staff asked EDC to extend the 90 days so that this
  agenda item can be heard at the April Board meeting located in Sacramento. This local meeting will
  allow EDC staff to attend and provide comment. EDC mailed an extension letter to Board staff that was
  dated January 30, 2001.

  Review: This review will consist of an analysis of all points that counties were required to address under
  PRC Section 18788(a)(3)(A). Here they are in sequential order, with analysis included under each item.

  A)      Changes in demographics in the county or regional agency:

  EDC has experienced significant growth from 1990 to 1999. Since 1990, the countywide population has
  increased 21%, employment has increased 25%, and taxable sales have increased 31%. See the table
  below for a more specific analysis of EDC’s demographics.

  EDC Demographics*

Demographic Factor                                             1990                     1999          % Change

Placerville Population                                        8,286                    9,325                   13%

South Lake Tahoe Population                                  21,586                   23,000                   7%

Unincorporated Population                                    96,123                 120,600                    25%

Countywide Population                                      125,900                  152,900                    21%

Countywide Employment                                        62,400                   78,100                   25%

Placerville Taxable Sales Transactions                $194,814,000             $222,908,000                    14%

South Lake Tahoe Taxable Sales                        $244,819,000             $285,055,000                    16%

Unincorporated Taxable Sales Transactions             $375,880,000             $513,986,000                    37%

  Board Meeting                                                                          Agenda Item 12
  April 24-25, 2001                                                                        Attachment 2

Countywide Taxable Sales Transactions                   $917,894,000            $1,198,710,000                     31%

Statewide Consumer Price Index (CPI)                            135.0                     168.5                    25%
  NOTE: employment numbers in the above table indicate all employed residents regardless of what city or county
  they work in. El Dorado County houses a large number of people who work outside the boundaries of El Dorado

  The following table reflects all non-farm jobs located within the boundaries of El Dorado County. Note
  that the change is rather large with an increase of 11,000 jobs. Total farm related jobs, although not
  tracked prior to 1994, have remained constant at approximately 300 to 400.

  EDC Non-Farm Jobs**

                                           1990                       1999                        % Change
    El Dorado County                      30,100                     41,100                         37%

  An analysis of housing in El Dorado County shows a significant increase in single family, multi-family
  and mobile home residences. See the following tables for a detailed analysis.


  El Dorado Unincorporated
     1990          1999      %                   1990           1999          %         1990        1999          %
Single Family     Single   Change               Multi-         Multi-       Change     Mobile      Mobile       Change
  Dwellings      Family                         Family         Family                  Homes       Homes
                Dwellings                      Dwellings      Dwellings
   37,414        45,632     22%                  2,369          3,273         38%       4,072       4,491         10%

    1990                1999        %            1990           1999          %         1990        1999          %
Single Family          Single     Change        Multi-         Multi-       Change     Mobile      Mobile       Change
  Dwellings            Family                   Family         Family                  Homes       Homes
                      Dwellings                Dwellings      Dwellings
    2,361               2,693       14%          1,008          1,204         19%        161         162          1%

  South Lake Tahoe
    1990          1999              %            1990           1999          %         1990        1999          %
Single Family    Single           Change        Multi-         Multi-       Change     Mobile      Mobile       Change
  Dwellings      Family                         Family         Family                  Homes       Homes
                Dwellings                      Dwellings      Dwellings
    8,513         8,838              4%          4,827          4,894         14%        726         787          8%

  County Total
    1990                1999        %            1990           1999          %         1990        1999          %
Single Family          Single     Change        Multi-         Multi-       Change     Mobile      Mobile       Change
  Dwellings            Family                   Family         Family                  Homes       Homes
                      Dwellings                Dwellings      Dwellings
    48,288             57,163       18%          8,204          9,371         14%       4,959       5,440         9%

Board Meeting                                                                        Agenda Item 12
April 24-25, 2001                                                                      Attachment 2

Although significant increases can be seen in these demographic statistics, programs and facilities in EDC
appear to have sufficient elasticity to handle the increasing inputs. In discussions with the operators of
the Diamond Springs MRF, Waste Management, it is felt that the MRF has enough capacity to handle
EDC’s current growth levels for at least the next ten years. Waste Management is currently adding
approximately 85 new accounts per month. This operator feels that current MRF technology will have to
be enhanced and modified as volumes increase, but that will not impact the ability to divert materials.

Operators of the South Lake Tahoe MRF, South Lake Tahoe Refuse, feel that an expansion of the MRF
will be needed with the next couple of years to maintain or existing diversion levels. This expansion is
currently under consideration and South Tahoe Refuse currently owns property that could house a larger
facility. The current facility is permitted to receive 370 tons per day and is receiving approximately 300
tons per day.

B)          Changes in quantities of waste within the county or regional agency:

The amount of waste generated countywide has increased by approximately 7% between 1995 and 1999
when Disposal Reporting Data is available. The main reason that this percentage is as small as 7% is
because diversion programs are in fact diverting a significant amount of waste. Countywide waste
disposal has actually decreased approximately 44% from the 1990 disposal total (165,019 tons) to the
1999 disposal total (122,516 tons).

The table below shows a summary of disposal for all the jurisdictions within EDC.


     Year          Placerville     South Lake Tahoe          Unincorporated County               Countywide

     1990            15,786              49,030                       100,203                         165,019

     1995            11,887              32,353                       64,532                          108,772

     1996            11,945              31,737                       70,161                          113,843

     1997            10,245              32,759                       74,051                          117,055

     1998            10,482              34,785                       71,699                          116,966

  1999            9,520               36,236                       76,760                      122,516
Note: 1990 disposal totals were obtained from the original SRRE approval agenda items for El Dorado

The table below displays a comparison of 1990 versus 1999 per capita calculations.

Board Meeting                                                                        Agenda Item 12
April 24-25, 2001                                                                      Attachment 2


Parameter (1990              Placerville     South Lake Tahoe          Unincorporated           Countywide
Values)                                                                   County

Population                      8,286               21,586                  96,123                125,995

Total Waste Generation         16,094               51,058                 103,883                171,035

Per Capita (pounds per          10.6                 13.0                     5.9                      7.4
person per day

Residential Waste               4,345               16,849                  64,407                    85,601

Per Capita (ppd)                 2.9                  4.3                     3.7                      3.7

The following table lists the Board approved diversion rates for all EDC jurisdictions.


                    1995               1996              1997             1998               1999
      EDC            34%               37%               35%               38%               38%
   Placerville       27%               28%               40%               40%               49%
  South Lake         37%               38%               40%               38%               39%
NOTE: 1995-1998 diversion rates are Waste Board approved. 1999 diversion rates are not yet Board

Additionally, see the following table for a summary of the SRRE projected tonnage to the actual tonnage
reported through the Disposal Reporting System. These projections are relatively accurate with the
largest difference being 30% for South Lake Tahoe.

          Comparison of SRRE 1999 Projected Disposal Tonnage vs. 1999 Disposal Totals*

Jurisdiction                        SRRE Projected           Disposal Reported        % Difference

Placerville                              9,271                    9,520                   3%

South Lake Tahoe                        27,963                   36,236                   30%

Unincorporated County                   76,432                   76,760                   0%

Countywide                              113,666                 122,516                   8%

Board Meeting                                                                        Agenda Item 12
April 24-25, 2001                                                                      Attachment 2

The following table provides a comparison of the SRRE projected waste generation to the 1999 calculated
waste generation tonnage utilizing the adjustment method.

  Comparison of SRRE 1999 Projected Waste Generation Tonnage vs. 1999 Calculated Estimated
                   Waste Generation Tonnage (Adjustment Methodology)*

Jurisdiction           SRRE Projected           Adjustment Methodology              % Difference

Placerville                 18,710                         18,631                         0%

South Lake                  55,986                         59,205                         6%

Unincorporated              148,151                       124,504                       -16%

Countywide                  222,847                       202,340                        -9%

C)      Changes in funding sources for administration of the Siting Element and Summary Plan:

EDC’s report indicates that no funding sources have changed. Funding comes in the form of parcel
assessments, service fees, grant funds, tax revenues, and solid waste management fees.

D)      Changes in Administrative Responsibilities:

EDC’s report indicates that no changes have occurred to the administrative responsibilities.

E)       Programs that were scheduled to be implemented but were not, a statement as to why they
        were not implemented, the progress of programs that were implemented, the progress of
        programs that were implemented, a statement as to whether programs are meeting their
        goals, and if not what contingency measures are being enacted to ensure compliance with
        PRC 41751:

PARIS program summary notes have been updated and contain comprehensive notes all verified by the
appropriate local jurisdiction representatives. Notable programs not implemented include a composting
facility and implementation of procurement policies. To date the compost facility has not been
implemented, but greenwaste is shipped to Sacramento for use in biomass facilities and mulch. Also,
EDC is currently in the process of considering the feasibility of a compost facility to process the County’s
organic material.

Some programs have been expanded and additional alternative programs have been implemented. All
program implementation has been discussed in Annual Reports submitted by the El Dorado County
jurisdictions. EDC is also planning to request a Needs Assessment to help better assess current program
implementation and possible program enhancements or additions.

F)      Changes in permitted disposal capacity, and quantities of waste disposed of in the county or
        regional agency:

A significant change in how EDC’s waste stream is handled occurred in 1997 when the Union Mine
Landfill stopped accepting a very large majority of the waste generated within the County. Waste is now

Board Meeting                                                                         Agenda Item 12
April 24-25, 2001                                                                       Attachment 2

exported out of state to Lockwood, Nevada that has disposal capacity well in excess of 15 years. Only
small amounts of sewage sludge are currently disposed in Union Mine Landfill’s Class II cell.

The Siting Element does state that the Union Mine Landfill is projected to provide disposal capacity until
2032 (37 years from preparation of the original document in 1995). Although this landfill is the only one
discussed in the Siting Element, a list of policies (page 2-5 of the SE) identifies contingencies to this 15-
year capacity. One policy states the following: “Actions to be taken in order to identify contingencies for
adequate capacity for the required minimum 15 years include the evaluation of the cost of transferring
wastes to neighboring landfills outside the County. This review will occur periodically, as necessary.”

Additionally, Section 8 of the Siting Element discusses a 30-year contract (signed 1/1/1992) that grants
South Tahoe Refuse the right to “dispose of refuse collected in the South Lake Tahoe area at the
Lockwood Landfill.” South Tahoe Refuse provides all waste service for the East Slope of EDC including
unincorporated county area and South Lake Tahoe.

El Dorado County discussed disposal in all submitted Annual Reports. Beginning in the 1996 AR, EDC
acknowledged that starting January 1, 1997 disposal at Union Mine Landfill would be cut to one day per
week and that shipment to Lockwood landfill would commence. This 1996 AR also states that a long-
term agreement between EDC and Lockwood would assure 15 years of capacity.

G)      Changes in available markets for recyclable materials:

EDC’s report indicates that no significant changes in markets have arisen other than the constant
fluctuations associated with those markets. EDC has moved into expanded markets by installing a
construction and demolition sorting line at the Diamond Springs MRF.

H)      Changes in the implementation schedule:

EDC’s report states that changes in the implementation schedule have occurred but have not significantly
affected the ability of the County and Cities to realize planned diversion levels in Y2K. Changes in
implementation of programs have been sufficiently addressed under the cover of all Annual Reports
submitted by EDC jurisdictions. Additionally, any amendments to implementation schedules will also be
addressed in an SB1066 extension request if needed.

Staff Recommendation: No revision is necessary. All adjustments to planning documents can be
handled through the cover of the AR’s and periodic amendments to the SE and NDFE as needed. The
CIWMP planning documents for EDC still apply to the current demographics, quantities of waste,
funding sources, administrative responsibilities, program implementation, disposal capacity, recycling
markets and implementation schedules.

In addition, EDC is planning to request a Needs Assessment that will help them better assess the efficacy
of current program implementation. This Needs Assessment will set the stage for EDC to determine the
need for an SB1066 extension or request a Good Faith Effort classification.

* Information obtained from El Dorado County’s five-year review report prepared by California Waste
    Associates. Board staff verified this information for accuracy.
** Information obtained from the Employment Development Department’s website.
*** Information obtained from the Department of Finance
**** Information obtained from the CIWMB website


Shared By: