Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 010804 Minutes - Regular Meeting { � Solid Waste Advisory Board r January 8 , 2004 Approved February 12, 2004 Attendance : Bonnie Norwood, Randy Kabrick , Remus Smith, Al Vickers , Jan Sassaman, Bill Rehm and B J Tipton Staff : Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock , Wanda McCain, Rebecca Holdway and Tom Draney Wilson introduces the new Recycling Programs Manager, Tom Drane . y 1 . Adoption of Minutes from December 11 , 2003 Smith asks about the tone of Rod Visser ' s request regarding not sending the letter to the Commissioners . Vickers states that he only asked if we could not send it but the letter had already gone out . Wilson states that there hasn' t been any feedback regarding the letter . My understanding of Rods reasoning was that he thought that the meeting went well and they [BOCC] essentially endorsed everything except the prepaid tipping fee . Norwood moves to accept the minutes . Smith 211d Passes unanimously . 2 . BOCC Annual Retreat - Advisory Board Input Sassaman states that not much has changed from last years ' information except for concerns or issues for the upcoming fiscal year . This is due by January 19, 2004 . I thought this might be an opportunity for us to brainstorm . Rehm states that one issue is the impending insolvency of the waste management division . Sassaman states that we could add to Rehm' s idea a source of funding and targets for cuts . g Rehm states that there ' s a concern about the hearing we get from the BOCC . Sassaman states that it could be phrased as need for feedback . Wilson states that the liaison from the Commissioners is lacking . Sassaman states that we could also use a little more presence from Rod Visser . He seems to bring valuable insight . Smith states that what we should ask for is a representative from the county staff to come to at least half of the meetings . 1 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 8 , 2004 Approved February 12, 2004 Kabrick states that maybe we shouldn' t close the door on another Orange County landfill given the development of Carolina North . The Chapel Hill Towri s committee for Horace Williams has stated that they are promoting sustainable development . With sustainable development you don' t export trash somewhere else . Wilson states that instead of advocating for a new landfill you could state that the board is disturbed by the unsustainable environmental ethic of shipping waste . Another issue could be the lack of the ability to deal with emergency storm debris . Kabrick asks if it would be beneficial to have an emergency preparedness reserve so that if you don' t have the land you can rent a tub grinder . Wilson states that we own a tub grinder . The problem is the land . It' s possible to rent space but a permit for that is for only 6 months . I would like to have a permanent permitted place where there isn' t a double handling expense [for moving the mulch around] . Rehm states that another issue is that we want to continue to make progress on the 61 % goal . Sassaman states that we can also make a 5 -minute presentation during the retreat . Do you think it' s worth verbally telling them these things ? Kabrick replies yes . Smith asks if this document goes to the Towns ' boards ? Sassaman states that we could do that since we represent the Towns . Maybe the best approach is to have representatives make sure that their Town receives the information . 3 . Solid Waste Plan Draft 3 -Year State Update Pollock gives a brief run- down of state required components of the plan . In 1997 the state required that every agency has to produce a solid waste plan and update it every three years . The plan has to state how you are going to manage solid waste and meet your waste reduction goal . In 1997 the report set the platform for us to put the notion of 61 % reduction plan forward . It was reaffirmed in 2000 . Each of the three Towns endorsed the goal . The County endorsed the plan in order to move forward , but reserved the right, as the lead agency, to revisit the goals . Over time, the BOCC thought it was time to give this more thought so that is the basis which led them to this alternate approach which allowed us to maintain our status quo of all the recycling programs . [Under this alternative scenario] The only 2 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 8 , 2004 Approved February 12, 2004 additions would be incremental to accommodate growth . Overall , we are doing well with waste reduction . Our preliminary calculation of where we are now, which is not ready for publication, is 46 % per capita . Sassaman states that we strongly endorsed the old plan at least twice and specifically called for the MRF . In reading this , there is clearly no MRF . We have to decide as a board to go along with the Commissioners or whether it is in the county ' s interest to proceed more aggressively in the solid waste arena . Vickers states that it is imperative for the SWAB to recognize the financial decision the BOCC is making but also push the reinitiation of the goal of 61 % and the plan to get there . Rehm asks has the State goal for the 10 - year plan been changed ? How has the 10 - year plan been massaged so that without a MRF we can still achieve that ? Wilson states that it hasn' t been . Rehm states that to say that you are going to have a goal and undermine the efforts to achieve it is double talk . Pollock states that we are the best in the state . In their perspective we meet the state goal . Sassaman states that the SWAB and BOCC are not on the same wavelength . Wilson states that this will go forward to the Commissioners hopefully on January 26 or February 3 meeting . We will ask them to call a public hearing at their next meeting . At the public hearing we ask them to endorse it so that we can take it to the Towns . Let them have their public hearing and endorse it so that we can turn it into the state . You all made a strong statement in the letter you sent . It ' s not absolutely necessary that you do anything . Sassaman states that in listening to the group it appears that we want to endorse the plan but raise some issues . Vickers moves to endorse the basic tenets of the plan but [says that] we have reservation on the elimination of the defined mechanism to obtain the 61 % goal since there are no defined mechanisms . The MRF has been eliminated there has to be an alternate mechanism to get there . Until that is done, no progress will be made . Rehm asks if we need to endorse the plan ? 3 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 8 , 2004 Approved February 12, 2004 Sassaman states that we can do what we want . The reason we should endorse it with caveats is to allow the process to go on without being too confrontational . Rehm states that he is not trying to derail the endorsement . He says he is not clear where we are in process . Pollock states that it will go to the Commissioners on January 26 or February 3 , it wouldn' t make a substantive difference if you endorse or [ alternatively] offer comments . Vickers states that the other thing we could do is just send a comment letter stating that the goal is good , but we are concerned about the lack of the mechanisms to get there and the removal of the MRF doesn' t give a clear line [ of how to reach the goal] . Wilson states that you could state that the SWAB would like the opportunity over a period of time to re - examine the shortcomings of the plan and come back to you with recommendations of how to get to the 61 % . Sassaman states that there is a motion on the floor . Where do we go from here ? Vickers modifies the motion to state he would like to submit a comment letter agreeing with most of the goals , but stating we have concerns about the implementation piece of it . Smith 2nd Passes unanimously Sassaman asks if someone would like to volunteer to write something ? Vickers volunteers . Sassaman states that we could also present this at the retreat on January 31 . 4 . Rural Curbside Recycling Program Analysis [to evaluate whether to take program in house] Wilson states that a couple years ago a similar analysis was brought to you regarding taking over the multi -family services . The main reason for that was to save money . Ultimately it was endorsed by the manager and approved by the Commissioners . It is now operating in a highly efficient level . With the rural curbside program, the analysis did not come about because of money issues , but because of the level of service . Staff conducted the analysis and found significant savings also . The contractor has improved their service in the last couple of months but we are not sure for how long . The analysis states that over a 10 -year period there could be a savings of almost $800, 000 . In the first couple of years there 4 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 8 , 2004 Approved February 12, 2004 are no , savings due to the hiring of personnel and the acquisition of equipment . Over the first, 5 years, total savings would be approximately $ 140, 000 . Staff has recommended to me that we proceed to recommend this to the manager . Before doing this we would like to get your critical review . Smith states that he is in favor of taking over the program as the analysis shows savings . Kabrick asks who is the contractor ? Wilson replies Waste Industries has the contract for the rural and urban collection . The proposal is that when the contract expires that we make a change in it and rebid the urban part . We could do both collections but we don ' t have the management capability to take the urban collection on also . Draney states that nor do we have the ability to handle the materials . Kabrick states the analysis shows a cumulative cost savings of $ 792, 000 but he can' t tell what dollars those are, whether you used the net present value analysis . . . Tom replies current dollars . Kabrick states that there are two concerns . Waste Industries now takes all the risks on the end product market . Your analysis heavily depends on recycling revenues . Wilson states that we made very conservative estimates on market value of the material . We actually expect to achieve a higher market value for the materials than we show . Kabrick asks if it would be possible to lock Waste Industries in a 10 - year contract and let them take the risk on the market? Sassaman states that we have to think more of the reason that we are doing this, which was performance not money . Wilson states that there are some shortcomings , but in the long run feels confident in the numbers based on other services that we have assumed . Kabrick states that the other concern is increasing our risk exposure by taking on more trucks and personnel . Wilson states that given the size of our operation and looking at the county as a _whole, this would be a drop in the bucket . 5 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board v ` January 8 , 2004 Approved February 12, 2004 FEB 192M i d a Vickers states that this approach prevents the " Bloomberg lution " that is lu e it . If you commit to the equipment, you are committed to recycling . yo a contract, you can cancel it . Norwood states that it ' s always a good idea for government to take over services because you have more control . Rehm asks what are the problems with the current contractor ? Wilson replies that they missing [recycling collections on] roads and not responding in a timely manner to complaints . Rehm asks if the current contract addresses expansion of the program ? Draney replies normal growth is part of the contract . Norwood moves to recommend that staff proceed with the recommendation to the BOCC to take over the rural curbside recycling program . Smith 211a Passes unanimously . 5 . Programs/Service Updates Hillsborough Drop -off Site Relocation - Wilson states that we are still looking for a temporary site . We feel that the stay at the old Wal-Mart will probably end in the next 30 days . We have been offered a permanent site at the new Wal -Mart; it doesn' t appear to have the adequate space needed . Smith states that there has been conversation with the new Wal-Mart and the Hillsborough Town Manager . The Town of Hillsborough is starting to realize that without a recycling site in Hillsborough it is going to cost tax money [as the recyclables that were taken there will be landfilled and much of that was presumably from Hillsborough] . There is talk about space at Daniel Boone [Village] . 6 . Other Business - None Norwood moves to adjourn . Smith 2nd Adjourn 9 : 15pm Next meeting : February 12, 2004 Government Services , Hillsborough 6