Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAB minutes 021303 / , V Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board / February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Attendance : Bonnie Norwood, B J Tipton, Remus Smith, Al Vickers, Jan Sassaman, Bill Rehm and Phil Haas Staff : Gayle Wilson, Rod Visser, Blair Pollock, Rebecca Holdway , Wanda McCain, Paul Laughton, Phil Prete, and Jeff Hughes 1 . Adoption of Minutes from January 9 . Norwood moves to adopt the minutes . Vickers 2nd . Passed unanimously . 2 . January 27 Staff PowerPoint Presentation to BOCC- No discussion Sassaman introduces Philip Haas, the new Hillsborough representative . Sassaman recaps that the SWAB has agreed on recommending the Prince William Virginia model , which involved creation of a sanitary district for collecting a prepaid comprehensive solid waste services fee from all generators of solid waste . Orange County attorney, Geoff Gledhill, has prepared a letter concluding that the model as implemented in Virginia would not be appropriate for North Carolina , Rod Visser states that the Prince William model was not being discussed by Orange County until the December SWAB meeting when Prince William County ' s Solid Waste Director, Tom Smith, presented it to us . Gledhill was asked to look at it only recently . The model was based on use of a sanitary district . Those districts are obsolete in North Carolina and would require a separate governing board to decide about taxes, fees, etc . There was an old Dogwood Acres Sanitary District in southern Orange County that had to be legally abolished . It was created to provide sewage coverage " way out in the county " and ensure they could pay off debt on their sewer system . Orange County has no more sanitary districts . Geoff' s letter indicates that it doesn' t work to establish these types of sanitary districts for limited areas and purposes such as sewers , therefore the sanitary district model doesn ' t work for solid waste fees . New Hanover County didn' t adopt the model because they looked at a fee that would include [ prepaid] tip fees . Flow control is important to them to ' feed ' their incinerator . Flow control could also be important to the interlocal agreement to assure waste flows to Orange County facility . Flow control is a bigger issue this year because of the changes in Chapel Hill and Carrboro ' s commercial waste collection and the RRMO ' s effects on reducing the C &D stream . In Hillsborough, the attorney met to ensure that all the [franchised] commercially collected waste continues to flow into the Orange County landfill . A similar effort or ordinance at the county level is needed to ensure waste keeps coming to the landfill . 1 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Geoff said that flow control coming from franchising is an unacceptable solution . Hillsborough used an exclusive franchise model in which " no one " [of the customers or bidders on the hauling contract] complained about making them bring their waste to the Orange County landfill . Franchising can require different decisions in different counties and legal issues are not always the same . For example, even if the second circuit court determines that franchise is fine and doesn ' t violate the interstate commerce clause, a different circuit court may decide differently . Sassaman states that on page 4 of the letter from Gledhill it appears that a private hauler can opt out . Visser states there are administrative concerns about projecting revenues . If the County levies fees on only improved properties where that fee does not include the disposal fee and the County provides the [recycling] services, we could avoid situations where people could opt out from a fee that is based on recycling services, not disposal services . Hughes states that the simple way is that the statue tries to prevent double billing . On page 5 of the letter, if the County continued a tipping fee when imposing availability fees, that will raise the questions of double billing . Without tipping fees under the statute you would be OK, but you would still have a problem with the people in the unincorporated areas that have private [waste] haulers . My understanding of the letter and the statute is that if you choose to go with the Prince William model you would have to combine it with some type of franchising . Prete states that if Geoff was here maybe the right questions could be put to him, and the results of his analysis may be different . It seems that he got to the question of the sanitary district and ruled out the model based on the institutional structure . The real question is the availability fee and can you charge for the cost of the whole system and eliminate the tip fee . My understanding of the law clearly gives the authority to the county for availability fees to cover full cost of the disposal system including ancillary cost . I don' t think that this blows a hole in the Prince William model; our attorney tended to agree . Vickers states that it seems to say, " dori t mix things up " . Don' t throw collection fee part of the county [costs] in there . Keep it so everyone gets disposal and everyone gets recycling . Stay away from collection Hughes asks wasn' t collection in there because of the interlocal agreement ? Visser replies that an underlying foundation of the interlocal agreement was that the Towns wanted to maintain their authority on [solid waste] collection . 2 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13 , 2003 Vickers asks if there would be any complications with the Solid Waste Convenient Centers (SWCC) that the county runs ? Wilson states that he is unsure how the SWCCs would come into it . One could look at that as disposal and not collection because it is being brought to them . Sassaman states that it seems that we have three possible decisions to make : (1 ) scrap the Prince William model and go back to tax / fee structure, (2) keep the Prince William model as first choice and recommend additional evaluation . Either tweak it to make it work in North Carolina or ask the Commissioners to seek enabling legislation to make it apply . State the elements of the Prince William County model and say that' s what they ought to be moving toward . (3 ) Keep Prince William County model and have a combined tax / fee structure as a fall back option . [i . e . ] Recommend to the Commissioners that if you can' t tweak it, then this is what we want . Rehm states that it isri t clear that what the SWAB opted for was a straight " adopt the model they are using in Prince William County " . We could enumerate the features in the model we were hoping to implement here . Pollock states that single most core element of financing is the stable and predictable financing of the solid waste system if you prepay for a bundle of services that would include operation of landfill and other elements of our system including recycling system, HHW collection, administrative aspects , etc . C &D is not included but they have been financed in our integrated model now . Typically you ' d charge a tipping fee for C &D but that piece isn ' t fully resolved . Aside from that, you ' d assess each residence and business a fee based on the total cost of the solid waste system divided by the magnitude of their waste generation . If a single family house was equal to one then a mobile home might be 0 . 75 and an apartment might be 0 . 7 times the number of units in the building . You ' d develop a whole separate structure for the commercial sector based on the size and type of business and fit all your commercial into categories . Then you have to integrate with tax, GIS and others . That ' s not an insignificant effort . Sassaman states that one of the things that appealed to us was that it eliminates the concept of tipping fees . The Towns could pass off that cost to the county . It appears to be a lot more equitable than any kind of tax structure where non-taxable entities don' t contribute to the cost of the public service they might use in the solid waste arena . The one draw back is that it cannot be totally implemented in year one . This one would take longer than others would . 3 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13, 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Pollock states that if we can figure out the parts of the general statutes that pertain to who can opt in or out it also accomplishes flow control . Why would a private hauler take waste anywhere else if the customers ' fees were prepaid at the landfill . Prete states that it may not totally eliminate tipping fees because the University may have a tip fee to pay . Sassaman states that it was specifically stated that the University would be negotiated separately . Wilson states that it' s likely that the tip fee for the University would be less than it is now . It would basically reflect the cost of disposal without recycling costs because they have their own recycling program . Out- of-county waste would not be an issue because there is an ordinance that prohibits out- of-county waste from the Orange County landfill . Tipton states that the University would be fee / usage based even if there was an enhanced materials processing center . Rehm states that given a prepayment of services by fee, except for solid waste collection, and there is an issue w/ C &D , and that we ' d be assessing everything as some fraction or multiple of a standard single family and we ' re getting rid of the tipping fee, is the lawyer saying there ' s something in that [set of actions] or there is some consequence of doing that? [It wasn ' t something substantive in the option„ but the manner in whichit ' s being done] . Prete states that he was looking at the institutional structure of a sanitary district . Wilson states that he thinks Geoff was saying that he reviewed the Virginia model, which required utilization of a sanitary district in order to implement this type of fee system . Therefore he looked up sanitary district in North Carolina law and saw that it was legal but not practical because there is no way the Commissioners are going to allow a separate elected board with taxing authority to exist . Rehm states that we have different classes of users within the county and I thought that was how we got into the sanitary districts . If you live in the unincorporated area and don' t have curbside service the fee should be less ? Vickers states that recycling would still have the collection component . 4 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Wilson states that in the solid waste management plan that is included, and the 10 -year plan assumes expansion of curbside recycling to universal or near universal coverage in the county . Vickers asks if it' s possible to look at two fees . One for solid waste disposal and one for recycling . Rehm states that I thought we wanted to avoid that . Sassaman states that there are three different types of services in the county — urban curbside, rural curbside and all the rest . It shouldn' t be too difficult to break the base fee for residential into three levels depending on the type of service you receive . Visser states that there is a difference between sanitary districts and what is presented on the map provided by the GIS staff of service districts . The map indicates a tax model not a fee model . The map breaks out recycling services provided in the county — those that have access to recycling centers and receive urban curbside service ( green) , those who have access to recycling centers and receive rural curbside service (brown) , those that have access to recycling centers only (white ) . A service district is based on tax . You would need to create more than one service district . One of the findings the board of commissioners has to reach is that it ' s impossible to provide services on a county wide basis . So you ' d have to make some kind of distinction to have more than one district . Vickers asks if having part of Chapel Hill in Durham County would create complications as far as charging an availability fee to another county . Sassaman states that maybe Chapel Hill could collect the money from Durham County . That is sort of a procedural thing and shouldn' t be a showstopper for anything we say here . Tipton asks that looking at the map what would it take to expand the brown zone ? What about the commercial level of service ? Visser states that regarding your first questions the statute lays out the ground rule for service [ districts] and expanding or consolidating them . In this case service would determine the district . You would change boundaries only once a year . Any expanding of service would happen then . With a service district whether a parcel receives service or not is immaterial, it' s the boundaries that matter . This would not reflect service to commercial . You would just pay even if commercial recycling service were not provided . 5 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Tipton asks would the amount of commercial service provided be a factor if someone received more pickups . [STAFF NOTE : This would not be the case in a district tax model] Pollock states that we do provide a limited amount of commercial service such as the bar and restaurant service we provide now . Under a fee model we would capture a fee that would be a higher fee based on their level of service to pay for that . Because the program is very small right now, these types of services may end up as free riders in the short run . The map represents, if it were an availability fee within the green (urban) the multifamily would get charged at a rate half that of single family units, thus a building of 100 units would get charged at the half unit rate times 100, whatever the fee was for that . Sticking to the original fee based model that within each district there are classes of users and what' s going to drive the fee is their user class instead of their geographical location . A district tax will be based on ad valorem value . Prete states that the Prince William fee model charged the apartments as a business . In talking about different levels of service for commercial establishments ,, it was based on the amount of waste they generated . Pollock states that the Prince William model did not include recycling collection . The fee includes two components - for the use of the landfill and for recycling . If you use much of the landfill service, you ' d use much more recycling service . We would be better served with a more theoretical approach based on total waste rather than just how much was thrown out as waste, because if it ' s not waste, it shifted to the recycling bin and we provide the service to collect it anyway . In Prince William County, they don ' t provide the recycling collection from this fee, just landfill use . Rehm - it ' s one more piece of data you have to have . How many times am I picking up your trash? Sassaman states that before going further I would like to ask Gayle and Blair do you still have a comfort level of implementing the Prince William model ? Wilson replies that if there are no legal impediments . I am more comfortable with it . Pollock states that this [Prince William Co . use of prepaid fee] isri t the isolated case that we thought it was . I share Gayle' s comfort about it as a concept . The tough piece right now would be, even if you all were to endorse this tonight, it ' s not going to work for two years . Sassaman asks at this point would the members of the SWAB be in a mental position to choose one of the three options stated before . 6 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Smith states that I read the letter from the attorney . There is no " yes " or " no " . I am sold on the decision last time of the Prince William model . I think we can tweak it and make it work . I would choose option 2 . Prete asks what the attorney meant by saying the sanitary districts were obsolete ? Rehm states that when reading the letter there were two different concepts . Prince William county has something called sanitary districts and that is how they happen to allocate who paid what fee, but North Carolina has something called a sanitary district that is not the same thing . Sassaman states that the only sanitary districts in North Carolina are the health districts . The sanitary districts require election of officials, it has all the power of condemnation . It' s like another government that superimposes on the existing government . Prete states that one element that you are not talking about in this model is the sanitary districts . W hat would be important here is to enumerate the elements of the plan and submit it back to the attorney for his opinion and state what you want to do along with the components ? Sassaman states that we have a motion to keep the model as a choice and tweak it and make it work in the North Carolina statues . There needs to be a second . Norwood 2nd the motion . What happens if the landlords don' t pay the fees ? Visser states that if you implement some type of fee by ordinance, it makes the same collection remedies available for fees as for taxes so the tax collector and staff would be able to use the same tactics as used to collect uncollected ad valorem taxes . Norwood asks if there could be something established to protect the tenant? Visser states that if its a valid fee that the landlord assumes they could probably pass it along . Sassaman states that if we get start thinking of all the " ifs, ands or buts " we will not decide . It' s important for us to take a more global approach and what is best for the jurisdiction we represent and what is best for the continued operation of the solid waste enterprise . This would be a good place to introduce that Carrboro has passed a resolution receiving the report from the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board representative and has endorsed the model . 7 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13, 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Prete states that we [Carrboro] have decided to set aside the pay as you throw issue if this [Prince William] were the model the County goes with . Wilson states that as far as the staff and administrative part it' s the most work but we can do it, but not by July 1 . The end result would be worth the work . Sassaman asks if there is any more discussion or can we call a question because if we do adopt this we have another trickle effect . Vickers states that there is another modification . It should be asked about the complications of charging a fee to out- of-county residents . Vote on motion : Ayes - 5 Nos - 0 Passed unanimously Sassaman states that leads us to the next problem . Rehm asks : " Can we get back into what this is, what we want to get with the lawyers about, instead of making a recommendation that we talk it out ? " Sassaman states that we have to make a recommendation or be somewhere down the line with this in order to give a report the [Board of Orange County] Commissioners in less than two weeks . It is a good point to let the attorney relook at the issue . I' d like to talk about the short-term interim measures . There are three points that we can wrestle with : (1 ) make up the short fall with the county general fund . There is some wording in the interlocal agreement that addresses that . Visser states that the Commissioners were concerned about there not being an expectation that the general fund would not underwrite the enterprise fund . " The county will in no event be required (emphasis by staff) to use assets or funds other than those of the system to fulfill its obligations under this agreement" . It would be difficult for the Commissioners to go down that path, because when it was first being considered to reorganize, they didn' t want the county general fund have to underwrite the enterprise fund . Sassaman states that the alternative would be to recommend three tax districts on a temporary basis . In each district there would be three classes of service, residential, multifamily, and commercial . Rehm asks if it' s estimated for two years to implement the system, is it substantially less if only the residential part is implemented first? 8 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Wilson states that the residential could be done in one year and the commercial the next year . One year would be FY 04- 05 . We could not have any element of the Prince William model ready by July 1 , 2003 . Rehm asks if a one-time fee could be assessed instead of creating new tax districts ? Visser replies yes with a caveat . What you are describing is an availability fee with the availability of the system whether you use it or not . The problem is some may be able to opt out . Rehm asks how much would the ' opt- out ' impact the solid waste system if it were just for a year There is something a little peculiar and unlikely about a one -time tax . Prete states that if it is a service district tax, it will be specific to the service . When you replace that tax revenue with a fee revenue you don' t have any justification to continue that service district tax . Wilson states that is a " PR " issue rather than a legal issue . Sassaman states that the downside is that the Commissioners don t need the Towns ' approval for a tax district . Visser states that if it' s a tax district they would need the approval of the Towns to have the tax apply within the municipal boundaries . Vickers asks if a fee could be applied at all this year . Wilson states that there couldn' t be an availability fee . Visser states that because of the mechanisms that have to be put in place to make it efficient and done in a quality way it could not be done this year . We only have three or four months to prepare . It ' s more of a practical problem than a legal problem . Tipton asks how much money is needed ? Wilson replies regarding the interim, I ' m not sure because I haven' t done next year ' s budget . We have a ten-year plan based on estimates of last year' s budget which are inaccurate because of current year expenditures . I have an estimate of this year ' s year- end budget, expenditures and revenue and I have an estimated June 30 fund balance . 9 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 What I don t have is a budget of how much more of the fund balance will be needed . If we use the 10 -year numbers it shows that the interim would be a couple of million . Hughes states that while in Chatham County the tax assessor noticed that one of the big headaches with collecting a fee is the opt- out situation, especially if it includes disposal . If you do a non-Prince William scenario the first year with availability fees that doesn' t include disposal you wouldn' t have to deal with every third or seventh individual household in the unincorporated area that would show up with private [solid waste] collection . If you pull that out, it ' s easier . The other thing is making two fee levels, incorporated v . unincorporated, is fairly straightforward . What were talking about in the unincorporated areas is having two separate fees depending what service you did . That brings you back to merging the databases . There ' s a technical database of who gets recycling service and that must be merged with the tax data base of individual households . Wilson, such as merging PIN numbers with addresses . Hughes replies that it ' s simpler to have just two levels of fees - one for incorporated and one for unincorporated . Vickers, you could have a fee without disposal included . Rehm states that as a possible third alternative, could the money be borrowed ? Wilson replies probably . Vissers states that there are several types of anticipation notes, including a revenue anticipation note, I don' t know the details but it would unprecedented in Orange County to do that . We can look into it . We ' d probably be disinclined to do it . Rehm states that in talking about Orange County in the interlocal agreement is not required using the general fund but can the County loan the money to the enterprise fund ? Hughes states that borrowing money would not be good for operating expenses . You ' d have to get Local Government Commission approval and they would frown on borrowing for operating expenses . Norwood states that maybe we should pick a number and charge it . Wilson states that if you just looking at a shortfall my estimate is less than 1/2 million dollars . If that is the case, you are going through the trouble to do a one year tax or fee, 10 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 wouldn' t you want to get more than that? My suggestion would be, if it were a small amount, look at recovering more than that to re- establish a fund balance . Sassaman asks Rod if there is any reason that a special tax district could not be set up that encompasses the entire county ? Visser replies yes . It goes back to the notion that when the Commissioners set up a service district they have to make four findings of fact . One is that it is impractical or impossible to provide the service on a countywide basis . Sassaman states that our job at this point is to make a recommendation to the Commissioners on February 26 with respect to what type of funding mechanism to use in the shortfall . They would have to figure out with staff how to make it work . Prete asks if there is some advantage to go ahead with the mechanism of the availability fee ? Sassaman replies that it' s a moot issue because we are recommending they go through the long term solution . We ' re talking about a one-year stopgap . Prete states that if you are going through the motion of doing this why not (throw the whole wad at the fee . Consider the whole fee and then refine the method rather than just [try to cover] the shortfall . You could bite the whole bullet off at once and you can refine the issues with non-profits and other issues later . Sassaman states that one way is to start as soon as possible by maybe getting the residential side in . Wilson states that I would only say yes if required by the Commissioners or Manager . Otherwise I ' d rather not because there is a lot of opportunity for error and misinformation . Prete states that a fee across the board for any user . Wilson states that there is no longer an issue of equity because you would have to charge a fairly high fee for people who were getting a minimal amount of services . Sassaman states that the fairest approach would be a tax approach . Rehm states that if that is true why are we going after a fee base approach as a long- term solution . 11 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 Sassaman states that long term approach is a structured fee . If there was a tax it is closer to the amount of tax people would pay in a structured fee than a flat fee . Rehm states that he disagrees . One with a $ 750, 000 home and if very environmentally conscientious, would pay more . Is it possible to get the government involved in the interlocal agreement to pony up the money ? Visser states that there is another category in the interlocal agreement, we haven ' t used it yet — other government fees — which referred to if the county were going to charge the Towns some amount of money for recycling services it would be up to the Towns to figure out they were going to pay for it . Is it possible ? The structure is there . Rehm asks can we just approach the individual governments with this interim funding notion and when we get this thing on line then we ' ll transistion . Vickers states that were are looking at long-term financing but we have a problem with the interim . We have to concentrate on the long term and point out the interim issue and raise the options the Commissioners can take . I don' t think we can resolve it here . Haas asks if there is revenue from tipping fees . Wilson replies that 90 % of the revenue if generated by tipping fees . Haas asks if there could be a temporary increase on the tipping fee ? Wilson replies that the problem with that is the marketplace . By raising the tipping fee those that aren' t legally committed to using the landfill [i . e . the Towns and the County] will go elsewhere . We have the 2nd highest tip fee in the state . Pollock states that one option is to go with Al ' s [Vicker ' s] suggestion or try and meet once more before the February 26 meeting with the Commissioners . We have a document for you all that adds some benefit to the discussion . In the fourth chapter the pro and cons of what could be done through fees or taxes are identified . Vickers moves to identify the short-term financing problem and the doable alternatives and present the report without a specific recommendation for which one we think is the best . Norwood 2nd the motion . Passes unanimously . Sassaman states that there are two other things that follow from this . Please read the preliminary copy of the report to the Commissioners and get any comments to Blair as 12 Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board February 13 , 2003 Approved March 13, 2003 soon as possible . The plan is to have a power point presentation before the Board . I hope as many SWAB members will be there as possible . 4 . Programs/Service Updates No discussion 5 . Other Business No discussion 6 . Need for Additional SWAB Work Session? Sassaman asks if there is a need for another meeting? Rehm asks what is to be accomplished at an additional meeting? Sassaman states that it' s unsure, that is why there is a question of the need of another meeting . Vickers states there is a possibility of resolving all the comments on the draft . Wilson states that there could be two of you that could the editorial team . There is no reason from staff for you all to have a meeting . We could do most of it through email . The elements of the report have been approved in a motion tonight . Sassaman states that Vickers and Rehm will work with Pollock as an editorial team to work on the draft . Norwood moves to adjourn . Vickers 2nd Adjourn 9 : 20pm . 13 1 I i