The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in workshop session on July 31, 1995, at 2:00 p.m. in the Government Center Multipurpose Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and Assistant County Attorney Kathy Harasz. Absent was: County Attorney Scott Knox.

DISCUSSION, RE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Solid Waste Management Director Dick Rabon advised for the past several months they have been looking at a number of things that revolve around finding a disposal location for the waste coming from the South Service Area; in January they had a workshop and it was followed by a meeting with Osceola County Commission; at that meeting with Osceola County, a number of questions were asked, one of those was for respective staffs to look at a regional facility both Osceola and Brevard Counties and to include in the search a look at waste-to-energy alternatives; we have done that and continue to have discussions with Osceola County; looked at those options; and have results of that to talk with the Board on today. He introduced the members of the Project Management Team who has been working with County staff putting the report together, and Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., the County's consulting engineers for the project; Mr. Omar Smith will be making the presentation for the engineers; and David Deans and Sam Lavine from Post Buckley and Financial Management Group Rick Patterson will handle the number crunching and running of the models and they can answer the questions about the money. Mr. Rabon advised they produced a number of reports; one was presented in June on regionalization waste-to-energy alternatives; while looking at options and alternatives, they were presented with another opportunity; and that is to work with Seminole County, taking waste to their landfill, so they produced another report on that alternative. He stated the Board also wanted to discuss construction and demolition debris; and a request was made to discuss what will be done with the current site the County owns in a memo of options.

Omar Smith, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., advised they looked at five different options and variations of those options; Option 1 is to defer action, and the Board take no action in terms of the system; Option 2 is to take the 3,000 acres on U.S. 192 and develop it; Option 3 is to develop an alternate site or have a private party come in and find a site in South Brevard; Option 4 is to develop a joint regional landfill in Eastern Osceola County with Osceola County on Deseret property; and Option 5(a) is out-of-county haul to a new Osceola County landfill in South Osceola County, and (b) haul to a private landfill such as Chambers in Okeechobee County or Waste Management in Pompano Beach. He stated on January 18, they met with the Osceola Board of County Commissioners where they were directed to look at waste-to-energy and regionalization, and also to follow up and look at Seminole County; in terms of waste-to-energy, they contacted Ogden Martin and requested a cost for developing a waste-to-energy plant on the property in Osceola County; and their letter said 1,200 tons a day plant could be privately owned or sited in eastern Osceola County on Deseret property and be on line in 52 months or the year 2002. He stated waste sources are 1,200 tons a day from Brevard, Osceola, Indian River Counties and other sources; Brevard cannot fill the 1,200 tons a day in the South Service area; ash disposal will be on site; revenue sources will be generated by sale of water which will create more revenue to plant; and if they have excess electricity, they could sell that, but the main revenue source is the sale of water, about 10 million gallons a day. Mr. Smith advised financing would be from tax-exempt industrial revenue bonds and net tipping fees; that is the fee charged after delivery to their gate, estimated at $34.50 a ton; and they developed four basic scenarios. He stated Option 6(a) is taking the 1,200 tons per day plant at $34.50 a ton fee and overall system cost of $544 million; Option 6(b) is the sale of electricity only at $60 a ton which is more in line with what they see as waste-to-energy cost disposal fees throughout the State; and if they could not sell the water and only could sell electricity, the cost would go up to $651 million. He stated Options 6(c) and (d) are out of scope and has to do with waste taken from all the waste stream in Brevard County and delivered, including waste from Central; and they did that option to give them an idea of the cost. He noted using $34.50, the cost for (c) would be $585 million; and for (d) at $55.00 a ton taking all the waste in the County, increasing the system's cost.

Chairman Higgs inquired if ash disposal is a separate cost; with Mr. Smith responding no, it is part of Ogden's fee and would be disposed on the Deseret property. Chairman Higgs inquired if it assumes public or totally private ownership; with Mr. Smith responding private ownership.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is private ownership, why would the Board deal with net present value; with Mr. Smith responding they wanted to determine net present value for comparison purposes of all the options for the entire system; it does not deal only with that segment of the waste, but the entire waste in Brevard County and bringing it in and all the transfer distances, etc.; so all those costs, including disposal at North, Central and South Service areas vary from what they do with the waste from the South Service area. Commissioner Ellis stated the way to equalize comparison is to determine if it costs $34.50 per ton to take it from waste-to-energy, how much per ton would it cost to take it to Okeechobee, the new Deseret landfill, Seminole County, etc.; and the net present value of a privately owned facility does not matter to the County. Mr. Smith stated in terms of the tipping fee, they have assumptions for different options; for Ogden they have $34.50 for Options 6(a) and (b), for Okeechobee it is $25.00 a ton, and for Seminole it is $28.00 a ton.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the tipping fee does not include transportation cost; with Mr. Smith responding that is correct, each option varies with transportation distance. Commissioner Ellis stated that should be part of the calculation for the County; with Mr. Smith responding yes, and they have to work that out.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why the numbers change from Option 6(a) at 1,200 tons and 6(b) at 900 tons; with Mr. Smith responding 6(a) is basically Ogden Martin's proposal, and 6(b) is the option of Osceola and Brevard only; and that is the size facility it would need, not 1,200 tons. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is hard to compare apples and apples from the presentation; Options 6(a) and (b) changes and so does the price, but Options 6(c) and (d) has the same tonnage and different prices; with Mr. Smith responding it has to do with the different size facilities.

Commissioner Ellis stated if it is a private ownership, it is transparent to the Board how big the plan is; and if they over build, they will eat it because the County's contract will be strictly on a per ton basis. He noted he does not think the Board would go with put or pay.

Chairman Higgs inquired why the rate of $60 per ton; with Mr. Smith responding it is the going rate for that size facility around the State. Chairman Higgs inquired if it is $60 as opposed to $34.50; with Mr. Smith responding $34.50 is the lower end because they were trying to be innovative in terms of the sale of water which lowered the tipping fee.

Mr. Smith advised the staffs of Seminole and Brevard Counties have met and discussed possibilities of a disposal landfill; Seminole County's existing facility has permitting capacity; the waste haul would be from Titusville and Melbourne Transfer Stations on I-95 to SR 46 into Seminole County; and the disposal fee is assumed to be $28.00 a ton. He stated that has not been negotiated by staffs of either County, but that is the number they assumed in the model. He noted it is one of the lowest out-of-county options; the distance from Titusville to the landfill is about 35 miles; right now from Titusville to the Central Disposal Facility is 20 miles; so it would be a 15-mile increase one way to Seminole County. He stated from Melbourne Transfer Station it is 67 miles to Seminole County; and to the Chambers landfill in Okeechobee, it is about 85 to 90 miles. Mr. Jenkins inquired about the Osceola site; with Mr. Smith responding the haul to the waste-to-energy plant would be 23 miles from Melbourne.

Commissioner Cook inquired how long would it extend the life of the County's current landfill; with Mr. Smith responding the same amount of waste would leave Brevard County in all the options and would extend the life of the landfill from 2008 to 2018, a minimum of ten years. Mr. Jenkins inquired if they have the total cost of transportation and tipping fees on the various options; with Mr. Smith responding he does not have those numbers here.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it will cost $541 million to extend the life of the landfill for ten years; and stated for $54 million a year, the County could purchase a lot of landfill sites. Mr. Smith stated that includes operation of the existing facilities, so that is not a correct comparison.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs to make a decision on what it will cost to develop and tip at the current landfill. Mr. Smith stated the base option cost of no action is $498 million; and if the Board decides to increase ten years of life, the difference would be $43 million over ten years or $4.3 million a year. He stated Option 1 which is no action will cost $498 million; development of the current site would be $505 million; they do not recommend deferring action and recommend the Board decide on a long-term disposal; the deferred action assumes in the year 2008 there will be no more capacity within the County; and Option 2 is to develop the current site or alter the South County site. He stated Option 4 is a landfill with Osceola County on the eastern side of Deseret property; the County received a letter from Deseret Ranch that said they will in no way accept a landfill facility in eastern Osceola County; so they deferred that. He noted Option 5(a) is Osceola County landfill; they are presently looking at other options other than working with Brevard County; so they are deferring that as an option for the Board to consider. Mr. Smith stated the Chamber landfill is in Okeechobee County; 5(b) is Waste Management landfill with is 30 to 40 miles longer; and they think those are something the Board should consider. He stated Option 6 focuses on the South Service area instead of the whole County, so those are out of consideration at this time; and Option 7(d) is with Seminole County. He stated the Board should focus on Options 2, 3, 5(b), 6 and 7, or a combination thereof.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wishes to discuss construction and demolition debris prior to getting into the landfill situation; with Commissioner Scarborough suggesting the landfill be discussed first. Chairman Higgs inquired how many tons of waste is construction and demolition debris; with Mr. Rabon responding about one-third or 250,000 tons a year that go into the Central and Sarno landfills. Commissioner Cook stated that will have an impact on the life span of the current landfills; with Mr. Rabon responding it will have a significant impact.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board goes with an RFP that has a broad spectrum including six options, would it be able to evaluate the responses in terms of which would be better or would that be too broad that it could not evaluate them; with Mr. Rabon responding they can develop an RFP that will allow the Board to look at all of them; it will be more complicated than if it chose waste-to-energy or landfill alternative; and there could be nuances in the proposals that will make them difficult to evaluate, but it can be done.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if they could do an RFP based on price per ton no matter where it is done, if the County delivers to the facility. He stated they could do a Brevard County site and back in the numbers for Okeechobee, Osceola, and Seminole. Mr. Rabon advised it could be done, but in dealing with that the Board has to ask itself on what terms would it allow a CPI and all the various other things and would have to specify the term and how many tons.

Chairman Higgs inquired about ownership; with Mr. Rabon responding if the Board decides on out-of-county haul, it would not matter, but if it is in county, then the Board may want to address whether or not it wants to own the facility. Chairman Higgs mentioned the Board may want to consider ownership of a waste-to-energy facility, because in 20 years a private owner may have it paid off and the Board would be in a precarious position at the end of the contract. Commissioner Ellis stated it is a dual monopoly, they only deal with supply and the County has demand; and inquired what would happen to the facility if the County walked away after 20 years.

Commissioner Scarborough advised his concern is the travel distances; things could happen that affect the price of transportation; and he would prefer to consider someone building a plant in Brevard County or an adjacent county, but not in Okeechobee. He suggested the numbers be put together on a facility owned by the County and permitted and operated by a private individual. He stated if the Board agrees to a joint facility with Osceola County, it would not need an RFP for that or someone coming in and doing the numbers; and he has problems whether the numbers on waste-to-energy will be comprehensive or straight.

Mr. Rabon stated transportation is an important issue; getting tipping fee numbers on all the options and putting in transportation numbers could be a high variable, particularly if it is projected out five to ten years; the price could double five years from now; and what was thought to be a good option today may not turn out to be such a good option because of higher transportation costs, so there is a risk the further it goes out. Commissioner Ellis stated Seminole and Osceola are not that far; with Commissioner Scarborough responding going any where may be a problem. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to own a waste-to-energy plant; he does not have a problem contracting for a plant, but does not want to own it; and he is opposed to put or pay contracts. He stated if the County owns the plant, it will be in a put or pay position; and he does not want anything where the County will face a lot of cost for something it does not use.

Commissioner Cook stated he has concerns with the waste-to-energy plant owned by the County; it has worked well for some communities, but others had nightmares with it; the Board needs to find out what its options are on the Deseret property, and if it chose another option besides the 3,000 acres, if Deseret Ranch would buy the property back; and that is an important decision for him to factor into the solid waste project. He stated the County paid 8.2 million dollars plus 1 million dollars in legal fees for the property which was appraised at little over 7 million dollars; and if they do not have an interest in getting the property back, the Board needs to factor that into its decision-making process; so it needs to find out what their intentions are if the Board pursues another option.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to Deseret Ranches and ask if the Board does not choose the site for its landfill, if their intentions are to buy it back. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs asked Mr. Rabon to draft a letter and noted the Board needs to also know in what period of time.

Commissioner Ellis stated if a waste-to-energy facility is constructed by a private company and the County only has tipping fee per ton delivered and does not guarantee minimum tonnage, then the risk falls on the company; it could guarantee a service area, but not the minimum tonnage, because there is a high risk involved if it is owned by the County; and he does not want the County trying to get garbage from Osceola, Indian River, and other Counties for such a facility. Chairman Higgs stated the contracts executed in the past locked counties and municipalities into a lot of different things such as put or pay, take care of ash, and finance this and that; and this Board is considering $34.50 a ton to bring the trash and leave it with no control. She inquired if there have been contracts such as that other than on the spot market; with Mr. Rabon responding he assumes there have been. Chairman Higgs inquired if someone would build a plant with a "maybe we will bring in the tonnage and maybe we won't." Mr. Rabon stated they would probably want commitments before building it, but there may be excess capacity at those plants that were sold on the spot market. He stated he would think the County would have to make some kind of commitment for someone to come in and build a plant at a designated location. Commissioner Ellis stated the County could commit a service area without committing a specific tonnage. Mr. Rabon stated he does not know if that kind of guarantee would work.

Jeff Cowell with Ogden Martin advised they will commit to $34.50 per ton based on the commitment from the County that the South Service area would be the area that would be delivered to the waste-to-energy project with no put or pay contract. He stated they would be willing to step up to that agreement.

Chairman Higgs inquired if that would be taking away construction and demolition debris, recyclables, and delivering the remaining garbage; with Mr. Rabon responding it will be Class I waste only, and C&D waste has not been a part of the numbers. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is any liability on the part of the County for the quality of the product, disposal of the ash, etc.; with Mr. Smith responding it would come down to what the agreement says; they may want a certain value or quality of the product being delivered; he does not know whether they will process yard trash or C&D waste; so he is not sure exactly what waste stream they are talking about.

Assistant County Attorney Kathy Harasz advised she is not sure the County can contract away any liability it may have, or if it is talking in terms of financial or hazardous waste, etc.; the contract will need to be written to specifically address that; there have been cases where contributors to solid waste facilities have been found responsible for clean up; and the County will have to take a good look at the State law at the time it writes the contract to find out if there is any way to do that. She noted it may be that the Board will always be potentially liable; but as long as everybody knows what is going on, they could have an indemnity agreement that if the County were found responsible, the company would have to pick up the cost.

Commissioner Ellis stated by adding the transportation cost, the County may find that taking waste from Sarno to Seminole may not be a great option, but it may be good for the Titusville Transfer Station waste to be taken to Seminole County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated using SR 46 is not like using I-95; there have been a lot of fatalities on that road; it is a two-lane road and the safety is not the same; and inquired if that is where the Board wants to look for a long-range methodology of handling waste. He stated from the Titusville Transfer Station to Central Disposal Facility is basically I-95, and SR 46 is a much harder road for the drivers.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how many trucks a day would go to Seminole; with Mr. Rabon responding it depends on how much waste is being discussed; in Titusville there is about 40,000 tons a year; and that is about ten trucks a day maximum.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a long-range solution with Osceola County is much easier to handle the waste from North and Central areas as a long-range solution, rather than taking waste from Titusville to Seminole. Commissioner Ellis stated if it is cheaper to dump at Seminole than in Brevard County the County should keep using it until those costs flip; with Mr. Rabon responding it would be avoiding cost.

Chairman Higgs stated she is concerned about making a long-range decision that will not include ownership by the County; the option of contracting with Seminole County does not get the County out of the ultimate control of its destiny; but getting out of it all together bothers her. Commissioner Ellis inquired, if the County has a service and a price for that service, what other controls does it want; with Chairman Higgs responding not knowing the contract and ownership concerns her. Commissioner Ellis stated he is afraid to own an advanced technology plant because it locks the County into the Deseret site. Commissioner Cook stated the Board should not dismiss that possibility; the County paid 8 million dollars for that land; so it has to take a hard look at what it is going to do with it. He stated it is 3,000 acres and was purchased for the purpose of meeting the long-range needs of the County regarding landfills; and that is one option that has to be on the table. Commissioner Ellis stated it will get the County into the cost per ton to build, permit, and operate the site. Chairman Higgs stated but it will have ownership of the site. Mr. Rabon stated to develop a modern landfill would be about $30 to $35 a ton. Commissioner Ellis inquired how many landfills have to permit against opposition; with Mr. Rabon responding they all have problems permitting. Commissioner Ellis stated the County has a hostile neighbor with a lot of money , so it is permitting a site that will probably be one of the most difficult sites because the opponent has 8 million dollars of the County's money to fight it every step of the way.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he likes the ownership idea; the County could offer the site to someone to permit, build and operate a facility; that will be very important in the long run; and the Board should get the numbers on that option also, for a plant on Deseret property permitted, built, and operated by a private party and owned by the County. He stated they should also look at other sites in the County; he has a problem going too far; they could look at Osceola, Indian River, and Brevard County for a site to build a Class I landfill because the area of need is South Brevard; and he would like to see numbers on that. He noted the Board may find Seminole may be cheaper, but for a few more dollars it could own a facility.

Chairman Higgs stated the option of using Seminole in the near future to preserve the capacity of the existing landfills is attractive; it makes sense to further explore that option and other options; and she does not know if she will totally rule out a private option, but it is not a totally private option for a Class I disposal facility. Commissioner Cook stated he doubts the Board will get anyone to take on the permitting, but it is possible; the preference would be a County landfill it could build. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the preference is to have it owned by the County and built by someone else; with Commissioner Ellis stating that is no different than what the County does now. Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem looking at that; it would depend on the contract and what is committed; if it is under the control of the County, then the County would control the operation; but he does not know if that is feasible or not. He stated what is done with C&D waste may not solve the long-term problem, but it can have a major impact on the current life of the landfills.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the County felt the Deseret property would not be used for a landfill, why would it spend 8 million dollars to acquire it; with Commissioner Ellis responding a lot of things were done in that era with not a lot of thought; nine million dollars is a sunk cost on the Deseret property; and the Board needs to make a decision if it is cheaper to proceed there or go in another direction. He stated just because the site was purchased does not mean it is the best way to go.

Discussion ensued on what would happen to the land if the permitting process is opposed, halted, or falls apart, use of the Deseret property, and sale or rent of the 3,000 acres.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there was a focus on that location because it was convenient to South Brevard and few objections from neighbors; it is important to make sure everything is considered when making a decision rather than focusing on one thing; and the Board needs to consider the feasibility, long-range risk, and all options not to repeat that mistake. Commissioner Cook stated the Board should keep Deseret property as an option.

Mr. Rabon advised there is an option for the owners to buy it back if the County does not use it as a landfill; their option will expire in ten years which means the County does not have to sell it and Deseret does not have to buy it; but prior to the expiration of the Agreement, the Board has to sell it to Deseret if it declares an intent not to use it for a landfill. He stated they have 90 days to exercise the option to buy it back at the purchase price; and it is now going on five years. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what it would mean to the County after ten years; with Mr. Rabon responding it would just own a piece of property which has a provision that allows Deseret to use it for cattle grazing through 1996. He stated there are some joint uses of drainage easements and agreements on locations of well fields for East Central Florida Utilities because there are State restrictions on how close potable water wells can be to landfills. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it would be easier to permit when all the provisions expire; with Mr. Rabon responding he does not know, but maybe they would not oppose it as strongly. Commissioner Ellis stated the agreement does not bind Deseret; there is nothing that says in return for the eight million dollars they will allow the County to proceed with permitting with no opposition; and just the opposite is true.

Kathy Harasz stated the opposition does not come from the agreement but from the Administrative Procedures Act in Florida Statutes. Commissioner Ellis stated the County should have asked them to waive that if it was going to pay that kind of money for the land, but it did not.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board needs to know if they will buy it back if the County does not use it. Chairman Higgs stated if the Board is going to consider Deseret property, then it could not close the door on other waste-to-energy considerations from a competitive standpoint. Commissioner Ellis reiterated the County is paying much more than the property is worth; Commissioner Cook asked why; and Ms. Harasz advised the Board can do that even today.

Chairman Higgs advised the Board needs to decide what it wants to do with the RFP.

Commissioner Ellis recommended an RFP based on per ton and translate that into transportation costs to evaluate all the RFP's together. Chairman Higgs stated rather than saying per ton, the Board should let the consultant come back with how to set that up so there is criteria the Board can understand, rather than only having per ton as a criteria.

Discussion continued on travel to out-of-county facilities, placement of a site close to South Brevard where the solid waste stream is, and transferring waste to Seminole County. Mr. Rabon advised the option for Seminole is over 200,000 tons of waste; and if the Board only diverts waste from Titusville Transfer Station, it would add two or three years to the life of the landfill. The Board discussed taking waste from Melbourne Transfer Station and Titusville Transfer Station to Seminole County. Commissioner Cook stated if the waste is being taken to Cocoa, then the true cost is from Cocoa to Sanford and not from Melbourne to Sanford.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the option with Osceola County is still available; with Mr. Rabon responding it has been assumed that a landfill on any Deseret Ranch property would not be allowed based on the letter they wrote the County; anything on the western side of Osceola County could be a possibility; but Osceola County has not decided if, when, or how that is a possibility. He stated the County will have to look at it in terms of miles; it would be a close option to some of the other out-of-county hauls of 60 to 70-mile range; so it begins to fall out.

Chairman Higgs advised she would like to see an RFP that allows proposers to give the County out-of-county disposal space, and in-county she would like to have it owned by the County, Class I space on County site, permitted, developed, constructed, and operated; and waste-to-energy option also. Commissioner Ellis stated he would not want waste-to-energy for a County-owned facility. Commissioner Cook stated proposals are expensive for people to prepare, so the Board needs to be as specific as possible; so he would eliminate the waste-to-energy option. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to eliminate waste-to-energy as an option; with Commissioner Ellis responding it should not be eliminated for someone to propose to the County, but he would eliminate it as an option for a County facility. Chairman Higgs suggested putting in the scope of the RFP long-term contract for long-term solution to solid waste disposal including waste-to-energy; the County does not want to own it; and it will not approve put or pay for any type of facility. Commissioner Scarborough recommended limiting the distance outside of the County. Mr. Rabon stated they will prepare criteria and bring that back to the Board before issuing the RFP; and noted 60 miles is a rule of thumb. Chairman Higgs inquired how close is Chambers landfill; with Mr. Rabon responding about 90 miles.

Commissioner Cook stated Seminole is better as far as distance; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that would be short-term and the Board is considering a long-term solution. Commissioner Cook stated it can extend the life of the landfill for ten years; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it would only be two years for Titusville waste, and if transferred from Melbourne, there will be additional cost and risks. Commissioner Cook stated he would like to look at that option and not preclude it. Commissioner Ellis stated they could go to Seminole with an RFP on how much per ton and work numbers on what it means coming from Titusville, Cocoa, and Melbourne; with Chairman Higgs responding and Palm Bay in the future.

Mr. Smith inquired if the Board wants an RFP for in-county options, (1) to develop current site the County owns; and (2) private firm locate a site, develop it, permit, construct and operate it; and for out of county, a disposal facility, public or private, and the County would haul to it, and it could be waste-to-energy.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there was a landfill site in the County that someone else permitted and developed, would there be a scenario in which an economy of scale would be achieved for the County if it operated it because it would continue to have solid waste operations. Mr. Rabon stated they could do that, but to get a vendor to do it he wants to have an operating contract for a certain period of time to cover his investment. He stated the County would continue to operate the Cocoa site and would have the capability of assuming that operation which gives the Board flexibility.

Commissioner Ellis stated an alternate South County site realistically would be south of Palm Bay off Babcock Street for the kind of acreage that would be needed. Mr. Smith advised the private vendor could propose a facility in another area, but they would tell them the County prefers it be in the South area.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired about slurrying garbage and pumping it to the lift station; with Mr. Rabon responding there are all kinds of studies on slurry waste, but chairs and other things do not float too well; there have been proposals for pulping waste, slurrying waste, pushing it through pipe lines, grinding it up for use as fuel, and making pellets out of it, cattle food, worm farm, etc.

Chairman Higgs inquired how long will it take to develop the RFP; with Mr. Smith responding they will try to get something out on the street by the end of the year. Chairman Higgs inquired if staff will return with a rational way to determine distance before the RFP goes out. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wants owning, control, and having it close even if it is a little more expensive.

The workshop recessed at 3:25 p.m. and reconvened at 3:45 p.m.

Chairman Higgs advised the Board basically supports recycling; and inquired if there is anything that needs to be considered as part of the RFP assuming the County will continue to meet the State law; with Mr. Rabon responding all the scenarios assume that. Chairman Higgs inquired if it needs to be included in the RFP; with Mr. Rabon responding not currently. He stated if the County were to own the facility, it would put a MRF at that facility at any time; but if it chose to send waste out of county, it would want to do it in conjunction with the transfer station it has to rebuild in Melbourne so that it does not have to transport recyclables. Discussion ensued on recycling of materials.

Mr. Rabon requested permission to issue an RFQ prior to the RFP to pre-qualify bidders to make sure they are financially stable and have experience.

Construction and Demolition Debris

Mr. Rabon advised the County is putting a significant amount of construction and demolition (C&D) debris in its landfill which is a waste of space; the Sarno Landfill will close in 2003, with the construction that is going on there now; so whatever it can do with C&D, it has to do it relatively soon, particularly with the South County option because all the documents assume something will happen soon. He stated if a facility is sited in the County, it could go there; and if it is located somewhere far away for Class I waste, then transportation of it becomes expensive and something contractors will be unwilling to do. He advised they have looked at a number of things regarding C&D debris; the first part of the Report gives the history of what they have done; and the Ordinances say what can be done with certain portions of the debris. He stated they allow permitting of certain facilities to handle vegetative waste; there are three incinerators permitted in the County burning landclearing waste; and they have permitted mulching facilities, most of which are out of business; but that is the only type of C&D disposal allowed by the County. Mr. Rabon stated some C&D debris is clean debris, such as rock, brick, and concrete; they are not regulated by the County or the State and could be put anywhere, even though they are C&D materials; they are exempt from the vast majority of the regulations and can be used as fill anywhere; so the options they have available to extend the life of the landfill would be to continue the mode they have been, providing those facilities from a public standpoint or change the County Ordinance to allow private operation of C&D disposal facilities either handling all C&D materials or just landclearing. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was told the County could no longer control it; with Mr. Rabon responding the County's control has been limited by the U.S. Supreme Court decision on flow control; in the past the Ordinance said all solid waste, including C&D had to be disposed at the County facility; but the U.S. Supreme Court has made that provision unconstitutional, so the County cannot direct that all solid waste be disposed of at its facilities. He stated the only option the Board has from an economic control standpoint is to include it as an assessment, then it would be free at the County's facility and would come to the County out of default; but from a directive standpoint, the County cannot do that. Commissioner Cook stated if they could find an alternative for C&D debris, it would extend the life span of the current land fill significantly.

Chairman Higgs inquired what would happen if C&D was included as a separate part of the RFP; with Mr. Rabon responding that is one option to have a C&D site like a franchise, but the County could not direct to it. Chairman Higgs inquired what would the franchise mean; with Mr. Rabon responding that is the big "if" the Supreme Court put on this business. Commissioner Ellis stated the only thing the Board would be looking at is the possibility of the County building a C&D facility; and his concern about an assessment is it falls on people who would not use it.

Mr. Rabon advised the Board could change the Ordinance to allow private individuals to own and operate their own facilities; it could be done with or without the County permitting those facilities; the County can be more restrictive in permitting than the State; so it could allow a private C&D operation permitted by the State and the County to include restrictions, qualifications, or conditions it would want, including inspections, performance bonds, setbacks, etc.

Commissioner Ellis stated the County has gone through the process of buying additional land in Canaveral Groves; and inquired if a separate C&D facility is planned there; with Mr. Rabon responding yes, they could use the land adjacent to Central for Class I and send the C&D somewhere else. Commissioner Ellis stated that should handle Central, so the need would be in North and South County.

Commissioner Scarborough advised there is a possibility of having a C&D facility at KSC; if that opens up, it would provide a lot of things; they have an immense amount of land; and the County could move C&D debris from Titusville and Merritt Island to their facility. Mr. Jenkins stated the concern is what will they charge the users. Mr. Rabon stated staff has talked to KSC personnel; it is preliminary at this point; and NASA is looking for partners to do things it did itself. Chairman Higgs inquired if staff needs authorization to amend the Ordinance and bring it back to the Board so it can move on a variety of issues; with Mr. Rabon responding the main thing the Board needs to decide is whether or not to allow private operation of C&D sites, but there is not much of a choice; so what type of operation would the Board want, permitted by the County and State or only permitted by the State; with Commissioner Ellis responding it needs to be by the County because the County went through a lot of problems with Jack Hurt on his facility permitted by the State. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a C&D site operating in Titusville permitted by the State. Commissioner Ellis stated the County permit should include simple things such as allowing Code Enforcement officers to go out there on a regular basis to inspect what they are putting in.

Commissioner Ellis advised part of the 3,000 acres of Deseret property was for a C&D facility; and if the Board decides to proceed with that 3,000 acres, then it would have a C&D site. He stated it is a problem with people clearing property and dumping on the lot next to it.

Mr. Rabon advised the County is responsible for providing some type of capacity long-term; if private people step up to the plate that is fine, but if they do not, the Florida Statutes require the County provide it; and that is the risk involved. He stated it preserves the space at Sarno for some time and buys the Board time to look at what they will be able to do or not do. He stated they ran scenarios on that with 50% of the waste and 90% of the waste and what impact it would have; at Central it has a significant impact because of the life left in the facility and the fact that it is taking up Class I space; and at Sarno it adds three years to that facility. Chairman Higgs inquired what does it do to the revenue; with Mr. Rabon responding it is mixed; they realize about 1.5 million dollars from C&D disposal a year; the amount taken in Cocoa is a loss because of the Class I space it is taking up; but it is a significant profit at Sarno. He stated a private operation would take cash away, but it would be a savings in the extended life of the landfills. Chairman Higgs stated privatization of C&D sites would let go of the profit part of the market and may end up hurting the County; and it can be controlled by assessment. Commissioner Ellis stated that would be a levy on the average homeowner who will never use it. Commissioner Cook stated the Board could look at providing that space on the County end and not just the private end. Mr. Rabon stated some C&D is in the assessment; the home that is already built coming off an improved parcel is not charged when it comes to the landfill; for instance if a roof is taken off and replaced, there is no charge; so there may be another 1.5 million dollars coming from the assessment portion of the improved property. He stated to look at making an impact, the Board may want to consider removing the C&D from the assessment and lowering it and let a private operator do it. Commissioner Ellis inquired if C&D is operating at a profit and capital loss, and if the capital loss outweighs the operating profit. Chairman Higgs inquired if staff needs permission to amend the Ordinance to allow privatization; with Mr. Rabon responding they need permission to allow permitting of C&D sites.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize staff to proceed with amending the Ordinance to permit construction and demolition debris private sites, and return to the Board with the amended ordinance.

Commissioner Cook recommended staff not go overboard with regulations. Assistant County Manager for Environmental Services Stephen Peffer advised they do not want to create a situation that encourages promiscuous dumping; they have the advantage of people knowing they can bring their roofing materials to the landfill at no charge; and they do not want to create a situation where it is cheaper to dump on the lot next door.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they need to pull a permit to demolish a structure. Commissioner Cook stated government spends all its time protecting against things that have not happened; he does not mind looking at it; but it should not overburden the system with all scenarios that would prevent things from happening that may not happen. Mr. Peffer stated they will not do that.

Commissioner Ellis stated with onsite inspection capability, the County can find if they are taking materials they should not be taking, and could shut them down. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they could pre-pay for disposal when getting a permit to do a roof, etc., so they do not trash other people's properties. He stated when debris is dumped on other people's properties, those people are cited who own the properties.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Landfill Mining

Chairman Higgs advised the League of Women Voters talked about landfill mining to recover products that are in the existing landfills; and inquired if that is an option that needs to be considered to extend the life and space of the landfills; with Mr. Rabon responding there is a place for landfill mining; the problem with it in older landfills like the County's current landfills is that they were not constructed in a manner that is conducive to that; the liner is clay and was grandfathered in; and they do not want to damage the liner as they mine. He stated another thing is they do not know what is in the Cocoa landfill; they know there is asbestos; and once they start digging, they may find what they do not want to find. Chairman Higgs requested staff provide the Board with information on a mining option. Mr. Rabon stated if they constructed a triple synthetic liner and want to reuse that space, then people can go in there after it is decomposed.

Commissioner Cook advised if they damaged the liner, they could do irreparable environmental damage to the area because the County does not know what is in the landfill; so there are places where it is a legitimate option, but this is not one of them. Mr. Rabon stated it is not cheap either; when disposal is $100 per ton, then maybe landfill mining may be attractive; but at this time the County is not at that point.

Methane Gas

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if methane gas is worth something; with Mr. Rabon responding whether or not it is worth doing something is debatable; they have put in a methane system and are now drawing about 200 cubic feet a minute of gas off the facility which is not quite enough to really deal with on a commercial basis; they need 500 to 1,000 cubic feet a minute to do that; and as they close the next section of the landfill, they will start approaching 500 cubic feet a minute, and are looking actively at things to do with it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they could use curtain incinerators; with Mr. Rabon responding they can clean it up and use it to power vehicles; and if they had an industrial customer, they could sell the land next to the landfill for an oil field, and the gas would not have to be cleaned up much and would have heating value. He stated if the heat source could be sold it would have value, but when they start to make electricity out of it and clean it up to the point where it can be put in a gas turbine or a pipeline, it is expensive and the cost would exceed what they could sell it for. Mr. Rabon advised an inventor has invented a device that will separate methane from carbon dioxide and clean up the gas; he proposes to put the demonstration next to the County's flare and take it prior to the flare for that purpose; and if successful, it would mean that the collected gas could be cleaned up and carbon dioxide would be a product sold cheaper than any known method for making carbon dioxide. He noted it is used in coca cola and has a variety of uses. He stated methane gas and carbon dioxide are two major components; carbon dioxide may be worth more than the methane gas; and the byproduct from this process is the methane gas.

Commissioner Cook inquired about converting the fleet vehicles to use the gas from the landfill; with Mr. Jenkins responding they have looked at that, but he is not sure of the status.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

ATTEST:

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)

NANCY N. IGGS, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA