Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-17-2015 - 8bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 17, 2015 Action Agenda Item No. 8 -b 1 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Program Fee Options Recommendation — Solid Waste Advisory Group DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management ATTACHMENT(S): Memorandum from Town & County Staff Funding Option Detail Sheets Solid Waste Funding Options Spreadsheet PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Hammersley, 919 - 245 -2300 Gayle Wilson, 919 - 968 -2885 John Roberts, 919 - 245 -2318 PURPOSE: To receive an update on alternative solid waste financing options and the deliberations and funding recommendation of the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG). BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners created a Solid Waste Advisory Group at its June 3, 2014 meeting. This multi - jurisdictional Group held its first meeting on August 25, 2014 and has been meeting regularly from that time forward. Subsequently, one representative each from UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare were added to the Group. The SWAG has been focusing on a new interlocal agreement for Solid Waste Management, with most of the meetings addressing recycling /convenience center funding options that will represent a major component of any subsequent interlocal agreement. Another area of discussion has been how and when to establish a citizens advisory role to the solid waste planning function. Additional focus has been on how to incorporate UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare into an agreement and exploring opportunities for cooperation. Town's and county staffs have also conducted several meetings and communications throughout with regard to SWAG funding options and processes. The County Attorney has spoken to the SWAG and has indicated that the options under consideration are consistent with state statutes. Each Town would be required to authorize the County to impose the fee within the municipalities. A preliminary progress report by the SWAG was made at the November 20, 2014 Assembly of Governments meeting. At the SWAG's March 6, 2015 meeting, a consensus was reached to forward two funding alternatives for discussion by each of the Town elected boards and the Board of County Commissioners. The SWAG requested that each of the Town and County boards discuss the two SWAG funding options and be prepared to discuss making a final decision from among the two options at a joint meeting of the Towns and County scheduled for March 26. The attached memorandum and attachments provide additional detail regarding the two proposed funding options. A funding decision will allow the formula to be incorporated into the Fiscal 2015/16 budget currently being crafted, and allow County Tax Administration and Solid Waste Management Departments to complete the various preparations necessary to meet the 2015 tax billing schedule. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact resulting from discussion of various recycling /convenience center funding options. A fee decision will be considered at a future Board meeting where details of specific financial impacts to property owners and county and municipal governments for the 2015/16 budgets will be presented. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the presentation on Solid Waste Program Funding Options, consider the recommendation from the Solid Waste Advisory Group and ask questions as necessary of staff and the Board's two SWAG representatives in order to be prepared to discuss the issue with the towns on March 26. K Attachment 1 Memorandum To: Carrboro Board of Alderman Chapel Hill Town Council Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Orange County Board of Commissioners From George Seiz, Carrboro Public Works Director Lance Norris, Chapel Hill Public Works Director Ken Hines, Hillsborough Public Works Director Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director Subject: Solid Waste Advisory Group — Recycling Fee Recommendations Date: March 6, 2015 The Board of County Commissioners created a Solid Waste Advisory Group at its June 3, 2014 meeting. The Group is comprised of two members each from the elected boards of the Towns and County. Additionally, there are one representative each from UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare. This multi - jurisdictional Group held its first meeting on August 25, 2014 and has been meeting regularly from that time forward. The SWAG has been focusing on a new interlocal agreement for recycling and solid waste services currently provided by Orange County, with most of the meetings addressing recycling /convenience center funding options. Another area of discussion has been the future role of the SWAG. Additional focus has been on how to incorporate UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare into an agreement and exploring opportunities for cooperation. Town's and county staffs have also conducted several meetings and discussions with regard to SWAG funding options and processes. The County Attorney has spoken to the SWAG and has indicated that the options under consideration are consistent with state statutes. Each Town would be required to authorize the county to impose the fee within the municipality. A preliminary progress report by the SWAG was made at the November 20, 2014, Assembly of Governments meeting. At the SWAG's March 6 meeting a consensus was reached to forward two funding alternatives for discussion by each of the Town elected boards and the Board of County Commissioners. The SWAG requested that each of the Town and County boards discuss the two SWAG funding options and be prepared to discuss making a final decision among the two options at a joint meeting of the Towns and County scheduled for March 26. Option 1 is a two part annual fee; One Comprehensive Solid Waste Program Fee for all Municipal Units - $94 /year (based on FY 14/15 budget revenue requirement), and One M Comprehensive Solid Waste Program Fee for all Rural units - $118 /year (based on FY 14/15 budget revenue requirement). Option 1 would establish an urban fee and a rural fee that would be applied to each developed property and multi - family units throughout the county, including tax exempt properties, except for UNC -CH properties that are served by the University's separate recycling program. Option 1 would incorporate an approximate 33% solid waste convenience center costs into the Urban fee component and an approximate 66% solid waste convenience center costs into the Rural fee component. Option 2 is a Single Comprehensive Fee - $103 /year (based on FY -14/15 budget revenue requirement) that would be applied equally to all developed properties and multi - family units throughout the county, including tax exempt properties, except for UNC -CH properties that are served by the University's separate recycling program. Option 2 would evenly distribute solid waste convenience center costs across all sectors. Further details of the two options are provided in the attachments. It is important that a funding decision be made in a timely manner given that such funding would have to be incorporated into the Fiscal 2015/16 budget currently being crafted, and in order for County Tax Administration and Solid Waste Management Departments to complete the various preparations necessary to meet the 2015 tax billing schedule. The SWAG, based on recommendations by staff, has indicated that a final decision should be reached by the end of April to allow time for implementation into the budget process and for the fee to be ready for billing on the 2015 property tax bills. Town and County SWAG representatives requested that each elected board discuss and fully consider each option prior to the March 26 joint meeting. Town and County staffs are available to explain the fee options and to respond to questions. Attachment 2 FUNDING OPTION 1 • Simplified fee structure • Easy to administer, manage, and explain • Includes phased expansion of rural curbside service, increasing recycling and waste reduction rate • Flexibility in providing services without being constrained by rigid categories o Example: If a business is located on a residential route (urban or rural) and generates recyclables in quantities similar to a residence, it can be assigned to a residential route without concern that there is not an appropriate fee category. 5 Key Factors • Rural curbside service is proposed to be phased in to entire unincorporated area over three year period, equalizing services by the fourth year. o The rural fee will increase incrementally over phasing period. • Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be implemented over time by improving service efficiencies and availability of services. • Single family, multi - family and developed non - residential property owners in the rural sector pay $24 more than property owners in the urban sector. Universal Elements for Both Options • Undeveloped properties do not pay a fee. • All developed properties including tax - exempt properties pay a fee. • The fee structure is stable and predictable. • Fee impacts for potential service expansions, improvements, and changes can be easily determined and made available for elected boards to consider. • Some property owners may consider the proposed fee rates a significant increase because no fee for rural or urban curbside service or multi - family service has been assessed for the past two years. • Failure of elected boards to approve a funding mechanism for the FY 2015 -16 Budget may lead to suspension of services or further debiting of the solid waste landfill closure and post - closure reserves account. • Orange County will continue to provide financial assistance for qualifying low- income residents who are unable to pay for solid waste program fees. In 2014, approximately 700 parcels were provided assistance through the County's 3R Fee Financial Assistance program. • Funding option proposals are based on FY 2014 -15 budget revenue requirements. For FY 2015 -16, minor fee adjustments may be implemented to align with the actual FY 2015 -16 budget revenue requirements. FUNDING OPTION 2 • Most simplified fee structure • Easiest option to administer, manage, and explain • Includes phased expansion of rural curbside service, increasing recycling and waste reduction rate • Flexibility in providing services without being constrained by rigid categories is maximized. o Example: If a business is located on a residential route (urban or rural) and generates recyclables in quantities similar to a residence, it can be assigned to a residential route without regard to changing categories or fee rates. $103 County -Wide SW Program (Per Improved Property) Key Factors • Rural curbside service is proposed to be phased in to entire unincorporated area over three year period, equalizing services by the fourth year. o The program fee will increase incrementally over phasing period. • All developed properties pay the same amount, although eligibility for services may vary between jurisdictions and sectors. • Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be implemented over time by improving service efficiencies and availability of services. • This option presents a new funding paradigm and new way of viewing solid waste program funding by offering a singular fee. This holistic approach to funding eliminates any division between rural and urban boundaries, creating a truly integrated and comprehensive approach to program funding county -wide. Universal Elements for Both Options • Undeveloped properties do not pay a fee. • All developed properties including tax - exempt properties pay a fee. • The fee structure is stable and predictable. • Fee impacts for potential service expansions, improvements, and changes can be easily determined and made available for elected boards to consider. • Some property owners may consider the proposed fee rates a significant increase because no fee for rural or urban curbside service or multi - family service has been assessed for the past two years. • Failure of elected boards to approve a funding mechanism for the FY 2015 -16 Budget may lead to suspension of services or further debiting of the solid waste landfill closure and post - closure reserves account. • Orange County will continue to provide financial assistance for qualifying low- income residents who are unable to pay for solid waste program fees. In 2014, approximately 700 parcels were provided assistance through the County's 3R Fee Financial Assistance program. • Funding option proposals are based on FY 2014 -15 budget revenue requirements. For FY 2015 -16, minor fee adjustments may be implemented to align with the actual FY 2015 -16 budget revenue requirements. DRAFT SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE FUNDING OPTIONS-YEAR 1 3/9/NI15 PER UNIT FUNDING OPTION FUNDING OPTION OTHER FUNDING TOTAL REVENUE REVENUE REQUIREMENT REVENUE REQUIREMENT DETAILCONT. NUMBER OF FUNDING COMPONENT FUNDING COMPONENT PER UNIT ESTIMATED APPRX. ANNUAL IN[REASE/DECREASE OF FEE FROM CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE APPRX. INCREASE / DECREASE COST PERMOMHFROMCURRENTFEE GENERAL DESCRIPTION DETAIL REQUIREMENT DETAIL UNITS NAME DESCRIPTION ANNUALFEE MONTHLY STRUCTURE BASIC3� $1,707,690 Non -Residential(urban)- $47more Non- Residential(urban) -$4 more URBAN RECYCLING - $1,076,350 Urban Single - Family $32 loss Urban Single - Family $31, Indudes MULTI FAMILY RECYCLING- $313,443 MunicipalSW All improved units Multi - Family (urban) -$24 more Multi - Family (urban) -$2 more lComprehensive Sdid $3,498,247 SWCC- $400,764 37,409 Program Fee located within town $94 $8 Waite Progam fee for all appmx. 35% limits. SW FUNDING OPTION Urban units, and 1 Cort of SWCC ql Comprehensive Solid and first year $6, 208,94M1 BASIC 341- $1,049,657 Non - Residential ( rural)- $71111, Non- R,sid,ntial(mm1) -$6more gam Waite Pro fee forall Cort ofmral RURAL RECYCLING- $750,108 Rural Sin le -Fami bside service area $221ess g hOn cur 1- Rural Sin Ie -Fami bside service area $21ess g hOn cur 1- Ruralunits. Curbside MULTI - FAMILY RECYCLING- 3,166 $ RuaISW Pm gam prove All im dunits ng h(1u )- Rural Si le -Fami lsidelf curbside service area $3l more rY h(1u )- Rural Si le -Fami tsid, if curbside service area $3more expansion.. $2,710,697 SWCC - $801,528 22,994 Fee outside town limits. $118 $10 Multi- Family(mml)- $48m1re Multi -Fam ily (rural) -$4 more Yl CURBSIDE EXPANSION - $106,238 BASIC 3 -R- $2,757,347 Non - Residential (urban) - $56 more Non - Residential (urban) - $5 more Induces URBAN RECYCLING- $1,076,350 Urban Single - Family- $23 1ess Urban Single- Family -$21- OneCo— V Wide Solid appmx. 35% RURAL RECYCLING- $750,108 All improved units am Multi - Family(urban) -$33 more Multi - Family(wban)- $3more Waite Progam Fee for all Cort of SWCC MULTI - FAMILY - $316,609 Charged one single Non - Residential (in rural curbside servicearea) - $56more Non- Residential(in rural curbside servicearea) -$5 more SW FUNDING OPTION improved units located in and first year SWCC- $1,202,292 Vl County -Wide SW comprehensive fee, no $103 $9 Non- Residential(lutside aF rural curbside service area ) - $56more Non- R,sidontial(lutside aF rural curbside service area) -$5 more #2 the county, no matter cort of rural $6,208,944 $6,208,944 CURBSIDE EXPANSION- $106,238 60,403 Program Fee matter type, or location Rural Sin Fami bside service area Sing l,(in cur 1- $371ess Rural Single - Famih (in curbside service areal- $31ess location inside or outs i de of Curbside nside or outside of Rural Single- Fam ily (lufsid,lf— Isid,s,rvic ,area)- $16m11, Rural Single - Family (lufsid,lf— Isid,s,rvic ,area)- $1m11, town limits ortYpe of unit. expansion Costs. town limits. Multi - Family(ruml)- $33m1re Multi - Family(ruml)- $3more