HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 199706051 • MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 WORKSESSION ON SOLID WASTE
4 JUNE 5, 1997
5
6
7 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for the purpose of holding a work session
8 on solid waste matters on June 5, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in the meeting room of the Government
9 Services Building in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
0
1 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT• Chair William L. Crowther, and Commissioners
2 Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis and Margaret Brown.
3
4 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT• Commissioner Moses Carey, Jr.
5
6 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT• Geoffrey Gledhill
7
8 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT• County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Assistant County
9 Manager Rod Visser, Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy
0 Baker.
1
2 INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN• Assistant County Manager Rod Visser
3 reported that the Landfill Owners Group (LOG) unanimously recommended to the governing
4 boards that they adopt a framework that will satisfy the need to provide a solid waste plan to the
5 State by July 1, 1997. It is also the framework for the Integrated Solid Waste Study. In many
6 ways this plan is similar to the previous drafts which include segments on waste prevention,
7 collection, and processing. The LOG has requested that each of the Boards review, discuss and
8 adopt this plan prior to July 1, 1997, so that it can be sent to the State by the deadline.
9
0 The following questions, comments and suggestions were made during the ensuing
1 conversation.
2
3 • Disposal is a separate issue apart from this plan and will be handled subsequently. The
4 current disposal plan will be submitted with this Plan. When that site has reached capacity,
5 then a new plan will be established.
6 • Council member Franck was commended for the leadership he has displayed during this
7 process.
8 The LOG deferred discussion of the composting facility until a later time. There are regional
9 efforts under way and the Board of Commissioners may want to participate in them.
0 • Construction/demolition debris has been added to the revised draft of this plan.
1 The figures for the breakdown of reduction by jurisdiction has not been captured. The 37%
2 reduction of waste from 1991-92 is countywide and would be difficult to capture by jurisdiction
3 due to the fact that there is only one disposal facility.
4 • The 37% reduction is a recalculated figure based on 1991-92 figures. In years past Orange
5 County has used 1988-89 as the base year. The State has notified us that they are using
6 1991-92 so the decision was made to use that year also.
2
1 • The State has been figuring coal ash in the reduction into this figure. If coal ash ceased to be
2 recycled they would add it into our calculations regardless of where it was landfilled.
3 There is currently no penalty for not reaching the State's goal by the year 2006, however,
4 eventually they will implement penalties. In any case, they would not hold Orange County to its
5 higher goal of 66% reduction by 2006.
6 • The cost to reach the State of 40% reduction would be 1.3 million dollars.
7 • The additional cost to reach Orange County's goal of 61 % would be an additional 2 million
8 dollars plus $600,000 per year. This figure includes all components of the plan. A processing
9 facility would be built using private funds and everyone who used the facility would pay a
0 tipping fee.
1 • The financing for the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) could be tailored to an agreement
2 crafted by the Board of Commissioners. For example, Charlotte has established a plan that
3 splits the revenue.
4 Local government in Charlotte actually constructed the MRF facility, bought the equipment and
5 purchased the land. They then hired a company to run the facility. Another method of
6 financing would be for a private facility to pay for the construction of the building and run the
7 facility for a period of 10 years. Then they could deed the facility to the County and charge a
8 tipping fee.
9 • Using a MRF to process construction waste is a possibility, however, it would require different
0 equipment.
1 The estimated cost of $775,000 per year is based upon an estimate of 25,000 tons at $30.00
2 per ton.
3 If a MRF were constructed in Orange County, a living wage would be paid to the employees.
4 This is very hard work in difficult surroundings and Orange County would need to assure that
5 the employees were treated well. Air quality would also have to be protected.
6 • The estimated salary for these employees would be between $7.50 and $8.00 per hour.
7 The MRF facilities which have the sorting tables in protected areas create a much more
8 employee friendly environment and could be designed into a local facility.
9 • The current recycling budget for all of Orange County is 1.272 million dollars. This funds all
0 programs (curb side pickup, household hazardous waste collection, urban collection, and
1 multifamily collection). The difference between that amount and the 2 million dollar projected
2 increase would be to provide collection to the currently unserved commercial sector. This
3 would provide universal service.
4 The tipping fee will not be sufficient to fully fund the proposed program. The current tip fee of
5 $35.00 would need to be increased an additional $20.00 to fund the entire program. One of
6 the major challenges faced by local government will be how to raise this additional money.
7 Alamance County passed the legislation to ban all recyclables at the landfill, however, they did
8 not accept responsibility for providing alternatives to disposal of those recyclables. They also
9 have a high tolerance for overlooking recyclables being disposed of in the landfill.
0 The issue of raising the 2 million dollars is addressed in the proposed plan by indicating that
1 those methods need to be developed. One concept for funding would be a government
2 recycling fee.
3 Local units of government who commit to this framework are not committing their governments
4 to any particular method of payment.
5 • The framework is based on achieving solid waste goals that the jurisdictions and the LOG have
6 already set.
. 3
1 • • When the issue of how to fund this effort is discussed, staff will provide several options to be
2 discussed.
3 The State is requiring this plan, however, there will not be significant consequences for not
4 reaching those goals in the time frame indicated
5 • If several counties joined in the effort to finance a MRF and then committed to using the facility
6 it would be less expensive for both units of government.
7 • If Orange County committed to building a MRF there would be very little difference for the
8 citizen except that they would be able to recycle more items for pickup. We are currently
9 limited by the number of sections each truck has for sorting. The MRF would have all sorting
0 done at the facility.
1 • It is yet to be decided who would own the trucks. The LOG members have discussed leaving
2 residential as it is being handled now and then provide collection themselves to the commercial
3 sites.
4 The cost of additions and expansions on page 25 of the Solid Waste Management Plan were
5 reviewed and discussed.
6 • Having deposits on bottles, if it were instituted by the Legislature, would add up very soon.
7 However, the bottle deposit requirement would have to be statewide in order to be effective.
8 • Endorsing this proposed plan would be an endorsement for rural curbside pickup where that
9 would be feasible. That feasibility would be determined by analyzing the housing patterns and
0 transportation routes. It is assumed that the convenience centers will continue to be staffed.
1 • It is important to analyze the expansion so that there is clarity about the point of diminishing
2 returns. It would not be feasible to recycle at each individual home.
3
4 There was no action taken on adoption of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan.
5 There will be further discussion at either the next regular Board of Commissioners meeting on
6 June 30th or at one of the earlier budget worksessions.
7
8 SOLID WASTE REORGANIZATION: John Link mentioned that the Reorganization Work Group
9 will meet at the end of the month to discuss reorganization in light of the comments made at this
0 meeting. The following comments, suggestions and questions were presented:
2 Chapel Hill currently manages the landfill operations as an enterprise fund which is held
3 separate from the General Fund. The Town Manager has been responsible for managing the
4 collection and the Town of Chapel Hill has funded part of his salary for that purpose. Last July
5 they created a new department and removed the responsibility for garbage collection from the
6 Manager's Office. This has always been a debt of the Town but it has been held separately.
7 All revenues come from tipping fees, interest on reserve funds, or revenues from recyclables.
8 • There are four Reserve Funds which have the following balances: Acquisition & Construction -
9 $830,550; 2) Reserve for Eubanks Construction $1.4 Million. This will be spent this year for a
0 new cell; 3) Equipment Replacement - $417,000, and 4) Undesignated or Contingency Fund -
1 $568,000.
2 The Town of Chapel Hill owns the operations facility and UNC owns the property. At some
3 point in the future the location will probably change. Then Chapel Hill would pay their portion
4 of the transfer. It will continue to be an enterprise fund.
5 The equipment is worth between 2 and 2 /12 Million dollars
6 The Town of Chapel Hill's Council is primarily involved in this through the budget process.
4
1 > The percentages of waste generated between governments is Carrboro 6.5%, Hillsborough
2 3.5%, Orange County 12%, and Chapel Hill 21%. The remainder is generated by UNC and
3 private haulers.
4 • The current recommendation is that the Greene Track be dealt with separately and not as a
5 part of this reorganization plan. It was paid for using landfill funds but it is actually owned by
6 the three jurisdictions.
7 An equipment maintenance facility has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners
8 for the Johnson tract.
9 In response to a question about the significance of having the right of way between the Neville
0 property and the Greene Tract it was pointed out that access needs to be through the landfill.
1 That request is currently being considered.
2 • The Wilson Tract is used as a buffer.
3 A MRF could be funded through a General Obligation Bond, however, it is more likely that a
4 Special Obligation Bond would be used. However all parties would pay for their share. Each
5 jurisdiction using the facility would pay an availability fee. It would not be incurred as a County
6 debt. It would be an Enterprise Fund and would be the result of an Interlocal Agreement.
7 • If a Special Obligation Bond were established it would be charged against Orange County's
8 limit of 8% indebtedness.
9 If Orange County does take over the liabilities of the Landfill, they would need to be assured
0 that they could charge a large enough tipping fee to cover the cost. It is not the County's
1 responsibility to pay for this out of taxes.
2 There is concern that the Greene Tract, which is the best asset of the landfill, is being severed
3 from the landfill.
4 • Article 5.12 addresses the concerns related to guarantees that the operating unit of
5 government will not have to finance any costs out of their operating budget. This Article
6 provides for the ability to set fees to cover all costs, both those known now and unexpected or
7 catastrophic environmental costs.
8 • If the Operating Unit of Government determined that an amount of money was needed to
9 purchase equipment, or for some other needed capital expenditure, and the other governments
0 did not agree, cost cutting measures would be instituted and services would be cut back.
1 Everyone benefits and /or suffers consequences equally in the provisions of this plan.
2 The Northwest Small Area Group's most recent discussion for the Eubanks Road area called
3 for the Greene Tract to have housing, including multifamily, a large park and a core area of
4 businesses and small shops. It also called for a transportation corridor leading from Eubanks
5 to the downtown area. An employment campus of small commercial uses was also discussed.
6 They have halted their discussion pending a decision on the Greene Tract and/or the new
7 landfill.
8 There are members of the Board of Commissioners who are concerned about the future of the
9 Greene Tract and are not satisfied with the financial implications of severing it from the landfill.
0
1 CLOSED SESSION -Personnel Matter Authority- G S Section 143-318 11 X1(61
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to go
4 into Closed Session:
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
1 ' A motion was made by Chair Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to return to
2 Open Session.
3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4
5 ADJOURNMENT
6
7 A motion was made by Chair Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to adjourn
8 the meeting.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
0
1 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting of
2 the Orange County Board of Commissioners will take place on June 9, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. at the
3 Homestead Community Center, Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
4
5 Respectfully submitted,
6
7 Kathy Baker
8
9
5