The future of Medina County’s mixed-waste processing facility uncertain.
 |
| Medina County Commissioners Adam Freidrick, left, and Steven Hambley, pass a resolution rejecting all bids that the Ohio county received for the operation of its Central Processing Facility, which handles the county’s waste using a mixed-waste processing system to extract recyclables. Commissioner Patricia Geissman, center, abstained from the vote. |
Medina County (Ohio) commissioners accepted a recommendation from a special bid team to reject proposals from two companies to operate the Medina County Central Processing Facility (CPF).
The CPF is a mixed-waste processing facility that handles all of the solid waste collected from Medina County. Cleveland-based Envision Waste Services has operated the facility for the past 21 years. The company’s contract with Medina County expires Jan. 11, 2015. Envision and another Medina-based company, Vexor, submitted bids to operate the CPF under a new contract. But, based on the recommendation of a bid team from GT Environmental Services, Stow, Ohio, Medina County Commissioners Adam Freidrick and Steven Hambley passed a resolution rejecting all bids. The third commissioner, Patricia Geissman, abstained from the vote.
According to GT Environmental, the county’s goal was to reduce tipping fees from $61 to $57 per ton while allowing for additional expenses to purchase a fleet and equipment. The county also sought a longer contractual period.
The first option for bids, referred to as Option A, was a “status quo” option. Envison was the only bidder. As part of the bid, $1.4 million of county funds would be directed toward equipment improvements at the CPF. The proposed improvements included adding a process to the end of the mixed-waste processing equipment system but did not include updating or replacing the current 21-year-old processing system, a representative from GT Environmental said.
“Other registered bidders did not bid on this option. This suggests this may not be an attractive business model that is not in line with more popular source-separated recycling programs,” the representative said.
A 2013 report prepared by GT Environmental suggests approximately 18 percent of the solid waste accepted at the CPF is being diverted from landfill.
The next option the county issued for proposals, known as Option B, allowed for more innovation and an opportunity for large-scale improvements with an incentive-driven program to maximize recycling extraction, the representative explained. Envision bid on this option by again proposing to add a process at the end of the existing processing equipment. Vexor, which produces engineered fuel blends from secondary industrial materials, including some from the CPF, bid on the option. The company proposed to completely gut and rebuild the system with new processing equipment. Another proposal was eliminated from consideration because it did not conform to the specified requirements.
According to the representative, members of the bid team conducted interviews with Envision and Vexor and prepared a bid/cost analysis. The proposals did not reduce tipping fees and sustain revenue while maintaining district programs and operations. They involved increasing tipping fees to cover expenses. The GT representative said Vexor’s proposal was the most expensive and was therefore eliminated from future consideration. He said the bid team also was concerned that Envison’s proposal under Option B would mean the existing equipment would be 31-years-old by the time the contract term ended, and so it was eliminated from further consideration.
This meant the status quo, or Option A, five-year contract was the only viable contract; but, it too contained “alternative contract language” that was prohibited. It also was determined the county would not be able to achieve a $57 tipping fee or the recycling rates it wanted with this option, according to the GT Environmental representative.
“The bid team recommends rejection of all bids,” the representative said to the commissioners.
As part of the consideration process, the bid team also looked at the cost for the county to operate the processing line, which totaled $60 per ton, and was deemed to be an unfavorable option.
Medina County Sanitary Engineer Amy Lyon-Galvin discussed with commissioners the possibility of operating the CPF temporarily as a transfer station in the interim, which would lower tip fees to $45 per ton and “allow an opportunity to potentially reengage the residents and communities by looking into establishing a community drop-off program.”
Lyon-Galvin said the interim period also would allow the county to enter into discussions with the city of Cleveland about a regional facility as well as to potentially bid out smaller contracts.
Commissioner Hambley said it will take the county a few weeks to determine how it will proceed in the short term before coming up with a permanent solution for its waste. Tipping fees appear to be the No. 1 concern, followed by recycling percent, he said. He cited a countywide recycling survey in which 59 percent of residents said they would participate in recycling if more drop-off opportunities existed. Additionally, he said, 30 percent of residents opposed the county effort to prevent people from donating recyclables because of flow control. There have been some issues in the past where flow control laws in the county have resulted in church and school paper recycling programs ending. As well, Hambley noted, a local business that is not willing to invest further in the community because the company’s recyclables are “treated as waste.”
Hambley said support for mixed-waste processing in Medina County is about 50/50. “It is a mixed-waste facility and we are kind of mixed minds in the county,” remarked Hambley. As for the future of recycling and waste processing in Medina County he said, “I think in some ways it is going to be a mixed approach; [we will keep] portions of CPF and subcontract out [others]. All that flexibility has to be in the there in the next CPF operation, and I feel that given the proposals we received, we don’t have that flexibility still.”
He concluded by saying, “Hopefully over a year’s period of time the county can find the find the means of meeting those needs of not only keeping the costs down and reducing them but also making sure we recycle and increasing the opportunity for people to recycle glass and plastics and paper and so forth.”
