HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-15 Work Session Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 15, 2013
Page 1 of 8
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JULY 15, 2013
___________________________
Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone.
Also present were Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for part of the
meeting, Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Laurie Craghead, County
Counsel; Nick Lelack and Paul Blikstad, Community Development: David Givans,
Internal Auditor; Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities; and six other citizens ,
including Richard Coe and Shelby King of the Bulletin.
Chair Unger opened the meeting at 3:05 p.m.
___________________________
1. Waste to Energy Proposal Update.
Timm Schimke gave an overview of the proposal and how this might be
applicable to Knott Landfill. Because of the dry environment, a project here is
marginal, but may at least offset the cost of power at the site. Enhancements to
the process can make it more lucrative.
Mike Greenberg HDR Engineering said he has 29 years of experience as
licensed engineer in this field. At the County’s request, he reviewed the
proposal from Waste Energy Group regarding a steam injection system and
looked at five levels of feasibility.
Mr. Greenberg went over the technical details of injecting steam into landfill to
speed up the process, to get more landfill gas more quickly; and stabilize
landfill a lot sooner. It is in the technology: developing demonstration stage
now; not every landfill has this. It is cutting edge and there are limited
examples.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 15, 2013
Page 2 of 8
Studies show that bioreactor landfills are successful. They would test and get a
profile of the waste in each section of the landfill so they know how to place
their injection equipment properly. This would be done one parcel at a time.
They estimate 2506 BTU’s per day, with a 60% methane concentration. He is
not sure it will happen. They use the EPA model to reduce landfill gas, but it
may not make the amount of gas that they hope to see.
In the environmental area, he has talked with regulators and others, and the
risks are low. They have to be careful about not puncturing the liner. DEQ
rules will apply.
In regard to permitting and regulations, the DEQ seems receptive. The
contractor will have to work with the DEQ to provide them the information they
need.
Financially, they have to generate a certain amount of gas to cover expenses.
Those at Waste Energy Group feel they can cover the operational and capital
expenses. The County will need a contract that protects the County, and should
ask for letters from financial institutions to make sure the backing is solid.
The last area considered was the potential benefits. This would stabilize the
landfill faster and get the gas out a lot sooner. And there could be revenue from
the sale of gas and a royalty for its use.
Randy Lutz, Waste Engineering Group, said that this would be a two-year
process. The program is slightly different from what the originally talked
about. There would be no cost to the County. The financial backer is Citibank,
and they expect to invest up to $60 million. They will not know the final cost
until an analysis is done.
Waste Energy Group will negotiate a fixed or floating revenue share. There
would be a fixed amount no matter what the company makes; a floating amount
based on a percentage of revenue.
This work would bring a number of new jobs to the area as well.
They use state of the art technology to reduce environmental impacts.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 15, 2013
Page 3 of 8
He talked with Mr. Schimke about the gas going directly into a pipeline. The
technology to do so is immediately available. They looked at production
aspects, and already have a tremendous amount of detail. The benefit to the
County would stay right here. It will increase revenue to the County in any
case.
Mr. Schimke stated that HDR’s consultant says it may not produce what is
hoped. Waste Energy Group thinks it will. They will focus on landfill gas.
The biggest concern is whether they get what they expect. But it has benefits
regarding landfill stabilization and other aspects.
There is some concern about a special procurement. He asked if they should
solicit for more conventional work to be done. There is probably no one else
out there who will be able to enhance gas production; there is not enough there
for most to be interested. It is a patented technology as well. He feels this
should move forward.
Mr. Kropp asked about the gas to liquid process. Mr. Greenberg said that there
are good advances in this area, but some technology is not as good as others. A
lot of this would be done at the demonstration level.
Chair Unger asked why they selected Deschutes County, since there are
landfills all over the country.
Mr. Lutz said that the idea came from someone in Bend who had done some
work there. It is a beautifully managed landfill and would be a great site for a
demonstration project as well. About 50% of landfills with a process are going
on are bioreactors, and some are for fuel. A few projects encompass both.
Commissioner Baney noted that STI was the contractor at Miramar. She wants
to be sure any risk is managed. Water appeared to be an issue there.
Mr. Lutz said that was a pilot project and smaller in scale than here. Someone
owns the gas rights. The landfill is a dry tomb with no moisture to help produce
gas. Here three is some leachate. The project in Miramar was for one acre.
STI has a lot of data from the sensors there. For the most part, it is proprietary.
There were multiple generators on site and it was a struggle to ke ep them all
going; but this process was all taking place on one acre. There was no desire to
invest more capital there for a short period of time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 15, 2013
Page 4 of 8
The process requires water, but what is available here would work. If there is
not enough water, there is less steam. This can be controlled until there is a
stable and constant stream is reached. The process is a function of steam.
Commissioner Baney asked about the contract and who owns the waste that
goes in. She asked if this would mean less recycling, and what would happen
with green waste. Mr. Lutz stated that they won’t own any of the waste. Mr.
Schimke added that it is viable on the waste that is already in the ground.
Putting in more in the future is not a requirement.
Commissioner Baney asked about the demolition landfill, and if Knott would be
the only one. Mr. Lutz said it is designed for Knott. Once they prove to the
DEQ that this functions the way they anticipate, they can measure at Knott.
The DEQ may give permission to go elsewhere like at the demolition landfill,
but it does not have a liner. This program is designed as a stand-alone.
Mr. Schimke added that this is a very important point to the DEQ. It would be
only liner systems for now. They used to want to keep liquids out of the sites.
By adding this steam, it won’t go into the groundwater. The leachate can be
measured through pumps.
Chair Unger asked what happens when it is all done or if it does not work as
they hope it will. Mr. Greenberg said that after a period of time, if it is not
performing, they pull the plug and things are as they were before.
Commissioner Baney asked about noise considerations. Mr. ? stated that it is
containerized. All technology makes noise, but it should not be much.
Mr. Schimke said that they will do less than standard for noise, but someone is
sure to not like something if they can hear it at all. They would start the process
in 2019. By 2029 the landfill may close. This process could end up taking care
of more waste so a closure could be handled differently.
Commissioner Baney indicated that the RFP process bothers her. She does not
know what else is out there. Mr. Greenberg said that some companies deal with
bioreactors but get less gas out. There is nothing else out there in this realm.
This is why it is a demonstration project. There are no other ways to get
enough gas out quickly and economically. Maybe someone could do enough to
pay for utilities at the landfill.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 15, 2013
Page 5 of 8
He likes to be conservative, but does not want to kill a project. If they are not
covering capital and operating costs, that is one thing. If they are covering
costs, it is a win-win. The question is how much time to allow them to prove
themselves, and set some dates.
Mr. Schimke said the contract is the key. Three could be a $20,000 per month
royalty for a while. He would like to see both sources of revenue. He has a
landfill engineer tech already who devotes half-time to landfill gases. He can
be the eyes and ears. They won’t have to hire anyone else.
Mr. Greenberg noted that there are no industry standards on how this is paid.
Mr. Schimke would like $20,000 per month if a pipeline, and 10% of the net.
How net is defined is critical, but the company also has to be profitable.
Discussion took place as to when to involve the public. Commissioner Baney
said the public is already aware when the County chose to hire a consultant to
learn more. Mr. Schimke stated that they already had two meetings targeted to
neighbors and the environmental and business community. They have featured
this twice at a public booth. All comments were positive and some asked why
this is being held up.
DEBONE: Move staff work with Waste Energy Group to bring back a contract
for consideration.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
2. Update regarding Alfalfa Cell Tower Appeal Process.
Laurie Craghead said that a letter was received from attorney Bruce White after
the deadline for submitting new evidence. He said that more time needs to be
allowed because other information was submitted by the applicant that was new
evidence. He wanted the Board to reopen the record, notify parties and allow
more response time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 15, 2013
Page 6 of 8
Ms. Craghead did not recommend delaying the August 6 deliberation date. No
one other than Mr. White has asked for this additional time. He claims that
some information regarding the alternative sites analysis was not previously
presented.
Paul Blikstad agreed. He looked through the record and did not find this
specific information and the new maps.
Commissioner Baney asked if he was allowed to submit his letter. Ms.
Craghead replied that during rebuttal, anyone can submit one. It was within the
final argument time period. She suggested the record be reopened for rebuttal
to the new information and nothing more. The applicant can respond to Mr.
White’s letter only. She will draft an Oder for the Board to ratify next week.
BANEY: Move that Mr. White’s request for additional time be allowed for
one week, for the applicant to respond in a rebuttal argument, with
no further new evidence.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
3. Other Items.
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Order No. 2013-
031, Appointing the County Administrator as Successor Trustee
regarding Foreclosure of a County-owned Property.
BANEY: Move approval.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
______________________
Convened as the Governing Body of the 9-1-1 County Service District,
to Approve an Annual Form from Jefferson County Updating the 9-1-1
Listing of Governing Body Members.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, July 15, 2013
Page 7 of 8
BANEY: Move approval.
DEBONE: second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
______________________
Commissioner DeBone said he attended a Citizens Action Group meeting last
week, with fifteen others. They are asking a lot of questions about the
upcoming joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of
Commissioners. They want to know if this is a hearing.
Mr. Lelack stated he will draft an agenda for the Board to review. He suggested
a one hour, fifteen minute round-robin to keep things moving, with ten minutes
for agency or Board comments. The DEQ will want to keep their comments
brief.
Commissioner Baney asked who will be keeping the DEQ Director informed.
Mr. Lelack said he can, since he is already working with others there.
Chair Unger noted that the County is helping to facilitate the DEQ’s process.
The County is an agent for the State. This is an informational meeting only.
There may be one hour for public comments if needed. Commissioner DeBone
might be the right person to speak on behalf of the Board.
______________________
At this time the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(e),
real estate negotiations, which ended at 4:50 p.m.
_____________________
There was a discussion of the Commissioners’ schedules and various meetings.
______________________
Commissioner Baney said she was involved in the transient lodging tax
discussion with COVA. They are voting tomorrow as to whether to support the
1% increase. They anticipate 70% will go to the Fair/Expo, but COVA wants
the whole Welcome Center fund amount. The split would remain 70/30. They
realize they need to support the Fair/Expo.
Mr. Kropp said it will be confusing to people when they see the ballot. The
City is at 1.4%, and the County may be more support since it will ask for only
1%.
Chair Unger noted that COVA already spent the money they thought they
would get. They see it all as their money. Mr. Kropp stated that technically,
they are a contractor of the County. Chair Unger suggested that maybe they can
start at 1 % now and move into the higher amount later. Or go to 1.4% for all so
as not to confuse the public .
Commissioner DeBone said that he is not opposed to this, but he is not sure the
money should all go to marketing. More is not always better in his view.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
DATED this 2013 for the ~11;. Day of W
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
Alan Unger, Chair
T ~
ATTEST:
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 15 ,2013
Page 8 of8
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3:00 P.M., MONDAY, JULY 15,2013
PLEASE NOTE LATER TIME!
1. Waste to Energy Proposal Update -Timm Schimke
2. Update regarding Alfalfa Cell Tower Appeal Process -Laurie Craghead
3. Other Items
Consider Approval of Order No. 2013-031, Appointing the County
Administrator as Successor Trustee regarding Foreclosure of a County
owned Property
As the Governing Body of the 9-1-1 County Service District, Approve an
Annual Form from Jefferson County Updating the 9-1-1 Listing of
Governing Body Members
Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Estate Negotiations
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates, limes and discussion items are subjecllo change. All meetings are conducted in the Board o/Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. lfyou have questions regarding a meeting, please ca//388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled. dial 7-1-\ to access the state transfer relay service for TIY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
m
(5
N
C -:;:::.i0..5:'" '" ctQ)
'" • lb·
,:;,/. 'V\ . !Jl'L. . QJ i
0 ~: ~ -.;;:::.
c.:~
.~
i OJ .
Ei
ra
Z
V\
(lJ
co
0.
...... o
i(lJ
ttl
Q.
WASIE to
July 15, 2013
Deschutes County Renewable Energy Project Fact Sheet
No Cost to the County
The County will NOT be required to invest any funds for equipment, start-up or
operations to launch and sustain the project for the contract period. Depending on the
amount of gas produced from the project, we are prepared to invest $34-$60M.
Flexible Revenue Share
WTEG will negotiate with the County, a fixed or floating revenue share, whichever they
prefer, to the County for a percentage of annual revenues.
New Jobs
This project will generate a number of part-time and full-time family wage jobs here in
Deschutes County.
Reduced Environmental Impact
This project will employ state-of-the-art technologies designed to reduce landfill
environmental impacts. WTEG has reviewed our process with the DEQ and have agreed
that we can move forward as a demonstration project, (also known as RD&D) and can
continue to use the current operating permit with DEQ, so no additional permits are
needed.
Fortune 500 Engineering Expertise (fPC)
There are a number of leading engineering groups that WTEG has developed relations
with to assist us with our US/Mexico projects. These groups include USR, SAIC,
Honeywell and Siemens among others. When we have obtained a contract from the
County, we will negotiate an EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) contract
with a firm to assure production and performance (required by investors). Local
engineers and talent will be used as much as possible.
8 Corporate Park. Suite 300 • Irvine, California 92018 • (949) 274-9634
WASIE to
GTL Technology (Gas to Liquid)
Over the last two years the WTEG group has discussed the implementation of GTL
technologies with significant revenue advantages for the project and the County.
Initially we had elected to clean the gas and put it into the pipeline to generate income
until this technology was ready to deploy here in Bend. Two years later, it is now a
viable option to use for this project. We have third-party verification of it production
and performance from USR (a $10B international engineering firm) and we have secured
an exclusive license to use this technology for all of our projects including Knott and
Demolition landfills. (See FORBES Magazine 1/17/2013 GAS-TO-LiQUIDS PLANTS: NO
LONGER EXCLUSIVE TO LARGER PLAYERS)
*Sidebar -Given that Steam and GTL technologies are not available for this project to
others due to their exclusive nature, and without them, this project would not be
financially viable for any other company; we believe this was sufficient reasoning to
bypass normal RFP processes.
GTL Risk Mitigation
The use of this technology provides substantial financial risk mitigation for the project
and County. If we were to assume worst case scenario, and the project generated no
more gas than it does now, we would produce 2M gallons of diesel product or close to
$6M per year, significantly more than pipeline. In the best scenario, this project will
produce 7M gallons of diesel product or more to $19M per year.
Flexible Contract Length and Terms
The use of these technologies together allows us to shorten our contract period to 12
years and still satiSfy our investors.
Technology to Improve Project Performance (and revenue)
Through the Steam and GTL processes, these patented technologies will generate more
gas at a faster rate than a conventional gas recovery systems, as well as, convert it to a
diesel product that can be sold here in the County and to the members of the
community and not send it California for others to benefit. This should also increase
County's tax revenue.
8 Corporate Park. Suite 300 • Irvine, California 92018 • (949) 274-9634