Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090514 APPROVED 8/18/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL TOWN OF CARRBORO TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH WORK SESSION ON SOLID WASTE ISSUES May 14, 2009 7:00 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners met representatives from the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro and the Town of Hillsborough for a work session on solid waste issues on Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. (The elected leadership and management staff of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough were invited to participate in the work session. The members of the Solid Waste Advisory Board and the ERCD Board were also invited to attend) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin Lindley Foy, Council members Sally Greene, Mark Kleinschmidt, Jim Ward, and Town Manager Roger Stancil CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioner Michael Gering, and Town Manager Eric Peterson NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. Call to Order/Welcome/Introductions Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM and introductions were made. 2. Resolution Recognizing Gretchen Aylsworth Laura Blackmon said that there would be a special going away presentation next Monday night. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the resolution recognizing Gretchen Uzzle Aylsworth for her 17 years of service on behalf of Orange County's children and the Guardian Ad Litem Program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Solid Waste Transfer Station Site Search: Follow-Up Report to BOCC Discussion on April 21, 2009 Laura Blackmon said that on April 21St, several reports were presented to the Board of County Commissioners. At that meeting, there was direction from the Board to continue to move forward on the sites on NC 54. At that meeting, there was direction from the Board to schedule a work session to include an invitation to the Towns and to the Solid Waste Advisory Board. There are three reports in the packet and there will be a presentation on the findings of the reports. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson introduced some of the SWAB members and the consultants. He said that the staff and consultants are moving forward toward an enhanced environmental assessment, or an environmental evaluation on site 056, the Howell Property. There is a site concept plan in Appendix B. He gave a summary of the enhanced environmental assessment and other site development related activities: - Alternatives analysis— staff and the consultants have looked at alternative sites and alternative disposal methodologies - Wetlands determination by the Army Corps of Engineers o Conclusion is that the construction operation on the proposed transfer station should not present any threat to any mussel species or to Collins Creek. - Cultural resources survey will be completed if this particular site is selected by the Board of County Commissioners. - Septic Area—Orange County Environmental Health has conducted soil assessment and has found a good septic area for a conventional septic system and more than sufficient for anticipated staff needs. - Site Access —the site entrance road requirements have been discussed with NCDOT and it was stated that a traffic study would not be required given the projected number of vehicles on a daily basis. A right-turn lane will be necessary. Acquisition of a portion of Mr. Howell's eight-acre parcel will be required. - Fire Protection —There have been discussions with the Orange County Fire Marshall and the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief. Continuing discussions will take place if development proceeds on this site. In summary, nothing has been identified or uncovered to date about site 056 that would seem to render this site unsuitable or non-permittable as a location for a waste transfer station. Commissioner Pelissier asked the ERCD staff if there were any particular concerns. Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that his staff has not been on the property. He reviewed the environmental assessment and in March Rich Shaw wrote a memorandum to the Planning staff identifying key areas to address this. A couple of those have been addressed, such as the wetlands assessment. Another issue was to look at the flora and fauna. The third issue was to conduct a cultural and archaeological survey, which is typically done as part of the pre-construction phase. He has also had the opportunity to look at the report that has been most recently prepared. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a question about whether data were used from 1988 or 2003 as the baseline data and the Board had asked for clarification on this. Rich Shaw said that the initial work done in the environmental assessment did not account for a new natural heritage site in a section of Collins Creek. This was designated by the State since the inventory was updated in 2004 and the County did not even know that the State had identified this site as an aquatic habitat site until about a year ago. Gayle Wilson introduced Bob Sallach from Olver, Inc., who presented the Summary of Transfer, Haul, and Disposal Evaluation. Roger Stancil arrived at 7:24 PM. Bob Sallach said that the purpose of this report was to evaluate the cost impacts of the County Solid Waste Management facility users for various disposal options. The two options are: - Direct-haul MSW from collection routes (off-route hauling) to an out-of-County transfer station on an interim or long-term basis. - Build an in-County transfer station and direct-haul MSW from collection routes to that facility. Operate the transfer station on a long-term basis and haul MSW to one of two regional landfills. The key cost components associated with the out-of-County transfer station are part of the direct-haul costs and the tipping fee that would be charged in the transfer station. The direct-haul cost is the off-route cost associated with the transfer of waste from the end of the collection route to the disposal location and the return of that truck. For the County Transfer Station option, the key cost components include the development, construction, and operation of the transfer station; the cost of transferring waste to a larger tractor-trailer vehicle and the cost of moving the vehicles to a disposal location. Olver, Inc. first identified the out-of-County options that seemed most viable. Olver identified three potential facilities: City of Durham Transfer Station, Waste Industries Transfer Station, and Waste Management Transfer Station. As part of the evaluation, the owner/operator of each facility was interviewed. The NC DENR files for each facility were also reviewed. Olver also toured the facilities. The financial data for operation of an in-County transfer station were based on recent bids and actual operations of other transfer stations. The long-haul costs are based on the mileage from the transfer station site to the Sampson County landfill, which is the Waste Industries site. RESULTS OF ANALYSES For direct-hauling MSW to out-of-County transfer stations: - The out-of-County transfer stations and the landfills they use are currently permitted to accept and are willing to contract for County waste. - WI and WM have capacity in their transfer stations for the foreseeable future. - The least costly out-of-County transfer station (City of Durham's) is unlikely to be able to provide capacity for more than a year or two unless the facility is expanded or relocated. - Direct hauling to an out-of-County transfer station is a viable option but would result in higher operational risks, higher vehicle emissions, and higher direct hauling costs for all jurisdictions except the Town of Hillsborough. For building and operating an in-County transfer station and hauling to a regional landfill: - Based on preliminary site assessments and design features, the capital costs for a transfer station on potential site#056 are estimated to be $4.8 million. - Direct hauling MSW from collection routes to a new transfer station on site#056 is a viable option and is less expensive than direct hauling to out-of-County transfer stations for all jurisdictions except for the Town of Hillsborough. - Based on the findings of the investigation of long-term waste management alternatives, it is not likely that a long-term alternative to landfilling can be developed before the breakeven point of building and operating an in-County transfer station option. - Developing a new County transfer station is the least costly option over a 20-year planning horizon. Commissioner Jacobs said that staff had indicated that they did not see any potential of using the City of Durham. Gayle Wilson said that he contacted Durham and the staff indicated that Orange County would not be given a preferential rate. Durham County is considering a facility at some point in the future. Commissioner Jacobs said that at the last meeting he suggested that the Manager and the elected officials should talk with Durham's Manager and elected officials. Laura Blackmon said that she had a brief conversation with the City Manager, who stated that Orange County should not expect special treatment. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Orange County has money to bring to the table to talk to Durham before spending almost$5 million on a new transfer station. There are co- location options. He would like to actively engage the City of Durham. Gayle Wilson presented the report entitled, Preserving Capacity at Eubanks Landfill. At the April 21st meeting, the Board of County Commissioners requested additional information regarding extending or preserving landfill capacity. The following activities were conducted to determine the limitations, impacts, and benefits of preserving permitted landfill capacity over an extended period of time: - Reviewed N. C. General Statute and N. C. Administrative Code requirements applicable to the operation and closure of municipal solid waste landfills. - Identified the most appropriate ways to preserving capacity with the least amount of cost to the County. - Estimated the amount of capacity that may be preserved. - Estimated the financial impact of preserving such capacity. The process to preserve landfill capacity would entail implementation of a waste diversion strategy (i.e., direct haul of waste to existing out-of-County, private-sector transfer stations). For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that: - The County would accept waste at the Eubanks Road Landfill from the Partners of the Interlocal Agreement (and continue to divert UNC's waste). - The remaining disposal capacity of the landfill is estimated to extend beyond June 30, 2012 given diversion of non-partner waste. - The transfer station will be operational by March 1, 2012 (site selection complete by September 1, 2009 with 30-month transfer station permitting and construction period). - Based upon the most recent landfill capacity survey and if the transfer station is operational by March 1, 2012, approximately four months (18,300 tons) of capacity would remain with no additional diversion beyond UNC's waste. Diversion has the potential to increase the remaining disposal capacity of the landfill (over the remaining capacity at the point in time the transfer station is placed in service) from 250 percent to 150 percent depending upon when diversion of waste is actually initiated. The two major components of preserving landfill capacity are the diversion of waste prior to completion of the transfer station and a significant reduction in the landfill acceptance rate once the transfer station is in service. Financial Impacts of Preserving Landfill Capacity: - The County would see a reduction in tipping fee revenue of approximately $37,400/month during the period of diversion. - The loss in revenue would be recovered in the future as the preserved capacity is utilized. - Haulers of diverted waste may incur additional costs until the transfer station is operational. Summary of Findings and Conclusions: Based on preliminary discussions with DENR and current solid waste rules and regulations, it appears that preserving landfill capacity can be accomplished provided that the County continues to follow its approved Operating Plan for the landfill. In order to comply with the requirements of the Operating Plan, the County must continue operating the facility essentially as it is today, which includes maintaining equipment and managing the site on a daily basis — i.e., control of surface water, erosion control, environmental monitoring, odor and vector control, etc. The County would also have to continue to comply with reporting requirements, payment of annual fees, disposal tax, and applying for permit renewals as required. Mayor Foy arrived at 7:50 PM. Commissioner Jacobs asked where the 17% would be diverted to and Gayle Wilson said that it would be various private hauling companies and various businesses or citizens that haul directly to the landfill. Most of the 17% is public waste, Waste Industries, or Waste Management. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the potential for Hillsborough to go to Durham and how this affects the calculation. Gayle Wilson said that there would be some impact on the capacity, but only months and not years. Mayor Stevens said that the current site is significantly less expensive for Hillsborough than the Durham site. Commissioner Jacobs said that he has lived in places where there are huge garbage mountains and he asked why the waste in the landfill could not go up instead of staying flat. Gayle Wilson said that it is a function of geometry and there is only a certain footprint available in which to bury waste. To maintain the State required slope percentages, it dictates how high the waste can be. The County Commissioners asked clarifying questions on the costs, which were answered by Bob Sallach. Mark Kleinschmidt said that he was under the assumption that when the transfer station opens, the landfill closes. He did not realize that it would be kept open until 2020. This distresses him because the Town of Chapel Hill is committed to helping the residents of Rogers Road. Chair Foushee said that she was not aware of this and she would like to understand why the landfill will remain open for an additional 8 years after the transfer station opens. Gayle Wilson said that staff has been operating under the assumption that the landfill would close. At the April 21st meeting, as part of the contingency report, it was an answer to the question of what could be done if the landfill reaches capacity before the transfer station is ready. The staff presented some options and the Board of County Commissioners asked if some of the options could be utilized to extend the life of the landfill even after the transfer station opened. This was the basis for the report. Chair Foushee said that her recollection of that conversation had more to do with the possibility of exploring alternatives to a waste transfer station and a landfill. She does not think that there was an expectation that the landfill would remain open any longer than the County needed it. Commissioner Nelson said that the way he heard the conversation was that the Board was interested in making sure that there was excess capacity in the case of an emergency. He thinks that there is a misunderstanding. Gayle Wilson said that you have to trickle in trash or close the landfill. Mayor Foy said that his staff has estimated that the NC 54 site would cost the Town of Chapel Hill $550,000 a year. Gayle Wilson said that he consulted closely with Chapel Hill's Solid Waste Services Superintendent to verify the assumptions. Commissioner Yuhasz arrived at 8:20 PM. The County Commissioners asked for a copy of the report from Chapel Hill with these figures. Chair Foushee asked that the Mayor go over this information for members of the public so that it is entered into the record. Mayor Foy went through the memo from Lance Norris, Chapel Hill Public Works Director, from May 6, 2008. MEMORANDUM To: Roger Stancil, Town Manager From: Lance Norris, Public Works Director Subject: Orange County Transfer Siting Process Date: May 6, 2008 Background and Discussion The Town of Chapel Hill currently collects and hauls its municipal solid waste (MSW) to the Orange County Regional Landfill. That landfill is scheduled for closure in 2011. Currently, the Orange County Board of Commissioners is conducting a site search to construct a Transfer Station. The selected location could impact the Town of Chapel Hill negatively and/or financially. The Town of Chapel Hill's interest is, "To support the environmental sustainability of our community by actively pursuing the goal of 61% waste reduction and by reducing our carbon footprint by 50% by 2020. Criteria that could impact our operation are: - An increase in non-productive route time, driving to and from the route to the disposal site is a major consideration. We have conducted time and distance studies from the geographic center of Chapel Hill to distances of 10, 12, 15 and 20 miles away. These studies included Highway 54 West, 1-40 West and Highway 86 North. Beyond the 12-mile point, which adds 38 to 40 minutes round trip drive time depending on location, we would need to add another crew with equipment to continue the same level of service we currently provide. - An equipment change to a dual axle residential fleet. Currently, only two trucks are dual axle. Three more will be delivered to the Town due to the normal fleet replacement cycle this fall. That will leave fire rear loaders to be changed out at cost of approximately $700,000. - Fuel cost will increase if the site is other than the current site. The amount of increase would vary depending on the distance and time of travel. As an example of the impact of changing to a more remote hauling site, a time and distance study was conducted from various Chapel Hill locations to the Durham Transfer Station (DTS). Southern Village center to DTS. Miles: 20.3 Time: 28 minutes Meadowmont center to DTS. Miles: 17.6 Time: 26 minutes Parkside Neighborhood to DTS. Miles: 17.4 Time: 22 minutes Downtown Chapel Hill to DTS. Miles: 17.1 Time: 27 minutes DTS to Town Operations Center Miles: 20.6 Time: 27 minutes This would increase our travel time during the day to 1 hour. Transfer station wait time could approach 15 minutes. The additional time per route would compromise our ability to complete routes within a work day with additional resources. We would need to add 1 crew, with equipment to sustain our current task system. 1 Equipment Operator !! Salary and Benefits $43,800 2 Collectors Salary and Benefits $74,000 Total personnel costs $117,800 Additional rear-loader, fuel and maintenance $200,000 TOTAL $317,800 Fuel Projections: Estimated data on increased annual fuel cost from the DTS to the TOC for residential trucks only would increase $28,900 dollars. 14,996 miles (14 routes x 52 weeks x 20.6 miles) divided by 1.6 miles per gallon average rear loader multiplied by $3.08 which was the average 3rd quarter fuel cost for this FY. Estimated data on increased annual fuel cost only by all routes to DTS would increase $76,100. 14 routes x 52 weeks x 1.5 trips per day x 36.2 miles round trip average all routes divided by 1.6 miles per gallon x$3.08 which was the average 3rd quarter fuel cost for this FY. Commercial fuel cost estimated at$48,000. Total fuel estimate: $153,000 The residential fleet is currently being converted to rear dual axles to bring us into compliance with DOT weight guidelines. We currently have two rear loaders that are dual axle. Three more are being ordered this year. That will leave five rear loaders to be converted. Conversion of equipment: $700,000 The actual impact of other sites would vary depending on their location. For example, sites north of Hillsborough would require travel through the town, so even relatively short hauling distances would result in longer hauling times. Likewise, sites adjacent to Interstate 40 could require shorter hauling time for longer distances. End of memo. Gayle Wilson said that it appears that the destination on this analysis was the Durham transfer station. Commissioner Gordon asked about the conversion of the equipment and it was answered that the conversion of equipment would be required as a result of the increased number of miles and the type of roads. Gayle Wilson said that he would follow up with the Public Works Director and resolve the discrepancies in the data. He said that all of the assumptions were presented to the various jurisdictions and were deemed reasonable. This is why the staff proceeded. Chair Foushee asked that any updated information include the conversion of equipment for all Towns. Commissioner Pelissier asked about the fuel costs and the specific routes for the trucks. Roger Waldon said that Chapel Hill has not participated with the consultant or the County staff regarding the analysis or recommendation, so no specific routes have been discussed. Whatever routes were used were just estimates. Mayor Foy said that they are all committed to using agreed upon or assigned routes. Commissioner Hemminger asked about the number of trucks per day and the wait time. Gayle Wilson said that he does not see any change in wait time. There would be about 60 collection vehicle trips and 12 tractor trailer trucks on a peak day. The average day would be 35-40 vehicles. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the cost projections and said that when the County Commissioners were going through the criteria for site selection, they spent a considerable amount of time talking about the maximum distance that was cost effective for the vehicles to travel. Based on the analysis, the 12-mile limit was chosen. He said that this criterion may have been too broad. Another assumption that was made in the criteria was the need for a 25-acre minimum lot. He thinks that this should be revisited. Commissioner Gordon asked how, when the search was conducted using the 25 acres, that the consultant did not find the site that the Town of Chapel Hill recently mentioned. Bob Sallach said that it was related to access to the site. This particular site was triangular and difficult to get into. Commissioner Hemminger asked if reducing the facility to one bay would change the size requirement. Gayle Wilson said that this would have a minimal impact on the acreage need. Bob Sallach said that the size would be more dictated by the geometry into and out of the facility. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the minimum lot size and Bob Sallach said 8-10 acres. Mayor Foy said that he brought a map that shows the Town Operations Center on Millhouse Road. He said that he wanted to ask whether putting the transfer station next to the Town Operations Center is worth talking about and not whether this is the right site or not. He said that the investment of local resources for the NC 54 site is greater than the investment that would be made at a site like the Millhouse Road site. He said that this merits discussion. Commissioner Nelson asked if this was an official offer from the Town of Chapel Hill. Mayor Foy said that the question is where to start and how this begins. He said that he does not even know if he supports this, but he just wants to discuss it because this site makes more sense. Commissioner Nelson said that he would feel more comfortable if this was officially from the Town Council. He asked for a letter from the Town Council putting this site on the table. Mark Kleinschmidt said that he thinks that the Council would allow the Board to talk about this. Mayor Stevens said that this site looks interesting and he would be interested in discussing it. Commissioner Jacobs thanked Mayor Foy for bringing this to the Board's attention. He said that there was some inquiry several years ago of the Town, he thought, at a staff level as to whether there were any sites available. He said that the County was told that neither Chapel Hill nor Carrboro was interested in offering any sites. He said that when he heard about this, he consulted with Chair Foushee, who had met with Rogers Road neighborhood representatives on areas of interest to the community that might be addressed by the County and other local governments. One of the first things that were done in the meetings was to come up with a definition of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood, which does not come close to incorporating Millhouse Road. He is sympathetic to what Commissioner Nelson said and he would like to know if the Town was willing to sell. The staff can then investigate it, because one of the criteria was having a willing seller. Chair Foushee suggested that if the County moves forward with a conversation about this idea, she thinks that the Board would have to determine how to finish the process in which it is already engaged. She proposed that if the Board considers anything other than the site that is under consideration, that it continue and determine whether or not this is the site that will be used and not abandon a process while something else is entertained. She thinks that it is unfair to both neighborhoods to continue in limbo. Commissioner Gordon agreed that this is good information to think about. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he came into this process later than most and it seemed that cost was not so much of an issue. He thinks that financial resources were greater than they are right now. He said that it seems that to study this site will at least put into perspective the costs of site#056. Commissioner Hemminger agreed that the costs have changed and she is interested in discussing the site in Chapel Hill. Councilman Ward asked if this was for lease or purchase and Laura Blackmon said that Orange County would probably prefer it be a lease because it is less permanent. Commissioner Nelson said that he worries about putting this idea on the table when there is not a firm commitment. He has grown weary of the length of the process and what has been done to neighborhoods in the community. He thinks that dragging this out longer is not good leadership. He would like a firm commitment from the Town on this site. Chair Foushee asked for direction from the Board for the staff. Laura Blackmon said that this item could be added to the next agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to add to the agenda for next Tuesday developing a possible investigation of the site that Mayor Kevin Foy has suggested and have a conversation with the City of Durham about the possibility of a transfer station. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Motion for Closed Session — Matter Unrelated to Solid Waste Transfer Station A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier at 9:22 p.m. to go into closed session to: "Discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract or contracts to purchase real property, NCGS 143-318.11(a)(5)," And "Consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body pursuant to N. C. G. S. 143-318.11(a)(3)." VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to reconvene into regular session at 10:09 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board