Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-21-2015 - 7aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 21, 2015 Action Agenda Item No. 7 -a 1 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Program Fee Recommendation - Solid Waste Advisory Group DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Memorandum from Town and County Staff 2) Funding Option Detail Sheets 3) Solid Waste Funding Options Spreadsheet INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Hammersley, 919 - 245 -2300 Gayle Wilson, 919 - 968 -2885 John Roberts, 919 - 245 -2318 PURPOSE: To receive the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) recommendation on the funding mechanism for solid waste /recycling programs and consider endorsing the fee, to then be communicated to the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. 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. Staffs from the towns and County 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 governing boards discuss the two SWAG funding options and be prepared to discuss making a final decision from among the two options at the March 26, 2015 Assembly of Governments meeting. 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 Towns and County conducted substantive discussion of the options at the March 26, 2015 Assembly of Governments meeting. It was agreed that the individual governing boards would discuss the two options further among their boards and attempt to reach a consensus on one option by the end of April 2015. At the Solid Waste Advisory Group's April 1, 2015 meeting, the SWAG endorsed Option #2 — Single County -wide Solid Waste Programs Fee. Each jurisdiction member agreed to deliver this recommendation to their respective governing board for consideration within the month of April, seeking endorsement of Option #2. If all four governing boards endorse Option #2, the Orange County Manager will proceed to incorporate this revenue mechanism into the County's Fiscal 2015/16 Budget Recommendation. The Towns of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners and Chapel Hill Town Council approved Option #2 earlier this month. The Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen is scheduled to address the item at its April 21, 2015 meeting. Approval of the fee will also allow County Tax Administration and Solid Waste Management Departments to complete the various preparations necessary to meet the 2015 tax billing schedule. Approval of the fee will also allow Solid Waste Management to proceed with planning for the three year phased implementation of the rural curbside recycling program. The attached memorandum and attachments provide additional detail regarding the two proposed funding options. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of Option #2 — Single County -wide Solid Waste Programs Fee will result in a fee rate being proposed in the Manager's proposed Fiscal 2015/16 annual budget. It is expected that the total annual revenue generated by this fee will exceed $6,200,000. The fee will be assessed via the annual property tax bill to all improved properties in Orange County, including those properties within the Town of Mebane located in Orange County and those properties within the Town of Chapel Hill located in Durham County. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1) receive the Solid Waste Advisory Group funding recommendation - Solid Waste Programs Fee (single county -wide annual fee); 2) endorse the fee recommendation and direct the County Manager to incorporate the fee into the proposed Fiscal 2015/16 Annual Budget; and 3) direct the County Manager to communicate the BOCC decision to the Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough Town Managers and request that the Towns prepare to incorporate County authorization to assess the Solid Waste Programs Fee into their Fiscal 2015/16 Budget Ordinances. K Attachment 1 Memorandum To: Carrboro Board of Aldermen 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. ruxolxq ovnox rx xuul xa—/ oacaeasaorrfarao mcuaaaxrraa5raucruea n axe'Ixcxusa/oacaaas osr�aa mox2x raom q(aaaxrraa axaanlo¢calvno qulaarmaaxra xaqulrzamaxr avaxua xaqulxamaxr oarnllcoxr. uxlrs 3 51,2 uallurban) -5a2 more ele uallurban) -5a more ale rvG�51,a26,3sa -Famnv S3z lets �mlN -Famnv Si las �mlN $3,a9a,2a2 ruall xu- 5313,aa3 32 ao5 vn�bm �uwn $94 $a k.F lurean) -SZa more k.F lurean� -SZ more pff- ;_FSaao.zba rue ree m. fu vrw Sawa saa a -51p14 65$2 c! 6 -$2so o9 uallmall -521 more Igl�eurumrly Rucurbsraesem�zaree) -SZZ Ies vai (ruap- 56 more ramily lin arbsuaesem�zareu) -SZles n1 « aural umn ram 1 xu- 53,166 FamlNlowlaem o,mnaesenlcear�) -531 more FamlN(ouulae of a,rbslaeserelcear�) -51 more nn 5221o02 F o1 5e 22m4 ree rown imm. 5 1(a 510 kFr�e- .amlN lrurap -5oe more NF .army (rump- Samore rv- 51x6,239 a $2,2 .1 al- bSZin u o (unvrb- a5n2) -leSsSs m re cauury -wlee sgia u NG $1,x26,350 11 v - im -52w as aw$31 eebensvemfee, .IN (urban) -$33 more ual lln rural o,mnae serelceareal -555 more ).reare mIN (urban) -51 more ual lln rural o,mnae serelceareal -SS more Fu �p unary no manes u Sawa sax 56,2aa,vaa =F$1.2 — 6p•�3 unt �u no er 5103 $9 ual(ournaeo(ruralcurbsltlesci )- SSSmme ual( ournae o(ruralcurbsmeserelrearea)-SSmore p2 rv- 51o623e mg rype, or I—Ab �i nv Rucurlssraeservrcearea )- 532less o,m Ru. IsngleF miNlow svaesereicear�l -515 more �i nv Rucurlssraeservrceareal- 53less IsngleF miNlow msvaesereicear�) -flmore liminorrypeofe n limn. k.FamlN lrurap- 511amoe k.FamlN lrurap -5l morem