The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-04-26; City Council; 9405; North County Sewage Management Study Request for CommentsMTG U-2R-8R F CARLSBAD - AGEND TITLE: NCREH COUNTY SEWAGE SOLIDS MANAGEMENT STUCK - KHQUKST FOR COMMENTSDEPT._EN£L ««~«~ O) COaoato0) ai X! a toO•H CO O 4-1 t-i 0)a)C•H60Cw 4-1 •H O 01N-H J-lOJS4-1 cd oC O S O Oo RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council approve and authorize City Engineer to sign response to the Encina Joint Advisory Committee request for comments concerning the development of a North County Solids Management Project. ITEM EXPIANATION: On March 29, 1988, the Council attended a Workshop sponsored by the Encina WPCF to review the status of regional efforts to develop a solution to the disposal of North County sewage solids. The meeting was the culmination of nearly two years of effort, and was designed to inform agency elected officials of the issues and costs implied in proceeding with the proposed project. The Workshop as outlined in the letter of March 22, 1988 (attached Exhibit A) outlines four issue areas on which the Solids Advisory Committee wishes the City to comment. These issues concern (1) siting of the facility, (2) the type of project, (3) institutional arrangements through which to complete the project, and (4) a financial commitment to proceed. Staff has prepared a detailed draft response to each issue area in the draft response attached (Exhibit C). The attached memo from the City Engineer to the City Manager discusses each issue area in some detail. In summary, the response approves a financial commitment to proceeding with siting a project, but discourages the formation of a new Joint Powers Agency to accomplish this goal. FISCAL IMPACT: If the project proceeds, the initial City costs of a regional program wouldN be approximately $300,000. Carlsbad's share of the eventual project development costs would range from 2.5 to 7.5 million dollars, depending on agency participation land costs and the treatment technology employed. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Letter of March 22, 1988, from Encina WPCF Exhibit B - Memo of April 15, 1988, from City Engineer to City Manager Exhibit C - Staff draft response Exhibit A.<" • "•«»; - ' - - %»" ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92009-0171 March 22, 1988 Telephone (619) 438-3941 Ref: 1Y.4391 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: City Council SUBJECT: North County Sewage Solids Management Study - Request for Comments On March 29, 1988 the workshop is to be held on the subject of sludge disposal/reuse as described in the attached letter. The purpose of the workshop is to provide a common understanding of the issues to be resolved in order to implement a regional sludge management project. In order to follow through on that workshop intent it is requested that your agency submit in writing comments on the following: A) Siting - 1) Proceed with a multiple site approach through the environmental docu- mentation (EIR) stage up to final acquisition. 2) Maintain close liaison with County on possible joint landfill sites and pursue alternate sites in parallel (Indian reservations, City of San Diego etc.). B) Project - 1) Establish 'Invessel' compost technology with air drying capability as the 'project'. 2) Evaluate need for pilot project work after site acquisition is assured. C) Institutional Arrangements (During 2 year site acquisition stage.) - 1) Encina Joint Powers remain as lead "agency" through its operator/ administrator. 2) Executed contracts between the Encina operator/administrator and par- ticipating agencies with 2 year upfront funding ($2.0 million) within four (4) months of workshop date. 3) Contracts to also provide for a "project committee" made up of par- ticipating agencies' representatives. 4) Seek County contract to provide condemnation powers for site acquisi- tion if necessary. 5) Delay decision on whether or not to form Joint Powers Agency (JPA) until site acquisition is assured. D) Financial - 1) $2.0 million dollars minimum upfront to fund 2 year program on a pro- rated Year 2010 sludge production basis. 2) No regional per EDU charge. SERVING THE CITY OF VISTA, CITY OF CARLSBAD, BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT, SAN MARCOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND ENCINITAS SANITARY DISTRICT City of Carlsbad "*"***' North County Sewage Solids Management Study - Request for Comments March 22, 1988 Page Two Ref: 1Y.4391.1 The comments should be sent to: Joint Advisory Committee, Encina WPCF, 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California 92009-0171. It is requested that your comments be received by April 29, 1988 as it is expected the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) will consider them at their May 25 meeting at Encina. Thank you for your continued interest and effort in dealing with the sludge management problem. Very truly yours, Richard Ef Vought Chairman, Joint Advisory Committee RWG:REV:kw Attachment ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-0171 (619) 438-3941 Serving North San Diego County Exhibit B April 15, 1988 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: CITY ENCINEE NORTH COUNTY SEWAGE SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROJECT ISSUES At the March 29, 1988 Workshop, the North County Solids Advisory Com- mittee requested that each agency respond to a number of issues related to completion of the North County Sewage Solids Project (NCSSP). The purpose of this memo is to discuss a recommended response to each of these issues for Council consideration. Issue A - Siting The Solids Advisory Committee (SAC) has recommended that the 13 sites currently selected be screened to from two (2) to five (5) sites, that options be obtained for each site, and that environmental analysis proceed on the multiple sites. This procedure is consistent with current law, and is the only viable approach. SAC also recommends close liaison with County landfill siting efforts. Staff concurs. RECOMMENDATION: Council concurs with proceeding with a mutiple site approach through the environmental documentation stage up to final acquisition, and support close liaison with County on possible joint landfill sites. Item B - Project It is recommended that the project be an "invessel" compost technology with air drying capability, and that further study be undertaken to evaluate the need for a pilot project. "Invessel" composting is the most environmentally sensitive technology, and has the advantage of producing marketable fertilizers from the sludge through a confined process with optimum control. "Invessel" is, however, the most costly method of treatment, would likely take the longest to implement, and have historically had great difficulty in marketing their products. The orig- inal NCSSMS reviewed these basic alternatives: Est. Capital Costs Air Drying $6 - 8.5 million Windrow Composting $10 - 15 million Invessel $26 million Operational costs mirror these figures in order of magnitude. To: City Manager April 15, 1988 Page 2 Issue B - Project (cont'd.) Council and JAC actions originally supported the windrow composting ap- proach. It is staff's opinion that selection of a final project at this stage is premature. We feel that flexibility should be retained through the site selection and environmental review phases. It would be most desirable to retain optimum flexibility to phase construct the facility utilizing com- binations of all three processes. If the site is remote enough and environmental impacts are acceptable, it would be a significant benefit to develop the lowest cost facility possible in the early years. This is particularly important considering the cash demands facing the City with Phase IV expansion. RECOMMENDATION: Council supports a position that retains optimum flexibility in project design and development. Each site should be analyzed to accommodate three alter- native projects with potentials for phased construction involving air drying, windrow composting and invessel composting. Final project selection and phasing would be reserved until completion of the Environmental Review process. Council supports further evaluation of a pilot project after site acquisition. Issue C - Institutional Arrangements The Encina letter raises several issues related to the institutional process to be utilized in developing the proposed project. The basic proposal would continue Encina staff in a leadership role, with policy being directed by a Solids Advisory Subcommittee through final project development and imple- mentation. The decision on final organizational structure would be post- poned for a two-year period until the project is ready for implementation. Options for the final organization include: 1. Formation of a new Joint Powers Agency of which the Encina agencies would have 60% ownership and partial representation. Encina staff to manage the project. 2. Encina, Oceanside or Escondido take a leadership role in development of the project and contract with the other agencies for capacity. 3. Formation of a totally independent Joint Powers Agency with its own staff that contracts service to the member agencies. Staff feels that we should deal with the long-term organizational structure at this time to avoid confusion when the project is complete. Of the organ- izational options, we feel that one, an Encina-managed JPA, would be un- acceptable given the structure of Encina. To: City Manager April 15, 1988 Page 3 Issue C - Institutional Arrangements (cont'd.) The Encina agencies currently have an extremely complex structure that makes decision-making very cumbersome. If Encina should provide primary staffing for the new agency, the budget of Encina and the new JPA would be entangled, further eroding the City's influence on the operations of Encina. The only viable JPA options would be a totally independent agency with independent staffing, or one of the major project proponents develop- ing the project with contracts for service with other agencies. In the development stages, we would not recommend a subcommittee for project development. All agencies committing to the project should retain representation in project development. Item C includes two additional minor items that staff concurs with: 1. Executed contracts between operator/administrator and participating agencies with two-year upfront funding ($2.0 million) within four (4) months of workshop date. 2. Seek County contract to provide condemnation powers for site ac- quisition if necessary. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Encina Joint Powers remain as lead "agency" through its operator/ administrator only until an acceptable separate joint power arrange- ment is completed and a separate management program is developed. 2. All participating agencies should participate through the project de- velopment process or until such time as a non-Encina agency assumes control of the project. 3. Failing alternative management arrangements, Encina should proceed with project development, providing long-term contracting oppor- tunities to interested agencies. 4. Seek County contract to provide condemnation powers for site ac- quisition if necessary. 5. Executed contracts between the Encina operator/administrator and participating agencies with 2 year upfront funding ($2.0 million) within four (U) months of workshop date. Issue D - Financial Staff concurs with the Solids Advisory Committee recommendations to pro- ceed financially. RECOMMENDATION: 1. $2.0 million dollars minimum upfront to fund 2-year program on a prorated Year 2010 sludge production basis. 2. No regional per EDU charge. ^fi^^HKw ^fi» 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE flTxSl^lH TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 •*£t!/r^M 1(619)438-1161 Office of the City Engineer (Etlu of (Tarlsbaii April 27, 1988 Mr. Richard E. Vought, Chairman Encina Joint Advisory Committee Encina Water Pollution Control Facility 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, Californid 92008 Subject: North County Sewage Solids Management Study - Request for Comments Dear Chairman Vought: In response to your March 22, 1988 request for comments at its April 26, 1988 meeting, the City Council approved the following responses to the issued raised: A) Siting Recommendation: Council concurs with proceeding with a multiple site approach through the environmental documentation stage up to final acquisition and supports close liaison with County on pos- sible joint landfill. B) Project Recommendation: Council supports a position that retains optimum flexibility in project design and development. Each site should be analyzed to accommodate three alternative projects with potentials for phased construction involving air drying, windrow composting and invessel composting. Final project selection and phasing would be reserved until completion of the Environmental Review process. Council supports further evaluation of a pilot project after site acquisition. C) Institutional Arrangements Recommendation: 1. Encina Joint Powers remain as lead "agency" through its oper- ator/administrator only until an acceptable separate joint power arrangement is completed and a separate management program is developed. *«fc, Mr. Richard E. Vought, Chairman Encina Joint Advisory Committee April 27, 1988 Page 2 C) Institutional Arrangements (cont'd) Recommendation: 2. All participating agencies should participate through the project development process or until such time as a non-Encina agency assumes control of the project. 3. Failing alternative management arrangements, Encina should proceed with project development, providing long-term con- tracting opportunities to interested agencies. 4. Seek County contract to provide condemnation powers for site acquisition if necessary. 5. Executed contracts between the Encina operator /administrator and participating agencies with 1 year upfront funding ($2.0 million) within four (4) months of workshop date. D) Financial Recommendation: 1. $2.0 million dollars minimum upfront to fund 2-year program on a prorated Year 2010 sludge production basis. 2. No regional per EDU charge. Yours very truly, LLI3Y/D B. HUBBS Cjty Engineer LBH/pmj