Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-30-1996 - 1 �-3a-9b f MEETING OBJECTIVE IDENTIFICATION OF A PREFERRED MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY. AGENDA 5:30 Food Available 6:00 Dinner Assignment Each table discusses: - why the management issue now? -clarify LOG's draft proposal. 6:30 Convene/Introduce facilitator (Moses Carey) Meeting objective, agenda, ground rules Presentation clarify, revise, adopt. (A. Sachs) 6:45 What's Wrong? What's the LOG proposing? Presentation (M.Chilton) 6:55 Discussion/Decision "Shall the problem presented by LOG be tonight's focus?" "If not, then what problem(s) to tackle together tonight?" BREAK "INTERESTS" Presentation (R. Franck) LIST INTERESTS Discuss/Decide: Which interests shall we satisfy through our solution tonight? EVALUTION OF LOG PROPOSAL Discuss: Which interests are satisfied?Which are not? GENERATE NEW IDEAS Brainstorm: How can we better satisfy the interests? CRAFT A NEW PROPOSAL Discussion: Which combinations of ideas hold the most promise for satisfying the interests? DECISION Each Board caucuses. Each Board reports back: "Do we have consensus among the Boards?" NEXT STEPS MEETING EVALUATION ADJOURNMENT GROUND RULES • One speaker at a time. • Listen attentively. • Keep to task&topic. • Share all relevant information. • It's ok to disagree... do so respectfully. • Decide together. • Adjourn on time. a:\aogflip.cht 2 PROBLEMS WITH LOG • Many decisions by default or veto if any one government fails to act on LOG recommendation. • LOG is advisory to staff and constituent boards - no decision making authority. Control lies with Chapel Hill Town Council • Question: Why would the operation by another government unit or an independent appointed "authority" be more acceptable? • Current decision making process is cumbersome, lengthy and inefficient for timely decisions, often requiring multiple visits to each constituent board before approval is obtained. Does not provide for joint dialogue among decision makers. • Even if consensus is obtained on LOG, no assurance that recommendations will hold when voted on by full boards. • Question: Is the LOG representative of non-LOG elected officials? NEED Implementation of an ISWMP and the purchase of property for a landfill, transfer station, or contact for alternative disposal will require designation of an entity for decision-making, legal considerations, financing and ownership. HOW WE GOT HERE Three governments purchased 200 acres on Eubanks Road in 1970's. Chapel Hill designated to operate the landfill within their management and budget structure. Sale of property and tip fee changes require approval of all three boards. 2 3 OTHER ITEMS TO CONSIDER • cost of waste reduction plan • consideration and analysis of alternate plans • consideration of landfill site • can the management model address these issues? • want direct voice • need place to start • possible to get new organization starts • by four-part agreement? • can preconditions be placed on management model? • "We" may not be the decision makers anymore ... Referendum option? • each government involved - provide input. • continuing costs. Some decisions made before, some after. Intent to involve everyone, regardless of entity. • need commitment to resolve these issues "upfront." • have to trust them with big questions. • want entity to lead on big issues. PROBLEMS WITH LOG Lack of leadership due to current decision - making process • cumbersome • lengthy • decisions made by default • not proactive Veto power • brings things to standstill To whom is the LOG responsible? (staff& LOG) • Chapel Hill Town Manager • compromising position for Chapel Hill Hillsborough involvement • Board and citizens critical to process Who has final say over landfill budget? • jurisdictions involved in tip fee • Chapel Hill responsible for budget 3 4 PROPOSAL Board with eight members -two from each jurisdiction. Initially all elected officials; potential change later to one citizen and one elected official. Super- majority rule (6-2) for certain issues " Independent authority" Board govern landfill staff answer to county (like Health Department) - not a separate entity like OWASA - Department Head overseen by Board and employees overseen by Department Head No say over individual municipal trash collection. 4 5 OTHER PROBLEMS Accountability How public holds entity accountable? -through appointing body - difficult for citizens - LOG is insulated - don't run away from problems if you're an involved elected official - do we want an all elected board? Need to address DEBT - clear plan -variety of possibilities for the Board or local governments to issue - General Obligation Bonds Citizen input- regular avenue needed 5 6 PROPOSAL CLARIFICATION - salaries - decided by new Board - income for Board - no municipal or County taxes in proposal - state mandate: County officials responsible - not clear if County is still solely responsible - Board stipends? -whose audit? County as enterprise fund? Legislature may have mandate - possible to raise salaries -debt - are General Obligation bonds worth trying? not practical but theoretically possible - special obligation bonds: if agency is independent, what other revenue sources pledged? - other tipping fees - sale of recyclable -what is history in North Carolina research : these issues? (bonds issued) - some guarantees about revenue sources -waste stream to landfill - like service district for solid waste? - some analogies - like Visitors Bureau - revenue from dedicated source - authorization for spending through Orange County and flexibility on using it - County can develop franchise system with private haulers - compel to bring to landfill - Should University be at table? - unclear if possible through State Statures - University NOT able to participate - Is there a model - coastal region (3 Counties) -Albemarle (8 Counties) -TriCo - Super- Majority: increase on fees of 10% or more - large contracts, bonds (6.2 vote) - could one municipality be isolated? - should one government be able to block it? Proposal says no - If there's a deficit, constitution government's cover it? - not necessarily - reserve funds - preferable to get money from governments - bankruptcy - Franchise? - between County hauler - between Chapel Hill and hauler, or by self * (Problem) LOG - can't balance solid waste policy with other policies 6 7 BRAINSTORM: INTERESTS • Elected officials make all major decisions • Accountability between new entity and citizens and other Boards • Account between decision makers and staff • Resident's near landfill treated fairly • Mission statement implemented (fulfilling as written) and goals • Efficient decision making process • Which allows for consensus if at all possible • Buy-in from four local governments into decisions of entity • Each jurisdiction budgetary integrity and soundness maintained • All elected bodies are part of decision making process • Simple way to dispose of trash • County and Chapel Hill (deep pockets) -fair cost-sharing in all phases across jurisdictions • Costs of disposal - reasonable • Costs of disposal - in proportion to other expenditures • Inclusion of private entities in cost- sharing • Concerns, interests, and priorities other than Chapel Hill in decision making • Account to residents of Chapel Hill who live in Durham County • Decision making reflects financial stake of different parties • Affected employees maintain at least current level of benefits and status • Citizens have easy access to decision making • Can work at regional level • Easy access to understandable decision making • Short-term fiscal decisions have no more weight than long-term environment and social and fiscal • Decision makers open to new developments in technology • Board open to level of service L.O.G. decisions that majority of users would want - responsiveness and account to citizens on L.O.G. • Open to new methods for handling waste • Economic considerations included in decision about waste management, reduce, and recycling • Consideration that all give up something to this - compromise -to get totally integrated solid waste system • No increase in cost • No increase in waste • Involve other bodies which can create costs for taxpayers • New group do mission and goals statement on their own • " Backdoor" if it's not working • Single entity 7 8 OUTCOME STAFF • affected employees (19) ACCOUNTABILITY • by decision makers to citizens and customers • to individual governing Boards in County • by staff to decision makers • to non Orange County residents of Chapel Hill COST CONSIDERATIONS • fair across jurisdictions • reasonable to citizens in absolute terms and in proportion to other governments expenses • maintain individual governments budgetary soundness EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN REPRESENTATION 12,16-19,31 • perception differences (16,18) • concerns, interests, priorities of all jurisdictions in decision making • decision making reflects financial stake of all parties DECISION-MAKING • efficient • clear • allows for consensus • easy access by citizens • independent - doesn't have to go back to jurisdictions • trustworthy process VISIONARY • technical advances - keep up • long-term • consideration interns of life-cycle costs • new tech • regional • public and private ventures • not obsessed with short-term bottom line • cost consideration ENVIRONMENT RESPONSIBILTY • long-term view MISSION STATEMENT • to give direction 8 9 • (currently includes regionalism) RESIDENTS NEAR SOLID WASTE FACILITIES &OPERATIONS TREATED FAIRLY • health and welfare concerns especially for those without water and sewer • residents have say in defining "what's fair" ABILITY OF JURISDICTIONS TO RE-EVALUATE, REWORK AND TERMINATE (if necessary) IF NOT WORKING SIMPLE, COST - EFFECTIVE SOLID WASTE PLAN • understood by citizens 9 8 OUTCOME STAFF • affected employees (19) ACCOUNTABILITY • by decision makers to citizens and customers • to individual governing Boards in County • by staff to decision makers • to non Orange County residents of Chapel Hill COST CONSIDERATIONS • fair across jurisdictions • reasonable to citizens in absolute terms and in proportion to other governments expenses • maintain individual governments budgetary soundness EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN REPRESENTATION 12,16-19,31 • perception differences (16,18) • concerns, interests, priorities of all jurisdictions in decision making • decision making reflects financial stake of all parties DECISION-MAKING • efficient • clear • allows for consensus • easy access by citizens • independent - doesn't have to go back to jurisdictions • trustworthy process VISIONARY • technical advances - keep up • long-term • consideration interns of life-cycle costs • new tech • regional • public and private ventures • not obsessed with short-term bottom line • cost consideration ENVIRONMENT RESPONSIBILTY • long-term view MISSION STATEMENT • to give direction 8 9 • (currently includes regionalism) RESIDENTS NEAR SOLID WASTE FACILITIES & OPERATIONS TREATED FAIRLY • health and welfare concerns especially for those without water and sewer • residents have say in defining "what's fair" ABILITY OF JURISDICTIONS TO RE-EVALUATE, REWORK AND TERMINATE (if necessary) IF NOT WORKING SIMPLE, COST - EFFECTIVE SOLID WASTE PLAN • understood by citizens 9