Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-26-2015 - Assembly of Governments APPROVED 5/5/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN March 26, 2015 ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough for an Assembly of Governments meeting on Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price, and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Ed Harrison, Jim Ward, Lee Storrow, George Cianciolo, Maria Palmer, Donna Bell, Sally Greene and Town Manager Roger Stancil CHAPEL HILLTOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Aldermen Damien Seils, Jacquelyn Gist, Michelle Johnson, Randee Haven O'Donnell, Sammy Slade, Bethany Chaney and Town Manager David Andrews CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Jacquelyn Gist TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS/STAFF PRESENT: Town Commissioners Eric Hallman, Brian Lowen, Evelyn Lloyd, Kathleen Ferguson, Jan Wenn, and Town Manager Eric Peterson TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Evelyn Lloyd Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Welcome and Openinq Remarks Chair McKee said there is only one item on this agenda tonight and that is the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) presentation of the solid waste program fee options. He asked the Mayors and the Town of Hillsborough Mayor Pro Tem for their comments. Mayor Kleinschmidt said the SWAG has been working on this for nine months, and he is happy for the opportunity to have this conversation with the elected officials Mayor Lavelle noted that Jacquelyn Gist would not be able to attend tonight. Mayor Pro Tem Brian Lowen said he looked forward to coming to an amicable agreement, and he noted that Mayor Stevens was not able to attend tonight. Chair McKee asked Commissioner Jacobs, as Chair of the SWAG, to lead off the conversation. 1. Solid Waste Proqram Fee Options Recommendation — Solid Waste Advisory Group Commissioner Jacobs said the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) has been meeting since August of 2014, and he asked the members to acknowledge themselves by raising their hands. Commissioner Jacobs said there has been good joint participation by staffs. He said work has been done on basic agreements, and there has been discussion about the fees for basic recycling. He said everyone agreed to do things in a way that would make it easy for all of the governments to budget for this coming fiscal year with regard to any fees. Commissioner Jacobs said the group started out with four staff proposals for possible fees for the recycling program, and then this was reduced down to two options. He introduced Gayle Wilson to review these choices. Gayle Wilson said option 1 and option 2 are similar in that the revenue requirements are the same, but are achieved in a slightly different way. He reviewed the following information from the abstract attachments regarding the two options: 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 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 One: • 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 • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 • 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 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. 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. Gayle Wilson noted that the current year's budget was used in this analysis, and the fees in the packet reflect calculations based on the current year solid waste budget and expenditures. He said the rate of the fee could vary next year once the new budget is completed. Mayor Kleinschmidt noted the fact that the Solid Waste Convenience Center (SWCC) fees allocated to the rural portion of option 1 is twice that of the municipal portion. He said the basic 3-r fee for the municipal portion looks to be about 70 percent lower than the rural fee for that amount. He said he wants to be fair in noting the substantial differences in the basic fees in option 1. Council Member Bell arrived at 7:11 pm. Commissioner Burroughs asked for more information about the services included in the fee. Gayle Wilson said the basic fee includes almost everything except the urban curbside, rural curbside and the multifamily program. He said the fee includes the food waste collection program, commercial services, park and ride lot collections, parks collections, government building collections, unstaffed recycling drop-off centers, hazardous waste and electronics collection, several landfill based recycling services, as well as education and outreach. Alderman Slade arrived at 7:13pm. Chair McKee opened the floor for comments. Alderman Slade said his original perspective on this was to choose an option that reflects where the costs are located. He said, as he has further looked at the formulas, he feels it is a rough way to allocate costs based on the number of people in the rural and urban areas. He said this does not reflect the costs he would want to have reflected in a fee, specifically with regard to fuel costs. He said he is not sure which option he prefers, but he would like for this group to consider either option as a pilot option. He said this would allow a fee to be put in place before the deadline, given the amount that has already been drawn funds from the landfill closing fund. Alderman Slade said he is not sure if the costs for the roll out carts were paid for by the rural residents, but his understanding is that both rural and urban will be paying for this in the universal option, whereas it would be separated in the other option. He said the rural option would be a 3 to 5 percent increase over the next three years and then would taper off. He said this would mean residents would pay about $20 more on top of an already increased amount, and he felt this needs to be considered in the deliberation. Mayor Kleinschmidt said he likes the idea of a pilot program. He said the SWAG was challenged by using the data to justify the fee. He said the two main conversation drivers were equity and the principle that everyone is in this together with the goal of promoting increased recycling. Mayor Kleinschmidt said he and the other Chapel Hill representative, Council Member Ward, were struck by the way the fees are structured for the funding of the SWCCs. He said these fees supplement the general fund contribution from Orange County, and with both options 35 percent of the proposed fee would go to support the SWCCs. A survey was done to determine who uses these centers, and the snapshot showed the municipal residents make up 11 percent of the users. He said the $1.8 million in general funds from the County comes largely from the municipal residents. He said 42 percent is from the Town of Chapel Hill residents. He said there were some concerns about this as it related to equity. Mayor Kleinschmidt said both options have 35 percent going to the SWCCs, and he and Council Member Ward saw this as a compromise. He said the two fee system is a better compromise. Alderman Johnson arrived at 7:23pm. Mayor Kleinschmidt said it would be easier to pilot a program with two fees rather than a single fee. He said his Town Council has talked about this and felt that it would be more difficult to change a fee once it is implemented as a single fee. He said data could continue to be gathered over a pilot period in order to determine whether the fee structure should be further adjusted. Council Member Ward said Mayor Kleinschmidt summarized it well. He said he articulated at the SWAG meetings as a representative of his constituents, that option 1 more closely sets the fee rate at the cost of services that the citizens are actually getting. He said the snapshot survey does show that Chapel Hill is paying more for the SWCCs than the citizens actually use. He said there is no need to parse that out at this time, and the Town is supportive of option 1 on a trial basis of one year. He said the goal would be to have the SWAG continue to look at this issue or to investigate this trial period later in the year in order to make a more informed decision for 2016-17. Mayor Lavelle said, at the SWAG meetings, she was in favor of funding option 2. She liked the idea of roll out carts going to everyone and the idea of establishing a holistic countywide approach. She found it difficult to look at all of the services that Orange County provides and to parse out those things that benefitted County residents versus urban residents. She said she looks at this as a countywide effort; everyone pays property taxes, and everyone pays the same fee. She said the survey illustrates that people in the County are continuing to use the SWCCs more because they do not have roll out carts yet. She said there has been a 21 percent increase in recycling with the rollout carts in the urban areas, and there may be such an increase with the rollout to the County. In her view, it feels like it makes more sense to go forward with one fee. Commissioner Price said she concurs with Mayor Lavelle. She said option 2 is fair to everyone. She said some services are just basic to the County. She pays for education in the County and she is glad to do it, even though she does not have children in the system. She said she feels there should be a flat fee for everyone. Town Commissioner Wenn said she is supportive of a flat fee. She said any countywide issues are in need of countywide support, and a flat fee is an easier sale to their constituents. Town Commissioner Ferguson said the other element that she felt was important was to encourage usage. She said there are rural residents who have concerns with the higher fees. She said the single fee lowers the barrier to usage, which has an impact. She said this needs to be looked at holistically. Commissioner Pelissier said she supports a flat fee. She said the goal is to get people to recycle for all of the environmental benefits. She said equity is not the primary goal here, but it is equity to say that there is a flat fee for everyone in this County. She said part of this is a perception issue, and she would not want to tell farmers and other rural residents that they have to pay more because they live in a rural environment. Alderman O'Donnell said everyone is in this together as a county, and she supports the flat fee. She is a teacher and she spends time teaching kids to understand that the mindset should not just be about taking care of their own recycling. She said the goal is to get people to understand the value of taking care of the existing waste as a whole as well as individually. She said the flat fee says that we are going to take care of recycling together as a County. Commissioner Burroughs said she has become increasingly focused on the $9 difference between option 1 and option 2. She thinks of this $9 and the constituency, and this amount could be a struggle for some people. She said she wants to work together to help struggling homeowners. She said it is important to focus on what that $9 means and to whom it means something. Mayor Kleinschmidt said these are all good responses, and it is important to improve recycling capabilities countywide, but he does not want to miss an important aspect of this decision. He said both options provide for the increased curbside recycling, and neither option creates a barrier for people because of where they live. He said a lot of this comes down to solid waste convenience centers, and these centers provide a broader service than just recycling. He said the primary use of these centers is the disposal of municipal solid waste. He said the residents of the towns pay a portion, through their taxes, for the disposal of their household waste. He said Chapel Hill is satisfied with 35 percent of the fee supporting the SWCC, because this moves toward the mindset of being in it together. Mayor Kleinschmidt said if people believe there is a barrier related to option 1, he would like to hear that articulated, because he does not understand what that is. Commissioner Rich said there are options for people who can't afford these fees. Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County is currently assisting 700 households. Commissioner Rich gave an example of the Rogers Road area where one side of the street would pay one fee and the other side another fee. She said this is a picture of how equity does not always work out. She said this same scenario happened with the roll carts and this, along with the discussions of the SWAG is part of what convinced her to go with the flat fee. Commissioner Rich said a decision does not have to be made tonight. Chair McKee said this will be a discussion tonight and then it will be taken back to their respective boards for final decisions. He said a decision will need to be made within a timeline that adheres to the budgets moving forward. Town Commissioner Ferguson said the situation in Hillsborough is similar to the Rogers Road situation, but there are neighbors with lots beside each other that have different fees. She said the $22 difference is greater than the $9 savings. She said the per capita income tends to be lower in the County. She said we are in this together and this difference does create a barrier and an artificial us versus them mentality. Council Member Bell said there are many times where it is clear that we are not all in this together. She said in the end, this may be a conversation about supporting a unified recycling service. She said the town pays more taxes and then certain things are harder and easier when you live in the County. She said neither of these options is onerous, and they are divided by the thinnest of lines. She said the question is who will be the unifying voice. She said it is a good idea to use option 1 for a year to see how it works, and it is easier to move from a two tier system to a one tier system if changes are necessary. She said there is a larger conversation to have about supporting one another and being in this together. Town Council Member Palmer said the trash problem needs to be solved long term. She said this is taking pieces of huge environmental and social justice issues and trying to figure out how to make progress. She said her neighbors in the County understand the differences associated with living there. She said if there is any confusion, people can be educated about this. She said most of the people in Chapel Hill who would struggle to pay for the fee would not be among the 700 people who apply for assistance. She said most of these people are renting, and the owners will just up the rent to cover the fee. She said there is a lot that Chapel Hill could do with $212,000 to help its residents. Town Council Member Palmer said it would be important to have people in place to explain the fees to residents. She said she is hoping that this ends up as one fee, but she understands the difficulty of explaining the taxes and fees to residents, some of whom are struggling. She suggested a trial period with monitoring. Alderman Chaney said she agreed that this program is a system, and it is not a la carte. She said residents can choose whether or not to access the system. She said it is also foundational to the solid waste program in reducing the waste stream, and because of this she is less inclined to agree that it makes sense to pay proportionally. She said it is important to send a message about the value of reducing the waste stream. She said she does not want to ask people to pay more for the services that they do not have, when those same people have been subsidizing those services by others by virtue of the fact that they have not had them. She said there have been investments in the towns before the rural areas, and this investment has included the wear and tear on rural resident's cars as they travel to the convenience centers, and it has been on their time and the neglect on the waste stream in rural areas. She said the towns are just going to return that investment. Alderman Chaney said the fee is going to be lower under either one of these options, and single family properties will pay lower fees, so a lot of people will already see savings. She said both plans put a higher burden on the commercial sector, and to some degree, the multi-family sector, which is somewhat troubling. However, she said these are also the sectors with the highest burden on the system. She said single fee system allows a reduction in stress on some users, and sends a clear message to others that the goal is increasing service and better meeting needs. She said she is not opposed to a pilot program, but she thinks this pilot should be the single fee system, and it should be for three years, to allow for more data. She said the data should be about real cost, and if fuel cost is going to be considered, the fuel cost for residents using the SWCC should be considered. Commissioner Price said she agreed with Alderman Chaney. She noted that option 1 will mean that rural residents will pay $24 more for a service they will not get for three years, and this is unfair. Commissioner porosin said the two tiered system is inherently divisive. He said this is a place where a one-size-fits-all would work. He said he is not sure a pilot program is needed, but if it is, it would need to go longer than a year. He said everyone feels there is some service they are subsidizing but not using. He said a single fee makes sense, and this is where it should start. Commissioner Jacobs said the County does subsidize 700 households, and this could be looked at as just the start. He said one component that is not quantified is the educational component, and this could be built upon. Commissioner Jacobs said there are a lot of issues involved in the solid waste enterprise that could do with more analysis. He does not understand the necessity of a pilot program, but he thinks there should be a requirement to scrutinize all of the numbers and assumptions. He said Orange County will be upgrading and re-opening the Eubanks SWCC next year, and the number of users from the towns will increase over time. He said the smart thing to do is to take a comprehensive look at this as it goes along, and there may be a need for reasonable changes to some of these components. He said these are the numbers and data that have to be used right now. Commissioner Jacobs said there are many other weighty issues, but recycling is something that everyone agrees is a high value for the community. He said nothing has to be decided tonight, but it will be important next week for the respective boards to have given some indication of where they want this to go. Commissioner Jacobs said that he went into the process with the SWAG thinking that either option was fine, but he was persuaded by other representatives about the benefit of one flat fee. Commissioner Jacobs said too much has been spent talking about the urban-rural divide. He said there is also too much time spent talking about who is putting something over on someone else. He said it is important to be united and look at the bigger picture. He said this is an example of how to start moving in that direction. Commissioner Jacobs said he has been convinced to go with option 2. Town Council Member Cianciolo said he came out of the council meeting feeling like he could go with either option. He said the SWCC equity issue does not concern him very much, and he can make an argument that these are a valued asset for the entire County. He said it is important to work together more, and he noted that there are 75 percent more citizens living in the City of Durham than there are in the whole of Orange County, and there is also competition with things happening at the state level. He said the council members would have to sell the single fee option to residents if that is what is chosen. He said a recent report listed Orange County as the healthiest county in the state. He said having people drive less frequently to drop off their trash should have a positive effect on the environment, and this is one of the things that can be discussed in convincing the community of the value. He has no objections to the single fee with option 2. Alderman Seils said this is an opportunity to do something positive for all residents in Orange County. He said this will expand recycling and do something everyone can feel good about. He said it is important to create opportunities to participate in the program, and the feels the two tier program is divisive. He is supportive of the flat fee option. Town Council Member Palmer asked Alderman Chaney about her earlier comment and how people would be saving money. Alderman Chaney said she based this on the information on the spreadsheet attached to their agenda abstract. Gayle Wilson said there are some winners and losers in this process. He said single family homeowners in the towns will be paying less than the rural areas, but the urban multi- family will be paying more. He read through these numbers from the chart. Gayle Wilson said generally the single family homes are paying less and non- residential and multi-family dwellings will be paying more. Town Council Member Palmer said she did not study the chart well enough to see the cost savings, and she feels that her Council needs to discuss this further. She expressed appreciation for this discussion. Mayor Kleinschmidt said this has been a good discussion, and it has given everyone a chance to talk about what they care about most. He said it is possible to be respectful of the differing views and recognize the value of the principles that everyone brings to these conversations, and this will lead to a more satisfying outcome. Mayor Kleinschmidt said the Chapel Hill Town Council has some things to talk about. He does not see any difference in these two options creating barriers, and he would appreciate hearing how option 1 creates barriers to the larger goal. He does have concerns about the County's general waste stream being funded disproportionately from this fee. He would like to see his colleagues continue to provide comments and perspective. Chair McKee said this has been the best AOG meeting he has attended in the last five years. He said the points have been well stated and respectful. He said the County has a great recycling program now, and everyone in the room wants to make it better. He said he originally thought this goal could not be reached, but he sees now that the target will be reached, and possibly exceeded. Chair McKee said some good points were made about the convenience centers, and he thinks the center on Eubanks Road is going to provide a better service. Chair McKee said he is supportive of the single fee. He said there is no way to make it fair for every person in the County, but this is a good place to start. Town Council Member Palmer asked about the timeline going forward. Bonnie Hammersley said the SWAG will be meeting on April 1 St and will make a recommendation for the respective governing boards to decide on. Chair McKee said the point for tonight was to lay concerns on the table. He said everyone is moving into budget season, so there are decisions to be made. Council Member Ward said his perspective is that if he goes for the flat fee option, it means getting the less divisive option by asking Chapel Hill taxpayers to pay more for a service they are not getting. He asked for clarification on this fiscal iniquity. He said right now he is unwilling to ask his constituents to pay more for a one fee system. He said the figures being presented show that Chapel Hill is paying for more than they are getting in services with either option, but with option two this is especially true. He said part of good government is having a rational nexus between taxes and services. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board