Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-16-1997 - 1 r 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 16, 1997 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Solid Waste Management DEPARTMENT: Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N) ATTACINMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Background Materials Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To review the status of several major solid waste management issues, and provide direction to staff, as appropriate, on how to proceed. BACKGROUND: Orange County and its municipal governments face a number of important decisions in the coming months on several major solid waste management issues. The Public Works Director will provide a brief summary on the status of the following major issues, along with expected major decision points as outlined in the attached background materials: • Landfill Reorganization • Waste Disposal • Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan • Solid Waste Collection(Unincorporated Orange County) Included with this abstract are additional background materials previously reviewed by the Board, which may help focus work session discussion on several key decision points where guidance is now needed. These include: • Former Commissioner Willhoit's 11/10/96 memo suggesting structure for landfill reorganization(pages 25-27). The BOCC may wish to provide feedback/direction to their representatives on the elected officials subcommittee which is reviewing the options for landfill governance as discussed at Solid Waste Summits in September 1996 and November 1996. That subcommittee is scheduled to have its first meeting on January 15, 1997. • Former Commissioner Willhoit's 7/2/96 memo to the LOG conveying the BOCC's views on the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan(pages 28-29). The BOCC may wish to confirm its views as previously communicated to the LOG. The LOG recently requested that each governing board convey its views about the Weston model prior to the LOG's meeting on February 19, 1997. • County staff s March 1996 presentation to citizen groups on solid waste collection and financing options (pages 30-59). Any guidance the Board may have at this time regarding preferred solid waste collection/financing options will assist staff in incorporating this into the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan implementation. • Public Works Director's 3/27/96 memo summarizing citizen reaction to solid waste collection options presentations (pages 60-64). RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report as information and provide direction, where appropriate, to the Manager and County staff. BOCC WORKSESSION January 16, 1997 SOLID WASTE Items for Discussion/Decision • Landfill Reorganization • Waste Disposal ent Pl an Integrated Solid Waste Managen, • Solid Waste Collection (Unincorporated Orange County) I. Landfill Reorganization • Tiered Decision Making Process/Model 0 Duties and Responsibilities of each Member • Timeline for Reorganization and Implementation Current Status • Waste Summit I - September 30, 1996 • Waste Summit II - November 13 , 1996 • (a) County & Town Managers currently developing an outline of the interest of each jurisdiction. That could be incorporated in a Draft Inter-Governmental Agreement (b) Sub-Group of Two Elected Officials from each jurisdiction will work with staff on development of Preferred Management Model with a Draft Inter-Governmental Agreement II. Waste Disposal • In-County or Out-of-County Waste Disposal • If In-County Option is selected, requires (a) the Identification and Selection of Landfill Site; and (b) Purchase of Land and Development of the Landfill Compensation for Landfill' Neighbors • Capacity Requirements of New Landfill 00 • Financial Considerations for Waste Disposal • (a) Financing for Purchase and Development of Landfill • (b) Components of Tip Fee (Operations; Processing; and Waste Prevention Recycling) Current Status • Weston Study presented Out-of-County Waste Disposal Options Paper • Local Governments Unified Public Hearing on the Four Finalist Sites - June 19, 1996 • Disposal Decision on Hold: Contingent upon Reorganization 0 III . Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan • Waste Prevention • Collection • Processing Waste Prevention • Unit-Based Pricing (pay-per-throw) Collection Bans (mandatory recycling) • Differential Landfill Fees • Non-Economic Incentives • Public Education Collection • Universal Collection of Waste and Recyclables • Solid Waste Collection by Individual Governments and Recyclables Collection by Orange Regional Landfill or its Successor • Collection of Commingled Recyclables Elimination of Convenience Centers • Two Special Waste Centers Processing • Mixed Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) with capacity to accept source separated materials Facility Centralized Organics Composting to handle MRF mixed paper residu als and other organics and wood Mulching facility to handle yard waste Unit-Based Pricing (pay-per-throw) vs . Collection Bans (mandatory recycling) Current Status • June 26, 1996: Orange County BOCC made a recommendation to LOG regarding their preference of Waste Prevention, Collection and Processing Options IV . Solid Waste Collection (Unincorporated Orange County) • Solid Waste convenience Centers vs. Universal Collection • Financing Current Status � March 1996 : , The Public Works Staff made presentations to citizen groups regarding collection and financing options for Solid Waste Management. • June 1996: OCSWC meeting. No consenus ' among members. Majority favored maintaining current system with pay-per- throw. 00 summary : Decision Points I. Landfill Reorganization • Decision Making Process/Model • Duties & Responsibilities • Timeline jI• Waste Disp ' osal • In-County or Out-of.Coun • 111-COU"ty: ty Landfill Siting, Purchase & Development • Compensation for Landfill Neighbors • Size of New Landfill • Financing I. Integrated Solid Waste Management II Plan • Waste Prevention • Collection • Processing IV 0 Solid Waste Collection Solid Waste Convenience Centers vs. Universal Collection Financing Solid Waste Attachments • Memo dated November 10, 1996 from Don Willhoit — RE: Waste Summit II • Memo dated July 2, 1996 from Don Willhoit — RE: BOCC Recommendations to LOG • Solid Waste Collections Presentation • Memo dated March 27, 1996 from Wilbert McAdoo — RE: Summary of Citizen Comments r 25 1396 To: Board of Commissioners County Manager Margaret Brown RE: Waste Summit TT-November 13 gist&I met with randy Sachs(Franck was ario-show)Friday to discuss the azenda for the November 13 meeting. The meeting announcement 'indicates that the meeting will start at 6pm at the Homestead Center. Because food will be served, the meeting will probably not actually get underway until about 6:30,or as soon as Moses can call the meeting to order and turn it over to Andy. The first item will be getting the buy-in on the goal of the meeting, identifying key e;-ments and sequence for moving ahead on a management entity for Orange County's solid waste. Key elements for Jacquie are: I- meeting with residents to develop compensation plan 2. preparation of ISWiIv[P with meuris of achieving 50%waste reduction 3. site selection 4. selection of operator(management entity) Developing the ISWIvfp may take a year. I think it is unacceptable to delay selection of the management entity until completion of the Plan. Meeting with the residents before site selection sounds like trouble,but the attorneys have been asked to respond to LOG on that. Unfortunately,Franck was not at the meeting so we were not able to discuss Chapel Hill's proposal. They will likely want to steer the discussion to their policy-making,decision-making board proposal. It is my perception that all of the governing boards would like to see a decision made on November 13 that establishes a direction for solid waste management in OC. Realistically, because of the contrasting positions of Carrboro and Chapel Iffil.1,I think a reasonable outcome would be to, in principle,designate OC as the lead agency for solid waste management. To assuage fears and provide a focus for detailed negotiations,the attached Principles for Establishing an Orange County Solid Waste Management Entity may be useful. If OC is designated, in principle,then the next steps might be: 1. Request managers to begin working on a transition plan for July 1, 1997 implementation. 2. Request each Board to appoint(or re-appoint)2 members to OCSWMC,effective Ian 1, 1997. I Request OCSWMC to give priority to development of an ISWNIP with monthly updates/sign-off by each governing board- 4. Request BoCC to act on June 19, 1996 public hearing and select site for future solid waste management activities. 5. Request OCSWZvIC to conduct a facilitated meeting with residents near the selected site to discuss fair and just compensation,unless the County Attorney approves a meeting with OC-17 neighbors prior to site selection. Feedback on the next steps prior to Nov 13 would be appreciated. Thanks. 26 PRLYCIPLES FOR ESTABLISHLNG :IN ORkNGE COUNTY SOLID WASTE NUL AGEMEN°T ENTITY Moses and Bill sent me suggested modifications to the principles proposed in my V-ovember 10 memo. The revised suggested characteristics for an Orange County government management entity follow: Tiered decision-making scheme-categories of decisions. I. Policy,budget development, and maintenance of ISW'MP(including assessment of impact on fees) 2. Adoption of policies, including fees 3. Salary/benefit administration(WPPR and grievances, leave,health,and vacation policies) 4. Fiscal control(purchasing,contracts,bids,audit,budget management) 5. Legal services Principles to guide development of an Orange County solid waste management entity. I. Policy, budget,and ISWNIP maintenance issues-Establish an Orange County Solid Waste Management Council(Crowther)or Commission(Carey)(OCSWNIC)composed oft members appointed by each participating government. a) The OCSWlvfC to be responsible to insure that all site development recommendations are in accordance with the ISWIvIP(Crowther). b) Policy,budget development,and ISWMP maintenance proposals are to be prepared by the OCSW iAC with support from the solid waste staff. 2. Adoption of policies,including fees a) Unless specifically included in the OCSWMC"charter",the County has decision-making authority. b) BoCC to take responsibility to select and purchase solid waste management sites(Crowther). c) The participating governing boards to have 30 days to comment before Board of Commissioners action on OCSWMC recommendations. Failure to respond within 30 days will be considered to be an affirmative recommendation. d)Annual budget increases and/or tip fee increases greater than 5%,except when increase is due to debt service,must receive an affirmative vote by each of the member governments. e) Each member government will have the responsibility to decide on waste collection issues within their r jurisdiction. These decisions include: frequency and location of waste pickups and waste reduction incentives,e.g.,bans vs pay-per-throw(the OCWSMC is to consider the impact of these options when developing the ISWMP)(Carey). f) The issue of a solid waste-to-energy facility should be a BoCC initiative in regional discussions, in accordance with the ISWITAP(Crowther)_ g) Prior to assuming significant debt for solid waste facilities,an inter-local agreement would need to be developed to make participating governments responsible parties for the debt. 3. Salary/benefit administration a) Solid waste staff are to be subject to Orange County personnel policies, including WPPR,salary administration(no separate salary plan for solid waste emps),grievances,benefits, leave,etc. b) Solid waste manager is to be accountable to the(--)range Count-, Solid Waste Manauement Commission (OCSWmc)and to the County Manager in arnanner similar to health and social services directors The Visitors Bureau model might be acceptable,but the lines of personnel administration need to be sufficiently well defined so that it is clear that OCSIN",,IC does not become preoccupied with personnel management matters. OCSW.',IC could hire,,Fire solid waste manager,but such actions to be subject to review by County i'vlanger and Attorney to minimize lea-at entanglements(Crowther). 4. Fiscal control -County staff administration with accountability to the Board of Commissioners 5, Legal services-attorney support for OCSW-MC is to be provided by or through the Orange County Attorney,not by independent counsel. o0solws6sumt iib.doc d-'W I U w/96 23 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 200 S. Cameron Street Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Moses Carey,Jr. 919.732.8181 William L Crowther 919.968.4501 Alice M. Gordon 919.688.7331 Stephen H.Halkiotis 910.227.2031 Don Willboit MEMORANDUM (Fa4 919.644.3004 To: Landfill Owners Group and Staff From: Don Willhoit, Orange County Commissioner Subject: Orange County Board of Commissioners Recommendations to Landfill Owners Group Date: July 2, 1996 The Orange County Board of Commissioners(BOCC) met on June 26, 1996, and reviewed an outline of the County's proposed integrated solid waste management system. The BOCC responded to the Landfill Owners Group request that member governments review the outline and provide feedback and make recommendations regarding the proposed system. The Board of Commissioner's discussions and considerations of the solid waste management system resulted in the following recommendations to the Landfill Owners Group (LOG). 1) The LOG should adopt the five waste prevention options as suggested, including: a. Collection bans b. Differential landfill fees c. Non-economic incentives d. Public education regarding solid waste issues including disposal, recycling and waste reduction. e. Unit-based pricing(pay-as-you-throw plans). 2) The Board of County Commissioners strongly supported unit-based pricing as a waste reduction tool. They suggested that a pay-as-you-throw plan for solid waste disposal only(not to include recycling related services)would constitute a strong economic incentive for citizens to reduce solid waste generation and increase recycling participation. 3) The BOCC stated that the focus of the solid waste collection program should be on the form and content of materials to be delivered to disposal/landfill facilities and processing/Materials -OVER- YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY. 29 Recovery Facilities (NIRFs). Focus on form and content of materials places emphasis on separation of recyclables and solid waste prior to delivery to the appropriate facility and that the mode/method of collection and delivery is not a priority at this time. 4) The BOCC recommended that the County's waste reduction and recycling program concentrate on reducing and recycling materials(such as those described below)that will provide the greatest impact on waste reduction at the landfill. According to waste characterization studies at Orange Regional Landfill and staff recycling data(see attached chart), recycling and diversion of the following materials constitutes the greatest opportunity for mixed solid waste reduction (excluding construction/demolition debris and ash)at the landfill. a. Commercial waste sector- commercially-generated mixed paper, old corrugated cardboard(OCC), and old newspaper(ONP). b. Single-family and multi-family residential sectors- mixed paper. The Board of Commissioners did not take action on processing options pending information on alternatives. The Board delayed discussion of LOG reorganization issues until the next meeting. RESI N AL OLID w TE A oPTIO YCIING • Backgroun 20 ston Study 3' Coll tion Sys A. R sent Coilec ' n S B' v to SOli aste Con Collect' 1en Ce tars Utilizin C. Univers ,.:Center IIAo � he Co a or 4• Financing � ; adside Co ctio 9 Optima , A. Present F� ` S. Household br�User F Property X C. Pay As You Throw D. Combination of Financing tions n WASTE PREVENTION ■ Differential Landfill Fees ■ Collection Bans ■ Volume based fees ■ Public Education ■ Non-Economic Incentives Lj P.- 0 Z COLLECTION ■ County-wide roadside/curb-side weekly collection for commercial and residential waste. ■ Mixed collection of recyclables , exce t atass from commercial sector ■ Yard waste and bulky item collections for a fee ■ Two (2) convenience centers ■ Two (2) special waste centers PROCESSING ■ Mixed Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)with capacity to accept source separated materials ■ Centralized Organics Composting Facility to handle MRF mixed paper residuals and other organics, Possibly including source separated commercial wastes. - ■ Mulching facility to handle yard and wood waste C RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING COLLECT ION OPTIONS For Unincorporated Orange County l4wV "Wit �«r FAR ISSUIES CON�1�ERATION 1 ction vs. Solid Waste Roadside Colle Convenience Centers. 2 HoW to achieve maximum aste W reduction VJONN to ge t maXImum citizen participation • P 4 . The amount and type of control the County wants to exercise over the collections. 5 . The level of service desired and demanded by County residents . 6 . How Vill the collection system affect illegal dumping ? 7• How will the County collection program integrate with the county- wide Solid Waste Management Plan and Solid Waste goals ? $ . The best collection system for the individual . 9• The best collection system for the County as a whole. CO � z � o o � Qfto 1 Who i forth co i rogra � 11 . Who ill colt t a ents . (1 ) Present Collection Options ■ Approximately 13,000 rural households use the County's (6) Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC). ■ Approximately 4,000 households contract with private haulers for household waste collection . ■ Approximately 7,057 rural households receive bi- weekly curbside collection of recyclables. r (2) Construct new Solid Waste Convenience Centers utilizing the COM ctor Collection Center Model. The 40 yard Compactor/Collection Center Model utilizes. . . One (1 ) Stationary Compactor One (1 ) Enclosed 40 cubic yard Container Three (3) 40 cubic yard open-top Containers (3) Orange- County would provide universal roadside collection of solid waste and recyclables to all rural residents ■ Current SWCCS would be closed. ■ Two or more Special Waste Disposal Centers may be operated for disposal of bulky wastes , white goods, yard waste, used oil, and batteries. ■ Two new Solid Waste Convenience, Centers could be operated. Under this option, the Count y may: ■ Purchase residential trash and recyclables collection vehicles and provide a level of collection service comparable to that offered by municipalities. • Contract with one of more of the County's municipalities to provide collection services in the rural areas of the county. • Orange County may solicit bids from private haulers to provide residential solid waste and recycling services. r Ati rIVE NOTE: The collection program selected by the County may be a mix of any of the previously mentioned options bases on levels of service preferred, offered, and costs obtained from negotiations with municipalities and private haulers. Final decisions will be determined based upon: ■ Thorough study and examination of all options ■ Citizen comments will be a major factor r P ' Historically, property taxes have been the source of revenue in financing the Orange County Solid Waste Management Program . FINANCING OPTIONS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ■ Continued use of property taxes to fund all or a portion of solid waste collection and management program . ■ User fees. ■ Any option may be considered exclusively or in combination with others. r w i i i B br 4 SER TYPES OF U FEES 771'79""-,,� ',� i t i USER FEES ■ Can be perceived by the public as an equitable way to pay for sold waste services ■ Can increase public awareness of actual costs of solid waste management programs ■ Can be used to recover all or waste designated portion of solid w program costs HOUSEHOLD - USER FEE Each household is charged a flat fee for solid waste collection and disposal cost. Each resident would be charged the same fee regardless of the amount of trash generated for disposal . P SYSTEMS There are two basic methods: ■ Volume-based - waste collection is charged according to volume generated ■ Wei aht-based - household waste is weighed at the point of collection and resident is billed for service per pound of refuse COMBINATION OF OPTIONS mProperty tax mPay-asmyoumthrow mHousehold or User Fee Six rre So ' Waste Co enien nt s (SWCC) and urr t Rural Cu side R v in ■ A n ■ Opera ' ns an Colle 'on ........................ .................. .... . 679, 9 ■ Disposal osts .... .......... ............................. ................... .$ 5,34 ■ Recycling C is ....... .......... ............................. ................ 84 85 TOTAL A UAL ST $1,10 2 ■ ANNU HOUSEHOLD S M 00 H EHOLDS: ■ Collection my ....................... ......... ........ ..................$53. ■ Disposal Only ............................ ........... .......... ...............$19.00 ■ Recycling Only ... ......................... ........ ........ ........$14.00 ■ Collection, Disposal, ecycling (Full-co Reco ry)....... ....$86.00 ■ Pay-Per Throw Cot Der Stic r or Ta Avera 40 d ba ■ Collection Only ............................... ............................. .........$1.72 ■ Disposal Only...................................... ................... .............$.62 ■ Recycling Only......................................... ..... .................$.47 ■ Collection, Disposal, Recycling (Full-cost Re ery)..............$2.81 niv sal oad-Side S id Was d cycldbles olle ion or Unincor rated a e unt Annual Operations an Collec ' n ...... ............................. ........... .$1, 09, 7 Disposal Costs .... ............ .......... ............................. .........$ 26 93 cyclingCosts ....... ........... ........... ............................. .... 897 8 TAIL ANNUAL ST 2,275,592 ANNUAL USEHOLD FEE 17.00 OU HOLDS: CollectionOnl ......................... ........ ........ ............$ 65.0 Disposal Only ...... .......................... ......... ........ .......$ 16.00 Recycling Only ......... ......... ....... ..$ 53.00 Collection, Disposal, Re cling (Full-cost overy ......... 134.00 Pay-Per Throw Cost per Sti er or Tag (Aver a 40 D nd b CollectionOnly ............................. .......................... ...... .57 DisposalOnly ..................................... ............................ ....$ .62 RecyclingOnly ........................................ ..................... ..$ 2.08 Collection, Disposal, Recycling (Full-cost R overy)..... .......$ 5.27 ix rm ent Solid ste Co v ien a Centers (SWCC) Usi Co a r/40 Cubic and RID - C lection Model and Cu ent Rural rbside a cli ■ An al ■ Opera ' ns an Colle 'on ........................ .................. .... . 749, 6 ■ Disposal osts ... ........ .......................... $2 ,344 ■ Recycling C is ....... ........ 84 85 TOTAL A UAL ST $1,17 7 ■ ANN HOUSEHOLD S 1 00 H SEHQLDS. ■ Collection my ....................... ........ .. ..............$58. ■ Disposal Only ............................ ........... .......... ...............$19.00 • Recycling Only ... ......... ........$14.00 • Collection, Disposal, ecycling (Full-co Reco )....... .....$91.00 • Pay-Per Thr w t pe r tic r or Ta Aver 40 p v!-jd bag) • Collection Only ............................... ............................ ..........$1.90 • Disposal Only...................................... ................ ................$.62 • Recycling Only......................................... ....... .....................$.47 • Collection, Disposal, Recycling (Full-cost Re overt'}..............$3.00 i i RISC! F U ES y-Per-T hr Co ctio ' posal Rec ling 1 ost .47 $ Six Existing S C $� 1 Six Permanent SW $1.90 . 2 .47 $3.0 Universal Collection $2.57 .6 2..08 $ .27 i ARISO F ES nu Househo Fee P C s ecti ' osal R ycling u -cos (1) Six Existing S CC $53 1 p 14. 0 � ! anent S C $58.00 9.0 14.00 $ 0 (1) Six Perm (2) Universal Collection $65.00 16. 53'00 4.0 (1) Annual household fee based 13,000 hou hol h (2) Annual household fee based on ,000 house ds CO 9ZqZ INO 1818-UL (6i6) 8LZLZ DN `u2noiogsii?H 1818 xOfl 'O'd sxioM oijgnd ,CaunoD a2uwp •;)iignd a q� m oa suoilsaaans 10 sluammO;) amO;)Iam aAk ,.,,{. .,. Orange Countp Publir Works 60 • P.O. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 TELEPHONE NO.: (919) 732-8181 Ext. 2625 ,,. 688-7331 Ext. 2625 "+ a♦`'` 227-2031 Ext. 2625 Wilbert J. McAdoo 968-4501 Ext. 2525 DIRECTOR 967-9251 Ext. 2625 MEMORANDUM To: Orange County Board of Commissioners From: Wilbert McAdoo, Public Works Director Date: March 27, 1996 Subject: Summary of Citizen Comments From Presentations Regarding Solid Waste Collection and Finanethg Options for Solid Waste Management in Unincorporated Orange County As requested by the Board of Commissioners at the December 9, 1995 Goal Setting Retreat, Public Works Staff developed a slide presentation outlining solid waste collection and financing options for unincorporated Orange County. The first presentation was made to the Orange County Solid Waste Committee and their input was used to refine the presentation that was introduced to citizen groups. Orange County Public Works staff has completed public presentations, "question and answer" sessions, and mailings to civic groups and clubs, church groups, Township Advisory Councils (TACs), Orange County committees and advisory groups(i.e.,PlanningiBoard, Board of Health, etc.), and other interested parties in Orange County. The information presented and distributed concerned solid waste collection and financing options currently being considered as part of Orange County's Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Attachment 1 contains a list of groups to whom staff made full slide presentations, conducted"question and answer" sessions or mailed information packets. The purpose of these meetings and distribution of information was to update County residents regarding the study of solid waste management in Orange County, targeting collection and financing options that are being considered. Citizen comments and participation were actively sought at each meeting. Groups that received mailed information also had cover letters attached which encouraged correspondence with public works staff and/or input to elected officials. The following outline was used for citizen presentations and mahouts: 1) Solid waste background information 2)Background information on development of the Orange County Integrated Solid Waste . Management Plan(Weston Study) Office Location 600 Highway 86 North Hillsborough t 61 w - An added burden to residents to remember collection schedules and set-out days - Increased litter resulting from animals getting into waste containers or bags. Many residents also envisioned neighborhoods and roadsides with trash cans or bags set out for collection as an aesthetic blight for the County. - Residents that live on private roads or have long private drives, viewed transporting their waste or recyclables to areas which were accessible to collection trucks as a real inconvenience. Most residents summarized this situation by stating, "If I have to take my waste materials and recyclables back to a public road, I might as well drive the extra miles to go to a convenience center. I can take care of all my disposal needs there and do it when I want to." -Residents expressed concern about safety of garbage trucks stopping along heavily traveled rural roads. `" -Residents who currently contract with private haulers for solid waste collection liked the idea of universal collection when informed that their current collection costs may be the same or less than what they are paying now. (Homes that subscribe to private haulers constitute approximately 23.5% of total rural households.) - These same residents still were not strong advocates for a changeover to the universal collection system. It seems that most rural residents use the SWCCs from time-to-time and like the accessibility and various disposal options for a wide array of waste materials and recyclables offered by the sites. Their comments,also reflected that the choice to contract for private collection services or use the public convenience centers should remain a personal choice or preference. -Residents appreciate the opportunity to use SWCCs at their own discretion. Many people pointed out that with increased recycling, backyard composting, and other waste reduction methods, that they had drastically reduced the number and frequency of trips to SWCCs for disposal purposes. Once-a-week collection, under the universal collection option was excessive for many people. On the other hand, some residents stated that they liked to dispose of waste as it was generated and would commonly use the SWCCs two to three times per week. The following outline was used to discuss solid waste financing options: FINANCING OPTIONS: 1) Continued use of property'taxes to fund all of or a portion of the solid waste collection and management program. 2)User Fees A. Household Fees B. Pay-as-you-throw Fees 3) Any option may be considered exclusively or in combination with the other options 62 3) Collection systems options A. Present collection system B. Solid Waste Convenience Centers utilizing the Compactor Collection Center Model C. Universal Roadside Collection 4)Financing options A. Present financing system-Property taxes B. Household or User Fees C. Pay-as-you-throw Fees D. Combination of financing options described above COLLECTION OPTIONS DISCUSSED: 1) Current Collection System: Continued operation of the current"interim" solid waste convenience centers(SWCCs). Citizens may also contract with private haulers for collection servicet at personal expense. Operation of the current rural curbside recycling program will continue(presently serving approximately 7,057 rural households). 2) Compactor Collection Center Model: Current SWCCs will be replaced with 44 permanent" sites that the County purchases or obtains long-term leases. These new centers will utilize the compactor/40 cubic yard container method of collection. Similar levels of services will continue as well as options offered under option#1. 3) Universal Roadside Collection: This option would provide universal, weekly road-side collection of household waste and recyclables for all rural households. Two Special Waste Centers or Convenience Centers may be opened or operated for disposal of yard waste, bulky wastes, white goods, tires, used oil, lead-acid batteries and other special wastes. Comments: There was strong support by citizens to continue with either the current system of convenience centers or SWCCs using the compactor/40 cubic yard container collection model(option#1 and #2). Most residents saw no compelling reason to deviate from the current system of solid waste convenience centers. Staff reiterated the fact that current sites were intended to be an"interim" solution to disposal needs in rural Orange County until a permanent collection system was implemented. Citizens perceive a freedom in using the centers, regardless of the collection method. They are not limited by specific collection days or other schedules that they have to remember(other than SWCC operational hours). Disposal activities for all types.of residentially generated wastes(except hazardous wastes)and recycling can take place at one time at the residents' SWCC of choice. Residents view this as real asset. Several residents,who have access to the rural curbside recycling program, sited the scheduling process and their regular use of the convenience centers as a primary reason for their lack of use of the curbside recycling program. The majority of residents saw little advantage or added convenience in the universal roadside collection program. In fact, most residents were quick to voice their opposition or perceived problems of that system if implemented. Opposition was based on: 63 Attachment 1: Slide Presentations, "Question and Answer" Programs, and Mailings Regarding Solid Waste Collection and Financing Options for Solid Waste Management in Unincorporated Orange County Slide Presentations: Cedar Grove Ruritan Club -Attendees 21 Hillsborough Exchange Club - Attendees 19 Hillsborough Lions Club - Attendees 4 Little River Township Advisory Council- Attendees 4 Orange County Economic Development Commission-Attendees 8 Chapel All Township Advisory Councff- Attendees 7 Cane Creek Baptist Church- Attendees 60 Hillsborough Rotary Club- Attendees 13 Hillsborough Kiwanis Club- Attendees 14 Schley American Legion- Attendees 35 Orange County Historic Preservation Commission- Attendees 10 "Question and Answer Programs"Information was mailed to members prior to meeting, meeting agendas did not allow time for full slide presentation. Mike Garner, Solid Waste Manager, was present to answer questions from group members: Board of Adjustments Planning Board Orange Soil and Water Commisision Agriculture Districts Advisory Council Mailing S Approximately,350-400 copies were mailed to members of these "o Bingham Township Advisory Council Board of Health Lions Club of Carrboro Recreation and Parks Advisory Council Durham/Orange County Cattleman's Association 4-H Leaders Group Extension Homemakers' Council 64 Comments: There was no consensus from residents as to the preferred financing mechanism to be used by the County to pay for solid waste services in rural Orange County. Residents maintained the opinion that property taxes should help support the cost of the solid waste program but realized or were resigned to the fact that property taxes could not continue to pay all costs associated with the program. Many people seemed excited over the possibility of joint city/county participation in managing solid waste collection and financing but were highly skeptical that any agreement could be reached to do so. - Most people wanted a financing system that could be implemented with as little change and bureaucracy as possible. These people viewed the flat household fee as their preference because"everyone" paid for the program and had access to the same disposal and recycling system, and fees could be collected as a surcharge on the property tax. Supporters poinLed out that other counties used a household fee to help finance their programs. Dissenting views pointed out that household fees charged everyone the same regardless of waste generation and provided no incentive to recycle or reduce the amount of waste that individuals or families produce. - Each group, club, committee, etc., had one, two, or three supporters for a volume-based or a pay-per-throw fee system. These individuals realized that this financing system offers the most incentive to waste reduction because each resident is charged for the actual amount of waste that they produce based on volume or weight. However, for each supporter of this system, there seemed to be at least twice as many residents that were in opposition to that option. The opposition foresaw a tremendous increase in illegal disposal, burning, and littering. Some people even saw illegal disposal becoming as rampant in rural areas as it had been prior to the time that Orange County installed the original"greenbox" disposal system. Summary: As stated earlier, no consensus of public opinion surfaced except for citizens' preference for solid waste convenience centers over the universal collection system. Citizens are comfortable with the current convenience centers and although somewhat skeptical of the compactor140 cubic yard container collection model, prefer the flexibility of convenience center use and disposal. Residents seem resigned to the fact that solid waste services in Orange County will no longer be perceived to be free and"hidden'' as part of an individuals' property tax, but they offered no real preference for how they would like to pay for additional solid waste fees or alternative financing options. Despite the number of citizens that attended meetings or were mailed information, high public interest in solid waste topics, and the impact on citizens when current options are implemented, there was a surprising lack of input or alternative ideas from citizens. Although limited, most comments made by different groups seemed to have similar messages and common themes as described above. Should you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at Orange County Public Works.