Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAG agenda 0129151 Agenda Solid Waste Advisory Group January 29, 2015 -6:00 p.m. Solid Waste Operations Center 1. Call to Order— Chair 2. Approve Meeting Summary from November 12, 2014 — Chair, Attached 3. Solid Waste Programs Fee Legal Perspective — County Attorney 4. Solid Waste Convenience Center and Recycling Funding Options Staff Report — Staff, Attached 5. Update on Fees Charged by Other Counties — Staff, Attached 6. SWAG Fee Recommendation and Boards /Council Decision - Making Process - Chair 7. Other • 24 -Hour Recycling Drop -off Site Tonnages Update — Attached • Urban Curbside Program Tonnage Update — Attached • Next Meeting? 8. Public Comments — Chair 9. Adjourn (8:00) - Chair Sandwiches and fixings will be provided. DRAFT Solid Waste Advisory Group Meeting Summary DATE: November 12, 2014 LOCATION: Solid Waste Administration Training Room 2 MEMBERS PRESENT: UNC- Chapel Hill Representative Matt Fajack, Carrboro Alderman Randee Haven - O'Donnell, UNC - Healthcare Representative Mel Hurston, Orange County Commissioner -Chair Barry Jacobs, Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Carrboro Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Hillsborough Commissioner Brian Lowen, Orange County Commissioner Penny Rich, Chapel Hill Councilmember Jim Ward MEMBERS ABSENT: Hillsborough Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson STAFF PRESENT: Carrboro Town Manager David Andrews, OC Solid Waste Eric Gerringer, County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Hillsborough Public Works Director Ken Hines, OC Solid Waste Jennie Knowlton, County Staff Attorney Annette Moore, Chapel Hill Public Works Director Lance Norris, Carrboro Public Works Director George Seiz, Chapel Hill Solid Waste Wendy Simmons, OC Solid Waste Paul Spire, UNC -CH Solid Waste Program Manager BJ Tipton, OC Solid Waste Management Director Gayle Wilson, OC Solid Waste Kristina Witosky, Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young Meeting Summary approval • Meeting Summary approved with the following corrections: • Delete double entry under Current Waste & Recycling Practices and Interests for UNC - Healthcare, " Kleinschmidt requests information on Drop -Off site participation, Lavelle requests tonnage from each individual Drop -Off site, Wilson states that participating population would need to be surveyed, Wilson reviews past 3 years of adopted enterprise fund fee schedules" • Change under Next Meeting, "Lavelle states that Appendix II (C) and (E) be moved back into the body of the ILA" to "Lavelle requests that Appendix II (C) and (E) be moved back into the body of the ILA" Solid Waste Convenience Center and Recycling Funding Options • Survey is currently being conducted at three Solid Waste Convenience Centers to determine the origin or users. Will be conducted at remaining two Centers. • Wilson presents four Convenience Center and recycling funding options o Currently, fees cover approximately 35% of Convenience Center expenses while General Fund covers remaining o SW Funding Option #1: 1 Municipal, 1 Rural Comprehensive SW Fee o SW Funding Option #2: 1 Urban, 2 Rural Comprehensive SW Fees o SW Funding Option #3: Similar to Current Funding Structure o SW Funding Option #4: 1 Single County -Wide SW Program Fee • Preferably a decision would be made in time to prepare and submit in the upcoming budget • Request made for comparable counties' current fee structures, including recycling level rates • Town and County staffs to meet and discuss fee options further and report back at next SWAG meeting • Fajack requests cost analysis of combining UNC- University with Orange County recycling collection DRAFT 3 o Rich suggests discussing the combining of UNC- University and Orange County recycling collection with OWASA Update on Transfer Station • Chapel Hill is not currently planning to open transfer station next year, funded with a bond, despite Chapel Hill News report • Wilson has communicated with three facilities, concerning tours, and has located a new facility in Fayetteville • Greensboro facility is open and functioning, approximately 3 -4 times the size needed for Orange County Revised Draft Interlocal Agreement: Technical Corrections Discussion • Lavelle asks to review Item I (B) at a later date, "How is that debt ascertained ?" • Lavelle requests that Item II (E) and Item VII (C) be combined and streamlined • Kleinschmidt states that it would be preferable that all financial items be consolidated under the VII Financial Section Lavelle points out that perhaps Appendix I and Appendix II could be combined and streamlined • Jacobs requests that Hurston and Fajack review Draft Interlocal Agreement and provide feedback • Ward requests that Item III (B) be deleted • Jacobs proposes that the group discuss solid waste issues at a later date Assembly of Governments Meeting Topics • Summary of Solid Waste Advisory Group Activity o To be presented by Town of Carrboro • Budget timing, fees determined prior • Separated the C &D and Recycling from MSW discussion • Integrated UNC University and UNC Healthcare into the process • Will look into incorporating UNC University and UNC Healthcare into the future fee structure • Assumptions underlining the Enterprise Fund • Draft Interlocal Agreement • County Recycling Programs Performance Update o To be presented by Orange County ■ Recycling Collection Increase • Solid Waste Program Fee Options o To be presented by Town of Chapel Hill ■ All staff is analyzing several fee options • To present to SWAG during second week of December • Future of Solid Waste Advisory Group o To be presented by Town of Hillsborough ■ Request reauthorization, in order to complete list of priorities Other • Drop -off Site Tonnages for Fiscal 2013/14 • Minor reduction in Drop -off tonnage • Data requested from July to present Meeting adjourned at: 7:40pm DRAFT Name of Minute Taker: Jennie Knowlton 2 0 Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group 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 Management Director Date: January 29, 2015 Subject: Staff Report — Solid Waste Program Funding Options On November 12, 2014, the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) requested that Towns and County staffs examine the four proposed solid waste program fee options, analyze them (consider including advantages and disadvantages), critique them, and return with their recommendations to their elected officials. The SWAG will then discuss them further. The staffs have met five times subsequent to the November 12th meeting and have had considerable discussion and email exchanges with regard to the funding options. These discussions included examination of the revenue requirement basis for the fees, understanding proposed program expenditures and revenue allocation, consideration of service components and sector impacts, examination of various equity perspectives, assessment of the administrative requirements and ongoing fee management obligations for each option, public perception and ability to understand /explain funding alternatives to the public, service costs versus value of services to residents, exploration of fees /funding mechanisms other counties use for solid waste programs and their features, as well as numerous other associated issues. The staffs also explored minor variations of the existing options. Staffs discussed the attributes to all the options in an attempt to make a singular recommendation to the SWAG; however, there appears to be no ideal or obviously superior option. Each option has advantages and disadvantages, dependent largely on perspective and values. Staffs believe that all options will provide the necessary funding and acknowledge that all options exhibit varying attributes and gradations of equity, depending on individual perspectives. It is difficult determining a recommendation without the SWAG providing guidance regarding principles, standards or other governing criteria. This report and its attachments are intended to guide and inform the SWAG and spur further discussion in order for the SWAG to reach a consensus on one funding alternative and consider how to move forward with implementation once a consensus has been reached. Attachments The staffs have provided two documents for SWAG consideration. The first attachment (Attachment 1) is an additional summary of the financial basis for the funding options that includes cost and annual fee comparisons with the current fee structure. It highlights the key financial components and structure of the fees for each funding option 9 The second set of documents (Attachment 2 -5) presents opportunities and key factors for each of the four proposed solid waste funding options as viewed by staff. Given the various perspectives regarding advantages and disadvantages and equity, staffs have resisted employing these terms but assume the SWAG will not be similarly constrained. Decision Process Aside from the individual impacts and characteristics of each option, another important issue related to selection of a fee recommendation is specifically how the SWAG will arrive at a final fee recommendation. Little discussion has taken place to date regarding how or when the SWAG will finalize a recommended funding option. It has been suggested that one such opportunity where a recommendation could be presented to the elected boards is at a currently scheduled March 26th joint meeting between the County Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council. Perhaps this meeting could be modified to allow a solid waste funding conversation between all elected boards prior to the regularly scheduled joint meeting. Alternatively, another opportunity would be needed for this joint board discussion and final decision. Each individual elected board will establish its own funding option adoption schedule and provisions should be considered in the event all four elected boards do not agree on the same funding option. Additionally, it would be necessary to allow public comment on whatever recommendation may be favored or even on all of the options under consideration. Thus, it is critical that the SWAG discuss the decision making timeline and process for reaching a final decision to ensure implementation for the 2015/16 fiscal year. Questions for consideration by the SWAG include: • How and when does the SWAG intend to reach a final decision /recommendation from among the four funding options? • Should the SWAG adjust its meeting schedule, understanding the timeline required to implement a new funding option as discussed below? • How will the public be provided input into the decision making process, presumably following a SWAG recommendation but prior to the Towns /County boards' adoption of a funding option? • Following a SWAG fee decision, would the governing boards consider a resolution authorizing the Managers to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding to authorize the fees for FY 2015/16 until a more formal Interlocal Agreement can be negotiated over the summer and adopted by the Towns and County in the fall? Decision Timeline Another significant factor for SWAG consideration is the decision making timeline that will provide sufficient time for the County Commissioners to incorporate the funding into the proposed FY 2015/16 budget for approval by the June 16th BOCC meeting and allow County Solid Waste and County Tax Administration Department staff to make the necessary fee database adjustments and billing form formatting preparations for the 2015 tax billing which is scheduled to be mailed in July. Based on County staff discussions with the County Finance Department, the proposed budget could be revised in early June in order to meet the scheduled budget adoption schedule of June 16th. However, County Solid Waste staff may need several days prior to the County Finance Department deadline to actually prepare /modify and submit the Solid Waste Department budget to Finance and allow review by the County Manager of the final detailed budget computations and documents. The degree of calculations and preparation will depend on the final funding option chosen, required revisions to the draft budget as it exists at that time and any further direction given by the Board of Commissioners. Delaying tax billing is discouraged in order to avoid the delay of tax revenue receipts for the 2015 billing cycle. Even more controlling and constraining regarding the fee implementation timeline is the degree of modification required to the fee billing database to change and modify the billing documents and associated formatting related to the specific funding option selected. Typically, for an existing fee system County Solid Waste staff, based on County Tax Administration Department tax preparation imperatives, must have solid waste fee databases updated and ready for incorporation into the overall tax billing process by mid -May. If significant formatting changes to the tax forms are required (Option 3) that information should be received by Tax Administration by late April. Towns and County staff are available to respond to questions and await further direction from the SWAG. 3 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, which would be the case in Option 3. 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 All 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. 9 FUNDING OPTION 2 • Simplified fee structure • Easier to administer, manage, and explain than the current fee system or Option 3 • 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, which would be the case in Option 3. Key Factors • Rural curbside service is not proposed to be expanded in the unincorporated areas. o If rural curbside service were expanded, rural property owner fees would be shifted to the rural curbside fee. • Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be implemented over time by improving service efficiencies and availability of services. • Rural multi - family property owners, single family property owners and developed non - residential property owners pay more than urban sector property owners: o Rural sector property owners with curbside recycling pay $25 more per unit than urban sector property owners. o Rural sector property owners without curbside recycling pay $7 more per unit than urban sector property owners. Universal Elements for All 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 311 Fee Financial Assistance program. FUNDING OPTION 3 • Structure more closely matches differing service eligibility • Fees more closely match true cost allocation of eligible services 10 Key Factors • No expansion of rural curbside recycling is assumed with this option. If the rural roadside service area was expanded at some point in the future, those properties added to the curbside program would be moved from the Rural Solid Waste Program Fee (i.e., outside of current rural roadside service area) to the Rural Solid Waste Program Fee (i.e., located within current roadside service area). • This option is the most challenging to administer, manage, and explain. It is the most complicated fee structure and includes six fee categories. • This option is inflexible. Within the six fee categories, solid waste staff does not have operational 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, there is no appropriate fee category in which to place them. • Staff has identified at least four possible additional service situations that do not fit appropriately into one of the six currently suggested fee categories for Option 3. Due to the flexibility provided by the old (i.e., tiered) fee structure, all these additional service situations would have been charged a 3 -R Basic fee under the old fee structure in addition to a combination of other recycling or convenience center fees as described below. 1. Multi - Family SW Program Fee 2 - $110: This fee would include apartment complexes and mobile home parks in the urban area that are classified as multi - family, but each unit has its own urban roll cart for recycling. Under the old fee system, each unit would be charged an urban recycling fee and a multi - family convenience center fee as their garbage is collected in dumpsters. This fee combination would not exist under the currently proposed Option 3, requiring this type of property to be allocated to either the multifamily or municipal solid waste program fee category. There are approximately 830 parcels charged in this manner under the old fee structure. 2. Multi - Family SW Program Fee 3 - $86: This fee would apply to a mobile home park in the urban area that has recycling service collected as a multifamily property in corrals. Under the old fee structure, each unit would be charged a multi - family recycling fee. However, each unit does have an individual garbage cart and would be charged as a single - family residential unit for convenience center services. This fee combination does not exist under the currently proposed Option 3, requiring this type of property to be allocated to either the multifamily or municipal 11 FUNDING OPTION 3 solid waste program fee category. There are 16 parcels charged in this manner under the old fee structure. 3. Rural Mobile Home Park SW Program Fee - $120: This fee includes many mobile home parks located in the rural roadside service area where each unit has its own receptacle for recycling. At these mobile home parks, each unit has access to a garbage dumpster on the property, making it less likely that these residents will utilize a convenience center for garbage disposal. Under the old fee system, each unit would be charged a rural curbside recycling fee and an urban convenience center fee. Per Option 3 as currently proposed, these property owners would be classified either in the multifamily or rural solid waste program fee category with curbside service. There are approximately 305 parcels charged in this manner under the old fee structure. 4. Non - Residential SW Program Fee 2 — $106 or $100: This fee includes some commercial properties or nonprofits in the urban and rural curbside service areas that utilize their own 95- gallon roll cart or orange bins for curbside collection. Under the old fee system, these properties would be billed the urban curbside fee or the rural recycling fee. Per Option 3 as currently proposed, these properties will be billed either the non - residential fee or the municipal solid waste program fee. There are 46 parcels ($106) in the urban area and 18 parcels ($100) in the rural curbside service area charged in this manner under the old fee structure. These four additional fee categories can be added to Option 3 for a total of 10 fee categories; however, this funding option would become even more complicated to explain, manage, and administer with an increased potential for billing error. Additional service situations may also exist or arise later that may not fit into one of the 10 fee categories. Universal Elements for All 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 311 Fee Financial Assistance program. FUNDING OPTION 4 • 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) 12 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 All 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 311 Fee Financial Assistance program. 13 Memorandum From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director To: Solid Waste Advisory Group Subject: Summary of Report on Solid Waste Fees in Select NC Counties Date: January 29, 2015 The SWAG requested information on financing mechanisms in use elsewhere in North Carolina counties that operate Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCCs) and use availability or other annual fees to fund all or part of their solid waste operations. Staff managed a review of solid waste funding mechanisms used by fifteen counties; among them are those that were selected because they have demographic or geographic characteristics that might be similar to Orange County or other features of the fee structures that enable comparison. The key findings of the review are that none of the counties fund their programs exactly the same and all use a variety of mechanisms that combine various funding sources and incorporate a variety of limitations and application characteristics that make easy comparisons problematic. The general fund is often used to support or supplement aspects of services and facilities, including various overhead functions. Knowledge of the intricacies of the fee applicability and administration also varied considerably with some county contacts having minimal detailed understanding of their fees with several uncertain whether their fees were in fact availability fees as defined by statute. There is no one apparently 'best' way to fund solid waste systems that include convenience centers. Some counties rely primarily or exclusively on solid waste fees and use varying terminology to describe their fees which can make interpretation a bit tricky. In this review we attempted to include only those counties that used some type of availability fee that was charged to a whole class of potential users irrespective of use of program or service and excluded user fees that are based on use or non -use of a program or service. Some counties combine availability fees with general fund and other revenues such as recycling material sales or state funds. Some provide trash and /or recycling collection services while others offer only use of convenience centers for the public monies used. Some operate as enterprise funds and some do not. 14 Several findings from the review are worth highlighting: • All but one county(Jackson) charged a flat fee to those who were eligible for the fee, program and service, • Most counties charged a fee to residential units only and therefore available solid waste programs and services are used only by the residential units, • A few counties charged solid waste program fees to small commercial users though the criteria for including small commercial units were not strict or detailed likely causing unevenness in application, • Some included fees for only rural residential units — those outside municipal boundaries, while others were County -wide fees allowing any residential property to use the specified solid waste program or service. • Annual fees ranged from a low of $15 per residential unit (SWCC availability fee within Mecklenburg County) to a high of $215 per house in Washington County for curbside waste collection, recycling services plus the use of landfill operations. • Terminology for the fees varied from county to county, so there are categories on the spreadsheet where the county billing the fee(s) explicitly called the fee(s) 'availability fee(s)' and others that, based on the fee's descriptions, are grouped in a section of the spreadsheet called "Fees Similar to Availability Fees ". • There was a variety of policies with regard to who is exempted from the annual fee, however most counties seemed to try to minimize exceptions. This fee inquiry provides some perspectives on how other communities charge availability fees or fund solid waste programs without seeming to offer any clear comparison for Orange County. It was observed that other county fees have a distinctive local flavor and none are identical. Also, a lack of thorough understanding of their fees by our various contacts within each county leaves many open questions on specific guidelines or rules or if all or part of the fees cover the solid waste programs or if other funding mechanisms are in place, such as use of the General Fund.. No counties expressed concern with regard to their fees being unlawful or inconsistent with any relevant state laws. 15 1/15/2015 TONNAGE - URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION (for all three towns combined) JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Bins Carts FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 354 517 381 436 363 465 407 461 374 411 455 538 TOTAL 6 MONTH TONNAGE 2,335 2,828 21% Increase in single- stream tonnage from same period last year utilizing bins 24 -HOUR RECYCLING DROP -OFF SITES - FY 14/15 SINGLE STREAM TONNAGE* *Does not include cardboard collection tonnage from these sites. CEDAR FALLS CARRBORO PLAZA (HOME DEPOT) MEADOWMONT UNIVERSITY MALL MONTH July 18 39 43 12 46 August 13 35 47 12 36 September 17 34 39 15 40 October 15 35 43 11 33 November 13 35 33 12 32 December 16 48 49 13 44 TOTAL TNS TO DATE 93 227 254 76 232 *Does not include cardboard collection tonnage from these sites.