1 / 58

Strategic Plan June 24, 2009

Strategic Plan June 24, 2009. Strategic Planning Meeting June 24, 2009. A Joint Meeting of: The Alameda County Recycling Board, and The Alameda County Waste Management Authority Some “Housekeeping” Before We Begin: Your Binders Contain All Relevant Documents or URLs

donny
Download Presentation

Strategic Plan June 24, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Strategic PlanJune 24, 2009

  2. Strategic Planning MeetingJune 24, 2009 • A Joint Meeting of: • The Alameda County Recycling Board, and • The Alameda County Waste Management Authority • Some “Housekeeping” Before We Begin: • Your Binders Contain All Relevant Documents or URLs • Including Schedule and Today’s Presentation (Tab A) • Our Planning Horizon is 10 Years, But Flexible • No Actions Until September 23, 2009 • Earliest Date For “Final Actions” Is February 2010

  3. What Are We Trying to Achieve? • A “High-Level View” of Ourselves • An Expansive Dialogue About Possible Futures • Board Direction to Staff At A High-Level (No = +) • Priority Among the Outcomes We Seek • Priority Between Approaches and Programs • For Example, Mandatory Recycling Versus Grants • For Example, Green Building Versus Business Audits • Note: Budgets & Implementation Details Later

  4. Topics To Be Covered Today(Summaries Only: Separate Briefings Can Be Arranged) • The Global Context For Our Planning • Our Governing Documents • Our Current Programs • 2008 Waste Characterization Study • How It Was Done; Key Factual Findings • Some Possible Lessons • Challenges We Face; Our Current Approaches • Where To From Here? (Future Meetings, etc.)

  5. The Global Context: Being Green Creates a Competitive Advantage Masdar City is the most ambitious sustainable development in the world today - it will be the world's first zero carbon, zero waste, car-free city powered entirely by renewable energy sources. It is part of the Masdar Initiative; a long-term strategic endeavour by Abu Dhabi to accelerate the development and deployment of clean future energy solutions. By taking sustainable development and living to a new level, Masdar City will lead the world in understanding how all future cities should be built.

  6. The Global Context:Young People See the World Differently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZsDliXzyAY

  7. Governing Documents

  8. Mission Statement The Waste Management Authority and the Source Reduction and Recycling Board form an integrated Agency dedicated to achieving the most environmentally sound solid waste management and resource conservation program for the people of Alameda County. Within this context, the Agency is committed to achieving a 75% and beyond diversion goal and promoting sustainable consumption and disposal patterns.

  9. Mission Statement (cont.) In achieving this goal, the Agency will: • Provide strategic planning, research, education and technical assistance to the public, businesses and local governments. • Initiate innovative programs and facilities to maximize waste prevention, recycling and economic development opportunities. • Serve as a pro-active public policy advocate for long term solutions to our challenges. • Partner with organizations with compatible goals.

  10. Three Documents • CoIWMP (Shared planning authority under the Joint Powers Agreement) • Recycling Plan (Required by County Charter “Measure D” in 1990) • Open Space Initiative (County Charter Amendment in 2000)

  11. CoIWMP Elements • Waste Management System, Countywide Waste Diversion & Disposal Needs, Countywide Issues • Countywide Goals & Policies • Siting Criteria and Conformance Procedures • Waste Management Programs • Local government Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs)

  12. CoIWMP Goals, Objectives and Policies • Promote environmental quality • Achieve maximum feasible waste reduction • Provide public information and education • Meet disposal capacity needs • Provide cost-effective waste services • Ensure adequate financing • Promote inter-jurisdictional cooperation

  13. Recycling Plan • Source Reduction and Recycling Initiative (Measure D) • “75% and beyond” waste diversion goal • Emphasizes preserving natural resources, long-term sustainable consumption and disposal patterns • Identifies the programs and policies to implement goals of the charter amendment • Sets priorities and targets • Fully integrated with the CoIWMP

  14. Open Space Initiative (2000) • County charter amendment • Additional landfill capacity must not impede “75% and beyond” goal • Ability to site landfill or diversion facilities within some zoning categories is unclear

  15. Questions?

  16. Expenditures by Program Area

  17. Questions?

  18. Waste Characterization Basic Facts

  19. Purpose • Why? • Provide detailed data and analysis on what’s in waste stream to inform future program direction • Identify and quantify waste streams and material types • Compare to previous studies (2000 & 1995) • Where possible, evaluate program progress

  20. Methodology • Four season sorting and sampling in 2008 • Five waste streams: single family, multi-family, commercial, roll-off and self-haul • Material types – 48 • Physical sorts (1,100 samples, minimum 200 lbs. each) • Visual sorts for certain loads (1,200 observations) • Data for all jurisdictions • Self-Hauler surveys • “Divertability analysis”

  21. Manual Sort

  22. (Add more photos) • Click through quickly with minimal speaking points

  23. Introduction to Results • Tons & Proportions • Material definitions • 9 major groups • 48 types under those • Sector (Collection method) • Single Family • Multi-Family • Commercial • Roll-Off • Self-Haul • Activity (Generator) • Residential • Commercial • Construction • Manufacturing • Jurisdiction • 17 Member Agencies • Previous Studies • 1995 & 2000

  24. Waste Composition

  25. Historic Comparison of Composition

  26. Waste by Sector(Collection Method)

  27. Changes by Sector *Note: Waste delivered directly to out-of-county facilities or MRF residuals are not included.

  28. Roll-Off By Activity

  29. Self-Haul by Activity

  30. Waste By Activity 2000 2008

  31. Changes By Activity(1995, 2000, 2008)

  32. Next Steps • StopWaste Staff Review • Countywide • Sector • Activity • Member Agency Staff Review • Database & Other Sources of Information • In depth analysis • Feed Into the Strategic Planning Process

  33. Questions?

  34. Waste CharacterizationSomeLessons Learned

  35. Lesson 1Target Materials Still Important

  36. Lesson 2Progress, But Work Left To Do

  37. Lesson 3Hard to Recycle Materials Important • Even though we have targeted 60% of the waste stream, still have 40% left • Hard to recycle materials include: • Treated wood and other C&D: 13% • Misc organics: 10% • Plastics: 4% • Hazardous Waste (incl. electronics): 1%

  38. Lesson 4Be Ready for the Rebound • Construction activity down substantially • 70% of the overall decrease in tons is due to construction • Most susceptible to a rebound • Most impact on total • Current in-county capacity inadequate • Ordinances may not be enough by themselves *Overall decline in construction materials across all sectors/activities is 40%.

  39. Questions?

  40. Nine ChallengesSpanning Three Areas

  41. Challenge 1 • Multiplicity of Objectives • Tons to Landfill Reduced • Waste Prevention vs. Material Recovery • Other CoIWMP Goals and Objectives: e.g., Remove Hazardous Waste From the Waste Stream • Sustainable Consumption Patterns (Natural Gas, Electricity, and Water Use, GHG Emissions, Others) • Current Approach: • Weighted Average Project Evaluation Scores • Try to Accommodate Everyone To Some Extent

  42. Challenge 2 • Limited Control • Many Decisions Are Outside the County, CA, or US • Commodity Market Prices Fluctuate • Current Approach: • Limited Participation in State and National Coalitions • Considerably More Local Coalition Building (e.g., GB, BFL) • No Clear Approach to Commodity Price Fluctuations

  43. Challenge 3 • Fragmented Control • Franchise Terms Are Jurisdictional Decisions • Services Offered • Relative Rates for Service Categories (Customer Incentives) • Incentives for Franchisee to Support Diversion • Materials are Controlled by the Franchisee • Desire for Local Uniqueness and Autonomy Is Natural • Current Approach: • Model Ordinances, Franchise Language, Etc. • StopWaste Regional and Sub-Regional Role

  44. Challenge 4 • Diversion Is Not a Top Priority • Plenty of Landfill Capacity in Alameda County • Dollar Savings From Diversion Are Often Modest • Current Approach: • Multiple Benefits Used To Broaden Support • Technical Assistance and Specialized Outreach (for example, GHG Benefits of Recycling)

More Related