Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-02-2010 - 6cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 2, 2010 Action Agenda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: Update on Solid Waste Work Group Planning Process Including Solid Waste Convenience Center Issues DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Table of Contents for Solid Waste Management Plan 2 Update of Work Group Discussions of Solid Waste Convenience Center Issues 3. Public Input Options for Unincorporated Waste Plan Issues INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director, 968-2885 Willie Best, Assistant County Manager, 245-2308 PURPOSE: To bring the Board of Commissioners up to date on the general status of the Solid Waste Planning Work Group's development of the three year update to the County-wide solid waste plan, with particular focus on the future role and funding of Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC) and associated unincorporated County matters. BACKGROUND: Three Year Solid Waste Plan Update The State of North Carolina requires that each local government update its ten- year solid waste plan every three years. The last update was due June 2009 but Orange County and its municipalities (through the Solid Waste Planning Work Group) have not yet completed the planning necessary to finalize the plan. Required elements of plan submittal include a description of all programs, services, budget, plan for waste reduction and recycling, littering and illegal dumping, solid waste collection and disposal, public education, etc. A table of contents of the required elements of plan submittal is included as Attachment 1. Historically the County has acted as lead agency in submitting a single plan on behalf of all three municipalities (excluding Mebane at this time) and the County due to the County's role owning the landfill, managing the recycling and waste reduction programs, and the Make Reports section of the Interlocal Agreement. The last plan submittal, for 2006, was essentially a descriptive placeholder type 2 document, with solid waste planning activity continuing until the present through the efforts of the Solid Waste Plan Work Group (Work Group). The Solid Waste Plan Work Group, made up of elected officials, staff and citizen members of the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) from all jurisdictions, was instituted in 2005 to create a more cohesive planning process whose intention is to bring to the governing boards concepts and recommendations on a range of county-wide waste management issues. Improvements to the existing recycling programs and internal efficiency gains, notably from switching to two-stream recycling, have paid dividends enabling modest recycling program expansions with little additional capital and no new staff. An example of this efficiency dividend is the long-awaited addition of rigid plastics recycling at drop-off sites scheduled for February 1. All four local governments have maintained allegiance to the 61 % waste reduction goal and as a whole the County has achieved steady progress towards the goal, last measured in 2007-08 at 50%, the best in North Carolina. Instituting the 3-R Fee within the solid waste enterprise fund in 2004 to fund recycling has provided a predictable, stable sustainable source of funds creating a key to ongoing program success. General fund issues for Solid Waste Convenience Centers has led to recent reductions in schedules and services and a corresponding reduction in access to the Center's recycling functions. When the landfill closes in 2012, additional enterprise fund financial challenges will occur as MSW landfill tipping fee revenues will be eliminated. Staff believes that the time has come to proceed toward completion of the latest version of the 3-year update of the 10-year plan by the Work Group, not only to meet the state's three year plan update objective, but also to provide guidance to County citizens and governments with regard to future direction of recycling and waste management in Orange County. While the planning is not yet complete, at some point a document must be completed and submitted, even if all issues are not fully developed. Additionally, the Board of Commissioners are looking for guidance with regard to current rural waste and recycling services, specifically the future role of solid waste convenience centers and a more sustainable funding source for the rural services provided through the convenience centers, which has been the subject of most recent Work Group deliberations. Staff is concerned with the ongoing and continuing nature of the Solid Waste planning efforts and the resulting delay and seeks to develop a 3-Year Plan Update and submit to the State at the earliest opportunity, addressing the remaining unresolved issues in the next 3-Year Update due in June 2012. It was suggested at the December Work Group meeting that an update of the Work Group's Planning process be provided the Board of County Commissioners and subsequently at the Assembly of Governments (AOG) meeting on March 25. 3 Orange County Solid Waste Reduction Goal In 1997 the State required each governmental entity to adopt a local waste reduction goal. That goal was to be calculated by taking the amount of municipal solid waste landfilled per-capita in any given year and compare that to the amount landfilled per capita in the base year (1991). The State performs the calculation and assigns the individual reduction rates. Orange County adopted a very aggressive waste reduction goal of 61 %. We have been recently informed that the County's FY 2008-09 waste reduction rate is 54%. The Plan under development requires the County to again state or reaffirm the local goal. Unincorporated Area Solid Waste Plannina Solid Waste and recycling management in the unincorporated areas are key elements of the plan on which the Work Group has focused this past fall. Final recommendations on the rural area will be integrated into the overall solid waste plan. The upcoming County budget process will provide additional focus on SWCC funding and service level issues. Citizen interest on this matter is high. The Work Group is preparing a set of recommendations to the Board that includes future utilization, design, location and financing of the convenience centers, recycling program improvements/expansions and the level of County involvement in waste collection. Issues surrounding the operation, design, location and financing of the solid waste convenience centers are the most pressing elements for the unincorporated areas. The Work Group has examined a variety of convenience center models, plans, financing mechanisms and operating modalities and a memorandum is included as Attachment 2. Public Input Process for Solid Waste Convenience Center and other Rural Waste Issues One aspect of developing these recommendations is gathering public input, which could be done using a series of public information meetings throughout the county to present options and gather feedback. The Work Group introduced the concept of public meetings conducted near various Solid Waste Convenience Centers. Focus for each meeting would be on gathering comment from the area residents. Those meetings, with approval of the BOCC, would be conducted in February and early March so results could. be included in 2010-11 budget planning as well as incorporated into a draft solid waste plan. Other tools that could be used to gather input include focus groups and a variety of opinion survey instruments. One opinion survey has been conducted by a volunteer citizen group and there has been additional input given at a recent Solid Waste Advisory Board meeting, Work Group meetings and through various citizen phone calls and email communications. Information previously presented to the Work Group describing some of the public input options is included as Attachment 3. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact to plan preparation. There would be financial impacts related to implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan (or its various components) and in adoption of funding alternatives for facilities and services, depending on final Board decisions. If the County uses a professional facilitator to conduct public input sessions, a professional survey or focus groups are conducted in the unincorporated areas there would be some limited financial impact. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that: • the Board of Commissioners consider placing a Solid Waste Management Plan Work Group update on the March, 2010 AOG agenda, • the Board of Commissioners provide input to staff with regard to rural waste management. issues related to Solid Waste Convenience Centers or other rural services being studied/examined, • the Board of Commissioners ask the Solid Waste Management Plan Work Group to provide recommendations regarding Solid Waste Convenience Centers and other associated input to the Board of Commissioners so that this input can inform the County's FY 2010/11 Solid Waste Management budget process, and • the Board provide input with regard to obtaining public input on study alternatives, potentially authorizing Staff to conduct a series of public information meetings in close proximity to the Solid Waste Convenience Centers, prior to the March 2010 Assembly of Governments meeting. 5 Attachment L• Table of Contents of Solid Waste Plan Update Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. Chapter 1 Statistics and Information on Solid Waste Management ........................................ Chapter 2 Summary of Solid Waste Management Activities .................................................. Chapter 3 Solid Waste Planning Update .................................................................................. Chapter 4 Process for Development of the Plan ...................................................................... Appendix A Copy of Resolution Promoting development of interim plan ........................... Appendix B Copy of Resolutions Adopting Plan ................................................................. And advertisement for public meeting on plan Appendix C Map of Waste Sites used by Orange County .................................................... Appendix D Waste Characterization Study Excerpts (1995. v. 2000 v. 2005) ..................... Appendix E Waste Reduction Goal Sheet ............................................................................ Appendix F Plan Elements ............................................................................................... Appendix G Supporting Documentation -brochures, newsletters, other ............................ Appendix H Departmental Goal ............................................................................................ Appendix I Financial plan .................................................................................................... 6 Attachment 2 Unincorporated County Waste Management Planning January 4, 2010 Solid Waste Planning Goals for Evaluation of Rural Waste Management Issues The prioritization of goals to guide decision making with regard to unincorporated area waste issues was completed by the Work Group and resulted in the ranking shown below. The ranking has meeting the 61 % diversion goal as receiving the strongest support resulting in a weighting of 28.9%. Safety is second at 18.7%. Cost-effective operations third at 18.6%. Sustainable funding system fourth at 15.2%. Reduced environmental impact fifth at 12.6% and cost equity last at 5.9%. Based on those priorities, an overarching principle for design and operation of the centers needs to support recycling and waste reduction while enabling users to minimize what is actually discarded. Weighting of Program Goals for Unincorporated Area Scenarios Final Ranking Rank Points Weight Develop a system that encourages recycling - - to reach 61 % waste reduction goal 1 12.73 28.9% Promote safe and effective materials handling at home, at convenience centers and along collection routes by residents, business owners and staff- e.g. low loading 2 8.24 18.7% Provide more efficient cost effective operations -lower operating costs with investment of capital where required 3 8.20 18.6% Provide sustainable, predictable sources of funding -retain and expand program services to reach goals and avoid cutting services during budget crisis 4 6.71 15.2% Reduce environmental impacts of waste and recycling -air pollution, noise, traffic, carbon footprint, road wear and tear, etc. 5 5.55 12.6% Create Cost Equity -Those who use it more would pay more? 6 2.58 5.9% Neighborhood/District Network Option Solid Waste Convenience Centers SWCC The Solid Waste Planning Work Group (Work Group) has been discussing Solid Waste Convenience Center (SWCC) and other rural waste management issues due in part to the recent public interest in budget related service reduction recommendations. This update does not attempt to comprehensively describe the various alternatives and issues considered or discussed as this is a work in progress for the Work Group but only highlight a small portion of the Work Group's effort on the subject. This update will focus on summarizing the center upgrade options considered and the SWCC service scenario that scored/ranked highest on the Work Group's adopted program goals and weighting factors -the Neighborhood/District option for the future of SWCCs in Orange County. This concept (see attached map and figures) was first introduced by Commissioner Jacobs and was one of five SWCC development scenarios discussed at the December 15, 2009 Work Group meeting. A December 15 report discussed by the Work Group outlines the broader issues and scenarios in more detail and also outlined some longer term funding options. There are several reasons for considering upgrading and modernizing the centers: • The high usage levels of and expressed public demand for SWCCs • Continual population growth in the rural areas • SWCC will be the only County municipal solid waste collection/disposal infrastructure once the Landfill closes • Increasing collection efficiency and need to reduce hauling costs to out-of- countydisposal facilities • Maintaining safe operations including serving an aging population more effectively and more closely complying with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements • Intensive traffic at centers (especially on Saturdays) • Increased demand and need for more recycling services, examples include: o the addition of electronics at the SWCCs six years ago o planned expansion to collection of non-bottle rigid plastic containers o proposed addition of fluorescent lamp disposal o possible additions of food waste, plastic film, oyster shells, food based oils and clothing recycling receptacles, o expanded reuse/salvage areas o Maximization of opportunity to meet local waste reduction goals The Work Group discussed the following SWCC upgrading scenarios: • No Upgrades -Leave Centers As Is • Fully Modernized Convenience Center • Partially Modernized Convenience Center • Modernized Neighborhood Center • Full Service (District) Center • Neighborhood/District Center System This Neighborhood/District Center scenario consists of two centrally located full- service recycling and waste management centers and four neighborhood centers. AFull-Service Center (District) consists of a broad array of recycling opportunities with an ability to expand recycling and waste reduction services as additional opportunities arise, as well as municipal waste compaction receptacles, bulky waste handling capabilities, scrap tires/metal and yard waste. It includes household hazardous waste and toxicity reduction services, expanded salvage opportunities, longer operating hours, central locations, possible sale of mulch and various other improvements. The two District Centers represent the anchor facilities of two County waste districts and each District Center is accompanied by two Neighborhood Centers with more limited services and hours of operation. (See Map) A Neighborhood Center would be one of four such centers geographically located to provide more basic and limited waste services to their surrounding neighborhoods, and with potentially more restricted hours of operation. These centers would consist of municipal waste and bulky waste item disposal in compactors and basic can/bottle/paper recycling and potentially toxicity reduction services of waste oil/filters, batteries and other low cost services. The Neighborhood Centers' basic function is to provide essential localized waste and recycling services, but they are strategically located in reasonable proximity to District Centers for residents with broader waste service needs or less flexibility with regard to the limited Neighborhood Center hours of operation. The Neighborhood/District SWCC scenario provides a reasonable balance of cost, recycling and waste reduction opportunity, geographic access, efficiency, safety, availability and convenience. The Work Group has not finalized their recommendations with regard to SWCC improvements/modifications. Neighborhood Center Conceptual Layout ~~ ~`~ -.- ~. ,, ~ -_ "~ , -, ORANGE GOUNTY. NG Typical Mlni GG Lacu1 ,. k , 9 District Center Conceptual Layout ~. vw ` ~ _ ----___ _____-----_._._..__------- `_ ___... F i >,M - ~,~.,..,<. »t I ~ ~~ `. I -~ ~ - i 1 '- .-- `- <. -r~~. ~tk ~ 's •, _.. /' 4 t - E F ( ~ : - ORANGE COUNTY. NC Super Modernized SWCC Layout ~,v~ Long-Term Financing of Rural Waste Services/Facilities The Work Group also discussed various funding scenarios or combinations of scenarios that could be utilized for full or partial funding for the SWCCs that included: • General Fund • County-wide Household Fee (similar to the 3-R Fee used for recycling) • Bulky Item Fee (for furniture, white goods, tires, etc.) • Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT per bag for MSW) • Gate Fee (flat fee to utilize center for non-recycling disposal related activities) • Shifting funding of some recycling related services to the 3-R Fee (such as clean metal, white goods, tires, yard waste, etc.) • Convenience Center District Tax The Work Group will be discussing financing issues further and has not developed a recommendation at this time. The Work Group seemed not particularly receptive to a PAYT option for MSW. It would appear that without some resolution to the funding difficulties of the solid waste convenience centers, further reductions of services and hours will be unavoidable. Rural Area Curbside Recycling Evaluation Update The Work Group has previously achieved some consensus on its recommendations for the recycling element of unincorporated areas. This consensus included favoring adding 10 approximately 1,000 homes to the biweekly recycling program during the fall of 2010 to locations where demand for curbside recycling service has been strong and where new areas are logical and efficient extensions of current routes. This expansion, which was planned for FY 2008-09 but postponed by the County Manager due to broader budgetary issues, can be accomplished with current resources and will fully utilize the collection capacity of the current rural curbside system. The Work Group consensus also included converting the rural (and urban) curbside recycling program to single-stream collection in 2011. Subsequent discussions of the Work Group will finalize recommendations. Rural Area Waste Col{ection Evaluation Update The Work Group preliminarily favored continued consideration of somewhat broader County control/involvement over waste collection. The Work Group has previously discussed the issue of unincorporated curbside waste collection including the issues of franchising, licensing and flow control. Further discussion of this topic has been delayed so that focus could be applied to SWCC operations and funding issues. Map of Neighborhood/District SWCC Scenario Solid Waste Convenience Center scenario 5 Option with Neighborhood and District Solid Waste Convenience Centers Showing Rural Residential Density ~ Neighborhood ~ ~ ~ ~U`JCC Neighborhood Distract SW~'C SWCC '~', ,~_` ''t+. ~~ ~ ~,~.; e .ti~' r' ~~ ~ r k ,~y .~ . , }~ ~ ~. . z, t ~"l .C '~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ".f ~ ' ~9 '. 1 .Y~• ,'3 .~ . .. ~ F;'. ~. ' '~ N ` r' ~. ~~ u,a. lti" =rytn'i+ ~' Neiyitiboritiood ~ SWC~ ~"a.4 '. ~~~ ~ Dlstlict SWCC J ~'z . r~% ~' r \ ~"',F ss \\\ 43 ~ ~ 1 L=.~:~' V.., r~ . ~ ar ~s,~~~ ~ Neighborhood •""'SWCC ~ ~~ ry { ~ x ~3 t t, M, t ~'.t ~ :f s~~ ~ N .~ Legend ~~ Active SWCC (future district site) ~ Active SWCC (future neighborhood site) Potential SWCC (future neighborhood site) ®Seven-mile radius around SWCC site a~ PoiMDensilyMalysis: " ~ Increasing density is illustrated by the ~,, increasing darkness of the blue color. S. Least Dense - 0-20 unRs per area ', regardless of areas' sizes Q Most Dense - 157-177 units per area -;~: regardless of areas' sizes r ~~ parge Canty Plammg and tnspedions DEparanert GIS Mep R~epared by Miriam Cdenan, Decerriba 23, 20D9 \ Prcjectian~. North Cadtna State Plane (feet) DeWm: North American 1983 11 12 Attachment 3 Obtaining Public Input to Solid Waste Plan for Unincorporated Orange County December 15, 2009 This discussion suggests several possible strategies to inform the public about plans for solid waste and recycling in the unincorporated areas and to gain broad public input to this element of the overall solid waste management plan. It further poses the notion of the Solid Waste Plan Work Group (WG) or Solid Waste Advisory Board, leading the gathering of public input following submittal of its preliminary recommendations to the BOCC and using that public input to further inform its own, more detailed, final recommendations. Another option for gathering public input would entail the Work Group first putting its recommendations on unincorporated areas into a draft comprehensive solid waste plan, waiting until a draft plan is completed by staff, and then seeking broad public input on all elements of the plan at once. The option that focuses on gathering public input on solely the solid waste plan issues in the unincorporated area separately has the advantages of addressing, relatively immediately, some of the most pressing solid waste issues raised by the affected segments of the public and by the Board. Therefore more people will likely respond. A greater response will, we hope, enable fruitful dialogue and expression of a variety of preferences from the public on options for future solid waste management methods and financing for this critical sector. One disadvantage is that a narrow focus may detract from viewing these unincorporated area issues in the context of an overall plan. Secondly there will have to be a set of public meetings on the whole plan anyway, regardless of those that might be held on the unincorporated areas, thus an already lengthy planning process will be further drawn out. Valuable staff, Work Group and Solid Waste Advisory Board resources may have to be used twice to gather public input -first on this element then on the whole plan again, at a time when `plan fatigue' may already be setting in. Regardless of which direction is chosen, a narrow and immediate focus on unincorporated areas or a broad focus on the whole plan, the same questions of which information gathering methods to use can be relevant. We list below several approaches to informing the public about the issues and gathering meaningful, useful public input to inform the decision-making on waste and recycling in the unincorporated areas. A multi-pronged strategy is likely. to produce better results than use of a single tool, but must be balanced with the amount of time and effort to be spent gathering public comment on only this unincorporated area element of the overall plan. The County has employed all of these strategies in efforts to educate the public and get feedback on a variety of topics. Any effective public education and information-gathering effort will involve considerable staff time and effort as well as, possibly, some monetary expenditure. Any strategies selected would include public education through mailings news articles on line information, radio talk shows and an o~ ther public formats Staff now publishes monthly waste-related articles in the Chapel Hill Herald, News of Orange and Weaver Street Market Newsletter and places solid waste planning information on its web page. These articles in any given month could all be focused on the issue and used as a platform for discussion in the public forums or other venues. The County is prepared to publish a countywide solid waste newsletter this year for the first time in several years that could have a special focus on this set of issues. Key articles in the newsletter could coordinate with public forums, mail-in surveys or other tools to gain input on the topic. Producing and mailing a countywide newsletter would likely take place, at the earliest by mid-February. Strategies for gathering feedback: 13 Formal written public opinion survey A rigorous, statistically valid survey can be a useful tool but can also be expensive and time-consuming. One estimate from the UNC Odum Institute for Research in the Social Sciences was in the range of $40,000 to $60,000 to administer and gather data from such a survey including at least 2,000 randomly sampled households from both incorporated and unincorporated parts of the County. That cost range assumed that Odum handled all the surveying, information gathering and analysis. County staff involvement in printing and conducting mailings and gathering the data may reduce the costs considerably, but may not achieve as high a level of statistical validity. Odum Institute's initially suggested approach was to consider a strategy of multiple mailings and follow-ups to make sure of a high response rate. The Odum Institute could perform such a survey beginning in January with completion in late March. Staff could pursue more detailed information or proposals if there is interest in this type of survey work. The local citizen group, Orange County Voice has recently conducted its own survey about waste and recycling in the unincorporated areas and presented its results to the Work Group and Solid Waste Advisory Board. While their survey may have had some limitations, the information gathered may also be useful to the Work Group and BOCC in decision-making. Copies of the results and a presentation were provided at the November 17 meeting. Informal, Written Public Opinion Survey: Such a survey could be conducted by staff and paid part-time assistants through a variety of means, not that unlike the approach used by OCV. Le. some in-person, some mail-in, some via interriet survey tools. There could be an effort to be representative of a broad cross-section of the population, including urban-based users of the SWCCs, as they are part of the system as well as those in the unincorporated areas. The key disadvantage of this approach is that it is not random and less likely to be considered statistically valid, if that is an important standard for this effort. It could be useful in gathering more input but also consumptive of staff time and results would likely not be ready before late February 2010. Public Forums: Staff at the direction of the BOCC with assistance of the Work Group and Solid Waste Advisory Board, could conduct awell-publicized series of forums throughout Orange County focused on the three areas of rural recycling, waste collection and the future of the convenience centers or, the forums could be held on the solid waste plan as a whole, after a draft plan is complete. The forums could have a variety of formats ranging from informal drop-in sessions, to formal staff presentations of a set of options followed by public comment or some hybrid of formats. An independent facilitator, Orange County staff or another moderator could be used. If this approach were selected, the forums could take place in January and perhaps into February at a variety of locations throughout the County. If the forums were on the draft plan as a whole, they would be likely to occur a little later in the year. Focus Groups: The Department has used focus groups in the past to gain information from the business community about the kinds of recycling efforts and waste management efforts they would like to see and what they find useful or un-useful about the current system. The UNC School of Public Health provided an estimate of $9,200 to conduct the four focus groups, one for each quadrant of the County. They previously provided focus groups for the commercial recycling information gathering effort that provided useful feedback from business people. Considerable staff resources and time were required to get respondents to attend the focus groups. Typically around 10 participants are in each focus group, but the information is highly detailed and focused.