skip to main content | plain text |

Search:

Find Service: I'm looking for... Bids & Proposals Cable TV Franchise Birth & Death Certificates Boards & Commissions Budget for the County Budweiser Events Center Building Permits Child Protection & Youth Services County Code County Store Courts Citizen Information Center Elections Employment Enterprise Zones Fair & Rodeo Food Stamps Forms Foster Care Land Use Code Landfill & Recycling Larimer Lift Liquor Licensing Location of County Offices Maps Marriage Licences Medicaid Meeting Agendas & Minutes Natural Resources News Releases Plans, Publications, Reports Policies & Ordinances Property Taxes Property Valuations Public Health Public Records Databases Roads Sales Tax Senior Services Special Event Permit Starting a Business in the county Televised Meetings Use Tax Vehicle Registration Veterans Assistance Volunteering Voter Registration Weed Control Wildfire Safety A-Z...

• Home
• Hot Topics
• Services A-Z
• Departments
• News
• Jobs
• Public Records
• How To
• Contact Us

Staging/Processing Committee Meeting

March 23, 2000

Attendees

Marty Anderson, Eric Pederson, Steve Harem, Robert Neilson, Gordon Benton, Chuck Lightburn, Susie Gordon, Kurt Mackus, Audrey-Lyn Stockton, Philip Friedman, Scott Doyle

Committee members discussed previous meetings and reviewed some of the history that had led to this meeting. Scott Doyle gave a quick review of the first staging/processing meeting and the committee immediately moved into exploring problems left from the previous meeting. These were issues of how to handle wood waste at the landfill, how to stage such an endeavor, how to accomplish diversion into an area set aside primarily for wood, and then how best to accomplish the final grinding process.

The committee went into a problem identification process. The committee identified a host of problems and much discussion was to follow. Problems identified and listed are as follows:

1. How do we educate the public and what is the perception out there?

• Various educational options/opportunities were discussed. Also, the idea of asking the public for feedback was discussed.

1. How is this accomplished in the short term as well as the long term?

• Again, various media public information mechanisms were discussed.

1. What kind(s) of information is published and when?
2. What is the motivation to divert wood to a specific location of the landfill?

• Will people respond automatically through being environmentally conscience, do we need to provide a monetary incentive, or are regulatory measures placed?

1. Should tipping fees be adjusted?

• The committee agreed that clean loads of wood should be rewarded.

1. Who will sort?

• Landfill management voiced concern that without experienced personnel on board that the task seemed insurmountable.

1. Grinding the wood (processing)?

• Short-term as well as long term was discussed. The idea of contracting the work was tabled, as was the idea of the county buying a grinder and beginning soon. No resolution was reached here as more research needs to be done.

1. Can we identify and guarantee a source (volumes) that will last?

• An interesting mix of wood quantity was discussed at this point. It appears that if Holnam were to desire enough wood to completely convert to wood as fuel that the Larimer County landfill would not be able to supply necessary quantity.

1. How will the area be staged and what kind of storage is necessary?

• The south property was discussed as a possibility.

1. What are the environmental issues?

• Noise, air (dust), visual
• Are any permits required?
• Still more questions that must be answered

1. Costs?

• A math model has been developed and if the numbers are correct any amount of grinding looks very promising.

1. Who are the end users again?

• Holnam, public at large, other business
• An agreement with a priority end user seems necessary

Some additional solutions (short/long term) were offered from the group and they are as follows:

• County buys a grinder and begins volume reduction.
• Holnam comes second as the county concentrates on volume reduction.
• An agreement is drafted with Holnam for first use of the chipped wood.
• Check alternate economic solutions.
• If the wood is going to be shipped a scale must be available for use. (The recycle center located at the landfill has a scale available).
• Check with local grinders for pricing if contracted out.

Then came the what next segment of the meeting. The following was discussed and agreed upon as priority:

• Check out other grinding operations.
• Further explore the public education segment (the how too)
• Begin drafting an agreement with Holnam.

In closing the meeting all had the opportunity to voice any remaining concerns. Those issues are as follows:

• Every member at the meeting agreed that if this is a good idea then the project should move ahead at full steam seeking the necessary approval and mechanism to begin grinding.
• Look at alternatives (save space vs fuel).
• Prepare and present to County Commissioners soon.
• Develop a plan and execute it sequentially.
• Explore other alternative fuels other than at the landfill

The meeting adjourned.

Back to Development Team Minutes