HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAG agenda 0306151
Agenda
Solid Waste Advisory Group
March 6, 2015 - 6:00 p.m.
Solid Waste Operations Center
1. Call to Order— Chair
2. Approve Meeting Summary from February 13, 2015 —Chair, Attachment
3. Survey of Solid Waste Convenience Center Users — UNC - Odum Institute for Research in
Social Science, Attachment
4. Discussion of Final Fee Recommendation — Chair, Attachment
5. Update on UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare Meeting with County Staff — Staff, Attachment
6. Presentation for March 26 Joint Meeting -Chair
7. Other
a. Future SWAG Structure
8. Public Comments — Chair
9. Adjourn (8:00) - Chair
Dinner will be provided
19
Memorandum
To: Solid Waste Advisory Group
From: Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director
Subject: Solid Waste Programs Fee Discussion /Recommendation
Date: March 6, 2015
In order for the individual Town and County elected boards to discuss, and potentially be prepared to
reach a consensus at the March 26 joint meeting, staff is presenting the apparent two favored funding
options from among the four options discussed by the SWAG over the past 3 -4 months. Staff has
resubmitted the financial summary and detail sheets for Option #1 and Option #4 for further discussion
in preparation for each Town and the County to discuss individually in preparation for March 26.
The attached financial summary has eliminated Option #2 and #3 and has included an Option 1A based
on the recent convenience center snapshot survey that indicates about 11% of convenience center users
are municipal residents rather than the 33% user projection from an previous survey. Reallocation of
convenience center costs in Option #1 significantly increases the Rural Solid Waste Program Fee
component of this option. Option #4 is not impacted by the jurisdictional origin of convenience center
users as the single fee approach blends the various service level /frequency of use inequities between
the urban and rural sector and represents a more integrated solid waste funding system approach.
Presentation of only Option #1 and Option #4 does not preclude the SWAG from revisiting the other
options.
Staff is available for questions as necessary.
23
Memorandum
To: Solid Waste Advisory Group
From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director
Subject: UNC -CH, UNC - Healthcare and County Staff Meeting — Cooperative Waste Management
Date: March 6, 2015
At the January 29, 2015 meeting, the Solid Waste Advisory Group requested that representatives of
UNC, UNC Hospital, Orange County and the Towns meet to explore opportunities for cooperation in the
area of solid waste management. On February 23, 2015, a meeting was held that included County
Manager Bonnie Hammersley, UNC Vice - Chancellor Matt Fajack, UNC Hospitals Vice - President Mel
Hurston, and Orange County Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson.
Discussion included a review of existing waste and recycling collection and processing practices and a
brainstorming of potential programs and services that might be appropriate for increased cooperation
or at least further investigation. It was decided that University, Hospital and local government staffs
should continue discussions to identify more specifically suitable for programmatic cooperation and
return to the larger group to prepare suggestions /recommendations for presentation to the Solid Waste
Advisory Group at a future meeting.
• Prepare a retrospective identifying historical and ongoing current areas of cooperation between
the solid waste /recycling service provider (Chapel Hill and then Orange County) and
• UNC Chapel Hill
• UNC Hospital
• Towns and County
• Examine what other communities with large universities do with regard to community and
university solid waste /recycling cooperation
• Staffs continue exploring university /hospital /local government cooperative waste management
opportunities for future presentation to the above group
o That would subsequently result in suggestions /recommendations being
presented to the SWAG
Information regarding the first two bullets is presented below:
Historical and current areas of cooperation
Between Orange County and UNC Hospital
Since 2010 Orange County has collected food waste from UNC Hospital as part of its commercial
organics collection program. Last year this amounted to 277 tons. Contamination issues are readily
resolved through a collaboration of Orange County staff, Brooks Contractor and UNC Hospital staff.
24
During the years that UNC Hospital delivered waste to Orange County landfill, the County enforcement
process helped identify loads containing regulated medical wastes or corrugated cardboard and other
County regulated recyclables to identify and correct problems resulting in delivery to the landfill.
Between Orange Countv and the Towns
Due to the long -term integrated nature of solid waste governance and operation beginning with joint
purchase, ownership and governance of the Orange Regional Landfill in 1972 by Carrboro, Chapel Hill
and Orange County through 2000 and the County -wide recycling program begun in 1987, there is a long
list of programs and services available to those living within Town limits as well as outside Town limits.
Unlike County -Town solid waste relations in many jurisdictions, the solid waste and recycling programs
and services here are characterized by a high level of cooperation and integration of services that have
resulted in a high level of program performance and efficient operations characterized by a single
centralized, relatively seamless County -wide recycling effort, an agreed on single fiscal management
entity and financing modality and until 2013, a single disposal location for all municipally generated
waste. The lengthy list below illustrates the deeply connected nature of these services and programs.
Beginning in 1972 and continuing through 2013 MSW as well as yard waste and construction and
demolition (C &D) wastes collected by the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough were, as a
condition of the interlocal agreement, directed to the Orange County Landfill. Now yard waste and
some limited Town - generated C &D are collected while MSW is shipped out to transfer stations then to
private landfills.
Current recycling services provided to the towns (incorporated municipalities) by the County
include:
Weekly residential curbside collection (single stream) — co- mingled collection provided
by contract to the County to all urban single family residences using 95 gallon roll carts;
materials include clean and dry paper, metal cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic
bottles /tubs /cups, drink and milk cartons, cardboard, aerosol cans, aluminum foil /trays.
New roll carts were financed by County with Towns pursuing NC DENR grant funding
individually to support purchases. Grant proceeds returned to County covered about
20% of purchase costs. Now serving over 18,000 units yielding 4,700 tons a year.
Multi family collection (single stream) — co- mingled collection available to all multi-
family facilities throughout the County. Materials included are the same as in curbside
above, except cardboard, which is collected separately and privately by each complex.
Now serving approximately 16,000 units yielding 1,200 tons a year.
Food Waste collection — available to all restaurant, food preparation, supermarket, etc.
(pre and post- consumer) who meet a County established minimum monthly quantity
and can adhere to quality requirements and accessibility. Now serving 35+ locations,
yielding over 1,500 tons a year.
ear /Restaurant and other commercial location collection (single stream, same materials
as multifamily, excluding cardboard) — potential for developing long -term goal to serve
25
all non - residential (commercial) establishments in the County. Now serving 330+
locations, yielding over 1,000 tons a year.
Downtown Cardboard Collection (Chapel Hill only) — fee - based, negotiated directly with
Chapel Hill and available to other Towns upon request.
Downtown Pedestrian Bins — fee - based, negotiated rate for Chapel Hill and Carrboro and
may be available to more locations in those towns and Hillsborough
Park & Ride Lot Collection (currently 3 locations in Chapel Hill and 2 in Carrboro)
Municipal Parks Collection — services provided at all parks in Chapel Hill and
Hillsborough, consolidated in Carrboro to one service location,
Government building collection — every- other -week indoor recycling service at all local
government buildings, OWASA, some State and Federal facilities and some off - campus
UNC owned sites.
Public Housing - (multi - family style service or single family, as appropriate to housing
type) — the 330+ units of public housing have been serviced in the same manner as
other residences, whether multi - family or single family type service; County provides
periodic communication as needed with Department of Public Housing regarding
recycling programs.
Public Schools collection -- fee based, contracted service negotiated directly with both
school systems.
Recycling (unstaffed) Drop -off Centers — five recycling drop -off centers within the Towns
are serviced and maintained by County on an as needed basis; materials include clean -
dry paper, metal cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles /tubs /cups, drink and milk
cartons, cardboard, aerosol cans, aluminum foil /trays.
Hazardous Household Waste and Electronics Collection: available to all County residents
and small businesses at Orange County landfill (second site for residents only at Walnut
Grove Church Rd SWCC).
Customer Service, Education and Outreach
Advertising and publication education: County prepares, distributes, pays for and
coordinates all education and outreach materials related to waste management,
recycling and waste reduction services /programs under its administration using a multi-
media approach
Public events, fairs, festivals: County routinely provides recycling and waste reduction
services and educational presence at most major public events in all jurisdictions.
26
Compost outreach: County provides training, workshops, two demonstration sites and
backyard compost bin sales for all County residents. Outreach to commercial food waste
generators to capture more food waste in County's commercial program.
Solid Waste Management Planning, Data Management and Reporting
Annual NC DENR Solid Waste Report: County, in cooperation with the Towns submits
required annual reporting and solid waste management planning to NC DENR.
Towns and County cooperate with requests for information /data
Financial
Establish, levy collet and administer recycling fees: for providing Urban Curbside and
Multi- family recycling services within the jurisdictions of the Towns. Fees established
based on costs of those services along with other universal services like drop off sites
and public education, within the Towns' jurisdictions.
Cooperate with The Town of Chapel Hill to set, levy and collect fees: for the costs of
services for those areas of the Town of Chapel Hill in Durham County.
Between UNC and the Countv (and prior to 2000. the Town of Chanel Hill as manaeer of the
Landfill Owners Grou
History
Since UNC opened its landfill at Carolina North in the 1950s, there has been some basic
cooperation in that the Town of Chapel Hill brought some of its municipal waste to that
landfill for burial. When that landfill closed in 1972 until 2008, UNC then brought the
majority of its disposable municipal solid wastes (MSW) to the Orange County landfill
located on Eubanks Road. UNC Hospital also delivered MSW but not medical or
infectious waste, to that landfill as well. In 2008, at the request of Orange County, UNC
began directing its MSW to the transfer station owned by its waste hauling contractor,
Waste Industries, in order to conserve local landfill air space.
A variety of other, mostly smaller scale cooperative efforts in solid waste management
have also been in place over the time period since both UNC and Orange County
initiated major recycling programs in the late 1980s. Some of those efforts are
identified below and many are ongoing.
Food Waste: From inception of the County's commercial food waste collection program
in 1999 through 2008, Orange County Solid Waste Management Department
(OCSWMD) absorbed the cost of collecting up to 500 tons annually of compostable
waste from campus cafeterias and laboratories. UNC took this over in 2009 but has been
able to use the same contractor and receive the same favorable rate negotiated by
Orange County. Last year UNC collected 650 tons and businesses in County another
1500.
4
27
Solid Waste Plan Regulations: UNC has adopted the tenets of the County's regulated
recyclable materials ordinance (RRMO) requiring that construction and demolition
contractors submit and adhere to an approved solid waste plan requiring recycling of at
least cardboard, metal and clean wood wastes along with providing recycling storage
areas.
Waste Composition Studies: All 5 Orange County waste composition studies from 1990
through 2010 included identifiable portions of the waste stream coming from UNC.
Results were shared with UNC.
Materials Processing: UNC brings some of its recyclables including bottles, cans, pallets
and some other materials to Orange County's recycling processing areas at the landfill.
Education and Outreach: Staff of Orange County Solid Waste Management and UNC "s
Office of Waste Reduction and Recycling (OWRR) have frequent informal
communication and comparison of program details and successes. Orange County often
includes UNC recycling news in its various news articles and publications including the
annual Waste Matters.
Regional Education: Both entities have a strong presence on the "Solid Waste
Environmental Educators of the Triangle" (SWEET) committee.
Move -out materials recovery: Consistent collaboration on move -out collection programs
by sharing implementation and operational information. Efforts are in distinctly
separate areas of the community (on- campus dorms for UNC staff; off - campus housing
and rentals for County staff) the sharing of donation station and local partner
information has improved both programs over the years.
Ad cost sharing: Shared cost of ad space in the Daily Tar Heel and TV monitors in the
Student Union for advertising move out waste diversion for UNC students and staff, on-
campus and off.
Public Events: Orange County participates in on- campus education events with the
OWRR such as Earth Day, America Recycles Day, and 'Tailgating on Franklin
Street'. OWRR staff provides volunteer assistance at Orange County special events.
Academic programs: Orange County Solid Waste Management has provided the School
for the Environment Capstone classes numerous project ideas, data, and consultation
services for waste management and reduction related projects. Last year, a Capstone
class analyzed current and potential food waste diversion in the commercial sector of
Orange County.
Tours and demonstration sites: Orange County Solid Waste facilities (landfill, recycling
processing, hazardous waste collection, electronics processing, methane collection
system, and more), and staff provide resource, tours and historical collection and
financing data for a variety of UNC classes ranging from engineering, planning and
business to social justice, environmental studies, and public health to further students'
understanding and provide an outdoor classroom for hands on learning.
Compost training: OCSWMD staff teaches composting and worm bin workshops to
OWRR staff and many student groups, including an annual workshop at the Carolina
Campus Community Garden.
Green events assistance: OCSWMD staff provided instruction and consultation to assist
OWRR staff in the development of Green Events program, and expansion of composting
collection on campus.
Fraternity and Sorority Recycling collections and outreach: OCSWMD collects recycling
from all 28 fraternity and sorority houses and has taken an active role with the office of
Fraternity & Sorority Life and Community Involvement programs to improve recycling
collections and awareness at Greek houses.
and Solid Waste Collaborations between other Universities and their Communities
Some phone and internet investigation was conducted by County and UNC staff into Town -Gown (and
large hospital /health care complex) cooperation in the area of solid waste and recycling in other locales
with large university presence, especially relative to size of the jurisdictions. Results of a set of informal
queries of the following locations are shown below.
Universitv of Wisconsin Madison:
Minimal interaction between City, University and Hospital. Each has its own operations,
contracts and disposal or recycling options. City and University cooperate primarily in recovering
reusable goods at end of year move out. University staffs public sites near apartment complexes
to manage recoverable tonnage delivered by students.
University of Colorado Boulder
The University of Colorado (CU), City of Boulder, and surrounding Boulder County collaborate in
numerous resource conservation and diversion activities. Some are contractually- based. Others
are voluntarily organized through commissions and advisory boards that both local government
agencies and campus departments attend.
The City recognizes CU's tonnages and as one of the County's largest employers. Both the
campus and local government recognize the benefit in collaborating to complement each
other's operations and to educate the public in common messages.
Over 30K students attend CU- Boulder; CU- Boulder employs over 7,500 people
Campus wide recycling rate of 44% - higher than city or county. 2,458 tons diverted last year.
Examples of Collaboration:
1) CU Recycling's on- campus drop off recycling facility is open to the community
M
29
2) CU Recycling maintains a "supplier" relationship with the County- delivering material to the
County owned MRF.
3) Reuseables drives: Reusable clothing, books, and appliances are recovered at the end of
every Spring Semester and donated to community groups for resale.
4) Green Teams: The City's Environmental Affairs office contracts with the Environmental
Center to deliver the Green Teams program which provides energy conservation and
recycling assistance to CU students living off - campus.
5) Advocacy: CU students are active in a number of City efforts including raising awareness
and support for the City's new Zero Waste Plan.
6) Ralphies Green Stampede: Composting outreach/ community engagement. "Sustainable
Gamedays" is co- sponsored by Boulder County to raise awareness of the need, benefits, and
household practices available to compost food scraps around the County. During games
education campaigns are conducted which will lead to the final two home games where
over 2,000 kitchen composting kits will be distributed. Boulder County funds a portion of
the compost kits. BASF provides corporate sponsorship. Athletic events are effective in
connecting with important community campaigns like compositing. Athletic events have
demonstrated their ability to raise the public's awareness and commitment to sustainability
initiatives like zero waste. Common messaging is developed which co- promotes composting
on campus as well as off campus.
7) Computers to Youth: The County, school district, and a local foundation sponsor CU's
Computers to Youth (C2Y) program which "upcycles" surplus computers through mentored
computer -build events for high school students in under - served areas of the state.
8) Applied academics including research and internships: An applied research center /Zero
Waste Lab complements the University's environmental academic programs and offers
credit - earning opportunities for students. Students conduct waste /recycling composition
assessments, research how to target and capture unrecovered recyclables. Off - campus
organizations have begun contracting with CU to perform these types of practical academic
research.
San Jose State University:
Campus doing business as Center for Recycling Development has operated the Santa Clara
County recycling hotline and website for over 20 years and they state their method can be
replicated entirely. Website RecycleStuff.org
Direct their mixed waste stream to the City's Dirty MRF for separation for compost and recycling
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green Ohio. BGU brings its recyclables to the City operated MRF.
7
30
University of Georgia, Athens GA
1) Most UGA recycling tonnage goes to the Athens Clarke County (ACC) Recycling Facility for
processing.
2) ACC Recycling Division conducts over a hundred tours a year of the ACC Recycling Facility,
compost facility and landfill. Many are for UGA students and /or staff.
3) UGA and ACC partner on community waste reduction events - GreenFest awards programs,
electronic events, etc.
4) ACC Recycling Division tries to table and /or perform every outreach request from UGA staff
and /or facility.
5) ACC Recycling Division has an internship program and all interns over the past 10 years have
been UGA students.
6) ACC Recycling Division partners with various UGA Departments on specific events and /or
programs. Annually College of Business students head up America Recycles Day events for
ACC
7) ACC has partnered with UGA College of Environment and Design on a CHaRM (center for
hard to recycle materials) charrette and ongoing with the UGA Material Reuse Program
including an outdoor classroom and compost toilet build at our landfill site.
8) UGA contributes material to the ACC Recycling Teacher Reuse Store
9) ACC and UGA Office of Sustainability started meeting quarterly to discuss strengthening our
partnership and to establish better communication between the two entities.
Others contacted during interview phase but no response given: University of Oregon Eugene,
University of Michigan Ann Arbor and University of California Berkeley. This list is obviously far from
exhaustive and other information may be provided as time and utility permit.
Conclusion
Healthcare, university and local government staff will continue discussions of potential areas of
cooperation and return to the SWAG in the next few meetings to discuss and potentially make
recommendations on areas for cooperative waste management opportunities. Staff may recommend
using a three - tiered approach to identifying, developing and implementing short -term, medium -term
and long -term areas for cooperation among the County, Town, UNC and UNC Hospitals.
W
DRAFT SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE FUNDING OPTIONS - YEAR 1
20
2/23/2015
FUNDING OPTION
OTHER
TOTAL REVENUE
REVENUE
NUMBER OF
FUNDING
FUNDING
PER UNIT
PER UNIT
APPRX.
ANNUAL INCREASE /DECREASE OF FEE FROM CURRENT FEE
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
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
DETAIL
DETAIL
NAME
DESCRIPTION
ANNUAL FEE
T
1 Comprehensive Solid
Includes
BASIC 3 -R- $1,707,690
Non - Residential (urban) - $47 more
Non - Residential (urban) - $4 more
Waste Program fee for all
approx. 35%
URBAN RECYCLING - $1,076,350
All improved units
Urban Single - Family $32 less
Urban Single - Family $3 less
Urban units, and 1
cost of SWCC
$3,498,247
MULTI - FAMILY RECYCLING - $313,443
3 �',i09
Municipal SW
located within town
$94
$8
Multi - Family (urban) - $24 more
Multi - Family (urban) - $2 more
Comprehensive Solid
and first year
SWCC - $400,764
Program Fee
g
limits.
Waste Program fee for all
cost of rural
SW FUNDING OPTION 1
Rural units.
curbside
$6,208,944
BASIC 3 -R- $1,049,657
Non- Residential (rural) - $71 more
Non- Residential (rural) - $6 more
expansion.
Urban portion
RURAL RECYCLING - $750,108
Rural Single - Family (in curbside service area) - $22 less
Rural Single - Family (in curbside service area) - $2 less
SWCC is
$2,710,697
MULTI - FAMILY RECYCLING - $3,166
22,994
Rural SW Program
All improved units
$118
$10
Rural Single - Family (outside of curbside service area) - $31 more
Rural Single - Family (outside of curbside service area) - $3 more
of
SWCC - $801,528
Fee
outside town limits.
Multi - Family (rural) - $48 more
Multi - Family (rural) - $4 more
33%.
Y1 CURBSIDE EXPANSION - $106,238
1 Comprehensive Solid
Includes
BASIC 3 -R- $1,707,690
Non - Residential (urban) - $39 more
Non - Residential (urban) - $4 more
Waste Program fee for all
approx. 35%
URBAN RECYCLING - $1,076,350
All improved units
Urban Single- Family $40 less
Urban Single - Family $3 less
Urban units, and 1
cost of SWCC
$3,229,735
MULTI - FAMILY RECYCLING - $313,443
37,409
Municipal SW
P
located within town
$86
$7
Multi-Family
Y ( urban ) - $16 more
Multi - Family (urban) - $2 more
Comprehensive Solid
and first year
SWCC- $132,252
Program Fee
limits.
Waste Program fee for all
cost of rural
SW FUNDING OPTION
Rural units.
curbside
$6,208,944
BASIC 3 -R- $1,049,657
Non - Residential (rural) - $83 more
Non - Residential (rural) - $7 more
1A
expansion.
Urban portion
RURAL RECYCLING - $750,108
Rural Single - Family (in curbside service area) - $10less
Rural Single - Family (in curbside service area) -$1 less
of SWCC is
$2,979,209
MULTI - FAMILY RECYCLING - $3,166
22,994
Rural SW Program
All improved units
$130
$11
Rural Single - Family (outside of curbside service area) - $43 more
Rural Single - Family (outside of curbside service area) - $4 more
SWCC - $1,070,040
Fee
outside town limits.
Multi - Family (rural) - $60 more
Multi - Family (rural) - $5 more
Y1 CURBSIDE EXPANSION - $106,238
One County -Wide Solid
Includes
BASIC 3 -R- $2,757,347
Non - Residential (urban) - $56 more
Non - Residential (urban) - $5 more
Waste Program Fee for all
approx. 35%
URBAN RECYCLING - $1,076,350
Urban Single - Family - $23 less
Urban Single - Family - $2 less
improved units located in
cost of SWCC
RURAL RECYCLING - $750,108
All improved units are
Multi - Family (urban) - $33 more
Multi - Family (urban) - $3 more
the county, no matter
and first year
MULTI - FAMILY- $316,609
charged one single
Non - Residential (in rural curbside service area) - $56 more
Non - Residential (in rural curbside service area) - $5 more
$W FUNDING OPTION 4
location inside or outside
cost of rural
$6,208,944
$6,208,944
SWCC - $1,202,292 yl
—
60,403
County -Wide SW
comprehensive fee, no
$103
$9
Non - Residential (outside of rural curbside service area) - $56 more
Non - Residential (outside of rural curbside service area) - $5 more
of town limits or type of
curbside
CURBSIDE EXPANSION - $106,238
Program Fee
matter type, or
Rural Single - Family (in curbside service area) - $37 less
Rural Single - Family (in curbside service area) - $3 less
location inside or
Rural Single - Family (outside of curbside service area) - $16 more
Rural Single - Family (outside of curbside service area) - $1 more
unit.
expansion
outside of town limits.
Multi - Family (rural) - $33 more
Multi - Family (rural) - $3 more
costs.
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.
21
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.
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)
22
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.
1111 UNC
�_� THE ODUM INSTITUTE
The Odum Institute for Research in Social Science
Davis Librarv. 2 "d Floor. CB #3355
5
SURVEY OF ORANGE COUNTY SOLID
WASTE CONVENIENCE CENTER USERS
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
Orange County Solid Waste Management ( OCSWM) contracted with the H.W. Odum Institute
for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill (Odum) to assist
with the design and analysis of a survey of users of the County's five Solid Waste Convenience
Centers (SWCCs). The primary purpose was to collect data with which to apportion the usage
of the SWCCs into two parts: usage by residents who live in the incorporated areas of the
county, and usage by residents who live outside the incorporated areas. Other information
regarding recycling behavior and preferences was also collected. Odum statisticians worked
with OCSWM staff to devise a sampling and data collection plan to provide a "snapshot" view of
SWCC usage over a one week period for each site. OCSWM staff entered data from the
collected surveys into an application provided by the Odum Institute, and Odum statisticians
analyzed the data and wrote the report.
Across all days and sites, 89% of SWCC uses during the data collection period were made by
customers who live outside town limits and 11% by customers residing within town limits.
Eubanks Road SWCC received 30% of its uses by in -town residents. The other four SWCCs were
used almost exclusively by residents outside town limits, with 4% or less attributable to in -town
customers.
Forty -eight percent of surveyed customers reported having access to curbside recycling
services. Of these, 51% were nonetheless recycling at the SWCC the day they were surveyed,
most often because they were coming to the SWCC anyway to drop off trash or other items. Of
the customers who reported not having access to curbside recycling, 62% indicated that if they
did have it, they would use it. For both groups, reasons for not using (or wanting) curbside
recycling primarily had to do with the SWCC being more convenient, often because they have
to drop off trash anyway or because they have a long driveway or other reason that
maneuvering recyclables to the curb is difficult.
Thirty -two percent of surveyed customers report using a SWCC more than once a week, and
39% do so about once a week, meaning that (taking into account rounding) nearly 72% of SWCC
customers visit at least weekly.
P
N RODUCT(ON
Orange County Solid Waste Management ( OCSWM) contracted with the H.W. Odum Institute
for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill (Odum) to assist
with the design and analysis of a survey of users of the County's five Solid Waste Convenience
Centers (SWCCs). The primary purpose of the survey was to collect data with which to
apportion the usage of the SWCCs into two parts: usage by residents who live in the
incorporated areas of the county, and usage by residents who live outside the incorporated
areas.. Information about recycling behavior and preferences was also collected. Odum
statisticians worked with OCSWM staff to devise a sampling and data collection plan to provide
a "snapshot" view of SWCC usage for a finite time period. OCSWM staff chose a time period
that was free of holidays or other events that might cause aberrations in SWCC usage, and
implemented the data collection plan. OCSWM staff entered data from the collected surveys
into an application provided by the Odum Institute, and Odum statisticians analyzed the data
and wrote this report.
The following sections describe the survey instrument, sample design, and data collection
procedures for the survey.
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
OCSWM staff drafted the questions to be asked in the survey. Odum reviewed the draft for
adherence to best practices in survey methodology (clarity, unbiased wording, completeness of
response categories, etc.) and provided assistance with forms design. A copy of the
questionnaire is included as Appendix A.
IN /OUT OF TOWN LIMITS
The first and most important survey question asked the customer "Do you live within the town
limits of one of the towns ?" Though seemingly a straightforward question, a significant number
of Orange county residents do not know whether they live inside town limits. Therefore the
survey form itself and the training of the data collectors focused on additional questions and
techniques to confirm /clarify the customer's response.
The first clarification question asked whether the customer has curbside recycling available to
them. Unless they live in an apartment, the answer should be "yes" for all customers who live
in the incorporated areas; if it was not, the data collector was trained to delve further by asking
the customer's street name and consulting a list of street names in the incorporated areas in
I
order to make a final determination of whether that customer should be recorded as living
inside or outside the incorporated areas.
A second clarification question was asked of customers who reported having access to curbside
recycling. The survey asked the nature of their recycling container — whether they had an
orange bin or a blue rolling cart, and if a rolling cart, the color of its lid. Since the orange bins
are used only by the rural recycling program, this was an indicator that the customer likely did
*not* live inside town limits, and if this contradicted their earlier response, data collectors were
trained to use the street name method. Similarly, blue rolling carts used in the incorporated
areas have blue lids, while the newly distributed rolling carts in the rural areas have black lids,
and this distinction provided an additional check and opportunity for verification /clarification of
the customer's initial response.
Through these clarification questions and careful training of data collectors, OCSWM staff made
every effort to ensure that the final answer recorded on each survey form properly
characterized the customer's residence as being inside or outside the incorporated areas of the
county.
ADDITIONAL SURVEY TOPICS
The survey contained questions on three additional topics relevant to SWCC usage. Customers
who reported that they do not currently have access to curbside recycling services were asked
whether, if they had such service, they thought they would use it, and if not, why not.
Customers who reported having access to curbside recycling were asked whether they had
brought recycling to the SWCC that day, and if so, why. Finally, all customers were asked how
often they typically use any of the SWCCs.
SAMPLE DESIGN
The unit of analysis for this survey is the instance of use of a SWCC. The survey was designed to
estimate the proportion of usage (not users) of the SWCCs attributed to persons living inside
town limits and outside them. This proportion is inherently variable on any given day,
depending on which users happen to come to the SWCC that day. The survey was designed to
take a "snapshot" of the usage of each SWCC over a one week period. A one week period was
chosen for two primary reasons: usage rates vary by day of week (making one week the
shortest meaningful period), and the need to avoid undue burden on the public. Since the unit
of analysis was the instance of use, every time a customer entered the SWCC, that instance of
use was eligible for the survey. There could be no "skipping over" customers who already
responded to the survey, as this would bias the estimates of usage. OCSWM staff suspected
(and it is confirmed by the survey data), that most SWCC users come to the site once a week or
S
more. A data collection period longer than one week would result in a large number of
customers being asked to do the survey a second, third, or even fourth time. Cooperation rates
would be expected to be poor in such situations, which would lead to missing data that could
potentially bias the survey results. Further, given that most customers use the SWCC at least
once a week, no new information would likely have been gleaned by a longer data collection
period: in expectation, since most users come to the SWCC once a week or more, one week is
the same as any other week, provided no holidays or severe weather situations cause unusual
aberrations.
Having identified one week as the appropriate period of data collection, we turned our
attention to how customers would be selected for the survey. In order to make proper usage
estimates, we would either need to survey every single customer (infeasible given the large
numbers of customers entering the site in a very short period of time at some SWCCs), or we
needed a scientifically rigorous way to select customers —a random probability sample. Ina
random probability sample, every element of the target population (instance of use of an
SWCC, in this case) must have a known probability of being selected into the sample. For the
SWCC survey, the way to implement this would be to "count cars' as customers entered the
site, and to systematically survey every "nth" customer. The "n" needed to be a number that
generated sufficient surveys for a reliable survey estimate, but also one that the data collection
staff could feasibly implement. We estimated that it would take 2 -3 minutes for the data
collector to follow a selected customer to their stopping point, wait for them to get out of the
vehicle, and then administer the survey. At some sites at some hours, several vehicles may
enter the SWCC during that 2 -3 minutes when one data collector was unavailable. Through
discussion with OCSWM staff, it was determined that data collection staff could reliably survey
every 5th customer at most SWCCs on most days. The exceptions were Eubanks Road and
Walnut Grove Church Road sites on the weekend days when these sites receive heavy usage.
For those sites on those days, a sampling rate of every 15th customer was planned. These
sampling ratios were expected to yield sufficient surveys for reliable estimation of the
parameters of interest.
DATA COLLECTION
OCSWM staff hired, trained and supervised the data collectors. Surveys were conducted at the
Eubanks Road and Walnut Grove Church Road SWCCs for the one -week period spanning
Thursday, January 22 to Tuesday, January 27, 2015. (All SWCCs are closed on Wednesdays).
Surveys were conducted at Ferguson Road, Bradshaw Quarry Road, and High Rock Road SWCCs
on Friday, January 30 through Sunday, February 1 and on Tuesday, February 3 —a period
encompassing all operating days in a one week period for these centers, since they are closed
on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
U1
Paper surveys were used. When the data collector was unable to obtain a completed survey
from the sampled customer, he /she attempted to survey the next customer instead. Situations
requiring this type of substitution included customers who did not speak English, refused to
participate in the survey, or did not live in Orange County. Substitution was discouraged and
data collectors were trained to be persistent and try to get at least the key piece of information
from the sampled customer. A survey was deemed "complete enough" if the data collector
was able to ascertain whether or not the customer lives inside town limits; substitutes were not
sought in situations where this information was determined, even if the respondent was unable
or unwilling to answer the remainder of the survey questions. The number of substitutions at
all sites was low, ranging from 0 to a maximum of 3 per site per day.
In total, 1,335 surveys were completed during the 2 week data collection period.. The number
of surveys completed at each site by day of week is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Number of Surveys Completed by Site and Day
OCSWM staff reviewed the survey forms and keyed the data into an online data entry program
provided by the Odum Institute. Only six forms had to be omitted due to data collector error
making it unclear whether the customer lived inside or outside town limits; all other forms
were of good quality.
WEIGHTING
Data collectors recorded the total number of customers who entered each site each day of data
collection. These totals allowed us to generate precise weights for each survey date and site.
The weight was generated simply by dividing the total number of uses for the day /site by the
number of surveys completed for that day /site. Due to good fidelity to prescribed data
collection procedures, the weights varied little from the expected values based on the sampling
design —that is, a weight of "5" for surveys at most days /sites and "15" for Eubanks Rd and
Walnut Grove Church Rd on Saturday and Sunday. One exception was that the Bradshaw
5
Monday
Tuesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Total
Bradshaw Qu.
31
27
37
31
126
Eubanks
70
86
88
73
35
24
376
Ferguson
55
44
65
61
225
High Rock
59
49
75
20
203
Walnut Grove
76
92
86
83
38
30
405
Total
146
323
174
276
250
166
1,335
OCSWM staff reviewed the survey forms and keyed the data into an online data entry program
provided by the Odum Institute. Only six forms had to be omitted due to data collector error
making it unclear whether the customer lived inside or outside town limits; all other forms
were of good quality.
WEIGHTING
Data collectors recorded the total number of customers who entered each site each day of data
collection. These totals allowed us to generate precise weights for each survey date and site.
The weight was generated simply by dividing the total number of uses for the day /site by the
number of surveys completed for that day /site. Due to good fidelity to prescribed data
collection procedures, the weights varied little from the expected values based on the sampling
design —that is, a weight of "5" for surveys at most days /sites and "15" for Eubanks Rd and
Walnut Grove Church Rd on Saturday and Sunday. One exception was that the Bradshaw
5
/O
Quarry Rd SWCC was intended to be sampled at a 1 in 5 rate on Sunday, but data collectors
mistakenly implemented a 1 in 15 procedure. Thus, fewer surveys were collected for Bradshaw
Quarry Rd on that date than were expected and we were required to use the higher weight for
that date /site.
Weight calculation and data analysis were conducted in SAS Version 9.3.
All results are weighted as described above. Appendix B provides 95% confidence intervals for
each estimate. Here we present point estimates.
IN /OUT OF TOWN LIMITS
Across all days and sites, 89% of SWCC uses during the data collection period were made by
customers who live outside town limits and 11% by customers residing within town limits.
Usage by individual SWCC is shown in Figure 1. Four of the sites were used almost exclusively
by residents outside town limits. Only the Eubanks Road site received more than 5% of its uses
by customers residing inside town limits.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 1. Perecentage of Uses by Out of Town /In Town
Residents by SWCC
1.6 2.7 1 0.4 a a
30! 1
Bradshaw Eubanks Ferguson
High
Rock
Walnut Grove Total
■ Outside Town Limits
■ In
Town
Limits
Most of the customers who reported living inside town limits reside in Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill
accounted for 54% of in town customers, while Carrboro accounted for 26% and Hillsborough
for 20 %. No customers reported being from the incorporated area of Mebane lying within
Orange County.
[:
CURBSIDE RECYCLING
Forty -eight percent of customers during the data collection reported having access to curbside
recycling services. Of these, 51% were nonetheless recycling at the SWCC the day they were
surveyed. When asked why, 66% said it was because they were coming to the SWCC anyway to
drop off trash or other items, 10% said it was because their recycling containers were full
before their curbside collection day, 1% said they missed their regular curbside collection day,
and 22% said they had "other" reasons. Almost all the "other" reasons reflected a stated or
implicit belief that the SWCC is more convenient, either because the customer has a long
driveway, finds it difficult to maneuver a rolling cart to their curb, or for some other unspecified
reason finds the SWCC more convenient.
Customers who reported not having access to curbside recycling were asked whether, if they
had it, they thought they would use it. Sixty -two percent said yes. The reasons given by those
who said they would not use it focused primarily on convenience —that they were coming to
the SWCC anyway to deposit trash, that they have a long driveway, that the SWCC is just "more
convenient' or they prefer to do it the way they always have.
FREQUENCY OF SWCC USE
Most surveyed customers (72 %) reported using a SWCC at least once a week. Figure 2 displays
responses for this item
Figure 2. Frequency of SWCC Use
45
39.2
40
35 32A
30
25
20
15.9
15 12.5
10
5
0
Percentage of customers reporting...
■ More than once a week ■ About once a week
rr About once every two weeks ■ Less than every two weeks
7
A21
CONCLUSION
The Orange County SWCC survey used rigorous statistical methods and accepted weighting and
analysis procedures to derive estimates of SWCC usage by customers residing inside and
outside town limits. In addition, it provided useful information about recycling habits and
preferences of Orange County residents. While these results accurately portray the nature of
SWCC usage during the January 22 — February 3, 2015 data collection period, readers are
cautioned that the survey provides a snapshot into this single period of time and should not be
treated as a forecast for the future. Many factors both within the SWCCs themselves and in the
environment they operate in could change usage patterns over time, such as influx and
geolocation of new residents and developments, changes to curbside recycling programs,
changes to operating hours or services available at the SWCCs, seasonal variations, or physical
improvements /modernization of the SWCC(s), to name just a few. Nonetheless, the "snapshot
in time" provided by this survey provides useful information to the County and the public as
they consider how future solid waste management plans may both impact and be impacted by
the SWCCs.
The Orange County SWCC survey used rigorous statistical methods and accepted weighting and
analysis procedures to derive estimates of SWCC usage by customers residing inside and
outside town limits. In addition, it provided useful information about recycling habits and
preferences of Orange County residents. While these results accurately portray the nature of
SWCC usage during the January 22 — February 3, 2015 data collection period, readers are
cautioned that the survey provides a snapshot into this single period of time and should not be
treated as a forecast for the future. Many factors both within the SWCCs themselves and in the
environment they operate in could change usage patterns over time, such as influx and
geolocation of new residents and developments, changes to curbside recycling programs,
changes to operating hours or services available at the SWCCs, seasonal variations, or physical
improvements /modernization of the SWCC(s), to name just a few. Nonetheless, the "snapshot
in time" provided by this survey provides useful information to the County and the public as
they consider how future solid waste management plans may both impact and be impacted by
the SWCCs.
/3
Appendix A. Questionnaire
SOLID WASTE CONVENIENCE CENTER SURVEY Iy
Center Location: Day of Week: Date: Click # Initials:
1. Do you live within the town limits of one of the towns?
Yes -) Which one? Carrboro Chapel Hill Hillsborough Mebane
No, outside town limits
Uncertain /Can't Determine 4 What street do you live on?
2. Do you have access to curbside recycling services?
_YES
3. Do you have an orange bin or a blue rolling cart?
Orange bin (may have other color bins -just check orange)
Q1 should be "outside limits." If not, record street name.
Blue cart4Does it have a blue lid or black lid?
Blue lid (weekly collection)
Q1 should be "inside limits." If not
record street name.
Black lid (every other week and NEW!)
Q1 should be "outside limits." If not,
record street name.
Neither or don't know type of container
4. Are you recycling here today?
_Yes --) Since you have access to curbside recycling, why
did you bring recycling here?
Coming here anyway to drop off trash or
other items
Recycling containers were full before my
curbside collection day
Missed my regular curbside day
Other:
Not recycling today
r■
u
NO because "outside town limits" in Q1
Continue with Q5 below. i
NO because in apartment. Skip to Q6 at
5. If you had access to curbside recycling,
do you think you would use it
Yes -Skip to Q6 at
No-) Why not?
6. How often do you typically use any of the convenience centers? Is it...
More than once a week,
About once a week,
_ About every two weeks, or
Less than every two weeks?
Surveyor Notes:
CONTINUE WITH Q6
/S
Appendix B. Weighted point estimates with 95% confidence intervals
Confidence intervals are indicators of the precision of the survey estimates, taking into account
sampling and weighting. The confidence interval can be interpreted as "If we drew 100
independent samples of the target population, in expectation 95 times the result we would get
would be within this interval."
/6
Variable
Response
Percent
95% Confidence Interval
Do you live within the town limits of one of the
towns? (If Uncertain/Can't Determine is
marked,... (n =1335)
Yes
11.09 (9.36- 12.82)
No, outside town limits
88.91 (87.18- 90.64)
Do you live within the town limits of... (n =128)
Carrboro
25.70 (17.20 - 34.21)
Chapel Hill
54.31 (45.59- 63.03)
Hillsborough
19.99 (15.94- 24.03)
Do you have access to curbside recycling
services? (n =1305)
Yes
47.61 (45.17- 50.05)
No because outside town limits
51.20 (48.77 - 53.63)
No because in apartment
1.19 (0.49 -1.90)
Are you recycling here today? (n =600)
Yes
50.96 (47.00 - 54.91)
Not recycling today
49,04 (45.09 - 53.00)
Since you have access to curbside recycling,
why did you bring recycling here? (n =277)
Coming here anyway to drop off trash or other items
66.42 (60.36 - 72.49)
Recycling containers were full before my curbside
collection day
9.89 (6.29 - 13.50)
Missed my regular curbside day
1.47 (0.31 -2.63)
Other, specify:
22.21 (16.53- 27.90)
If you had access to curbside recycling, do you
think you would use it? (n =659)
Yes
62.02 (58.22- 65.82)
No
37.98 (34.18- 41.78)
How often do you typically use any of the
convenience centers? Is it... (n =1317)
More than once a week
32.38 (29.85- 34.91)
About once a week
39.21 (36.4441.99)
About once every two weeks
15.88 (13.74 - 18.02)
Less than every two weeks
12.52 (10.67 - 14.38)
17
Center location
Response
Percent
95% Confidence Interval)
Bradshaw Quarry
Yes
1.60 (0.00 -3.61)
Bradshaw Quarry
No, outside town limits
98.40 (96.39- 100.0)
Eubanks
Yes
30.14 (25.00- 35.28)
Eubanks
No, outside town limits
69.86 (64.72- 75.00)
Ferguson Rd
Yes
2.71 (0.78 -4.64)
Ferguson Rd
No, outside town limits
97.29 (95.36- 99.22)
High Rock Rd
Yes
0.41 (0.00 -1.12)
High Rock Rd
No, outside town limits
99.59 (98.88- 100.0)
Walnut Grove Ch Rd
Yes
4.44 (2.27 -6.60)
Walnut Grove Ch Rd
No, outside town limits
95.56 (93.40- 97.73)
The Odum Institute for Research in Social Science was founded in 1924 by
Howard Washington Odum, making it the oldest university -based
interdisciplinary social science research institute in the United States. We
provide education, training, data collection, and archive services to
researchers both within and beyond UNC— Chapel Hill. Our mission is to
facilitate scientifically rigorous social science research that contributes to
better lives for the citizens of North Carolina and the world.
This report was prepared by Teresa Edwards, Odum
Institute Assistant Director for Survey Research
Teresa_Edwards @unc.edu
February 25, 2015
7