The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 03-26-2015 - 1ORANGE COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 26, 2015 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Program Fee Options Recommendation — Solid Waste Advisory Group DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management ATTACHMENT(S): A. Memorandum from Town and County Staff B. Funding Option Detail Sheets C. 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 2 boards discuss the two SWAG funding options and be prepared to discuss making a final decision from among the two options at this joint meeting of the Towns and County. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Orange County Board of Commissioners discussed the issue at their March 17, 2015 meetings. The Chapel Hill Town Council discussed the issue at its March 18, 2015 meeting, and the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners is scheduled to discuss the issue at its March 23, 2015 meeting. 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 County Manager recommends that the respective Boards 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 SWAG representatives. Attachment A 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 B 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. Attachment C DRAFT SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE FUNDING OPTIONS -YEAR 1 PER UNIT FUNDING OPTION OTHER TOTAL-REVENUE REVENUE NUMBER OF FUNDING FUNDING PER UNIT APE". APPRX. INCREASE / DECREASE COST PER MONTH FROM CURRENT FEE FUNDING OPTION GENERAL DESCRIPTION FUNDING REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT REVENUE REQUIREMENT DETAIL CONT. UNITS COMPONENT COMPONENT ESTIMATED MONTHLY tEASE /DEtEASE OF FEE FROM CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE ANNUAL INO O STRUCTURE DETAIL DETAIL NAME DESCRIPTION ANNUAL FEE COST BASIC 3R- $1,707,690 Non - Residential (urban( -$47 more Non - Residential (urban( -$4 more URBAN RECYCLING - $1,076,350 All improved Urban Single- Family$321 ass Urban Single-Family$31- Indudes MULTIFAMILY RECYCLING- $313,443 Municipal SW units Multi - Family (urban( -$24 more Multi - Family (urban( -$2 more l Comprehensive Solid $3,498,247 SWCC - $400,764 37409 Program Fee looted within town $94 $8 Waste Pmgramfeefo,all app.fSWC limits SW FUNDING OPTION Urban units, and 1 cos[ofSWCC #1 Comprehensive Solid d first yea. ancos[of $6,208,944 BASIC 3R- $1,049,657 Non- Residential(tial( -$7l more Non- Resdenoal (rual( -$6 more Waste Program fee to, all rural RURAL RECYCLING- $750,108 R-1 Single- Family(mwbsdere ic.area(- $221e� R-1 SmX1, Family (m curbsde re i,, area(- $21... R...I mit, wrbsice MULTIFAMILY RE CYCLING- $3,166 Rural SW Program All improved units R-1 Single - Family (ou id, ofwb,ide ,ic a) $31 more Rua1 SmX1, Family(o ,ide ofwb,ide ,i,, a) $3 more expansion.. $2,710,697 SWCC- $801,528 2994 Fee out side town l imits. $118 $10 Multi- Family(r d) -$48T Multi - Family Wrdh -$4 more YTCURBSIDE EXPANSION - $106,238 BASIC 3R- $2,757,347 Non - Residential (urban( -$56 more Non- Resd -ddl (urban( -$5 more Indudes URBAN RECYCLING - $1,076,350 Urban Single- Family - $231... Urban Single- Family -$21 ass One Comty -Wide Solid pp, X. 35% RURAL RECYCLING- $750,108 All improved miV, M 1C Family( rbdn( -$33T M 10- Family(,rbdn( -$3 Tore Waste Program Fee to, all cost of SWCC MULTIFAMILY- $316,609 charged one single Non- Resid —idl(m oral curbsdere ice a) $56 more Non- Resd -ddl(m ural curbsde xvice a) $5 more SW FUNDING OPTION improved units located in and first year SWCC - $1,202,292 yl County -Wide SW comprehensive fee, no $103 $9 Non- Resid —id(o ideof rural w rbsde ,icearea( -$56 more Non - Reid- ddl(,u de of ru ral curbsde"'i,, a) $5 more #2 the county, no matte, cos[of mral $6,208,944 $6,208,944 — CURBSIDE EXPANSION - $106,238 60,403 Program Fee matte,type, orl ovation Rual Single- Familylin wrbsderervicearea(- $371e� Rual Sin l�Famil bsderervicearea $31... g ylin cur (- locafioninsideofomsideofcurbside msce outside of Rual Single - Family lou de ofwb,ide ,icearea( -$16 —, Rual Singl�Familylouo de of wrbsderervicearea( -$1T town im its o, type ofanit. expansion costs town limits. Multi- Family(r d) $33 more M,C Family(r d1( -$3 more