Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20061024APPROVED 1 21412 0 0 6 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION October 24, 2006 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, and Alice M. Gordon COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Rod Visser and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1.Process to Enhance Monitoring of Publicly Financed Affordable Housing Projects te.g. Habitat for Humanity -Sunrise Road) Chair Jacobs made reference to a letter from Habitat for Humanity updating the County Commissioners on the project that Habitat is working on. In the course of the development, there has been a lot of discussion about the design and how much community participation there has been and should be. The Sunrise Coalition has had a lot to say on the project and it has made some points about the process that he thought were worth the Board taking note of and seeing how to incorporate them into the process. He said that he and Commissioner Foushee had a meeting last week, which also included Susan Levy of Habitat for Humanity and other non-profit housing providers. Martha Hoylman, Chair of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board, was also in attendance, and she informed the attendees that the AHAB is coming forward with a number of recommendations about changing the way in which projects are done, including the five-year cap that has been placed on projects. There are a lot of issues that will be coming back to the County Commissioners regarding affordable housing projects. Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that staff has attempted to respond to the concerns expressed about the publicly financed projects. The process proposal would entail continuous communications that take place between the developer, County staff, and the ARAB as a first means of evaluation and review. These would be public meetings. She recognized Susan Levy, Executive Director of Habitat far Humanity of Orange County, who was present. Susan Levy said that Habitat has attempted throughout the process to be accountable to the funding partners. She said that this has been a very open and accountable process. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 7 in the agenda packet and said that same of the Sunrise Coalition's points have as much to do with the process as they do with the project. Susan Levy said that the mare specific the process could be, the better. One of the issues had to do with the definition of single family. Habitat's assumption was that if two houses were attached, then they are still single-family homes and Sunrise Coalition had a different interpretation. Gwen Harvey said that staff would take that under advisement. Geof Gledhill said that he would make sure that this issue is clear. Chair Jacobs said that in four years this has evolved a significant amount, so there needs to be a way to keep the County Commissioners in the loop. He asked what the AHAB was thinking about bringing forward. Tara Fikes said that most of the issues are related to the bond policy. Another issue relates to the amount of time that non-profits are allowed to end the projects once the property has been acquired. The other piece is the reporting aspect and if reports should be made annually orsemi-annually. Commissioner Carey said that it is reasonable that the County Commissioners stay informed about projects that are partially publicly funded. He said that the Board has been informed in the past and he knows that the staff has been requesting information from everybody. He does not think that everything needs to be brought at the level of the County Commissioners. He supports revisiting the five-year limit because same things do not need five years and others may need more than five years. For tonight, he thinks that the overall policy and process should be separated from the Habitat project far decision-making purposes. Chair Jacobs asked about the timetable for the AHAB bringing back recommendations and Tara Fikes said that the plan is over the next couple of months. Chair Jacobs suggested addressing this at the January retreat. 2. Solid Waste Matters Rod Visser said that the last time the Board had a work session on solid waste matters was in March 2006. The first issue relates to transfer station options. After the landfill reaches capacity in 2010, there will not be a landfill in Orange County. At the February 8, 2005 Solid Waste Matter Joint Work Session with the Solid Waste Advisory Board, the staff and SWAB were encouraged to look at where transfer stations might be located. The SWAB adopted a resolution recommending that the transfer station be located on current landfill property on Eubanks Road. The consensus of the Board was that, before a commitment is made, other potential options would be considered. The main one was to discuss with Durham what facilities might be used. Durham expressed interest in working with the County, but there is no capacity at this time. The second topic is the Solid Waste Management Plan update. This is a process with the State every three years. The update was due in June 2006, but a request was submitted to extend this deadline because the process involves municipalities. The third topic is related to landfill gas opportunities. This is also a follow up to a discussion in March about the prospects far recovering methane gas from the landfill on Eubanks Road. Since that time, staff has worked with the County's consulting engineer to conduct analyses of the feasibility and the economics of having County and school facilities to use the landfill gas and also haw the Carolina North development might be able to use it as a supplemental energy source. The fourth topic is an update on the Solid Waste Operations Center. The Board approved the design for this at the August 22nd meeting. The fifth topic is landfill post-closure uses. This issue was raised at the Commission for the Environment meeting. a) Transfer Station Options Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson gave some history of the transfer station issue. In 2005, the staff talked to Alamance County about the possibility of taking Orange County's waste. Ultimately, this did not work out because Alamance County decided that it would not take waste from other entities. In 2006, the SWAB recommended Eubanks Road as a site of the transfer station. Regarding the possibility of working with Durham, the Durham transfer station is located 17.1 miles from the intersection of Columbia and Franklin Streets in Chapel Hill. Once the tipping fee of $6 is counted, the total impact will be $500,000 for Chapel Hill; $100,000 for Carrboro; and $170,000 for Orange County. Based on economics, it is a very costly option. Gayle Wilson said that a feasibility study was conducted to determine whether a transfer station would work at Eubanks Road. It has been demonstrated that a transfer station could be constructed and operated there. The general consensus with the consultant, staff, City of Durham officials, and the SWAB was that the Durham transfer station option could not meet Orange County's operational needs, nor the timeframe needed to begin transferring waste. The report asks for guidance from the Board as to pursuing the Durham option, identifying another location other than Eubanks Road, or using the Eubanks Road location. Commissioner Carey said that he remembered an idea about a temporary station. Gayle Wilson said that this was discussed at one time, but he could not remember the context. Commissioner Foushee said that there were very compelling arguments for not using a transfer station in Durham. She thinks that this should be eliminated from the discussions. She would like to hear from Gayle Wilson or the SWAB a compelling argument to not look further than the Eubanks Road site. Chair Jacobs said that in 2001 or 2002 the Board talked about siting a facility in an Economic Development District. Commissioner Carey said that he was one of the people that raised concerns about deciding to put the location at Eubanks Road by default. He is still concerned about putting something here another 25 years when the neighborhood has endured it for the last 30 years. He would like to look further and put Eubanks Road on the same plane as the rest of the sites. Rod Visser agreed that this is a very difficult decision. The biggest advantages to the Eubanks Road approach are that the County already owns adequate land at Eubanks Road, the station will be regulated by the State and will have to go through a rigorous approval process, and it might be simpler because the State is very familiar with this site. Gayle Wilson said that the Eubanks Road site is not perfect, but the positive attributes significantly outweigh the negative attributes. There would be no increase in traffic because the trucks come to Eubanks Road now, the infrastructure is already there, the workforce is already there, everyone in the County knows where to go, the site can be connected to a sewer, the site is close to the interstate, and the site is near the center of waste generation. He said that history shawl that solid waste facilities are really hard to site. The SWAB has recommended this site for a transfer station. He said that, the staff does have a good relationship with the neighbors at Eubanks Road. He said that the decision needs to be made soon and the citing process will probably take 6-8 months. He said that if the Board wishes to pursue another site, the staff would start the process as quickly, as fairly, and as publicly as they can. Solid Waste Planner Blair Pollock said that one thing about a transfer station is that it will be completely enclosed with proper ventilation. Jan Sassaman, Chair of the SWAB, said that a transfer station is a building and it can be designed in a pleasing manner. He emphasized that the County is running out of time to move forward with this. Chair Jacobs asked about the rural buffer in relation to the landfill and Gayle Wilson answered that the rural buffer begins at the western boundary of the landfill property. Chair Jacobs asked about the minimal acreage for a transfer site and Gayle Wilson answered that the minimal acreage would be ten acres for buffers, etc. The existing site is 4- 4.5 acres, excluding the buffers. Chair Jacobs asked how long it would take to build a transfer station. Gayle Wilson made reference to Figure 1, page 17, which is a timeline. It will take about a year and a half to build it, but it will take longer than that to design and permit it. Designing and permitting will probably take two and a half years. Chair Jacobs said that he was the one who raised this issue and he thinks that this community has been mitigating everybody else's solid waste for 35 years. He thinks that the problem is that there is logic to what the staff is proposing, but there is also an inherent inequity in continuing to do something that adversely affects the same neighborhood. Gayle Wilson said that staff is mindful of the social issues, but there is no evidence that the landfill has depressed property values. Also, the landfill has provided a fairly important neighborhood benefit, which is the Greene Tract. Rod Visser said that the staff has learned a lot in the last $-10 years on how to work with the neighbors. The Board has been very consistent in insisting that staff work carefully with neighbors to get input. There are two members of the SWAB that are landfill neighbors, and they have brought a useful perspective. Commissioner Carey said that he is not ready to make a decision tonight to put the transfer station at Eubanks Road. He understands all of the advantages and the timing issue, but he is still not convinced that it should be put here. Commissioner Foushee asked if the SWAB has had any discussion with the neighborhood about this issue and if there is a general feeling about how neighbors might feel about the possibility of a transfer station being sited at this location. Jan Sassaman said that there are two members that are neighbors and are active participants. There has not been a specific public meeting. He thinks that until this time, to do so would be precipitous. Gayle Wilson said that he has had a good deal of conversation with Bonnie Norwood, one of the neighbors that is a SWAB member, who told him that it has been known that a transfer station would go there ever since the landfill site search process ended. That does not mean that the neighbors want it. He would be glad to have the SWAB host a community meeting. Commissioner Gordon said that she is also concerned about the equity issues. She asked if the two members that are neighbors voted for this recommendation. Jan Sassaman said that it was a unanimous vote of those that were at the meeting. He did not recall if those two members were present. He said that the SWAB is also concerned with the equity issues and it has wrestled with these issues since the inception of the SWAB. Chair Jacobs suggested putting this on the agenda for November 14th and directing the SWAB and the Solid Waste staff to hold a public meeting. He said to make sure that it is not on a Wednesday night because a lot of the community goes to the church on Wednesday nights. Commissioner Gordon would like to know what the municipal partners think. Gayle Wilson said that on October10th, he and Blair Pollock went to speak to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and it has some of the same concerns. Blair Pollock said that for every SWAB meeting, there is a mailing that goes to 11 key members of the community. Chair Jacobs said that the three different options are to locate the site at Eubanks Road, to direct the staff to look for another site, or to direct staff to have a public meeting in the neighborhood with direction from the Board as to the parameters of the presentation. He added that there be a very aggressive solicitation of participation of people in the community. These options would be brought back on November 14tH Commissioner Carey asked if Durham was to be taken off the table. Commissioner Gordon would rather make a decision on the 14th. Chair Jacobs has no problem taking it off the table. b) Solid Waste Management Plan Update Blair Pollock spoke about the Solid Waste Management Plan Update. Attachment 2B was related to this. He said that, because the waste reduction element has been predominant in planning, they engaged a Solid Waste Plan Work Group with representatives from the SWAB, each of the four governments, and the University's Solid Waste Division. There have been several meetings and a consultant has been engaged to assist in technical analysis. The next step is to hone the cost estimates to bring back a more refined version of options for solid waste reduction. The plan is to bring the County Commissioners and the other municipal partners a report through the work group that lays out the options and costs of expanding collections. Chair Jacobs said that he does not want to set aside organics. He would like to know what is happening with OWASA, and he would like to see a plan to not pay someone to haul food waste out of the County. He would like to see a proactive plan to start composting with OWASA and with the County's woodchips and yard waste. Discussion ensued about OWASA applying bio-solids. Gayle Wilson said that staff would work with OWASA and take a more proactive approach. Blair Pollock made reference to waste collection in the unincorporated areas of the County and said that the waste in the municipal areas is pretty well controlled and taken care of. All residential waste in Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough is collected by the towns and delivered to the Orange County landfill. Non-residential waste is mixed, where all of Hillsborough's is delivered to the landfill by franchise contract, Carrboro's is about half from the town and half from the private sector, and the majority of Chapel Hill's is from the town. Most residential waste from the unincorporated areas goes to the convenience centers. A fair number of people use private haulers - 5,000 estimated out of 20,000 rural households. This is not regulated ar controlled by Orange County. The other issue is that there is a lot of garbage truck traffic, which is economically and environmentally inefficient. The purpose of this section is to look at the waste in the unincorporated areas and see if it would be mare efficient and effective to provide another option other than the convenience centers. The staff is working with a consultant to make some determinations about the costs of an alternative system. The first element of the study is to do some surveys of users of the convenience centers. The second element is to look at the commercial element and the casts of those services. The third element is to do some surveying and look at the overall costs of the private sector and provision of residential services. The expectation is that the study would be done in the next three months. Commissioner Gordon asked about private haulers taking waste outside of the County and how this affects the 61 % percent waste reduction goal and how it interacts with the plan. Gayle Wilson said that they do not know exactly how it would interact. He said that if more tons were added, it would seem to move backwards, but if the tons that are leaving are far ordinance avoidance and they are full of recyclables, then it could end up as a wash. Chair Jacobs asked about the three-month timeline and if that includes the function of the drop-off sites and the convenience centers. Blair Pollock said that the staff has not engaged this piece yet. Chair Jacobs said that the County is about to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a convenience center that mayor may not be needed, and the sooner this is known, the better. Gayle Wilson said that he does not envision a system that has no convenience centers. He would think that the worst that could be done would be two to three convenience centers. Chair Jacobs said that he would like to see some better coordination on making a decision on four or five convenience centers because the two combined could be over $500,000. He has a sense of urgency, and when he sees the County spending several hundred thousand dollars just for the land for two solid waste convenience centers, it is a large ticket item decision that he does not want to back into. Regarding pay as you throw, the discussion has focused within the municipalities. Gayle Wilson said that Carrboro did indicate the strongest preference and interest in pay as you throw. Chapel Hill also is interested, but it has asemi-automated collection system, and this would be difficult to integrate with pay as you throw. Blair Pollock said that for the next few months the intention is to finish the solid waste plan study on waste reduction, bring it back to the solid waste plan work group, and bring it to the County Commissioners, municipal partners, and the public and make some decisions. This study would be integrated with the rural solid waste study. The intent is to be able to present an integrated plan by spring 2007. Chair Jacobs made reference to key decisions and asked about the process of locating a landfill that would take the County's waste. Gayle Wilson said that this is all included with the transfer station development process. The typical recommendation would be, as the transfer station is nearing construction, the staff would go out for RFPs and try to determine who would be interested and how much would be charged. Chair Jacobs said that this should be programmed into the decisions because the closer it gets to the landfill being full, the less bargaining power there is. Jan Sassaman said that at the SWAB meeting next week, they would vote on a set of principles and guidelines for selecting a landfill vendor and facilities to receive recyclables. Chair Jacobs said that when the group of people went to Madison, Wisconsin, the major thrust of the discussion was the relationship between the University and the local governments. The people from UNC and the municipalities were struck by how much mare closely the University of Wisconsin in Madison worked with the city and the county. In the discussions, he suggested that one of the best places to improve the relationship was solid waste. He said that he mentioned to the Chancellor that the University still has not appointed anybody to the Solid Waste Advisory Board. He wants to bring the University into the circle where what is best for the community is best for the University and try and find other ways to engage it. a) Landfill Gas Opportunities Gayle Wilson introduced Bob Sallack of Olver, Inc. Bob Sallack is performing the feasibility analysis for landfill gas and he made a PowerPoint presentation. LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY STATUS REPORT Previous Conclusions: - Based upon current electric rates, the sale of electricity alone will not support development of a Eubanks Road LFG recovery project - Cogeneration is required to make an LFG recovery project more attractive o Cogeneration -generation of electric power and recovery of waste heat from electric power generation equipment o Coincident user need for electric power and thermal energy o Thermal energy (heating) Microturbine Technology - Small combustion turbine - 25 kW to 400 kW capacity units - Compact size - Modular -can be brought online quickly - Less maintenance -fewer moving parts - Multi-fuel flexibility -can burn LFG, natural gas, etc. Cogeneration Opportunities - Eubanks Road Project o Solid Waste Operations Center o Animal Shelter o Possible Transfer Station o Auxiliary Site Use o Elementary School Carolina North Project o Multi Building campus Development (8,251,000 GSF} Eubanks Road User Energy Demands and Energy Balance graphs Eubanks Road System Components - LFG Extraction Wells and Collection System (South Eubanks MSWLF) - Blower and Flare Station (South Eubanks MSWLF) - Moisture Removal and Compressor Station (South Eubanks MSWLF} - Gas Transmission Line (Landfill to School} - Fuel Conditioning and Microturbine (School} Eubanks Road Economic Evaluation Energy Sales and Avoided Costs $168,100 Energy Production Costs $276,700 Renewable Energy Cost {$108,600) Eubanks Road Status - Preliminary Economic Assessment o Estimated Costs exceed Revenues and Avoided Costs ($108,600) o Economics Negatively Impacted by Low Thermal Energy Demands of Primary Users Eubanks Road Key Action Items - Refine Energy Demands o Animal Shelter o School - Assess Economic Impact of Public/Private Partnership Options o Maximize Green Power and Energy Credit Benefits Energy Demand Comparison graph Carolina North System Components - LFG Extraction Wells and Collection System (North and South Eubanks MSWLFs} - Blower and Flare Station (North and South Eubanks MSWLFs) - Moisture Removal and Compressor Station (South Eubanks MSWLF} - Gas Transmission Line {Landfill to Carolina North Campus} - Fuel Conditioning and Microturbine {Carolina North Campus) Carolina North Energy Summary Carolina North Economic Evaluation Energy Sales and Avoided Costs $507,400 Energy Production Costs $506,700 Renewable Energy Cast $0 Carolina North Status - Preliminary Economic Assessment o Economically Viable - Breakeven given Current Assumptions o Must Maximize Cogeneration Energy Production and Usage o Delays in Carolina North Development Timeline Could Adversely Impact Economic Feasibility ^ Time Dependent Decline in LFG Generation Rates - Environmental Benefits o Green Power/Energy Conservation o LFG Emission Control at Landfills - Economic Proforma Submitted to University far Review Carolina North Key Action Items - Finalize Economic Proforma - Establish Energy Contract Framework - Conduct LFG Testing Program - Finalize Implementation Plan Renewable Energy Incentives - Public Sector Energy Improvement Loan Program {EILP) - $500,000; 1°lo Interest; 10-Yeas Maximum Term NC GreenPower Production Incentive - RFP Procurement Process; $0.015- 0.0191kWh Renewable Energy Incentives - Private Sector o Renewable Energy Equipment Manufacturer Incentive; 25% of Construction (equal installments over 5 years) o Renewable Energy Tax Credit; 35°~ of Construction (equal installments over 5 years); $2,500,000 per installation o Energy Improvement Loan Program o NC GreenPower Production Incentive Chair Jacobs asked if the Chapel Hill operations center was considered and Gayle Wilson said that the infrastructure is already present there, but it could be considered. Bob Sallack said that the only thing that could happen there is the sale of electricity. Commissioner Carey asked about the timeline for the economic proforma. Bob Sallack said that the University has a proforma, but there is no timeline for feedback yet. Gayle Wilson said that the County is somewhat at the mercy of the University. Chair Jacobs said that groups are being put together to study infrastructure the first and second weeks of November. He said that he does not think that building will begin until 2009. Commissioner Carey asked about the estimated cost of equipment to make this work. Bob Sallack said that the capital cast for the Eubanks Road project is $2.5 million and for the Carolina North project is $5 million. Chair Jacobs asked about the $500,000 and if this was total or annual and it was answered annual for 30 years. Chair Jacobs said that this is to be taken as information. Gayle Wilson said that the staff would come back with the final report as soon as they get information from the University. 3. Information Technology Updates a) Scanning Investigation Chief Information Officer Todd Jones gave an overview of this issue. He said that during the August 31, 2006 work session, the Board asked IT for an update on investigation of scanning potential within Orange County and automating processes. This would achieve space savings, retrieval efficiencies, information protection, and ability to analyze data, ability to increase the efficiency of the intake process, and the ability to leverage opportunities to share information. The staff convened a Scanning Work Group with Social Services Director Nancy Coston, Health Director Rosemary Summers, Janet Sparks, Clerk to the Board Donna Baker, and CIO Todd Jones. The group engaged peers across the State and the country to look into projects that had been successful and projects that had failed. One finding was that the scale of magnitude of scanning operations varies enormously from department to department. DSS has literally hundreds of different forms, each of which would potentially require its own scanning and indexing approach. It is estimated that DSS has tens of millions of sheets of paper that would be potentially subject to a scanning operation. The other key finding was the importance of properly resourcing any scanning project. The majority of the work would be outsourced to a third-party vendor and there would still be an enormous amount of work that would have to be undertaken by County staff. Todd Jones said that the group recognized that what would be most helpful would be to embark on a relatively modest-scale pilot program, which could serve as a model for some of the larger projects. The Child Support Enforcement document load would be fairly modest in size, with about 250,000 documents, but there is enough complexity and it would be a nice small-scale version of some of the other departments. The group recommends working with vendors to try and scope what it would take to perform this project. Chair Jacobs pointed out that there is reimbursement from the State. Todd Janes said that the County would only bear a third of the cost. Commissioner Carey asked about haw much space the documents take up at this time and Janet Sparks said that there are 11 file cabinets. Commissioner Gordon said that Countywide, that every department should be automated to the extent possible and be paperless. Todd Jones agreed that it is critical to stop the creation of paper going forward. He said that the goal with Child Support Enforcement is not just the scanning aspect, but figuring out a system of retrieval that will also be used going forward. He cautioned that there is not a one size fits all approach to automation. Rod Visser said that this is one of those things where IT can be part of the solution, but it cannot be done by IT alone. Commissioner Gordon said that her question relates to when Orange County will begin to be automated. Commissioner Foushee said that there is value in this project, but it seems to her that this would not move the County beyond where it is much because there will always be a need to scan more documents. She asked at what point the scanning stops and data entry begins. She said that with scanning documents there is no opportunity to go back and update. Gwen Harvey said that the group tried to scale down to a project that was manageable. Chair Jacobs said that the Board may still want this to come back before the break in December with information about how to begin the automation process. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Barry Jacobs, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board