Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 010903 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board � FEB f 9 January 9, 2003 l Approved February pp ry 13, 2003 Attendance : Bonnie Norwood, B J Tipton, Remus Smith, Al Vickers, Jan Sassaman, James Arndt, and Jacquie Gist Staff : Gayle Wilson, Rod Visser, Wanda McCain, Paul Laughton, Phil Prete, and Jeff Hughes 1 . Adoption of Minutes from October 10, November 14 and December 12. Norwood moves to adopt the minutes . Vickers 2nd . Passed unanimously . 2 . Report re : Feedback from Carrboro regarding process for proceeding with County Commissioner review and obtaining input from Towns and public . Gist states that the meeting Bill Rhem had scheduled with the Board was cancelled . The Board is working through decisions on charging people for trash collection outside the ad valorem tax . There is some discussion for charging at apartment buildings and also talk of Carrboro instituting a pay as you throw (PAYT) program of some kind . Bill is to give a presentation to the Board next Tuesday on what the SWAB has been doing, the options SWAB has been discussing, and the draft of the report that is going to the Commissioners . I (Gist) am concerned that the taxpayers will be confused because if Carrboro has PAYT, which is for collection, and then the County ads another trash fee, people will feel they are being overcharged for one thing, even though they are not. Maybe an option would be that when the report from the SWAB gets passed on to the Commissioners that a note is added which states that Carrboro has not had a chance to review it and the report should not be seen as an endorsement from the Town of Carrboro . Prete states that a dilemma with the presentation from Bill is that the Board will want to know what the input process is going to be once SWAB gives recommendation to the county . We are struggling with whether to try to grasp all this now and give comments this late in the game of the process or wait until it goes to the County and react and have a work session with the Board so that they can get everything there and have an opportunity for input into the process directly to the Commissioners . Sassaman states that that is some of the issues we have been discussing. The SWAB decided that it was important for the members to go back to their constituent governments as early as possible and inform them of what we were doing . 1 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9, 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 Gist states that she is afraid that what might happen is that the report will go to the Commissioners who might assume that the Boards have signed off on it when Carrboro hasn t. She stated " I am also afraid [about] springing two different things on taxpayers simultaneously . " Sassaman states that he agrees that it should be made clear to the Commissioners that this has not been signed off by the Towns . While weeach have a responsibility to our own Town, the (SWAB ' s) charge is from the Commissioners . Gist states that the idea behind SWAB when it was being formed, was that the County thought it would get input [through the SWAB] from governments and citizens . I wish that my Board were not dealing with this issue at this time . I think it will end up as confusing to the public and the Commissioners in the long run could jeopardize the goals we are trying to work towards . Wilson states that the concerns are legitimate . Rod Visser has been talking with Margaret Brown about protocol and how to move forward once the SWAB presents the report . I don' t think the Commissioners understand that when they receive the report that it has not gone through the other Towns . The way I understand what is to happen is that the SWAB will present the report to the Commissioners and they will develop a process by which they gather the input from the Towns . Under normal circumstances it was thought that this Board would speak for the Towns . The alternate financing is not a normal issue . Gist states that she is concerned about how it' s perceived all around . Prete states that what we' ve been doing so far has been a work in progress and therefore I have been reluctant to present the information in draft form with holes and revisions to the Board . The catch-22 is getting input without having information to digest and react to . My recommendation to the Board will be to schedule work session after the SWAB report goes to the Commissioners . Gist states that the main concern is how this (dovetails) with the initiative of the Board which is leaning toward blue bags . [Pay-as-you-throw] Wilson states that we will try to differentiate what we are doing from what you all are doing as much as we can . Our staff will be available to work with your staff in a Carrboro-only work session to explain what the recommendation is and to explain what the Commissioner' s protocol is to reaching a decision . 2 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9 , 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 Gist states that before this gets out to the public we should have an official statement of what we are doing for the press so that they don' t get confused . Sassaman states we have spent a lot of time over the last few months to make sure that we not only educate the public, but the municipalities as well, and have worked to get their input. We have sort of come to the consensus that our main role is to come up with a plan and suggestions and then let the Commissioners go from there and deal with the public and the municipalities . Individually we need to be educating our government officials for the [jurisdictions] that we represent . 3 . Continuation of discussion of non-residential funding scenarios and customer group impacts . Wilson summarizes the options considered : a district tax --property tax based assessment, fee option not based on property value but on the type of services you might receive, third option a mix of the two where a part of the short fall would be funded by taxes and another part based on fees . We had a presentation from Tom Smith of Prince William County last month that introduced a possible new option — a fee that included pre-paying for disposal . The benefit of that is it renders the flow control issue moot . The availability fee in the residential sector is fairly straightforward . In the commercial sector it' s rather complicated in order to properly set the fee based on the wide variety types of business . One of the things we are working against if the time line . The budget, which starts July 1 , 2003, is facing a significant deficit. Whatever option is the ultimate result as the mechanism for financing has to be ready and in place by July 1 . With the availability fee it is likely that we will need an interim financing prior to implementing the final financing . Norwood asks would it be possible to implement the availability fee for that year for residential [only] to have that money coming in . Wilson states that it is possible but residents may not take kindly to the fact they are paying the fee but the commercial sector isri t . Pollock states that only a small segment of the commercial sector is receiving recycling services, so to start collecting [umversal commercial] availability fees now is to ramp up and not take the huge hit three years from now . Politically there is a way to talk about it that' s not too painful . 3 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9, 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 Wilson states whether the public will understand that nuance and believe it is another matter . Just because it' s true doesn' t mean it will be understood . Sassaman states that we should have Jeff Hughes summarize where he is today with the tax and availability fee . Then we can have B J Tipton speak about the university . We will need to spend a fair amount of time talking about what we want to do with the outline and where we want to go with our report . If there is some consensus about the general approach we are interested in and it is viable then we should put it on the table . The gist of the model is simple, some programs benefit everyone in the County equally while some are specific to various sectors . The model has tried to define people in different customer categories that are obvious to the public . It ' s important to know how we categorize and quantify the customer classes . We feel the numbers are valid to within 10 % in the customer categories . For instance, about 10,000 in rural area have curbside recycling pickup . Hughes states that the model that we have is being fine-tuned . As far as the policy decisions you make you are in the 5 % to 10 % range . What we handed out at the last meeting would be the jumping off point . There are only a handfull of numbers that are important . [493 Jeff explains the handout] that' s used to generate the availability fee or taxes that might be needed to make up the shortfall . We have taken the numbers and looked at the expenditure information for each program. For some of the programs there is existing revenue, i . e . tipping fees, which has been taken into consideration and calculated the shortfall . For a period of 10 years we have calculated out the shortfall for each of the subcategories and divided by the number of users to come up with the revenue that' s short. The nitty-gritty is trying to figure out where individuals fit in the categories and which services they benefit from. The standard that most counties are going to is the flat fee option . In the cases that you have, we have calculated the theoretical fee . If you wanted to you could change it every year to see what it would be but it ' s hard to be that exact in predicting future revenues . Example in FY 2003-04 people in Carrboro for urban curbside, we need about $60 [per household annually] for that service and general services . On average for non-residential (commercial and institutional) it would be approximately $157. The shortfall for next year would only be about 10 % that is coming from non-residential class, so from an implementation standpoint, it will be more than 10 % of the headache to calculate fees . You could decide to fix residential shortfall since it' s relatively simple . 4 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9, 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 Sassaman notes that if there ' s a tax component in the financing mechanism, some of the costs to this sector would be captured by the property tax they pay . Hughes notes that everyone pays something they all get some benefits and services , with most local governments it is tough to do fee changes . Therefore you would set a fee a little higher the first year with the ideal that it will level out, that' s shown in scenario 4 . This whole scenario depends on them banking some of the excess [that would be collected from averaging the fee and it therefore being higher in the earlier years] Vickers asks " Isn ' t it 16 % required reserve ? " The minimum [reserve] is 8 % of the general fund revenues, 16 % is especially for something that is prone to disasters and heavy equipment, would be a two-month balance . We show a 12 % reserve in this model . Gist states that when talking about relatively low fees, the preference would be to go with what will bring us to the 16 % [reserve] fast because within the next 5 years you may not be able to get it. Going to straight fee is simpler because if you start talking ill think it' s a whole lot more than it actually is . about a tax people w Hughes states that what' s most common with solid waste enterprise funds that don' t cover their cost with fees is a transfer over from the general fund which should be a percent tax voted on with [the understanding that] ' so many cents of the tax goes to solid waste ' . The second most common, which I would recommend, would be if you were going to rely on general fund for shortfalls to reflect that as a certain percent . Another option is to create a service district and set an assessment tax separated from property tax . The advantage is that it is a separate revenue source that wouldr t be whittled away every year . The model gives you the amount and you decide how to look at it . Visser states that looking at the statute that covers service districts theoretically, it states that service districts are generally conceived of as being less than the entire county because there is a differentiation of level of service provided . Sassaman states that the numbers on page 6 [of the handout] assume a uniform tax rate across the county . 5 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9, 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 Gist states the thing she likes about the fee is that it is safe from tax cuts at budget time . Using a tax I might devote to a fireman rather than the landfill . Sassaman states the next thing we should do is segue into the Prince William scenario and share the numbers to give us something to talk against . Hughes states that the compromise op , let ' s take the ise tion services that benefits everyone such as hazardous household waste, that are the closest to general public services and cover those through property tax and a fee to cover the rest . In doing that you end up with a slightly lower fee and convert that over to property taxes . If it ' s an $8 fee and you convert that to property tax, it' s about 1 / 2 a cent . Under this scenario all property tax owners are paying something . Pollock states that on page 1 of model note 6, the mobile home parks are a very significant number to Orange County' s housing and are considered as rural residential customers not multifamily customers . Second point is when looking at commercial fees they look significant but with a shopping center with a cluster of businesses the fees get shook out . Wilson states that Blair has done a survey of similar communities to find out what they did and of the six that he called they all use fees — Hickory, Wake County, Chatham County, Durham County, Kernersville, and Wilmington. Hughes states the Prince William option has a lot of fundamental changes in the way you finance the program . You no longer have any revenue from landfill tipping fees but you still have cost. So we take that deficit for that category and divide it by the number of customers and it goes to $122 for the urban curbside customer from $65, multifamily goes to $85, non residential $195, Vickers clarifies that means, for the Town of Carrboro, for example, there would no tipping fee . . Sassaman states a very important point to make is that the Towns ' cost would be significantly reduced because you would not pay tipping fees . The only thing costwise the Towns would have to pass on to the citizens is the cost of [solid waste] collection. [i . e . not disposal] Gist notes for that cost we 're going to sell them a blue bag . 6 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9, 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 Wilson states that the county . tip fees every year are about $ 600, 000 . If the county wanted to offset the new fee by all or a portion of what they usually pay for tip fees, they could reduce tax rate by this amount or spend it for something else . Vickers askswhat' s the cost and is it really worth expanding the programs Remus Smith states that we have struggled through this long enough . I would like to move that we select the availability fees based on the fact that Orange County services are so diverse . The person that does not get the service should not have to pay for it. Norwood 2nd the motion . Gist asks if we can get more information on the Prince William process before we vote . Sassman states that we need to get a consensus . Tax Tax + Fee Fee Prince William 0 0 0 4 Prete states that in looking at the various scenarios, there is a continuum of risk for the revenue that would go from the tax to the availability fee and then to the Prince William model to be the least risky in terms of revenue for the programs . Vickers states that the Prince William option is more fee-based than our fee based [model] . The reality is it' s fee plus taxes and when the county does collection and the disposal and the city pays for collection, disposal is paid through the tipping fee which is still funded by taxes . Sassaman states that if we go with the Prince William option how will that play out with a transfer station instead of a landfill . Vickers states that the transfer station becomes flow control . You would prepay for disposal, but if you don' t use the transfer station you will still pay a fee . Wilson states that the Prince William fee is an availability fee with more fees and you have more services represented under that fee . The C&D landfill would still have a tipping fee . After the presentation by Tom Smith, I really like this method because it' s all -inclusive . It' s easy to explain . 7 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9, 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 Pollock states that there is a much more predictable income stream and he endorsed it * Pollock states that one thing we didn' t anticipate is the loss of MSW in the current system . With people shifting the way they do business [to private haulers, etc] , this finesses that issue and lowers the risk and gives us a much more predictable income stream . Wilson states that this [Prince William model] would be more complicated to set up and require a lot more up front work . It would be the most equitable . Tipton states that since a business would pay for recycling services, one of the incentives is now assumed that they ' re already paying for it so they might as well do it and everything can be commingled . Wilson states that the Towns will determine whether they will continue collecting even without having to pay the tip fee . They may decide to get out of the business altogether . The implementation of the plan is going to increase the availability of recycling services, take it to the commercial sector where it isn t now, increase the amount of materials, and make it more convenient to recycle . Recycling is going to be easier . Given the overall environmental ethic that exists in Orange County I don t think [losing] recycling is a major concern . If we don t make it available citizens will demand it . Smith states that I am willing to withdraw my motion and go with the Prince William option. Norwood withdraw 2nd to previous motion . Smith moves that we accept the Prince William plan and use all our resources towards that direction . Norwood 2nd the motion. 5 . University of North Carolina Issues/Concerns Tipton states that she is not sure how this will effect the University . The University does not use any of the recycling services offered . If we go to the landfill now with say pallets, we pay at C&D . If we 8 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9, 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 prepay there ' s no incentive to reduce . We pay about $360, 000 per year . With the prepaid tipping fee, you ' ll get more money out it that way but it' s not as equitgable . Arndt suggests the University should stand alone and be negotiated with . Vickers notes that the County or Town cannot dictate to the University as a creature of the state . Tipton notes that if any of the Towns or County implement Pay As You Throw, the University would get dumped on. Hughes asks if residential and commercial waste data is kept separately at the landfill . Wilson replies what is multifamily is mixed in with general commercial . Single family residential is separate . Sassaman states that I am trying to get a feel of what we want. Forget about fees, those are gone . Norwood asks if there is a need for a backup plan. Vickers states that the fees structure without the collection [ should be shown] as appendix in case a County commissioner doesri t want to do this . Visser states that, when presenting, go ahead and give the all as options and say what you want and the reason why . Sassaman states that the next item to deal with is the outline that was distributed . Tonight I would like us to be in a position to ask staff to go ahead and start fleshing that outline out to get a draft report . Looking at the Prince William County model as a prime option and a fee-based system as a backup . Wilson states that we are ready to go to start writing the report. Vickers states that there is the issue of the MRF . Why is it needed? I think that when talking about the MRF you have to discuss the cost saving ways of obtaining our recycling goals . There seems to be a ' Niagara Falls ' (ref : ' Abbott and Costello ' ) reaction to the MRF concept with some of the Commissioners . 9 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9, 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 Wilson states that' s true but we have to deal with it straight up and either convince them or not . The bottom line is that the materials are going to be processed somewhere — will they be processed locally without the additional transportation cost but with capital cost and operating cost or not have a MRF and not care where it' s processed . Tipton asks why do you have approval on this ? . The real point of the discussion is to move forward on a fee structure . Sassaman states that we have been telling the Commissioners and Chapel Hill, that we are basing our assumptions on MRF and a waste transfer station because that is inherent in the plan they have approved . Vickers asks Gayle when the capital would need to be approved for that to happen . Wilson states the approval would have to happen within the next fiscal year or year and a half. Pollock states that the [MRF development] schedule was land acquisitioning in FY04-05, design in FY05 -06 . Wilson states that you will not be able to separate the MRF from the fees . Sassaman states that part of the report is putting in the cost implications associated with no MRF . Pollock states that Barry Jacobs brought up a good point at the last meeting when he asked that we show how far we can go without a MRF . Staff feels that we are as far as we can go with source-separated collection. Wilson states that without a MRF the Unity would be l id in jumpi ivers essntereste ng on the bandwagon . Visser states that it is fine to talk about a MRF, but you will need to point out the cost assumptions inherent in the scenarios, however if you are not careful about how much attention you pay to it and what tone there is, severe danger that this discussion will spin out of control . 10 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board January 9 , 2003 Approved February 13, 2003 7 . Public Education/Outreach Strategy — No discussion 8 . Program/Service Update Wilson states we have been working seven days a week to deal with the storm debris . For the month of December, the vegetative waste was over 2000 % greater than the previous December . January will probably be more than that . It appears that the grand opening for the Meadowmont recycling center is going to be tentatively February 6, 2003 . We have taken over the multi-family recycling services . Norwood states that though there are a lot of trucks on Eubanks road due to the debris, you' re able to pass right through . They are doing an excellent job . 9 . Other Business--None Norwood moves to adjourn . Gist 2nd Next meeting : February 13, 2003 Government Services, Hillsborough, NC 11 i i